Tournament MWP V - Format Discussion

[ken]

It's beginning to look a lot like MWP season... You know what that means!

For a refresher, here's what MWP IV looked like in terms of slots two years ago:

• SS
• SS
• SS
• Bo3
• Threat
• NatDex

We will not be entertaining a 6-slot format for MWP V, but we'd like to bring up the following topics for consideration (keep in mind that we will likely have no less than 4 OM slots-if you feel strongly about this, include it in your response):

1. Potential formats could be 4 SV/4 OMs or 3 SV/5 OMs
2. Of the OM slots, Threat and NatDex are locked, LC in a third slot is favored, and the fourth is likely CAP or Tera; the other OMs that may be selected/replace non-locked slots are STAB and AAA
3. Manager pricing
4. Auction vs Snake draft
5. If the format is 3 SV/5 OMs, the 3rd SV slot as a SV Bo3

Manager signups will go up Sunday October 29th, meaning this thread will be open for at most a week. If you feel any which way about any of the aforementioned topics, we'd love to hear your opinion and why you feel that way. Please don't shitpost or drop one-liners; if you aren't giving an explanation, it's going to be difficult to use an unsubstantiated opinion to sway a decision in one direction or another. Saying "x" is bad without backing up your opinion means nothing in the long run.

This thread should only be used to discuss the format for MWP V. We do reserve the right to infract and delete unhelpful posts. Once a final decision has been made, this thread will be locked and format will not change.

 

[Mada]

1) 3 SV + 5 OM, 4SV can be too much
2) -Surely CAP, loved metagame with a good meta
-Tera, not too balanced as it's extremely hard to scout Tera in Mono, but it's also nice to play a tier with the generational mechanic
- 5th would be AAA/Stab or LC. I think all 3 of those have lot of problems but adding AAA without adding STAB or viceversa looks weird, so I think LC would be best pick here.
3) /
4) Auction, BLT is enough for a snake draft
5) Just 3 SV Mono

 

[Azick]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO M W P

Visionary Azick:
4 SV
1 SV Bo3
1 NDM
1 Threat
1 STAB/Tera

I do think it is great that many people are interested in developing OMs in this tier and I have nothing but respect for the people putting time in but I simply do not think they are ever going to find that much success. As much as I love this tier the reality is it does not have the playerbase to support multiple OM's stemming from it. I think making SV as excellent a meta as possible should be the primary focus and a larger amount of slots provides a larger sample size to judge the tier from.
I don't have any super strong arguements for why Bo3 should or should not be in the tour and do not know the arguements related to that in MPL selections; simply think it is a fun idea and would lead to some of the most interesting gaming in the tour. Added NDM and Threat for locks-For the last slot I was debating between these two. I have some bias toward tera because I think the concept is super fun and have enjoyed playing in the past but also think STAB has the potential to be one of the most competitive OM's with proper development. Idk where the LC support is coming from, personally don't think that meta has much of a place.

Agree with Madara on 1 snake a year throught BLT being fine. Auction just has a lot more hype/interest ard it to me and would support that.

 

[FadedCharm]

1) I think it should be 4SV and 4 OMs, I think it gives the feeling your putting an equal amount of effort for both SV monotype and OMs.
2) CAP and Tera. I think everyone loves CAP and its very diverse in the way teams are built that is distinct but simlliar to SV. Tera is incredibly fun to play with, it's just a new layer of creativity to monotype that I think people would enjoy.
3) I have no comment.
4) Auction.

 

[Chaitanya]

4 sv slots r needed at a minimum. lc should be locked(sad) and obviously auction. manager pricing as usual should be 1 set price for everyone on the higher side. idk anything about cap but it seems well liked and popular so if thats true should be picked too. aaa and tera are deplorable formats

i think 10 slots 5 sv cap threat natdex lc stab is ideal tho. if ur gonna do mwp with the oms u might as well get all the viable ones in.

 

[twinkay]

as far as CAP goes if there's already natdex i don't see why we need two tiers with fictional pokemon. also regarding natdex, can we please reconsider our stance on this meme tier. this is not something essential to monotype. i know the idea of having every teambuilding option sounds great on paper but in reality it makes preparing for things exceptionally memey and unreasonable and also makes it impossible for an actual metagame to develop. in natdex randpicking your type every week is just as valid as trying to scout and prep which is just not a very fun metagame IMO!

