Implemented SPL XV Format Discussion

[Theia]

Good morning everyone, the TD team would like talk about the format for this upcoming SPL.

The topic of discussion is how many SV OU slots we'd like to have for this tournament. The options we have for this upcoming SPL are:
- Maintain four SV OU slots and twelve total slots
- Cut back to two SV OU slots for the more traditional ten total slots

Things that are not on the table include:
- Three SV OU slots for a total of eleven slots
- Cutting out any of the old gens
Do not suggest these.

People have expressed support for both options, so we'd like to open up this discussion in advance. We may also do a survey of last SPL's participants and managers, as was done last year, to gather opinions to help make our decision.

 

[Finchinator]

I feel that reverting back to ten slots with 2 SV OU would be fine. This was the status quo format for a few years and it felt appropriate to me. No need to fix what isn’t broken (or what was only “broken” by specific new generation intrigue).

The extra CG OU feels good in new generation years and we can come back to it for gen10, but two extra slots feels like it will generate diminishing returns here. Not vehemently opposed if there’s enough interest though.

Edit: I am glad the OP lays out parameters clearly, too, as any odd number suggestions should be a non-starter. Nice job.

 

[Excal]

10 slots, 8 teams instead of 10 to reduce tour length, potentially get rid of retains

 

[Eternal Spirit]

If we wont remove old gens (RBY) and thats not open for discussions, then just close the thread and move on with 10 slots LOL. Thats the optimal way.

 

[baddummy]

Having 12 starting slots means managers have less average credits to spend on each starter, while 10 starting slots means they have more.
It's for this reason that:
Moving from 12 slots to 10 slots strengthens the power of existing retain options.
Moving from 10 slots to 12 slots weakens the power of existing retain options.

I personally favour keeping the format at 12 slots, this is because I think dropping down to 10 slots with the intent to jump back up to 12 later next gen seems awkward. My preference is that the tour stays with the same number of slots throughout all of gen 9 and 10, and I believe keeping it at 12 is the cleanest way of doing this. I suspect most people feel differently, and we will likely end up going down to 10 then back up to 12 again later.

The above issue I raised is minor but not insignificant. If the format does change, please scale down the initial number of credits accordingly so that the average price managers can allocate to each starting slot remains similar. This would mean that 140K credits for 12 starting slots would be adjusted to approximately 120K credits for 10 starting slots.
I favour 12 slots throughout, but if the spl format is changing every couple of years, the effect that has on retains should be addressed.

 

[Conflict]

I have always held the firm belief that 3 slots for CG OU are the perfect middle ground between not enough representation (1-2 slots) and just way too fucking much (4 slots).

1 is just bad because it gives CG almost no room to shine.
2 is alright but due to the high amount of CG players feels a tad low. This might create a lot of high level matchups but mayn of the up-and-comers will probably miss out due to this low amount.
3 feels like the perfect amount. Most teams will have 1-2 superstars surrounded by 1-2 new guys (like 1 great superstar + 2 decent upcoming guys or 2 good superstars and 1 raw talent). This will most likely lead to a balanced SPL and also a good chunk of nice matchups week to week. I always felt that 3 CG-SPL's were some of the best and high quality ones we've had.
4 slots just feels too much and muddles the playing field. You tend to start scraping the bottom of the barrel and its hard for most teams to find 4 skilled enough players to field on a week to week basis. Not to mention that you increase the amount of lopsided matchups due to more chance of the best CG players avoiding each other week to week due to sheer luck of the draw. I think a lot of the games tend to be less exciting and turn more into a one-sided beatdown. Another issue is that CG OU is so far elevated over other gens that 4 slots heavily favours teams that find a great working CG-core and diminishes a lot of the other slots therefore making CG-centered teams more viable than other options (and we already have a shitton of CG matches in SCL and WCOP!).

That being said and as 3 slots doesnt seem to be an option I think personally I would prefer 2 slots because 4 has imo too many drawbacks.
Obviously 3 slots + whatever filler slot (dubs/lc/VGC!!!) would be my preferred option (plz do this!) but 2 CG slots is an agreeable compromise and atleast promises many high-level matchups week to week.

