Rejected Allow players to vote on BO3 vs BO1 in Team tours

Status
Not open for further replies.
I know the issue of BO1 vs BO3 in big tours like SPL has been litigated since the beginning of time (see this post from BKC -- post) , but I'm gonna wade in.

Currently, in the three big team tours, the only tier that has bo3 is RBY. The argument for BO3 RBY (I couldnt find the original thread rip, but BKC explains some of this in the thread above) is that prep intensiveness is much less in RBY. It takes comparatively less time to build RBY teams because there are comparatively less decisions you have to make as a builder: you don't have to deal with EVs 99.9% of time, there aren't many choices available both in moves and mons, and most teams feature three if not 4 or more of the same Pokemon. As such, it doesn't take a lot of time to get three teams ready to go for a BO3 so you can test them out etc. There's also another argument that there's a high degree of variance in RBY, but I disagree with this. I think RBY teaches you a lot on how to manage luck in Pokemon (shoutout to hipmonlee), and the better player wins the majority of the time.

I've heard a lot of discussion in the ADV and DPP community in particular about how awful bo1 is. You can spent a lot of time preparing only to lose to some of the inevitable variance in Pokemon -- untimely critical hits, bad match-up, a surprise tech, poor play. Even our all time best players only have a win rate in SPL of around 65% with a high sample size (this is also largely true in SCL and WCOP): looking at you ABR and BKC. Why not try to make an objectively better format that we already use in individual tours, should the players themselves vote for it, in these tiers?

If you're an excellent player in any tier like we expect in the flagship tournaments, you should already have multiple team ideas for any of your opponents. Hell you might even have multiple unused great teams in your builder already before the tour starts. Even if you don't, there's a wealth of previous teams out there and potential teammates/helpers to help you build stuff. You can tweak previously available stuff quite easily to prepare it for a set. I know the classic argument against BO3 is that it involves a lot more potential burnout and we all don't have the time any more to build 3 really good teams every week for 3 months. Building just one great team every week can feel like a challenge and we all do this for a hobby anyway. However, the advantage of BO3 is that it gives you the luxury of running more experimental stuff in one game, because each game individually is not do or die like it is in BO1. This could lead to decreasing the variance individually and making a competitive format even better.

I'm not asking to make everything BO3. I'm asking to let the players vote, maybe once everyone has been drafted, if they would like their tier to be BO3 for that tour. Maybe you'd get people voting in their own interest to make it BO1 or BO3, but I think you'd get around this community backlash to BO1 that some old gens like ADV and DPP have. If we find for one team tour it's bad, we can just reverse it. Why not at least try it out?

Also, previous people have argued for and against BO3 in tiebreaks. I think should the players vote on it before the tiebreak. Why should we not allow two people who want to BO3 not be allowed to BO3? That way, if someone is against BO3, they don't have to do it and worry about the prep load.

tl;dr What I'm saying is let the players in a tier before a team tour vote if they'd like their matches to be BO3 like RBY's are. For a format where everything is one tier like WCOP, we could ask players to put their preferences on BO1 vs BO3 on their sign up and then record it in a spreadsheet. If anyone is up against a player who prefers BO1, then they play a BO1. Players are free to tell the TD in charge at any time if they want to change their preference.

Maybe something like this?

Player Name: johnnyg2
Tiers Played: ADV OU / DPP OU
Tiers NOT Played: ORAS OU / SM OU
BO1 vs BO3: BO3
Timezone: GMT-5

Thank you for reading!
 
Would like to voice my support in letting the player base of each tier decide on Bo3 vs Bo1. I think the best way to decide on a voting pool would be to poll people with 3+ games in any given tier in the last 3 editions of SPL. As Johnnyg2 said putting in hours of preparation deciding on 1 team just to lose to a matchup fish or some dumb luck is extremely frustrating and draining. Not that these issues don't exist to some extent in Bo3 but it certainly is much much better and more enjoyable.

I'm sure many would agree that it is easier, and less work to prepare 3 teams rather then having to decide on just 1. Speaking from my experience but every single week of SPL I usually have 5-8 teams that I would like to use. I really don't think it is much more of a workload to prepare for a Bo3 series, we do it all the time in individuals anyway. Reducing variance and making our tournaments more competitive should be our main goal in my opinion, Bo3 objectively does this better then Bo1.

I feel like Excal said it best with this post:
Not gonna speak on behalf of all tiers, but I strongly support DPP to be Bo3, and I think most of the DPP community feels the same.

