Announcement Discussion: What to put in OM team tours 8th slot

[Ren]

Concept:

7 permaladders with the changes: BH, AAA, STAB, GG, MnM, PiC, Inheritance

2 rotational: OMotM and LCotM

Could rework LCotM to something like LCotY. OMotM shows what metagames players have an interest in playing, and every OM gets the chance to go up for voting twice (which does a pretty good job of indicating how it went first time). LCotY becomes the 8th team tour metagame, as well. This keeps the same amount of ladders and gives OM leadership more weight into the decision of the 8th meta for the next year, but also allows for the community to weigh in on that decision by hosting more forum tours, showing up for monthly voting, keeping threads active and playing more on the ladder.

I'm just spitting ideas here, I'm adamantly against a Bo3 slot in the first place because there's no building cohesion in it unless you manage to get stresh or QT, it's very likely to become a fodder slot until we create a competitive enough playerbase. Rn the next best people for Bo3 are probably TNM, Ivar, quo, etc. but I honestly don't think that those players are on the level of stresh and QT in that slot just by virtue of self sufficiency and playing ability (this isn't meant to be a diss btw, they're obviously really fucking strong players, but the style of the slot does put them at a disadvantage vs stresh and QT and I'm sure they'd agree.) I agree w Lily, I think Bo3 is very likely to just become a fodder slot and I really encourage leadership to rethink entertaining an 8th meta for the reasons she outlined already. I don't really know the background restrictions in place of how many metas we can have or how we can rework that system, this is purely from a player PoV who's fairly uninformed on administrative restrictions so I'm hoping someone else can provide more insight on that and if these are flexible restrictions to work around or not

 

[in the hills]

Bo3 is the only option here, as I previously stated before we decided on 8 slots. An 8th singular meta is not going to happen, we're already stretching too thin with 2 new ladders and any 8th meta is going to make that worse, especially when there's not a great 8th choice. Anything outside of that has been too complicated or unfair to be considered.

Could rework LCotM to something like LCotY. OMotM shows what metagames players have an interest in playing, and every OM gets the chance to go up for voting twice (which does a pretty good job of indicating how it went first time). LCotY becomes the 8th team tour metagame, as well. This keeps the same amount of ladders and gives OM leadership more weight into the decision of the 8th meta for the next year, but also allows for the community to weigh in on that decision by hosting more forum tours, showing up for monthly voting, keeping threads active and playing more on the ladder.

absolutely not. 3 leader's choices a gen would cut out the biggest chunk of our playerbase just for team tours and would make it so half of the oms we have never get ladders within a gen

Bo3 has the most support of any option here and it's already been decided that it is what we're moving forward with. I will give this thread 24 more hours to vouch for BH, MnM, or GG, but please do so without tearing down the other choices, all 3 are valid in their own way. After that, the thread will be locked and we'll make a final decision that will be posted at some point after the fact

 

[Chessking345]

I'm just spitting ideas here, I'm adamantly against a Bo3 slot in the first place because there's no building cohesion in it unless you manage to get stresh or QT, it's very likely to become a fodder slot until we create a competitive enough playerbase. Rn the next best people for Bo3 are probably TNM, Ivar, quo, etc. but I honestly don't think that those players are on the level of stresh and QT in that slot just by virtue of self sufficiency and playing ability (this isn't meant to be a diss btw, they're obviously really fucking strong players, but the style of the slot does put them at a disadvantage vs stresh and QT and I'm sure they'd agree.)

I don't really agree with this opinion. I think through multimeta tours like Grand Slam, Championships, and even WC for certain regions there are plenty of players capable of navigating multiple metas at a high level, and in a team tour context these players will receive even better support from the 3 starters + builders in the respective metas (as contrary to GS and Championships where some of the supported teams are recycled and not custom made). It is undeniable that there will be some players (i.e. QT) that will excel at this slot more, but this isn't a new thing. Some players are going to be gapping other players in certain slots, we've seen this in pools like this year's MnM where a few teams/players were just clearly better than the rest. Arguably this Bo3 slot can be more evenly matched as evident from GS results, where round 1 saw all top seeds defeated.

Also I'm not sure how we are supposed to "create a competitive enough playerbase" if this playerbase either A. already exists through individual multimeta tours or B. needs to be created/grown through the incentive of learning multimetas due to the addition of the Bo3 slot. I think that the fact that this decision will affect this year's WC will also help increase this playerbase since while some regions have readily available players in this slot (e.g. South and EU), others will have players that main one meta pick up the other metas to slot into this Bo3. This isn't hypothetical either, previous examples exist such as West having BH main Sevag play in non BH metas successfully (+ record).

And I think that due to this established playerbase of OM players capable of playing multimetas, I don't see a reason why BH as a meta should be excluded because of "the time it takes to learn the meta" when A. many players that are likely slotted into Bo3 already have BH experience through past tours, and B. see points made before regarding BH resources being comprehensive and accessible for any players without experience to pick up the meta.
If anything, the high number of high level BH players/builders/support will create a more competitive slot, since more teams/regions will have access to strong BH support for the Bo3 slot compared to the other 2 metas (BH records per team in pre-playoffs OMPL had the most even records, no player really stood out). If we want to see the most competitive Bo3 slot, surely we want to see the best established OM players receiving the best support playing against each other.

 

[Ren]

I don't really agree with this opinion. I think through multimeta tours like Grand Slam, Championships, and even WC for certain regions there are plenty of players capable of navigating multiple metas at a high level, and in a team tour context these players will receive even better support from the 3 starters + builders in the respective metas (as contrary to GS and Championships where some of the supported teams are recycled and not custom made). It is undeniable that there will be some players (i.e. QT) that will excel at this slot more, but this isn't a new thing. Some players are going to be gapping other players in certain slots, we've seen this in pools like this year's MnM where a few teams/players were just clearly better than the rest. Arguably this Bo3 slot can be more evenly matched as evident from GS results, where round 1 saw all top seeds defeated.

Also I'm not sure how we are supposed to "create a competitive enough playerbase" if this playerbase either A. already exists through individual multimeta tours or B. needs to be created/grown through the incentive of learning multimetas due to the addition of the Bo3 slot. I think that the fact that this decision will affect this year's WC will also help increase this playerbase since while some regions have readily available players in this slot (e.g. South and EU), others will have players that main one meta pick up the other metas to slot into this Bo3. This isn't hypothetical either, previous examples exist such as West having BH main Sevag play in non BH metas successfully (+ record).

And I think that due to this established playerbase of OM players capable of playing multimetas, I don't see a reason why BH as a meta should be excluded because of "the time it takes to learn the meta" when A. many players that are likely slotted into Bo3 already have BH experience through past tours, and B. see points made before regarding BH resources being comprehensive and accessible for any players without experience to pick up the meta.
If anything, the high number of high level BH players/builders/support will create a more competitive slot, since more teams/regions will have access to strong BH support for the Bo3 slot compared to the other 2 metas (BH records per team in pre-playoffs OMPL had the most even records, no player really stood out). If we want to see the most competitive Bo3 slot, surely we want to see the best established OM players receiving the best support playing against each other.

Tbh I don't really disagree with your reasoning for supporting bo3, I just think that if you take things further it starts to become a lil problematic w drafting strategy regardless of what meta is elected as a final choice but it's locked in as the 8th slot, so we'll see how WC plays out. I do think that most of the playerbase will probably be outside of the GS pool for that tbh but you're not wrong in that there isn't a lack of options in the slot, worst case just draft someone who made it into playoffs and they'll probably go even or smth

I do think there's merit to having BH. To be perfectly clear: my problem isn't with BH as a meta. I think that the people working on BH resources put in so much effort and work to keep things up to date for new players and I think that deserves to be respected. My problem was never with BH as a meta, but rather the "rewarding OM players" argument (which seems to be p much over so I'll gladly avoid that now.)

I agree with you. BH support is definitely readily available. All US regions have people like quo, TTTech, Sevag, etc. and Europe has Ivar, France has plenty of skilled builders waiting to be discovered, Canada has you - I don't think support isn't readily available. I guess my biggest concern + probably my question to you is do you see every WC team being able to draft a competitive Bo3 slot with BH, AAA and STAB? In my head, MnM and GG are both easier for an outsider to pick up for a non BH player than BH is, but if the community is ready to put in the work to help their Bo3 slot achieve success regardless of who it may be (and if the Bo3 slot is willing to as well) then I have no objection w BH at all. Someone like shiloh could definitely do well given a BH team, and some tour player definitely has the game sense to pick it up if they're willing to try enough. I'm not super worried about the Bo3 slot for OMPL, but moreso WC because the playerbase is limited geographically so having to draft a BH slot + Bo3 slot that's willing to commit towards BH and 2 other metas may be more challenging than a meta with a lower learning curve. Fully acknowledge the higher amount of resources making the learning curve less daunting, but it is still there and all the resources in the world don't really matter if your Bo3 slot isn't ready to put in like, 1h30-2h30 a week on prep (that's a rough estimate of how much I'd drop on all 3 slots total in a Bo3 BH meta rn, but I do have BH experience).

One thing I haven't seen talked about for BH is that I do think that games on average last longer and scheduling a Bo3 may be rough, but I also don't really think this needs a tonnn of consideration. You should be testing teams during the week and you'll realize how much time you need to set aside for a bo3 from there on, skill issue if you don't

Personally I'm still of the opinion that MnM and GG are better choices, but I did want to clarify that I don't by any means think BH is a bad choice that we should at all costs avoid, I just think that if it were to be picked it might cause some annoyance within both the BH community and the wider OM tournament community. I've seen plenty of people irritated with having to play BH in the past, no clue if that's still the case.

If we want to see the most competitive Bo3 slot, surely we want to see the best established OM players receiving the best support playing against each other.

not necessarily, I've already explained that competition doesn't necessarily stem from OM vs OM person. 3 meta OM main being checkmated by a tours player means that the tours player is rly good and the OM main still has room to improve. we did just that from 2015 to 2023, so I'm not super concerned about it. I still think this is a tired and unnecessary point, especially considering this is an OM tour and everybody who plays OMs inherently has an advantage over a non OM player already. there's plenty of good points for BH as a meta, trying to affect the Bo3 player pool down by a classification metric of OM vs non OM player isn't one of them.

Last thing - if anyone still thinks I'd dislike BH as a meta after I basically praised it for 10 paragraphs, then please make a post saying to make the last meta BH. That's literally a buff to me. I would love that. I can play all 3 metas perfectly fine LMAOOO I promise you idc if BH makes it in I love the meta rn and if I ever do end up coming back for tours I literally have a slot waiting for me

 

[BoingK]

Gonna lay out my opinions here, however I am the resident bad take haver :tm: so read at your own peril

Solution 1: Having a strike system
I initially posted on Discord suggesting a strike system not at all unlike to the one used for tiebreaks to decide the last slot in a bo3 slot (UT puts this fairly eloquently here, go read). However the more I thought about it, the more dissuaded with the idea I became. Even after you strike you still have to be ready to prepare one of 2 (or 3) metagames, and the very fact that you won't know which metagame is to be played when you send your lineups means you could end up having your bo3 player playing a metagame that they are deeply uncomfortable with. The volatility of this solution is just too stressful on players and builders to work. I'm probably phrasing this badly, but I've only really seen negative responses to this (far more eloquently than this one) so I don't think it's a feasible solution.

Solution 2: GG, BH or MnM
I initially was of the opinion that GG should be the one selected out of the three. I think its the most intuitive, arguably the easiest to build for, and (more subjectively perhaps) the most viewer friendly. I personally enjoy GG a lot as a metagame, but someone on Discord made the very valid point that GG as a metagame is flawed due to relying on standard play (OU) and its banlist (Ubers). If that were ever to change then I would advocate for GG absolutely, but I think from the past discussions that have been had the definition of GG is not changing, which adds an element of volatility to GG. This could be fixed by essentially tier locking the metagame for the tournament but I'm going to assume that this would not be a popular strategy with leadership or the community at large, so I'm going to gloss over that point. Having to rely on standard play sucks.

Using tier shift as an example

using Tier Shift as an example (as it relies on standard play far more, and thus is a more obvious example) we can see that metagame staples can be nerfed or buffed at any point in time at absolutely no notice. A few examples: preHOME Haunter had a niche as a fast but powerful setup sweeper, which was removed as soon as it rose a tier and became statistically worse than Gengar; Moltres and Meowscarada rose this month, removing two good mons from the tier; and recently Ttar dropped to RU, among other powerful threats. GG is not volatile to the same degree, however...

