Tournament UPL Feedback Thread (Survey Included)

Fireburn

BARN ALL
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
Hey everyone, UPL finally concluded this year and it seems like people had fun for the most part. We tried a lot of new things this year and I'd like to get some feedback from you guys on how well everything worked and what changes you might want to see next year, if anything. Glory is nice and all, but this tournament is primarily about having fun and we want to make sure you guys are enjoying yourselves each year!

I would like to ask everyone to fill out a quick survey in order to quickly gauge your thoughts on UPL this year. The survey is only 10 questions and primarily concerns feedback on format changes. It should only take about 5 minutes to complete.

In addition, I'm going to leave this thread open for a few days to let you guys discuss the tournament in greater depth to see what you liked and if there is anything you want to see change. You can talk about pretty much anything related to the format (including number of teams, number of metagames, Bo3, Midseason, Retention Policies, Substitution Policies, etc.). However, I will ask that you put some thought into your posts. If you only care enough to post a one-liner, I'm not going to care enough to pay attention to you!

That's all, let me hear your thoughts!

If you submit troll responses to the survey, I will find you.

Survey Link
 

Minority

Numquam Vincar
is a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Abstract

The goal of Ubers Premier League is to be the premier tour for Ubers players.

What does that mean? The tour should be the best team tournament that Ubers has to offer. Best consists of a tournament platform that allows certain attributes to flourish. The four primary goals of UPL should be: to develop players (old and new), to forge quality games, to select a victor based on merit, and to be fun for Ubers players. Every choice made in the structure and administration of the tour must keep this in mind.


Slots per Team, Tiers, Number of Teams

The number of slots per team is a balance between match quality and new talent development. Too many slots results in low quality of matches. Too few slots results in disgruntled players that don’t get drafted / started and don’t have a chance to develop themselves through UPL. This is pretty obvious, but the pool of Ubers players is the factor that determines the number of slots per team.

The number of slots per team must be an even number to keep ties possible. This year in UPL V we used eight slots. Ten is most certainly too many. Six is a number that I consider workable, reasoning provided below. Four is far too little. Based on statistics from recent tournaments, I would place the number of active UPL-quality players somewhere between 35 and 40. Assuming six teams with two subs each, six slots per team would result in a total minimum pool of 48 – this range with approx 10 more slots for “rookies”. The reality is that teams draft more players than their absolute minimum requirement, thus more players can be utilized, capping at 36 total per week.

With 8 slots and 6 teams there were a large number of matches this year that were not at a quality that UPL strives for. This was mostly due to the use of 3 SM slots + 2 ORAS slots rather than the choice of 8 slots per team – a number that was successful in previous years because the tier lineup was different. The reason why many matches had low quality in these tiers is because there were 30 slots created per week for current gen: (3+2)*6. I add ORAS to current gen because it effectively is: a tier not even a year old that is extremely similar to SM. These two are so much more alike than any combination of ADV, DPP, BW, or ORAS. The fact that virtually every ORAS player is interchangeable to SM supports this further.

This year there were five slots for current gen, which creates a weekly pool of 30 players. I pointed this out before UPL started when there was a discussion of 3 SM + 2 ORAS vs. 4 SM + 1 ORAS among managers. They’re the same thing: the same weekly pool of 30 players, both equally bad, and 62.5% of the weekly rep. To do a comparison, SPL VIII used a weekly rep of 30% for its primary current gen tier. UPL simply can’t carry that much rep for primary tier at a decent quality. Add to this that several of the better SM Ubers players were either managing or playing old gens.

We’re here to talk about next year though, not focus on what has already happed. For the future, in terms of total rep, the tour should never give modern gen more than 50% of the total number of slots. In addition to the problem of securing quality matches, the fact is that knowledgeable old gen players are harder to come by and tend to be expensive (BKC, Hack, Problems, Kebabe, Jirachee, zf, etc.). These gens should not be undercut. High rep in current gen results in the reliance on randoms to fill the holes. The result: a modern gen match between two randoms is weighted the same as a match between two strong players of an old gen format. This happened week after week. Lame.

You can even argue the same within the modern gen itself. There was a pretty high price disparity between current gen players this year. Basically because the managers realized that the number of strong SM players was rather limited, yet 30 were required every week. Again, we get the outcome of high level matches weighted the same as battles between randoms, all because the tournament format gave way too much rep to current gen. I don’t see how such a format is conducive to the goal of having the outcome determined by merit.