It is far easier to prepare for a Bo3 DPP set than it is a Bo1 set. Matchup fishing in this tier was a big issue in SPL 11 and was still a problem in SPL 12. The amount of pressure to have that one perfect team is significantly higher than to have breathing room within 3 teams. Reusing solid teams happens in Bo1 all the time; I think Bo3 allows for reusing solid teams more easily but also encourages experimentation/showcasing new techs/pushing metagame development more as well, depending on how the player seeks to take it. Bo3 DPP reduces matchup fishing, makes tournament sets more competitive, and eases the burden of preparation.

Smogon has always catered to those with more time on their hands. The classic format is a good example of this, where TDs/others justified the incredibly demanding format by saying that the amount of dedicated time increases the prestige/it's an inevitability of online pokemon/etc. These types of time constraint arguments against Bo3 in teamtours are flawed and more often than not are advocating for the sake of preserving the status quo.
I don't know about other old gens but I know the DPP community has a strong preference to Bo3. I see no reason why we shouldn't be allowed to play our preferred format in the most prestigious tournament. I feel this should be very agreeable. I hope more people speak up about this, I really don't have much interest in continuing to play this format.
 
1) we already have bo12, no need to potentially triple that

2) what if someone wants to sign up for spl but only wants to / has the time for bo1? but it ends up being bo3?

3) either accept a given tier is competitive enough to be bo1 (in the context of a larger team tournament), or screw the tier if it needs bo3 so badly

4) as both a manager and a player over many tours, this sounds so vastly distasteful to experience

5) it would not end up as “everyone will load their fav teams woooo no counterteaming” - it’d be the exact same dynamic as bo1 but with more effort

i understand where this comes from but it’s shit and misguided, keep bo3s in individuals only
 

Finchinator

-OUTL
is a Tournament Directoris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Championis the defending OU Circuit Championis a Two-Time Former Old Generation Tournament Circuit Champion
OU Leader
I prefer Bo1 in team tours.

The element of (single team) prep is an important part of the game and SPL/WCOP/SCL experience. I find variance, while frustrating and less competitive at times, worth embracing rather than minimizing.

I also think that some personal elements such as time sunk into teams and allocating a larger window to play a series are major turn-offs. This can be seen as the opposite for others with more time or resources perhaps so I get if this is not universal, but I know Bo3 would make participating in team tournaments more stressful and less feasible for me and many others I have spoken to.

I dislike the idea of having it agreed upon by both players as we do not enforce any other handshake agreements and this is just asking for a logistical headache. We are already approaching lawyer status with all of the specifics that get codified, and now we would be digging far deeper.

If anything, the precedent RBY sets for a whole tier to just be Bo3 universally in team tournaments is the only way to do it. If a playerbase like DPP really feels that strongly, then perhaps they can lobby for it and make it happen with enough support. I don’t really love it, but who am I — a non-DPP player — to regulate how DPP players engage in their metagame? So go off if you must, but I do not agree personally and specifically I would really prefer this not touching most generations, especially any generations I play :worrywhirl:
 

mael

not the same but equal
is a Community Contributorwon the 14th Official Smogon Tournamentis a Past SPL Champion
1677754937885.png

competitive battling.

1) we already have bo12, no need to potentially triple that

2 Problems with this. Sheet record is one of the major achievements on this side, to the point where some people value it more than individual trophies (it's the reason why people rate players with less success higher than ciele for example). So clearly each match up individually matters. Second, series still get decided by luck, bo3 in individual match ups would reduce the impact of that. So it still makes it more competitive.

2) what if someone wants to sign up for spl but only wants to / has the time for bo1? but it ends up being bo3?

Preparing for a bo3 compared to preparing for a bo1 is not that much harder since match-up fishing is less problematic and the impact of bringing a team that is not perfect is lower. On top of that, by the end of the week people tend to have options anyway. Rarely do people build 1 team only and that's it for the entire week. Also they have the option to allocate the time they can use for mons for a bo3. If you literally do not have the time to play a bo3 instead of a bo1 you're not supposed to be in spl either way. What's the problem with having to put in work and effort to keep up in what's supposed to be the highest level of competitive online pokemon? It's supposed to be hard and require work to find the best player and reward them for their skill and work.

3) either accept a given tier is competitive enough to be bo1 (in the context of a larger team tournament), or screw the tier if it needs bo3 so badly

Pokemon as a game is not suited for a bo1, regardless of tier. If people playing other tiers do not want a more competitive set up, I cannot help them. Needless to say this point 3) is not an argument but an assertion based on nothing.

4) as both a manager and a player over many tours, this sounds so vastly distasteful to experience

As a player over many tours bo1 doesn't only sound distasteful to experience, but many of us have experienced it. On top of that this point 4) is just an assumption.