SV
SV
SV
SV
Threat
Natdex/CAP
LC/Tera
STAB

also free DPP . all this talk "let's develop DPP" "if only DPP was developed so we didn't need to do 4 SV mpl" ok then let's develop it! like at the end of this tournament is just for fun and laughs. there's no custom or banner on the line. we don't need to have a random DPP individual with 30 signups in order to decide the tier is team tournament ready (those never amount to anything anyway). let's let people play the tier in an environment with actual clout tokens on the line and see what happens. worst case scenario the tier is terrible and we know if we need to ban some stuff. best case scenario we develop a flourishing, thriving metagame, create a new oldgen for people to play, and add another potential MPL slot. there's TRULY no downside.

i would say free LU but i think the french got lazy this year and didn't make it :(

 

[Trouser Snakes]

4 sv slots r needed at a minimum. lc should be locked(sad) and obviously auction. manager pricing as usual should be 1 set price for everyone on the higher side. idk anything about cap but it seems well liked and popular so if thats true should be picked too. aaa and tera are deplorable formats

i think 10 slots 5 sv cap threat natdex lc stab is ideal tho. if ur gonna do mwp with the oms u might as well get all the viable ones in.

I agree with 10 slots it feels the community is big enough with enough quality players to support it especially with how mpl turned out, there we several players who went undrafted that ended up getting picked up midseason and proving they belonged.

 

[Dead by Daylight]

I do think it is great that many people are interested in developing OMs in this tier and I have nothing but respect for the people putting time in but I simply do not think they are ever going to find that much success.

I'm unfortunately going to have to agree with this; while I do love my occasional Mono OM tour, the playerbase is just a bit too thin and selective. With that in mind, I'd like to propose this tier selection list.

SV
SV
SV
SV Bo3 / SV
Monothreat
NatDex
LC/Tera
Oldgens (rotating)

I feel that a rotating oldgens slot would be a good option for this. We could develop DPP as roxie mentioned (and I support), as well as shed some new light on tiers only played in MPL. I'd be open to hear thoughts on this concept, though.

 

[boomp]

1) I like 3 SV and 5OMS as i feel like it'll allow more players to earn a slot on a team who shines more on the OM side then the current gen 9 metagame.
2) CAP, fun OM, Alot of people love it, brings alot of creativity in teambuilding/more types being playable is always a plus
3) no comment
4) Auction
:D

 

[Arase]

1) 4 SV 4 OM
2) NDM, Threat, CAP, LC (the other OMs are pretty trash)
3) I don't care
4) Auction
5) Don't do BO3

 

[Havens]

Rapid Fire:

1): personally prefer 3/5 but am fine with 4/4. Curious if we'll have enough players for a 10 slot MWP.
2): if 4/4 with only 2 OM slots available, CAP + LC. If 3/5, Cap + LC + Tera/Bonus Type. Mono STAB + AAA are like not fun to play/build/craft this gen; way too many anomalous factors that at the teambuilding level feel very restricting and uncompetitive on many levels.
3): depends on slots format; if 8 I'd go 15 or 17.5; if 10 I'd go 20.
4): Auction
5): if 3/5, yes to 3rd slot Bo3.

 

[Neko]

1. SV/SV/SVBo3/Threat/CAP/NDM/LC/Tera/STAB/AAA would be preferred, allowing us to touch on all OMs + have a decent amount of SV Games (equivalent to 4 SV games at worst). However, since there's probably not enough players for all the OMs, SV/SV/SVBo3/Threat/CAP/NDM/LC/Tera or STAB would be ok for me too.
2. Manager pricing: 12.5 - 18.5% of the budget if 8 Slots, 10 - 15% of the budget if 10 slots.
3. Auction vs Snake draft: Would prefer Auction draft, but if Snake is used, the managers self buying could be clamped to the last slot instead (instead of outright missing a round).
4. If the format is 3 SV/5 OMs, the 3rd SV slot as a SV Bo3: Yes, this is fine.

 

[TheWyvernKing]

quad sv quad ORAS

auction

 

[sapphiree]

It's MWP season and I'm sure most of us are excited to play in it. With the recent 5v5 OM tour almost coming to an end, the tiering decision for MWP could not be clearer.