The number of teams should be an even number, so nobody sits out weeks. Either six or eight teams are probably workable in my opinion, and should be selected on how they affect the total pool of players required. This year the selection of six teams was fine, and will most likely be fine next year as well.


Retains

The retention system is one of the better changes the UPL format has had in recent years. Retains reward managers for scouting developing talent because it means that they can pick them up cheaper (potentially) than normal for next year. Retains also help create legacies for teams, which is part of team cohesion and having a good overall experience. Additionally, retention adds another layer of strategy for the draft and trades with other managers. With eight slots per week, two retains is a good number: compare SPL.


Point System and Tiebreaks

I talked about this in depth last year with Nayrz, dice, Melee Mewtwo, and maybe a couple others. We worked a ton of different angles, but were unable to forge a system that is elegant and better at determining the victor by merit than the system currently in place. Tiebreak system is probably fine.


Best of Three

This year UPL was held in best of threes. I don’t know how it was for the other managers, but a majority of my team did not like this change. Logically it doesn’t make much sense either. A battle between two teams is already a set of matches: a best of eight. So why do these matches need to be further subdivided? Any additional competitive edge to be gained simply isn’t worth the costs in my opinion. The only exception might be for a tier like BW, where it seemed that most of the pool liked the Bo3 format and match quality / teambuilding wasn’t as much of a problem.

The Bo3 format seemed to be another factor of why match quality wasn’t all that great, especially for modern gens. You can say prep work is overrated, recycle teams, bla bla, but it’s still hard to argue that bo3 doesn’t decrease the quality of the matches. The reality is most of the people playing SM / ORAS aren’t even capable of building five quality teams for the tournament, let alone fifteen. So now you have recycling of bad teams and stuff being passed around because it’s too hard to build this many quality squads from scratch. Two of UPL’s main goals are being violated here: developing players and forging quality games. How is a player supposed to improve their building in a tier or develop some cool new teams when building three quality squads a week isn’t reasonable? Instead of spending their time building, they spend it asking around for teams that already exist, or they just recycle the same trash from last week.


Substitutions

This UPL proved once again that there needs to be a hard deadline for substitutions. If there is no hard deadline, what is stopping teams from being inactive the entire week before substituting a player in just hours before the deadline? All this does is create bogus activity situations and frustration. Bottom line: the deadline for substitutions should be 48 hours before the end of the week. 48 hours is the minimum reasonable time an active player can be expected to see a substitution notification and schedule a fair time with cede player.

This year many substitutions were made on games in response to the week being won. I consider this atrocious sportsmanship and an insult to the opposing player and team. It trivializes the match in question, and is a statement of “you’re not even worth getting to fight the player I started originally, here's some benched user that won't get to play otherwise since this game doesn't even matter”. Disgusting. The 48 hour deadline largely eliminates this possibly because it is very unlikely a team is winning a week before the weekend. If there was a situation where the week was won before the sub deadline and that team made a responsive sub, then it would be legal, just a bad show of sportsmanship.


Midseason and Sellbacks

There was no midseason this year and I consider this to be one of the major mistakes in the tournament’s format this time around. No midseason means all credits are worthless after draft. It means there are no sellbacks. It means nobody new can come into the tour. It means managers are stuck with players who quit, players that get banned, and players that cannot mesh with the team.

Sellbacks and midseason encourages performance. It punishes quitters. It rewards hard workers. It allows managers to get reimbursed for bad apples with circumstances that were unforeseeable. It gives people who want to be drafted a second chance. It pushes players to justify their spot. After all, if you’re not doing anything good for the team, why shouldn’t I sell you back? Next year there absolutely needs to be a midseason, preferably after the third week.
 
Last edited:

EternalSnowman

DPL Champion
Best of Three:

I wanted to make a short post on Bo3 since I was a new player to UPL this year and how I feel about the format as a player. I think overall Bo3 has a lot of pros for consistent players, as the format can reduce the amount that hax and such affect the outcome of matches. In a Bo1, cheese is also a much more viable strat, and bringing so called "solid teams" are much harder due to more possibility and pressure on the game 1. In a Bo3, the team selection process is much more engaging and offers a mindgame between the two players that can play towards preparation. I personally enjoyed this high level of preparation and competition. The obvious con of this that many players have complained about is the amount of preparation you need to do in best of three vs. best of one. I think this is definitely a point to make, but personally I feel that it helps competitors play on a higher level, which befits UPL as one of the highest levels of play from the Ubers tier. Overall I feel the Bo3 format encourages higher level play, and also rewards people who work harder. I could potentially see a format where Bo3 is saved for playoffs/finals working well. Also was an easier transition to make as a rookie from the standard tournament formats, similar prepping style.
 