5) it would not end up as “everyone will load their fav teams woooo no counterteaming” - it’d be the exact same dynamic as bo1 but with more effort

I genuinely do not understand how one can seriously state that bo1 has the same dynamic as bo3 when it comes to both compensation of luck and match-up fishing. For a worse player to beat a better player through match up fishing in bo3 you need to bring 2-3 right teams and load them into the right match up. For a worse player to beat a better player through luck it needs to happen in 2 games at the very least. That's double the amount of 1.
How the fuck is that the same as loading a sub optimal team to counter team your opponent in a bo1 where getting it right is easier than in bo3? Or as playing bad and getting 3 crits in 5 turns in a game?
Also the first part is a straw-man. Nobody was saying that everyone would load their fav teams and counter teaming would disappear. It would however reduce the effects of counter teaming and bringing your favorite teams would be significantly easier.


i understand where this comes from but it’s shit and misguided, keep bo3s in individuals only

Talk about misguided yet have logical fallacies in every single one of the statements. Getting lucked in a game and losing both your own record and the teams series to that is shit. happens more in bo1. bo1 is shit and not using at least bo3 is a misguided perception of competitiveness. there u go. i said it so it's true.
I have massive respect for you as a player, but I cannot tell if you even tried to make good points in this post, or just posted for the sake of it.

Smogon TDs when you suggest to make "a website and community specializing in the art of competitive battling" more competitive.

I prefer Bo1 in team tours.

The element of (single team) prep is an important part of the game and SPL/WCOP/SCL experience. I find variance, while frustrating and less competitive at times, worth embracing rather than minimizing.

Reading that less competitiveness should be embraced on a supposed competitive platform goes entirely against the premises of "a Pokemon website and community specializing in the art of competitive battling."

I also think that some personal elements such as time sunk into teams and allocating a larger window to play a series are major turn-offs. This can be seen as the opposite for others with more time or resources perhaps so I get if this is not universal, but I know Bo3 would make participating in team tournaments more stressful and less feasible for me and many others I have spoken to.

Again, if you have such big problems with allocating a window for a bo3 compared to a bo1 then you should not be playing spl but rather taking care of whatever else it is that makes your life so overloaded and stressful. Picking teams would not take that much more time. I care a significant amout more about DPP Cup than SPL, yet every single week I have more problems picking a team for SPL than I ever had for DPP Cup, OST when I cared a lot and Classic in general. Because I need to worry less about match-up fishing and because not getting the team call perfectly right once will not cost you the series.
On top of that, how many players, including you, participate in a lot of side tours while spl is running and yet worry about the time cost. Do we want the best players to put in time in the supposed most prestigious tournament or do we value their ability to play in every side tour more?


I dislike the idea of having it agreed upon by both players as we do not enforce any other handshake agreements and this is just asking for a logistical headache. We are already approaching lawyer status with all of the specifics that get codified, and now we would be digging far deeper.

If anything, the precedent RBY sets for a whole tier to just be Bo3 universally in team tournaments is the only way to do it. If a playerbase like DPP really feels that strongly, then perhaps they can lobby for it and make it happen with enough support. I don’t really love it, but who am I — a non-DPP player — to regulate how DPP players engage in their metagame?

Thank you for considering the idea to let DPP players choose what DPP does.

So go off if you must, but I do not agree personally and specifically I would really prefer this not touching most generations, especially any generations I play :worrywhirl:

The arguments in the posts above are either non-arguments or arguments that appeal to the comfort of certain individual players at the cost of the overall competitiveness of the site. There is a strong desire to maintain status quo without any reasoning behind it other than "it might be more effort for players to play a bo3 and that could turn some off" and some other unfounded assertion and assumptions. Imagine if bo3 was there from the beginning and someone pops up and says "bo1, even though it is way less competitive, would be better because it could be less of a burden for players!"

I am strongly in favor of making DPP bo3 in future SPL iterations and I am not sure if I participate in future bo1s or just drop it in favor of Seasonals, DPP Cup and Ladder, where I don't have to deal with the stress of a bo1. I know I am also not the only one of that opinion.
 