Potential formats could be 4 SV/4 OMs or 3 SV/5 OMs

Honestly? Either works. My personal preference would be 4 SV/4 OMs as 4 SV could help the development of the SV Monotype metagame a LOT more than 3 SV slots. In my honest opinion, there are only 4 viable OMs anyway (those being NatDex, Threat, LC, CAP), including a 5th one would just be a mistake. But if we just had to do 3 SV/5 OMs, the last slot should be STABMons. Here is what I'm looking at for slots:

4 SV/4 OMs

SV
SV
SV
SV Bo3
NatDex
Threat
LC
CAP

3 SV/5 OMs

SV
SV
SV Bo3
NatDex
Threat
LC
CAP
STABMons

Of the OM slots, Threat and NatDex are locked, LC in a third slot is favored, and the fourth is likely CAP or Tera; the other OMs that may be selected/replace non-locked slots are STAB and AAA

This is simple, last slot should definitely and without a doubt be CAP. It is the only reasonable metagame which brings about the workings of a normal Monotype game, with a little twist coming from some extremely viable CAP Pokemon. Why should CAP be chosen above other slots? Tera takes away the entire point of Monotype, there was a reason it was banned from this tier and it's simply uncompetitive in a format that quite literally can cause an entire team of 6 to succumb to one or more types. AAA is another format which makes Monotype completely unscoutable, it's difficult to judge and prepare for AAA games simply because there are too many variables. Lastly, STAB is probably okay, but part of what makes prep is knowing the moveset of certain Pokemon and STAB makes it very difficult to achieve a certain level of hefty prep simply due to the fact that every Pokemon with above average stats can use broken moves and are viable threats.

Manager pricing

Not my area of expertise as I have no idea what the manager pricing was last time. I'll still give my 2 cents however, and I think this is a given but it should be reduced since there are 8 slots this time (and there's talk about 10 slots) so just reduce it proportionately.

Auction vs Snake draft

Both are fine by me, most people prefer auction to determine worth and it's just more interesting in general so maybe auction.

If the format is 3 SV/5 OMs, the 3rd SV slot as a SV Bo3

Yes, this is fine. Already talked about in first point.

Something extra: There's been a talk about 10 slots for MWP. I think that's a little too much, especially considering the only reason this idea is being entertained is to allow all OMs in the tour. Guys, AAA was literally not even included in the 5v5 OM tour, and the playerbase for either AAA or STAB is extremely limited. Inclusion is definitely not the problem here.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Attribute]

my proposal:
SV:
SV:
SV:
SV:
NatDex:
Monothreat:
CAP:
STABmons:

some things probably worth talking about:
- im pretty anti bo3. sure, its cool from a spectator standpoint but imo one slot shouldn't be more "glorified" over the others. on paper it will be the most competitive slot but at the same time foddering exists so it kinda defeats the purpose. the "best" player per team isn't guaranteed to play bo3 really
- 4 sv is a pretty safe format (and probably the best one tbh), though if it ends up 3 sv / 5 oms definitely no bo3 and have ndm/threat/cap/stab/lc as the oms. tera mono is way too chaotic to include
- cap > lc being favored in the 3rd slot: this is probably just a personal thing but i do think its easier / more likely to have more teammate involvement in a cap channel than an lc channel. just way too different of a tier compared to the rest really. out of cap/lc/stab i feel like people are most enthusiastic for cap too so even more reason to include it
- stab vs lc is what the discussion for last slot should be on imo with perhaps a slight edge to stab for the same reason above for cap > lc but largely indifferent about this
- don't think 10 slots is a good idea if we don't know how many signups we're getting. don't think it can be compared to mpl signups either cause, and i can't believe im saying this, but there's less incentive to sign up when there's no custom avi prize
edit: i typoed above + i forgot to mention manager pricing should be fixed if auction. most objective way to go about it and no need to have some random formula determining player value

 

[DugZa]

Not speaking on behalf of mod team or other TLs, just sharing my personal opinion, preference etc. I'll try to touch on whatever that was mentioned on the thread so far including the main points on the OP.

Format

As for the format, strong preference for 4 SV slots and 4 OMs (Monothreat, NatDex, CAP, LC). This is our first team tour since the DLC release and there's a lot of room for meta development and 4 SV slots would be most ideal. We also don't have enough OMs that are well received enough to warrant removing a 4th SV slot. Monothreat and NatDex are obvious locks at this point, they're the most popular OMs we have, with NatDex in particular having a relatively large playerbase. Third slot should be CAP, it's the most well received OM we've seen in a long time; haven't played it much but everyone I've spoken to seems to like it and it's been played in some CAP team tours in the past and from what I've seen the CAP Monotype council has done a good job with their tiering so far. Prefer LC for the last slot, it's been relatively fine in past editions of MWP and think it has the most interest and next biggest playerbase out of the remaining OMs; it also gets added in some LC side tours so the interest is there.