The Gunner

formerly Enzo Gorlami
is a Tiering Contributor
Slots per Team, Tiers, Number of Teams

The number of slots per team is a balance between match quality and new talent development. Too many slots results in low quality of matches. Too few slots results in disgruntled players that don’t get drafted / started and don’t have a chance to develop themselves through UPL. This is pretty obvious, but the pool of Ubers players is the factor that determines the number of slots per team.

The number of slots per team must be an even number to keep ties possible. This year in UPL V we used eight slots. Ten is most certainly too many. Six is a number that I consider workable, reasoning provided below. Four is far too little. Based on statistics from recent tournaments, I would place the number of active UPL-quality players somewhere between 35 and 40. Assuming six teams with two subs each, six slots per team would result in a total minimum pool of 48 – this range with approx 10 more slots for “rookies”. The reality is that teams draft more players than their absolute minimum requirement, thus more players can be utilized, capping at 36 total per week.

With 8 slots and 6 teams there were a large number of matches this year that were not at a quality that UPL strives for. This was mostly due to the use of 3 SM slots + 2 ORAS slots rather than the choice of 8 slots per team – a number that was successful in previous years because the tier lineup was different. The reason why many matches had low quality in these tiers is because there were 30 slots created per week for current gen: (3+2)*6. I add ORAS to current gen because it effectively is: a tier not even a year old that is extremely similar to SM. These two are so much more alike than any combination of ADV, DPP, BW, or ORAS. The fact that virtually every ORAS player is interchangeable to SM supports this further.

This year there were five slots for current gen, which creates a weekly pool of 30 players. I pointed this out before UPL started when there was a discussion of 3 SM + 2 ORAS vs. 4 SM + 1 ORAS among managers. They’re the same thing: the same weekly pool of 30 players, both equally bad, and 62.5% of the weekly rep. To do a comparison, SPL VIII used a weekly rep of 30% for its primary current gen tier. UPL simply can’t carry that much rep for primary tier at a decent quality. Add to this that several of the better SM Ubers players were either managing or playing old gens.

We’re here to talk about next year though, not focus on what has already happed. For the future, in terms of total rep, the tour should never give modern gen more than 50% of the total number of slots. In addition to the problem of securing quality matches, the fact is that knowledgeable old gen players are harder to come by and tend to be expensive (BKC, Hack, Problems, Kebabe, Jirachee, zf, etc.). These gens should not be undercut. High rep in current gen results in the reliance on randoms to fill the holes. The result: a modern gen match between two randoms is weighted the same as a match between two strong players of an old gen format. This happened week after week. Lame.

You can even argue the same within the modern gen itself. There was a pretty high price disparity between current gen players this year. Basically because the managers realized that the number of strong SM players was rather limited, yet 30 were required every week. Again, we get the outcome of high level matches weighted the same as battles between randoms, all because the tournament format gave way too much rep to current gen. I don’t see how such a format is conducive to the goal of having the outcome determined by merit.

The number of teams should be an even number, so nobody sits out weeks. Either six or eight teams are probably workable in my opinion, and should be selected on how they affect the total pool of players required. This year the selection of six teams was fine, and will most likely be fine next year as well.

Substitutions

This UPL proved once again that there needs to be a hard deadline for substitutions. If there is no hard deadline, what is stopping teams from being inactive the entire week before substituting a player in just hours before the deadline? All this does is create bogus activity situations and frustration. Bottom line: the deadline for substitutions should be 48 hours before the end of the week. 48 hours is the minimum reasonable time an active player can be expected to see a substitution notification and schedule a fair time with cede player.

This year many substitutions were made on games in response to the week being won. I consider this atrocious sportsmanship and an insult to the opposing player and team. It trivializes the match in question, and is a statement of “you’re not even worth getting to fight the player I started originally, here's some benched trash that won't get to play otherwise since this game doesn't even matter”. Disgusting. The 48 hour deadline largely eliminates this possibly because it is very unlikely a team is winning a week before the weekend. If there was a situation where the week was won before the sub deadline and that team made a responsive sub, then it would be legal, just a bad show of sportsmanship.
There were some things I could agree with from your post, but there were some that were just blatantly incorrect. I've highlighted those above.