Last edited:

Heroic Troller

Through the Sea of Time
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a defending SPL Champion
World Defender
Smogon TDs when you suggest to make "a website and community specializing in the art of competitive battling" more competitive.
I am a td, but first of all, a person and i'm not gonna deny myself the possibility to shit post from time to time just because of my role. If it's insulting to you or any other that i don't just make serious wall of texts, pay me and i will consider it. What most seem to forget is that these discussions happen over and over and you expect 7 guys to keep up and stay professional over thousand of discussions that usually go nowhere anyway with split factions. Not to mention how hard it is take seriously a thread that starts with bolding key parts as if we can't read and understand just fine without it.
That said i suppose from users stand point it's bs to receive just that so let me do the serious post too with my opinion. I don't get the outrage regarding the request which is just fine, as many said Rby has been bo3 for a while so dpp (or any other tier) requesting bo3 is nothing if not fair. Part of it might be that Rby has been bo3 for years so despite it being exactly the same it's been absorbed by now. Contrary to suggesting a change in 2023 that might open the door for other tiers too, a thing many won't accept. So in all seriousness i'm not opposed per se but i still think it's worse than bo1. No matter how much some say Dpp is easy to prep it's not nearly as simple as Rby and the workload would definetly pile up later having to prep +2 teams every week. Everything that includes gentleman angreement is out of the question. If the change happens it's gonna be fixed bo3 always.
So yeah to conclude, i personally respect the desire and see nothing wrong with it. I'd be fine having it. But still think it's an awful idea that the bo3 enthusiastic are trying to push ignoring the damage they would do to people with less time and energy than them.
If the Dpp community (and not just a couple of loud more influent known faces) feels really really strong about it, i will give support because i'm nobody to tell you how to play your tier.
 
Last edited:

Jirachee

phoenix reborn
is a Forum Moderatoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Top Team Rater Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
Moderator
I feel like the merits of Bo1 vs Bo3 are ultimately irrelevant to this thread - what johnny asked for is more receptivity to community output. The facts are that:

a) Bo1 and Bo3 both currently exist in SPL for single tiers,
b) Each individual generation behaves like its own sub-community,
c) Many people in the DPP community currently feel rather strongly about their preferences towards Bo3,
d) Players are already asked to vote on far more impactful things based on their participation in SPL; the GSC ML+BP ban being a good example.

Given that, I see no reason to deny each sub-community a voice in the Bo1 vs Bo3 debate. I'll give you that johnny's proposal is a bit clumsy, so here's another: there should be an exit survey for each generation in SPL. You can use that as a vehicle for improvement in the tournament as it is sorely lacking in community feedback. In that exit survey, you can poll players towards their preferences for Bo1 vs Bo3 and implement the change for the tournament's next edition if given enough support.

That exit survey would be beneficial regardless, I reckon. Players go through this grueling tournament and the only possible way to give feedback is to create a thread in this forum. That's incredibly time-consuming. Please let the players have more say over the way this tournament runs.
 

Finchinator

-OUTL
is a Tournament Directoris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Championis the defending OU Circuit Championis a Two-Time Former Old Generation Tournament Circuit Champion
OU Leader
mael said:
Preparing for a bo3 compared to preparing for a bo1 is not that much harder since match-up fishing is less problematic and the impact of bringing a team that is not perfect is lower. On top of that, by the end of the week people tend to have options anyway. Rarely do people build 1 team only and that's it for the entire week.
Preparing for a Bo3 is harder than a Bo1. Simply put: 3 is larger than one.

Not everyone prepares numerous good options each week.
Personally I will build multiple teams each week, but I will only be comfortable with one almost always.

Did some background for the sake of it: There are only 2 weeks this SPL where that hasn’t been the case and I’ve had multiple teams I would be content using. I would’ve had to accept a less competitive product or just not signed up. To put it bluntly, you firsthand see how much time and effort I put into preparation from our own team chat. Expecting more than that from every slot every week is outrageous and a non-starter.

mael said:
Also they have the option to allocate the time they can use for mons for a bo3. If you literally do not have the time to play a bo3 instead of a bo1 you're not supposed to be in spl either way.
mael said:
Again, if you have such big problems with allocating a window for a bo3 compared to a bo1 then you should not be playing spl but rather taking care of whatever else it is that makes your life so overloaded and stressful.

Who are you to be determining who is “supposed to be in SPL either way”? What history or rule or anything dictates this? Why are you trying to be the arbiter of what people are doing with their own time? This is silly conjecture.
mael said:
is not an argument but an assertion based on nothing.

Your own words towards ABR describe what you just did yourself essentially. There is no basis to say people do not want to play a Bo3 shouldn’t be playing SPL regardless (because of your assumed personal reasons) and it is just outright rude. It is not on you to dictate how others go about their life or allocation of their time.
Reading that less competitiveness should be embraced on a supposed competitive platform goes entirely against the premises of "a Pokemon website and community specializing in the art of competitive battling."
Bo3 gives players a larger sample to win. By default, it makes the physical games themselves more competitive. I agree even if the amount it matters varies.

Bo3 also comes with more time spent playing, scouting, building, and so on. Even if your personal tendencies will make it not take more time for some of these, that does not project to everyone. At the end of the day, this is a hobby and it already is a large time sink. Making it an even larger one is going to make it less appealing for many parties.