 

[Genesis7]

I will play devil's advocate here and say that gen9 OU has proven to have a very wide playerbase and has introduced a lot of new players who have shown high skill ceilings through WCoP, OST, Stour, OLT, SCL, etc. I am also firmly in the camp of the CrashinBoomBang 's who believe the terastal mechanic to promote long-term thinking and in-battle mastery more so than some of the other metagames we enjoy.

All to say that I feel like 4 slots would be a welcome format. If the new DLC proves to be too messy right before signups, that may be reason enough to pare down to 2 slots however.

I think Conflict also brings up an interesting proposition of adding VGC to the tour. It has been a decade or so since SPL included a VGC slot, but I think it is safe to say that DOU never reached the same level of interest as VGC, and the Joim days are behind us where we should feel so forced to go with DOU>VGC still. What's more, the introduction of the bo3 ladder and teamsheets options on PS! have increased the PS! VGC playerbase tenfold (from my experience, needs citation). The Venn Diagram of VGCers who practice on PS! is now just a circle. I believe with the advent of PS!'s new tournaments tab and announcements, and the ever growing base of Smogoners dipping their feet into VGC waters... this could be a really interesting test. VGCers have proven to care about Smogon (something that was an issue in past SPLs pre-2014, and with some VGCers who signed up for DOU in more recent editions) with tournaments like VGCPL being successes through many recent iterations.

Just food for thought.

Also if anyone wants to team up to manage this year... PM me.

 

[Tony]

i'd also prefer either 4 sv or 3 sv + vgc. people like zee and Spurrific are better equipped to talk about how the vgc scene has grown on pokemon showdown, but more and more singles players are gaining an interest in vgc, too. as for sv, there's a lot more than 20 people that would be able to play the tier (somewhat) competently in the tournament. it was fine last year and i don't think it needs to be reverted now that the generation isn't fresh. part 2 of the dlc drops shortly ahead of spl and working on solving the new pokemon and mechanics is really fun to do as a group. can't say i buy the boring argument either. apparently two extra slots is super lame and creates Metagame Fatigue, yet at the same time people complain about the next game not yet having started every weekend of the season. let's give them those games.

 

[z0mOG]

I main VGC with 80% of my 'mons time and also play or manage SPL every year. I stand by the opinion Not to include VGC. SPL is unique as a tournament because by nature, the best 10 players will want to signup for any given format and play the other 9 best possible opponents -- with the only other opportunities to do so being cups/classic/stour playoffs (rng anyway) and invitationals (again rng). VGC is not unique in that sense. There are at least 15 more tournaments that the best, frankly, 50 VGC players will care about more and the playing pool in SPL will be some middling clump of people who either started on smogon and understand how we value SPL, or a few actual top VGCers who didn't start with Smogon and will just look at SPL as a free testing grounds for 9 weeks of decent quality games (less so than NPA for instance, which top players are incentivized to play to face other top players). Smogon's gimmick is the fact that it has a dedicated playerbase who come back every year to put their all into their favorite old gen or OU because SPL is the best we have. Maybe the best 10 players aren't always signing up in a given year per format, hence why Vileman is a mainstay starter now (jk <3), but it sure is closer than we would get with a VGC slot. Therefore, I support 4 OU or 3 OU and doubles.

 

[Lily]

Just a short post to say I think 4X CG slots should be prioritised, especially in a generation like SV which is always bustling with new players popping up and making names for themselves. I think as much as we should and do celebrate our oldgens, the current format that's most appealing and accessible to the majority of players should be the main focus of the premier tournament. Lots of noteworthy players that have become high-tier OU starters in the past ~year wouldn't have gotten a shot at all if last SPL was only 2X SV OU and I hope to see more budding stars get their chance this year too.

3X OU + something else is probably fine but I don't really think there's much necessity unless someone can think of a really good reason to include another format.

 

[Theia]

Good morning everyone! On top of this thread, we conducted a survey of SV OU players from last SPL and the ongoing SCL, as well as the managers from last SPL (or at least we did until someone leaked the survey form link and their friends shit it up with spam), the results of which are attached below:

Of 120 possible answers, we had 47 votes for 12 slots, 26 votes for 10 slots, and 47 abstentions.

As a result of the survey as well as this thread and discussions within the TD team, we will be sticking with the same format as last year, 12 slots with 4 SV OU slots and 2 minimum substitutes.

Thank you to everyone who participated here, on the survey, or in the stours server for their feedback!