Slots per Team, Tiers, Number of Teams

Let me start off by admitting that prior to UPL, I too, was a firm believer that UPL teams should consist of only 6 slots to increase the credibility of the tour, which would emanate an "elite" feeling from the tournament. However, after seeing the proceedings go down, and the number of talented players in this community that strive to earn a spot to play UPL, it would be severely unfair to rob them off a spot to play the only major team tournament in Ubers just because we want to uphold this so called "quality games" standard.

The most important question is, who are you to decide whether the quality of games is low or not? Let's be honest, there are games that are sometimes disappointing, but is that only applicable to games between players who are not as well known? Are you trying to convince that games typically taking place between top level players are surely enjoyable? No. Games between top level players contain a "hype" factor, which is what drives their games to success a lot of times. Several instances of this have gone on throughout the entirety of UPL.

All you're doing by decreasing the number of slots in UPL is inhibiting talent from being exposed to the tournament scene. With your mentality, we're not only going to eliminate the chances of getting new players entering Ubers, but also drive existing players out in case they're not drafted due to limited slots. As a community, we should strive to induct as many new players as possible - one of the driving factors for that cause happens to be UPL.

Substitutions

I don't know if I should be shocked after reading this from you or not. It is hard to believe that someone who's so highly ranked in the Ubers hierarchy would have the audacity to call another player trash, just because they're not playing in the main weekly stages of UPL.

Let me start off by explaining my thought process behind substituting other players after winning every week, since this comment is obviously directed to me. Every single player on my team was UPL worthy and definitely deserved a chance to play in the main stages every week. Unfortunately, due to the circumstances, I was forced to pick between them, which meant someone would invariably have to sit out every week. I had a excess number of slots and so did you, but the difference here is that your team kept losing every week, which meant you could shuffle your slots and experiment newer players. However, when a team is winning, you would rather not change anything, and continue the winning cycle. Only a fool would change a line-up which is performing consistently well.

Now that leaves these few unlucky players who're not getting a chance to represent themselves because of the team's overall success. Is it fair to expect full commitment out of these people, and in return, not even offer them a few chances to play? No. It is not bad sportsmanship to substitute a player after you've won a week, but it is in fact, bad sportsmanship to leave a player on the bench for the entire season.

It is possible that I might substitute someone who's not as established for my player who's playing every week, although that does not discredit this player's ability in any way. If I did not believe that the player who I'm substituting is worthy, I wouldn't have drafted him/her in the first place. The fact that you have such a contemptuous approach towards some of the players in this tournament is quite sickening.

If I adopted a mentality like yours, then maybe I would've subbed out Pohjis versus your team day 1 itself.
 
Last edited:

Minority

Numquam Vincar
is a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
All you're doing by decreasing the number of slots in UPL is inhibiting talent from being exposed to the tournament scene. With your mentality, we're not only going to eliminate the chances of getting new players entering Ubers, but also drive existing players out in case they're not drafted due to limited slots. As a community, we should strive to induct as many new players as possible - one of the driving factors for that cause happens to be UPL.
If your argument is as simple as to be inclusive as possible, then you're arguing for UPL to have the maximum possible number of slots, which is everyone who signs up - an open tour. As I already stated in my post, UPL is a balance between having too few slots and having too many. My post also acknowledges that 8 slots can be and has been successful - most of the blame was placed on tier selection, not slot number.

I don't know if I should be shocked after reading this from you or not. It is hard to believe that someone who's so highly ranked in the Ubers hierarchy would have the audacity to call another player trash, just because they're not playing in the main weekly stages of UPL.
Quotation marks are used to signify words that are not your own. The line in question is what you're saying by doing reactive subs. Not what I'm saying. Since you're just as repulsed by the statement in quotes as I am, then we're in agreement with how bad a message reactive subs give.

If you were to ask me what good sportsmanship is, it's giving your all, not matter the situation - even if you've already won or lost. The old case of Drizzlers throwing in the last week of UPL because they already made playoffs was a bad show of sportsmanship. Reactive subs are similar. Subbing in players just because you've already won is acknowledging that cede player had a lower chance of victory than who you started that week, after all if you truly believed they would have a higher chance of winning, you would have started them. Thus you are sending in a player who you believe has a lower chance of victory than who was originally going to play, which is not conducive to good sportsmanship.

Not only did you fail to understand the meaning of the very line you ridiculed in my post, but you continue on with personal attacks and baseless judgments rather than making any sound argument.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top