If you wish to take a stance that competition in the games is all that matters, be my guest. That is not my stance and that is why I am posting.

If DPP players as a whole feel strong enough, then the precedent of RBY can be employed. I am not getting in the way of this. My arguments are universal and based off of my experience firsthand and with teammates secondhand. I do not involve myself with tiers like DPP or RBY very much, but I do in a lot of others and as a TD, I feel it is my duty to share my thoughts.
 
It needs to be all Bo1 or all Bo3, using an opt-in system is bad. If you have 5 good players and 4 bad, then your argument essentially says that the bad players can artificially level the playing field by choosing Bo1. I don't see it as fair when the benefit of choosing Bo1 or Bo3 is unequal across the player base.

Very much behind sticking with Bo1 for SPL. I don't build/prep 3+ teams a week, I don't have time to do so. Selfish, sure, but I do think that competitive formats should take accessibility into account considering it is a hobby and not a paid lifestyle.

Only other comment is on matchup fishing. Agree it can be really annoying, but can we stop pretending that it's madly uncompetitive when a lot of time it happens because players are too predictable. I do think it can be problematic but it also seems to have become a buzzword excuse for losing after using similar styles on repeat. Risk-reward decision making extends beyond clicking buttons whilst the timer is on.

All that said, would welcome a wider survey. This should really extend beyond players in current or recent SPLs and include potential competitors. No idea how you define what "enough support" means though - how did RBY decide?
 
Last edited:
I am a td, but first of all, a person and i'm not gonna deny myself the possibility to shit post from time to time just because of my role. If it's insulting to you or any other that i don't just make serious wall of texts, pay me and i will consider it. What most seem to forget is that these discussions happen over and over and you expect 7 guys to keep up and stay professional over thousand of discussions that usually go nowhere anyway with split factions. Not to mention how hard it is take seriously a thread that starts with bolding key parts as if we can't read and understand just fine without it.
That said i suppose from users stand point it's bs to receive just that so let me do the serious post too with my opinion. I don't get the outrage regarding the request which is just fine, as many said Rby has been bo3 for a while so dpp (or any other tier) requesting bo3 is nothing if not fair. Part of it might be that Rby has been bo3 for years so despite it being exactly the same it's been absorbed by now. Contrary to suggesting a change in 2023 that might open the door for other tiers too, a thing many won't accept. So in all seriousness i'm not opposed per se but i still think it's worse than bo1. No matter how much some say Dpp is easy to prep it's not nearly as simple as Rby and the workload would definetly pile up later having to prep +2 teams every week. Everything that includes gentleman angreement is out of the question. If the change happens it's gonna be fixed bo3 always.
So yeah to conclude, i personally respect the desire and see nothing wrong with it. I'd be fine having it. But still think it's an awful idea that the bo3 enthusiastic are trying to push ignoring the damage they would do to people with less time and energy than them.
If the Dpp community (and not just a couple of loud more influent known faces) feels really really strong about it, i will give support because i'm nobody to tell you how to play your tier.
I mean if your substantive complaint to my post was that I bolded shit to make it easier to read and woe is me, people are complaining that in a position of power I voluntarily decided to shitpost, idk what to tell you. Forgive me for not having the infinite time to be around for every single iteration of this argument on discord/policy review.

In hindsight, going for a path of least resistance and asking for a community survey post spl like jirachee said discussing bo1 vs bo3 and other issues is the way to go rather than going through these posts that as we all know derail over and over again. When I played last year it was a huge time commitment, and I know there’s a lot of people who feel things could change w the tour. That way y’all can see in a more timely manner what the community feels rather than these threads that bubble up over time.
 
i am indifferent about bo1/bo3 for dpp in teamtours, but think both offer a different experience. it seems we've established amongst tds that it should be possible to support it in spl next year if the "dpp community" supports it, so let's talk about that.

If the Dpp community (and not just a couple of loud more influent known faces) feels really really strong about it, i will give support because i'm nobody to tell you how to play your tier.
appreciate this, but wonder why we need support of the entire dpp community. shouldn't we primarily focus on those involved/potentially involved with spl dpp, given that dpp is already bo3 to everyone else playing the tier in individuals? i wouldn't account for roapl, dpppl, etc.

for past dpp suspects, the council has curated qualified voting lists for big tiering decisions, so we can either defer to them, the tds, or a collaborative effort between the two to make a sufficient pool from which to survey. like abr alluded to, it's nonsensical to not have the format predetermined before spl signups. my suggestion is to see what the responses are like after spl is over. we have a small enough community to do this process holistically, imo, as long as the lists & results are publicized. we can also start by making roapl/dpppl bo3 dpp to get a feel for it.
 