I don't think Tera should be included; I thought it was fairly popular at first but from what I've seen and heard it's quite awful right now and it also breaks Monotype clause in a sense which none of the other OMs do. AAA (and STAB to a lesser extent) have been pretty bad in past tours, with AAA in particular being awful; even the more experienced players who did well in the formats saying they shouldn't be included again which speaks volumes about how bad they are.

4 SV / 4 OMs

SV
SV
SV
SV
LC
CAP
NatDex
Monothreat

Adding a Bo3 slot with 4 SV is a bit much but if we do go with 3 SV slots though, the third slot should definitely be Bo3.


Manager Pricing

Manager pricing should be a fixed amount; we've tried other methods in the past and they haven't been that successful. The Wilson score method Ticken used in some MPLs wasn't too bad but that was based on past MPL performances. Hard to really do the same here when firstly, MWP hasn't been held consistently every year and secondly, the format has been changing a lot between every iteration; using MPL performances to determine MWP manager prices is obviously flawed coz the tiers are so different. Assuming budget is 130k then managers should either be 20k or 25k each. Leaning towards 25k as there is no reason for the pricing to be different between MPL and MWP if the number of slots and starting budget are both the same.


Auction vs. Snake

Personally prefer snake but I have no real reason to justify it other than a change would be good but obviously auctions are more popular for good reason and the above responses have already made it clear that auction is what we will most likely be going with.


DPP Inclusion

I'm a big fan of DPP and I hope to look into developing it as a real old gen in the future and potentially include it in MPL at some point down the line if it gets enough traction. However, DPP should not be a real consideration for this MWP; it has had no real tournament play (referring to sub-forum individual tours mostly here) and the resources are not developed at all. The tier is almost guaranteed to be very unbalanced with no tiering done whatsoever. Including DPP here would most likely end up leading to very poor quality DPP games and will paint a poor picture of the tier as a whole even if it isn't warranted. I support DPP but it's too soon to include it in our tier's second biggest team tour.


10 Slots

I would like a 10 slots tour but have to echo Attribute's thoughts here. Highly doubt all of these OMs have a large enough playerbase to warrant being included while having enough competent starters for 5 SV slots per team (40 SV starters). Number of signups are also gonna be less than MWP for obvious reasons.

--

Will probably make another post later in the week if there's anything else I wanna address but these are the main points I wanted to mention for now. Again, these are my personal preferences/thoughts, not reflective of the rest of the mod team's opinions.

 

[TTK]

pretty simple post here

4 SV 4 OMs (NDM/Threat/LC/CAP)

• NDM is obviously making it in. Competitive and balanced tier, not hard to prep and better than being locked to sub 8 viable types.
• Threat is threat. People like developing this.
• LC is fine, kinda fun to play and there's no other OM to really replace it other than STAB.
• CAP is probably behind NDM in how much the community engage in with OMs. Adding CAPs onto SV just makes a better metagame and a lot of types get better.

AAA is pretty bad, Tera is like whatever. STAB > LC I don't really care which and Tier Shift is just at the mercy of Game Freak's schedule so it won't ever be developed in the short term.

All the other tournament stuff (Manager pricing/auction vs snake), not particularly concerned about but the right choices will be made anyway.

 

[Vodoom]

why not push a survey to the players who participated in the 5v5 OM tour to determine which OM should be added. questions like what OM seemed the most balanced during the tour or something along that line. based on the answers we can determine 3SV vs 4SV and what formats to add

 

[Sae]

1. No real preference between 4:4 or 3:5.
   • If there's enough for 10 slots, I'd rather it be 4:6 cause 5 SV sounds like way too much.
2. Top 3 (unordered): Threat, NatDex, CAP. 4-5 (unordered) LC, STABmons (6. other)
   • While I dislike how the banlist is setup for MonoSTAB, the meta itself is fine. Based on what I've seen from people in MOMPL and 5v5 OM Tour, there are enough people who would know what they're doing if it gets selected.
     • I personally think there should be more unbans because the base STABmons banlist is based on a Terastal based meta.
     • I also think the point of a limited playerbase isn't that much of a concern. Good players tend to pick it up fairly easily. Some examples include Trash in MWPIII or even Trichotomy for current gen MonoSTAB.
   • Personally don't think Tera or AAA should be included.
3. One set manager price and should be fairly high.
4. No preference
5. No bo3

 

[ArkenCiel]

1. 4 SV/4 OMs, erase bo3 from ever appearing in a team tournament unless everyone is doing bo3
2. NDM, Monothreat, LC, CAP/STAB
3. If you're gonna place as much emphasis on this as MPL then price it the same way as MPL
4. Same logic as above, auction
5. Never bo3

 

[RoyalReloaded]

Hi, I wasn't planning on posting in this thread but I thought it would be interesting to get the player counts for each of the OMs in question from tour nights (since the dlc released on 9/13). Some of the tournaments are missing player counts but it wouldnt impact things too much.

