Announcement RUWC 5 Format Discussion

[MrAldo]

Hello and good evening everybody,

So yeah, this is happening again this year at some point soon so I just want to make sure we can clarify the formatting we are going to use (and a new absolutely terrible banner I will cook up) so...

A couple of questions:

• Do we continue with the same formatting per divisions or do we do like pools? Of course everything will depend of the amount of teams and signups we can gather but it is good enough to have a set idea on how we are going to proceed
• What amount of tiers? I suppose we can just keep the 8 slots for the sake of practical concept, but right now perhaps adding 10 slots isnt too farfetched. Maybe too many slots for RU yet? Please, share your points
• Prize? I will be honest, I dont think I can guarantee something like a custom avatar for the winning team. I can do stuff on my own with currently existing sprites and modifying the sprites colors as far as you can get like:
  Images

  

  

  
  But anything anime related is out of the question (Not a fan and I dont have that level of designing). I suppose some form of steam codes for the winner isnt out of the question but it is gonna be kind of hard. But still discuss and see if we can get an agreement, cause in the end I am not positive upper staff would agree to have another CA for a "random tour" like this. Guess thats NOT an option
• When to start? SOON:tm:

So yeah, lets talk about this

 

[Feliburn]

4 CG 4 OG should be good enough for this. 10 slots make this tricky as idk if 6 CG and 4 OG makes sense and I don't want to add a bo3 slot to this tour as well.

I'll always be fan of pools over weeks in this type of format, as that one RUWC w/ weeks lasted for like 3 months.

 

[Ampha]

So, my own thoughts here:
Format should be pools to be honest, we tried making divisions on last RUSD and although it was a cool experience, most of the eliminated teams felt like it was too short, so sticking with pools seems like the best one imo
8 slots seems like the most fair to me, 4 SV, 1 SS, 1 SM, 1 ORAS, 1 BW seems like the most fair one in this case, we had 8 last time for SM talon, and sounds like fair to keep 4 SVs this time too

 

[btboy]

I like pools; they worked well last time. I think it should be eight slots with one slot for each old gen (1 SS/1 SM/1 ORAS/1 BW) and either 4 SV or 3 SV and 1 BO3 (SV/SS/SM).

BO3 sounds like fun, but we should play that by ear and make sure there’s enough interest for the field to be competitive, since BO3 slots are prone to burnout in practice.

 

[Beraldo]

For the tournament format, we should follow the same format as other tiers such as OU and UU (and old gens, like rcop is doing rn) and go with pools. Divisions was not bad at all last year, but I believe pools is just superior in general.

About the slots, I think the best decision is to make it 8 starters + 4 subs, so 4 cg slots + 1 for each old gen seems the only viable option to me. Bo3 is fun, but I don't think we need it since we already have another tournament that includes it, and including bo3 also implies that we should add another tier, which would guide us to probably add one more CG slot, which is not needed, or one Suspect Slot, which is not a good option imo.

btboy told me he will pay $1000 to the winner team

 

[Sneakyplanner]

If there is a plan to do a suspect slot like last year, I think that there should be multiple slots for whatever the suspect is, and I support doing suspect slots because they are fun and cool. If the big debate that Talonflame started last year is over whether one slot in a minor tour is enough data to justify unbanning, maybe 2 or 3 times the data will settle the big debate over what would probably end up being an average mon in SM RU.

I feel like I would prefer a format with multiple slots for the last two oldgens over 1 for each, it feels like there is more development that happens when there are multiple slots, whereas one for each oldgen just feels like each team sends out their biggest boomer to play BW with some old reliable teams. Plus, in a WC format, it makes it easier to assemble a team when not every region has to have someone who can play oras.

 

[Oathkeeper]

I am going to have to follow suit like pretty much everyone here and say that I was digging the pools last year and how it was such a great representation of the tier. I am also going to say the same thing when it comes to the meta format by saying it should be:

• 4 SV
• SS
• SM
• ORAS
• BW

Going with at least half CG should usually be the way to go unless the CG sucks. 10 slots might be asking too much as a couple of people have pointed out and 8 slots is the best way to play this tour. Luckily we won't have to worry about suspect slots like last year when I saw literally 0 people using Talonflame in the SM suspect slot. So yeah, pools + 8 slots should be the way to go!

 

[justdrew]

UU is currently doing a majority CG slots with a SS and SM slot and I personally enjoy that. Regions with limited players benefit from less old gens slots. It's also nice to put a focus on CG during the beginning of a new generation. 6 SV slots and SS SM is my vote considering how UUWC is going. Go Midwest, sorry for shitposting lol

 

[Yourwelcomethanku]

Personally, I favour 5 cg, 1 b03, and 4 og for the format and pools over divisions. Ultimately, I think we leave it to the managers that are picked for choosing the battle format, 8 slots or 10, and what those should be.