HANTSUKI

satan saves xmas
is a Pre-Contributoris a Past SPL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
RUPL Champion
I still don't get where did you all get the illusion that bo3 will minimize luck and matchups.

Do you know why bo3 work in chess? Because the board is always the same for the matches. Why does it work in VGC? Because both players have the same 6 mons to pick each match and they both know the teams. Why does it work in mobas? Because the matchup is decided during the game with picks and bans, using the draft skills of both teams.

If you can change teams between the matches you're just gambling the matchup again. Players are not machines and the teams they bring can be decided in many factors outside of reason, so you'll never be able to predict anything. It's just a gamble, trust me. Also each team has a combination of moves and possible RNGs that make each game just too different from each other and unique. Probably the best player will win more times in a bo3 than a bo1, I don't doubt that, but in the case of pokemon that difference is not that significant to justify the extra time players will have to dedicate to a hobby. At least that's my experience in almost 18 years of competitive mons. I've seen many bad players beat good players in bo3s as I'ven seen in bo1s. I've seen matchup fishing in both formats and in all gens alike.

Also, to be ACTUALLY competitive, you need to have the format decided before the tournament starts. You can't decide it after the players were drafted for obvious reasons and you can't have a vote without knowing who is going to actually play as well for another obvious reasons lol. Gentlepeople agreements don't work and having some matchups being bo3 and others bo1 is just unfair in the information war and doesn't make sense to have people playing different formats in an actual competition. So having players decide in each set is NOT more competitive at all, since each player will be in a different kind of tournament.

There's also the blablabla you need more time for bo3s etc. I'll just say that I'm the type of player who can build many teams in a few hours so it would not be a problem to me, for example, to play bo3s. But please, have some empathy for the other people who don't have the same available time or just don't prep the same way you do. Do not reward being a neet anymore our formats already do.

To bo3s in SPL to work, I can imagine only 2 scenarios that balance being competitive, fair and keeping it at a hobby for all players involved:

1- Bo3s using the same team in every game - that would ACTUALLY show who's the best player and balance luck, because you'll have the same possibilities each time;
2- Somehow manage to actually confirm that every single possible player in the next SPL iteration will prefer a bo3 format, so everyone can have your fun and have the same advantages/disadvantages of a bo3 scenario. That means picking the exact pool that will be drafted in your sample.

I dislike both options for different reasons anyway.

Oh, I'm also saying all this applying to any tier, don't really care if it's a DPP thing or not. If you apply to DPP you'll have everyone else asking for votes and that will be just dumb because you have no way to make the votes actually fair.

I'm tired of writing anyway, tl;dr keep everything bo1. Don't fall for the illusion that it'll really change that much the luck/matchup problems.

Boomer out.

(make RBY bo1 again)
 

BIHI

Sawubona kheys omncane yi-lagrimbe
is a Tiering Contributoris a Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Championis a Past WCoP Champion
World Defender
I'm pro Bo1 in teamtours, I already had the discussion in the past so i won't do it again but basically I think Bo1 is the reason why these tours (especially SPL) are so popular and enjoyable and I also think that despite what anyone could say, a lot of creativity would be lost if the shift was made to Bo3. I think SPL is the perfect balance between competition and hype and it's no surprise this tour is by far the most popular one.

However the decision to play in Bo1 or Bo3 belongs to the community and any playerbase should have the right to decide for their own format. We're in a situation in which a large part of the playerbase doesn't feel comfortable signing up in SPL because it's Bo1 which is obviously detrimental for the tournament as a whole. A vote should be held and past SPL DPP Players as well as new upcoming players should be able to vote for Bo1 or Bo3.
 
Everyone talks about whether or not DPP should be bo3, citing that RBY can pull it off and the community favors it etc.

I think the opposite should occur, and RBY should go back to bo1 and be like every other tier. Many people, including myself, consider it sufficiently competitive and no more rng filled than other tiers. If this is the case, there’s no need for the special treatment it has received.

Technically it would be a “big change” so you can poll RBY players / those in SPL, but it’s also just a simple solution TDs can make. It would also help chip away at the outcast rep RBY has to some. It shouldn’t be viewed as an archaic rngfest in need of more games. It should be viewed as an equally competitive tier capable of functioning with the same format.
 
Looking through most of this thread for the first time, it's kind of strange how off-topic everyone was with these replies. Debating between bo1 and bo3 is absolutely not the point of this thread - the question is whether the players should have a right to vote on it. Allowing the vote does not mean it's automatically going to be bo3, it will only be that way if the majority of the SPL playing playerbase wants it to be. It does however say a lot that none of the people who seem so vehemently opposed to this play the main format in question here, DPP, in SPL.