CAP

10, 9, 13, 8, 7, 8, 6, 20 - 8 tournaments

Threat

6, 6, missing player count, 5, missing player count, 8, 9, 13, missing player count - 9 tournaments

STAB

9, 6, 8, missing player count, 8 - 5 tournaments

AAA

6, 9 - 2 tournaments

LC

3, missing player count, 5, 4, 9, 7

National Dex Monotype

13, missing player count, 14, 12, missing player count - 5

Tera

19, 10, 12, missing player count, 15 - 5 tournaments

Averages

CAP - 10.125 players - 8 tournaments
Threat - 7.83 players - 6 tournaments
STAB - 7.75 players - 4 tournaments
AAA - 7.5 players - 2 tournaments
LC - 5.6 players - 5 tournaments
National Dex Monotype - 13 players - 3 tournaments
Tera - 14 players - 4 tournaments

important to note that tours with player counts missing have been excluded from calculating the averages rather than inputting them as 0

I would lean more toward 4 SV 4 OM but if it were to be 3:5 I wouldn't not sign up. Although the sample size is a bit small, I believe the way to go is SV x4 CAP/NatDex/Threat/Tera. If the tournament ends up being 3 SV 5 OM I think the only debate should be between STAB and AAA. I think guaranteeing LC a slot is a bit of a throw considering the numbers for tour nights. Tera being the most popular was definitely surprising to me, so I think that including it could generate a lot of signups from people not in the community, and if they enjoy the tournament, they may stick around.

I have no real preference on snake/auction/manager pricing and all that, I just hope everybody involved has a fun tournament :)

 

[Trichotomy]

Here are my personal opinions:

Format

As an active player of Monotype OMs (7-1 + champion of MOMPL, 4-0 + finals in 5v5 OM tour), here are my thoughts on each OM:

• CAP: Easiest to balance, since it's fundamentally the same metagame as SV mono, just with some added Pokémon. I would not be opposed to this format being added to MWP.
• Threat: I find this tier neither fun to build, watch, nor play, but it is still fairly balanced (if you eliminate certain types from being allowed to be chosen, like Dragon and Ghost). It's locked so I don't have any say, but I'm okay with it being in.
• STAB/AAA: Ironically, these are probably the tiers I find the most fun to play, but I'm not sure if they should be added. They're pretty unbalanced right now, and as Sae brought up earlier, the banlists are incredibly poor, since we primarily adapt our banlists from their metas, which are Terastal-based. STAB > AAA, but (in my opinion) neither has enough development to warrant being added to MWP.
• LC: God please no. My personal experience is that LC has a minimal playerbase, which are supported by Royal's findings above (it averaged less than 6 participants through 5 tournaments). LC has an extremely complex mechanic system that is drastically different from lvl100 and lvl50 play (see: damage rolls, EV spreads, recoil) and thus lends itself to poor development. Some arguments are made above about STAB/AAA needing a lot of prep, which may be true, but the only added mechanic being that you can use moves of your own type or use (almost) any ability is far simpler to understand and to build for than LC, which requires a very in-depth understanding of Pokémon mathematics. Also, it being 'relatively fine' in past tours shouldn't really be the deciding factor when putting it in this iteration. I've played in an MWP with LC added and the general sentiment was that we all didn't want to play it. I'm not really sure why it's favored and I'd really suggest reconsideration.
• NDM: It has the most development and is the most balanced. Why wouldn't you want to play with Z-Moves and Megas? Nothing much more to say.
• Tera: This mechanic breaks the fundamentals of Monotype. I don't see any reason why it should be added, unless we are considering same-type Tera only. In that case, I think it would probably be okay, but can definitely see it becoming offensively unbalanced with 2x STAB and the strong attackers that dominate the meta right now.