 

[Feliburn]

UU is currently doing a majority CG slots with a SS and SM slot and I personally enjoy that. Regions with limited players benefit from less old gens slots. It's also nice to put a focus on CG during the beginning of a new generation. 6 SV slots and SS SM is my vote considering how UUWC is going. Go Midwest, sorry for shitposting lol

The big difference is UU has over twice the amount of old gens we have so it makes more sense for them to do it that way. I'm sure as the generations go on, our WC format will eventually change in a drastic way.

Personally, I favour 5 cg, 1 b03, and 4 og for the format and pools over divisions. Ultimately, I think we leave it to the managers that are picked for choosing the battle format, 8 slots or 10, and what those should be.

It's better to settle on the format before the tour. World Cup tours captains are picked as the player sign-ups go on, so people need to decide on the tiers they want to play in (in this case bo3 vs no bo3). UUWC signups went live on the 3rd and captains were picked on the 10th for reference, and it's how it works with regular WCOP too.

The one alternative I see is that, depending on the amount of signups, we could expand to 10 slots and make it 6 CG and 4 OG to put more emphasis on our current gen. But again, 8 slots just feels like the better format imo

 

[LBN]

If Bo3 is in high demand, it's not as though we don't have options. Natdex RU worked fairly well the last time, and I'm not opposed to giving it another run. Alternatively, we could slap a 2nd of an old gen of our choosing. Personally I'm fine w 8 slots but I find bo3 slots great for spectating, so keeping it in even over a CG slot is fine to me

 

[TheFranklin]

Personally, I think the 8 slots with 4 cg and 4 olds gen mentioned a lot already is the best.
If we really wanna go to 10, Im in favor of stuff like natdex ru over bo3. Could even consider lc ru....
But again 8 slots is best

 

[Astrø]

As most of us, I think 8 slots (4 CG / 4 OG) and pools is the way to go. (If we go w/ 10 I would like to get NDRU + 5th CG)


Prize? Hold on, if btboy's really giving 1000$ there is NO WAY I don't win this WC (jokes aside, I think a custom avy is always cool, but it ain't the end of the world if we don't get one lol dw)

 

[MrAldo]

So yeah, I believe it is very sensible to keep the format simple and straightforward and still giving it some activity to our older gens:

• SV
• SV
• SV
• SV
• SS
• SM
• ORAS
• BW

And regarding format, dividing it into pools would be ideal since that format allows a lot of flexibility for playoffs depending of the amount of teams.

• Up to 12 players we can make 2 groups of 6 teams each, top 2 advances
• If we somehow reach 16 (doubt it, but always gotta study the possibility) then dividing the teams in 4 groups then top 1 or top 2 from each group advances.

Any comments on this or if this is good to go please let me know, we are going to get the signups up asap

 

[LBN]

nuke an sv for bo3 that slot nice

 

[Astrø]

Oh I thought we were gonna do it like regular WCOP/UUWC and go straight without dividing it into groups of teams LMAO

Alright so :
If we end up with 10 or 12 teams then okay, the groups of 6 teams with the top 2 making it out of round 1 isn't something I would contest, even though this means it may look like last year's divisions (and also that we're gonna have a PLENTY of gaming but this is what we like in RU don't we? I don't), but that's fine !

However, if we reach 16, I don't think we specifically have to divide into groups, but if we do, we should definitely let the top 2 of each group advancing, because :
1. Quarterfinals are heat
2. Yeah that's it quarterfinals are heat It'll just be cool and fairer to give more teams a chance to win it rather than the big 4 imo (sorry I'm just jealous)

In conclusion, @earthplanet please get us to 16. (btw I'd like to thank u for allowing everyone to discuss it, I don't talk a lot on forums but this was a great opportunity I've been given <3)

 

[Beraldo]

I do not think we should make divisions. Ngl, it worked last year and was fine, but I would say the same format as official wc and current uuwc is better, which is a 4 man pools where each team gets to play each other team at least once but not more than twice. This format is better imo because I think each team should play each other in the first stage of the tournament, since it also allows more interesting games overall, and is also always interesting to see ppl playing against players from other teams.

Personally, I think we should not make quarterfinals, since the playoffs stage will overlap with SCL, and I don't think we want to make this tournament longer in case it goes for tiebreak and stuff. Semifinals is more ideal, so I will agree with Aldo that, if we go for divisions, then the formats he suggested would be better.

 

[Sage]

want to add onto beraldo's point that player pools are really good for community engagement due to the high number of games concentrated in the same time period and mix of matchup spreads, and imo are the most successful for what lower tier world cups should be trying to achieve which is build an air of excitement and hype as well as pre tour buzz. you can still have flexible cutoffs for number of teams participating going by team record instead of head to head matchups.

 

[MrAldo]

It seems to be good support for the pools format so we are going go for that and proceed to standarize for future tournaments, seems fair to reach a consensus at this point.

Signups being worked on as we speak