I do agree with ABR on one thing though, RBY still getting special treatment at this point makes no sense. It's well accepted that the "variance" argument is nonsense at this point, there is no format of pokemon that doesn't suffer from this, just look at the number of games decided by RNG in your average team tour. I don't think "prep" is really a valid argument either. How much time you spend on prep to me depends on the person and not the format. Anyone who has played SPL before can tell you how much RBY players prep - way more than I ever have or will for the formats I play. The fact that many of the same mons get brought game after game means it's more pertinent to study how your opponent reacts to common scenarios. The prep is different but it's certainly not "less", especially for most players that seem to feel like they need to spend hours preparing for their opponent because it's SPL. No one is actually forcing you to do this either way though. If the request to let the players vote just gets a straight up "no" and nothing else, I would hope we'll see some consistency then and revert RBY to bo1.
 
What's needed to be said has already been said, I think it makes sense to let the people playing the tier decide on how it gets played. I feel pretty strongly that there's a good portion of DPP players who would like to try bo3 next SPL and see how it feels, if people don't like it can always be reverted. If TDs agree that we can try bo3 if there's enough support for it then I think the next step forward is figuring out who should vote on it. I feel like polling SPL starters from the past 2 years makes sense, and people who are likely to start next in DPP next SPL (people active in the community, doing well in circuit etc). Alternatively more objective metrics similar to what's used in tiering surveys could work like:

Top 4 in DPP Cup
Top 4 in DPP Global Championship 2023
Top 4 in DPP Summer Seasonal 2023
Top 2 in DPP Winter Seasonal 2023
Top 2 in DPP Summer Seasonal 2023
Top 4 in JDI 2023

but I feel this could exclude some people who are likely to play in next SPL, so I favor a more subjective poll that's under scrutiny by the DPP council.

Posts about making RBY bo1 only serve to prove how little we care about player enjoyment and what they want. Going completely against what the players want for the sake of proving a point is really silly, Troller's post summarizes it well I think. Also I'd like approval before going ahead with figuring out a poll.
 
Last edited:

Heroic Troller

Through the Sea of Time
is a Tiering Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a defending SPL Champion
World Defender
Playerbase votes are a terrible idea, they are plagued by bias. What is needed are compelling arguments and the tds to be moved by them and make the change, not a crowd of people who will do what bkc/abr tell them to without a second thought, else we repeat the gems fiasco. Hence the just "no". About half the arguments are "rby does have it so we should too", but that is only a good argument for having it bo3, not why it would be good for the tier/tournament.

I have always enjoyed bo3 more in any format, watching players adapt to each other, and the magic of the third game. Which is why i always turned a blind eye to rby bo3, it's obviously the odd man out and it makes zero sense in the format. "Don't touch what isn't broken" got us this far, but yeah, bo1 rby is the most logic, and one cannot in good faith disagree with it. Although i'm fine with keep as is, especially if the guys pushing for it don't play it and just want to make changes for the sake of changes.

My point is, i'm against vote, not dpp bo3 by itself. As i'm not playing it i couldn't care less how much more work the dppers get or how ugly the format gets, would just enjoy the show. As a teammate of various dppers during the past spls, the idea of having them prep x3 seems absolutely awful but if they want it and have great arguments that don't rely on symmetry, go right ahead by all means.
 

MANNAT

https://spo.ink/aq7
is a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Top 4 in DPP Cup
Top 4 in DPP Global Championship 2023
Top 4 in DPP Summer Seasonal 2023
Top 2 in DPP Winter Seasonal 2023
Top 2 in DPP Summer Seasonal 2023
Top 4 in JDI 2023
This sample size of tours strongly excludes people that only play team tours, i.e. the group most likely to favor bo1. Obviously, if you poll people who did well in a bunch of bo3 tours they’re going to favor bo3. There’s so many more bo3 tours that are easily accessible that using tournament result metrics like this is always going to skew it towards bo3.

That being said I don’t really agree with polling the player bases on these kinds of decisions in the first place. Like Troller said, player bases will be rife with bias and tend to vote for what they’ll do better in and that won’t produce the format that’s best for the tournament as a whole. Changing the tier to bo3 changes the draft and team support dynamics and that impacts managers as well as the rest of the team, so I don’t really buy the whole “just let the tier’s playerbase do what they want it doesn’t affect anyone else” argument. In that same vein, managers shouldn’t be polled on this either because they’re going to default to whatever format is strongest for their retain options or planned DPP player.

These types of decisions should be on the hosting/TD team as much as it sucks that they’ll get backlash for their decisions from unhappy parties. It’s sort of the reason why those teams exist in the first place. People that aren’t participating in the tour are the most likely to be unbiased parties and make the best decision on these matters.
 