Now looking back on what I wrote I can see that there are only three viable OMs. Since it is not an option to have 5 SV / 3 OM, I will settle by putting my favorite (and what I think is the fourth most balanced) metagame, STABmons, into my proposed format:

Proposed Format

SV
SV
SV
SV
NDM
Monothreat
CAP
STABmons

Any format with more than 4 OMs is most definitely unviable. Having all 6 OMs in the tour will pretty much just lead to 6 channels being muted for most people. I'd like to address some more arguments brought up above that I disagree with but there's so much buffoonery being spread that it would simply take too long.

TLDR: CAP, Monothreat, NDM = good. STABmons = less good but fixable. AAA = beyond repair. Tera = fundamentally wrong. LC = seek help.

Manager Pricing

I'd strongly recommend using some tiered system to price managers. Having every manager be priced at 25k discourages 'weaker' managers from self-buying, which I've heard was a pretty big complaint from certain pairs. Implementing a tiered system allows for these 'weaker' managers to self-buy while still 'punishing' 'stronger' managers enough.

Some options for pricing are to use a Wilson score, arbitrary metric, or to have voting done by a council. I think a metric is slightly better, and I'd like to bring up the following method (taken from UUPL),

where p is their price, p_prev is the price from last MWP, and w_prev is the amount of wins from last MWP.

However, as with any metric (including the Wilson score), this does not properly assess the value of a player. Similarly, performing a vote suffers from voter bias. I think a good way to mitigate both of these issues is to use both a metric and a vote in conjunction, and then take the maximum of these two prices.

TLDR: tiered price with metric > vote, but if possible use both.

Auction vs. Snake

Snake is a bad format. Auction also allows players to fulfill their fantasies of being nominated and deriving pleasure every time someone upbids them. All jokes aside, an auction more properly assesses player values and generally makes teams more even.

TLDR: auction clears

SV Bo3

It's hype and it's fun. I would not be opposed. Foddering weaker players into a Bo3 slot is actually worse than foddering weaker players into a Bo1 slot, since the probability of the worse player winning decreases as more games are played. The only pitfall is that it requires more prep, but I think this is counteracted by the potential for more exploration—at least for myself, I was much more inclined to use experimental teams in a Bo3 slot than a Bo1 slot.

TLDR: Bo3 is great

DPP

 

[mushamu]

I would also like to voice support for Bo3. Like Trichotomy said, it's really hype and fun; even though it does have the feature of three games over one, it's just fundamentally different than how Bo1 slots functions where it challenges consistency over precision. I also agree with what he said with there being more exploration in Bo3, especially with such a rapidly developing metagame of DLC 2 in SV it will be nice to see high levels of consistent play between competent players. Some players may shine more in Bo1 because they're good at being precise in prep and play, while others may do well in Bo3 because they're better at breaking overall trends slowly over three games instead of getting prep and every single turn right in a single game- it's why I don't think having a Bo3 slot takes away from the other slots, or is glorified. At the end of the day it's an extremely competitive slot that lets people shine and should be given more consideration. I don't feel like foddering will have that much of an impact on it because foddering will always be used strategically based on a team's needs. Foddering Bo3 is no different compared to any other slot, and starting out the week 0-1 is always going to be bad.

All in all SV should probably have at least 4 slots, with 3 SV Bo1 slots and 1 SV Bo3 or 4 SV Bo1. 4 SV slots would be amazing for metagame development, especially with a lot of interest being put into SV Monotype, and divides the tour nicely between current generation and OMs to take in account the interest for both.

For the OMs, I don't have a huge opinion on them aside from that Terastal Monotype shouldn't be given consideration to be in the tournament. Same type Terastalization was banned in Monotype for a good reason, and having different type Tera allowed means it breaks same type clause. This further undermines its legitimacy, because at the end of the day 5 Psychic Pokemon and 1 Terastalized Fighting Espathra is simply not Monotype. There is precedence to this rule too, where the Mega Evolution rule in ORAS was changed so that the tier would still hold true to same type clause- hence ORAS Monotype. Other than that I personally feel LC Monotype should be in over STABmons Monotype since it's more of a legitimate tier, but I don't have a strong opinion on it.

DPP Monotype honestly has a lot of potential but is super undeveloped. As much as it would be nice to put into a team tournament, it simply doesn't really have a place in MWP as an oldgen in an OMs tournament. However, development on the side can be pushed slowly and if anyone wants to help the metagame flourish then they are welcome to. Hopefully DPP Monotype can be in the next MPL or something depending on what leadership decides but it simply is not a good fit here.

Format

SV:
SV:
SV:
SV Bo3:
Monothreat:
NatDex:
CAP:
LC: