This isn't actually a fact. Given X < Y < Z, where the number of good players is X, the number of players in 6 slot is Y, and the number of 8 slot is Z, the number of good games cannot be increased by reducing the number of players; similarly, the number of good players cannot be increased by reducing the number of players. X is not dependent on Y or Z. The real reason this appears in this post is as it relates to the next "pro". So, we can combine the two pros together.
This is just misleading and totally misses the point. This doesn't factor in the 'bad' players playing good players ending in a 'bad' game. The more 'bad' players there are, the greater percentage of games will be 'bad.' There is no disputing this. If you think the games are already at a high level thats fine, they are however only going to be higher if you cut the last slots out. This really can't be disputed.
If X = Bad player and Y = good player and Y + Y = good game and any combination of X = bad game, then there are going to be a fuckton of bad games which can be pushed in the right direction by removing these players completely. A good player curb stomping a bad one in 12 turns is not a game anyone is considering quality.
Let's say we have kept 8 slots which means 32 games a week. This means 64 players play a week. Now let's say out of these 64, there are 16 bad players. If you cut 16 of the 64 out (as is proposed), you theoretically only have good games. If none of these 16 players are playing each other in any given week, that means they account for 16 games in the week. This is half of the games that theoretically end up 'bad.' Of course you will have 'bad players' play 'bad' ones as well so 16 is unlikely but theoretically it is possible. Get rid of these players, get rid of the bad games. Obviously that is all theoretical and there will still be bad games, but you can absolutely increase the number of good games by reducing the number of players.
We want good players to be playing good players in every slot. How is it prestigious otherwise? How is it the best we have to showcase if this isn't the case?
Regardless of all that,
The idea here with 6 slots is that you are not trying to increase the good number of players (lol idk why that even came up) or hit x number of good games,
you are trying to decrease the percentage of bad games. It's exceedingly simple and irrefutable that if you decrease slots and the number of players drafted, the game quality will be higher. Don't like 6 slots? Think the quality is fine how it is? That's totally fine but cutting out worse players will make for a higher percentage of higher quality games. Quality is subjective but saying games will get better with less slots is absolutely not. Trying to deny this is absolutely wrong lol.
I would actually argue this isn't a pro at all. The idea that fewer slots would improve "quality" in some way is actually just a front for trying to make strong in-battle users have more control over the week. This directly hurts those whose strong point is actually in building teams, as their lesser battling skill is now "worth" more.
Fewer slots = less bad players get drafted = quality improved. It's not a front for anything, it's undeniable. Players can be bought onto a team to build. Yes that is a huge part of pokemon, but why do you want players who can build well but not play well to play in our most 'prestigious' tournament. Surely the playing part should be about, well, playing... Instead of rewarding good builders...? I don't understand how their battling skill is worth more all of a sudden. You still need to build good teams to win, those players might even be worth more if they can build two good teams a week, considering those teams make up for a greater percentage of your games.
For example; Jolly Togekiss. Frankly, I do not think he should be starting in a tournament that is designed to showcase the 'best of the best' and be the most 'prestigious' our tier has to offer. However, everyone he has played for has raved about his building ability and worth ethic as a teammate, which is obviously extremely valuable. He will still be drafted, his role will be clear, to build and test teams, and potentially sub if absolutely required. Building teams is an important component of pokemon and monotype, several quality players can build by themselves, others cannot. Having 6 slots doesn't magically hurt his strong point of building. His skills are still a necessity to succeed. Nor is his battling skill suddenly worth more than it was before. It is probably worth less considering there is a less chance he plays. If your strength is building, its value is not diminished for lack of slots. It is probably greater as each slot you build for has a greater impact. Knowing your role is a big part of being on teams. Being rewarded for building good teams with a playing spot isn't prestigious. It just tells me there aren't enough good players to fill out slots.
A tour that fewer people can interact with, that fewer people know of participants, that fewer Monotype players are a part of (let's be honest about who's getting drafted) is in my eyes less valuable to the Monotype community.
I think a very important thing people fail to realize is that while our community is huge, the 'inner tournaments circle' is pretty small. I think you can divide everyone that generally gets drafted into 4 groups. The clearcut tour players that don't play in any other monotype tours other than team tournaments (star/evi/gondra for example), The tour players who also participate in our smaller tours and circuit tours but you don't consider part of the mono tournament jerk (xiri/rabbit/tj), the more or less established monotype mains who I shouldn't have to list, and the few new kids you get which I don't think belong but that's beside the point.
Tour players aren't really the main ones being drafted here. They are generally the best yes, but we really don't overload on tours players in our tournaments. We simply don't have a large number signup. I don't think it's fair to label players that participate in smaller tours (team and individuals) and flirt with our community as castaway tour players though. Maybe their closest friends aren't really part of the community and we don't interact with them as often but they still have shown some sort of appreciation for the tier outside of the team tours, which alone makes them a greater part of the community than your average tour players. Anyway, The first group is what I wanted to talk about the most because that is what I see referenced here. The players that have no affiliation to the community that signup for kicks. Yes there are a few but there really aren't many. Other than the classic sabella roided up tour goons squad, every team has 1-2 players at max you'd view as this. This overall makes up about 15% of the tournament, which really isn't a large figure at all, especially in comparison to other tiers. You assume 90% of these get drafted in a smaller format. They would then account for approximately 20%. My point is mono players are getting drafted, and they will continue to get drafted. A lot of them will. Yes a few players will get left out. The few that will get left out are these new guys. I said it previously, and I'll say it again. I don't see anything that suggests high quality when you have people trying to make a name for themselves in our greatest tournament. There are tons of other places to do that, and then show up at MPL and prove you are amongst the best. But first you gotta prove you can hang with the best.
Looking at last MPL, there are names you can EASILY trim from teams with very minimal loss. The majority aren't part of the community, they played next to no games, and i know for a fact a few literally didnt speak past week 1. A couple marginal monotype players cut isn't the end of the world. Hell it makes the competition better, and there are dozens of other places you can prove yourself worthy of playing with the best. I realize that is all subjective, but to improve the quality you need to cut slots, and I firmly believe that quality should be valued over inclusion for this one tour. We parade MPL around as the best but there is no exclusivity that suggests it is. The same players in all 3 team tournaments over and over. It's not exclusive. The prestige currently only comes from the fact that mpl has been around longest. Not cause the games are any better. Imo this should change.