Last edited:

SoulWind

is a Community Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis the 6th Smogon Classic Winneris the Smogon Tour Season 32 Championwon the 9th Official Ladder Tournamentis a defending SPL Championis a defending World Cup of Pokemon Championis a Two-Time Past SPL Championis a Past SCL Champion
Big Chungus Winner
There is no reason to have bo3 in any tier in team tournaments.

And the distinction with individuals is pretty simple. If you lose in an individual you are out of the tournament. If you lose in a team tournament there's still 9 (or 11 or whatever it is the number) teammates out there that can do the deed for you.

At the moment, RBY players are in a situation of privilege over the rest, because of bad decisions taken a decade ago and refusal to eliminate the status quo. Of course this leads to other communities like DPP claiming they deserve the same treatment (they do). So you either allow Bo3 for All or None. And no, RBY is not bo3 because "building is way easier and takes no time". This is the Mandela effect.

Personally, I am against bo3 (and I would be extremely benefited by it) simply because it leads to utter boredom. People will constantly reuse teams (which is already common practice in bo1) and lead to a constant snoozefest in virtually any series. Tournaments in general are already in a constant regression but everyone awaits team tournaments, even more in the case of SPL, which is the most anticipated tournament of the year. Killing what makes the tournament fluid and entertaining to get an average of 1-2 more sheet wins for the better player sounds like shit.

tl;dr It's been 10 years, end the goddamn player privilege already. If you want to take the ass route and allow bo3 in every tier good. But there is no justification to not having equal treatment for all players. And obviously, this is not up to playerbases following what their shepherd says, it is a TD matter.
 

D4 Repertoire

goin' fast
is a Tiering Contributor
I posted this in the Discord in response to someone claiming drawbacks of bo3 are just "aesthetic preference" and was asked to also post it here.

Drawbacks of bo3:

1.) >3x the work to change the result <1/4 of the time
2.) workload excludes many from being able to play who can play bo1
3.) workload accelerates mid tour burnout
4.) workload drastically hurts team collaboration (the team as an entity has to pump out more and more teams week in week out the more bo3 slots there are)
5.) the sheer number of games inhibits spectating and discussing teammate's games
6.) the sheer number of games worsens the spectacle of SPL Sunday (and Saturday) and reduces the tension and hype of the tour
7.) workload likely would reduce quality of teams / games
8.) inconsistent format between slots is bad

SPL is a Team tournament, and the format of the slots affects a lot of things and everyone in the tournament. I oppose this tendency to hold votes on things with only a subset of the relevant stakeholders (like only asking SV players how many SV slots there should be lol). The purpose of each slot is not to settle for all time who the better player is, but to determine a winner on a given day via a game of Pokemon that counts towards the overall bo12 Team match.

Also, bo3 does a poor job at addressing variance relative to its costs:
55% -> 57.475%
60% -> 64.8%
65% -> 71.825%
70% -> 78.4%

Variance in; variance out, even with a couple more games.

Some of these things are way less important than others (like #6), but I included everything that came to mind.

#8 I think is intrinsically bad as others like SoulWind explain, but it is also bad because it gives some tiers undue weight over others in tiebreaks (you could argue that this should just be accounted for in the draft, but I'd contend that it is still bad to have the inconsistent format sway things over the teams / players / tiers themselves).

The point of it being more work to prepare more good teams is surprisingly contentious, but I will also state here that while it is possible for certain individuals to prepare in such a manner that they personally put in similar work to a bo1 or bo3, I contend that they are inherently over-preparing for bo1 and/or under-preparing for bo3 in that case and are at a competitive disadvantage in bo3 compared to someone who actually puts in 3x the effort. Also, there are players who do not prepare in this manner that bo3 hurts (#2).

Also, in regards to voting on it: whom to include in the vote and where to set the required % to change are both big issues, as other like Mannat have pointed out.
 

false

maybe this is heaven
is a Tournament Directoris a Forum Moderatoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Top Tutor Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a defending SCL Championis a Past SPL Champion
Moderator
After internal deliberation, the TD team will be implementing best-of-one for all official team tournament matches.

This decision was reached by unanimous vote, citing the desire for consistency between all format slots. Additionally, the fact that all games are already contained within a larger series makes bo3’s potential to lessen the impact of factors such as hax & matchup luck difficult to justify relative to the additional commitment.

Furthermore, we will not be upholding any form of gentleman's agreement or selective submission of games. Players may not retroactively determine whether or not a game is official. Attempts to circumvent this rule will result in the game in question being invalidated, with the players involved being infracted. Subsequent attempts will result in a tourban.


modedit: this was changed, rby will remain bo3 and other tiers will remain bo1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top