The threat of having metagame staples like Tusk or Gholdengo rising at any point in time is frankly infuriating, especially when standard play has Tera legal unlike GG. Therefore, unless a tier lock is feasible I don't think GG is a good idea, compounded by the relative lack of resources and ladder activity.

Out of the other two metas, I'm not sure which meta I lean towards. For BH: There are founts of resources available (mostly thanks to Tea Guzzler and others) and ladder activity far surpasses that of MnM. On top of that, in my experience its fairly easy to discuss the BH metagame, as the forum is more active than MnM's and there's almost always someone chatting away on the BH channel in OMs. Furthermore, interest in BH is likely to pick up leading up to OMWC with the addition of fulldex. On the other hand, BH is the most demanding in terms of preparation: while there certainly are fundamentals you can carry over from other tiers, BH is by far and away the most significantly alien tier in terms of gameplay. MnM is also far more viewer friendly, and (perhaps subjectively) is more intuitive than BH. MnM also takes far less mental energy to learn and play.

We could realistically choose any of these metas, and have it be an ok choice, but whatever choice we take there is going to be significant dissent (it appears that the community is split with equal support for each metagame). That leads to the final viable option...

Solution 3: Screw the bo3
Afaik this isn't very popular because it would mean reverting to a 6 slot team tour format, which is very unpopular. It would also mean forgoing Inheritance (and that would probably be unpopular). I'm going to assume that a 7 slot tournament is completely stupid as well. e: For these reasons I dislike this option but if everyone REALLY dislikes the bo3 slot then we may have to consider this since no 8th metagame and double slots are stupid

However we have yet to discuss the best option, courtesy of TaxFraud...

Solution 4:

(this is a joke for those unaware) TaxFraud told me to delete the spoiler telling y'all it was a joke

e: in case any of y'all were wondering why this message was posted incomplete, basically I love accidentally pressing Ctrl + Enter :D

edit 2 from the phone: we shouldn't pick BH because it gives an edge to existing OM players, which I don't think it does, but that line of reasoning has been brought up and realistically it shouldn't be. As a relative newcomer, everyone has to start somewhere

 

[longhiep341]

I already partially said this on Discord, but I will make my point clearer here. My preference goes in the order of MnM > BH > GG.
Most things about the metas have been said. I just want to emphasize that BH can have a time constraint that makes it tough to fit in a bo3 (With recovery nerf, though balance vs balance is less likely to prolong, they can still last 150 turns, which is still longer than typical MnM and GG games). In an environment where you have to wait longer to get act call, this means higher chances either player has to delay the game till another time. This is fine for singles, but for team tour is more problematic. BH I'd say is normally more intuitive than MnM and GG actually, but that was before the massive change to essentially NatDex Pokemon pool and the table that converts formes to base. GG is definitely hurt the most in terms of calcing and tier dependence on things outside of council's control (OU tiering decisions). But BH can also suffer from this problem as we have seen. Hackmons isn't consistent because GF doesn't actually care about it, and with how they do more patches this time, who's to say they can't just randomly drop a patch that prevents Natdex Pokemon from being used? MnM is the most stable in this regard, hence why I vouch for MnM as the third meta.
As for resources and calcing, with MnM's damage calc, it is still more convenient than BH where you have to manually edit HP and add +1 to Imposter or -1 to attacker (and there are still some situations that might make this not feasible, like a +2 mon vs +3 Imposter). BH definitely has more resources and active playerbase, so it edges out in this regard.
But the point about a tier being more approachable should still stand. I agree with Ren that this might be less of a problem for OMPL, for World Cup some regions really struggle to field a player that can actually sufficiently play this bo3 slot (I can't even think of anyone in APAC). MnM and GG are easier to pick up, but ultimately MnM fits the best imo with all the points I've seen brought up.

 

[UT]

OM staff has been carefully considering and reading over the arguments here; unfortunately since there was no clear consensus in the thread, we have had to go with an executive decision, and Balanced Hackmons will be the last slot in the bo3!

The full team tour lineup, starting with this World Cup, will be:

• Almost Any Ability
• Balanced Hackmons
• Godly Gift
• Inheritance
• Mix and Mega
• Partners in Crime
• STABmons
• Best of Three (AAA / STAB / BH)

Thanks for participating in the discussion, and looking forward to World Cup! Also, PiC and Inh ladder should be live on the next hot patch!