-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Implemented WCOP Format (tiers)
- Thread starter Luigi
- Start date
- Status
Both ideas really look entertaining, I would say that I like Luigi format , but I would only be choosing what is best for us as a team.
So I will just give my opinion as a player ( i'm not supporting any idea ), but in case malekith idea is the winner, 6sv/2pick/2pick could be the best way to go, I think it is less susceptible to tiebreakers and for teams that adapted better last year mono CG, they can achieve those 8sv spaces once again that they had if their 2 picks are SV OU + 2 tiers in which the rival has an advantage. 10 starters / 3 to 5 subs.
Edit: I also think that SV OU should continue to be the most represented tier in the tournament.
So I will just give my opinion as a player ( i'm not supporting any idea ), but in case malekith idea is the winner, 6sv/2pick/2pick could be the best way to go, I think it is less susceptible to tiebreakers and for teams that adapted better last year mono CG, they can achieve those 8sv spaces once again that they had if their 2 picks are SV OU + 2 tiers in which the rival has an advantage. 10 starters / 3 to 5 subs.
Edit: I also think that SV OU should continue to be the most represented tier in the tournament.
Last edited:
Posting because I don't think malekiths format should ever be seriously considered. Expecting teams to be able to flex into every old gen and low tier is fucking ridiculous unless you're a team with an extremely deep signup pool of players with experience in multiple tiers. Being able to pick your own tiers isn't much of a benefit when your opponents have players for those slots and you do not have players for the opposite. In formats such as the original proposal or 5 cg + 5 old gens, it is possible to prepare for the tiers you are weak in if the format is known in advance, but there is no way to prepare for every single format on the website that you are weak in with a weeks notice from your opponents choice.
Canada does not support the proposal.
Canada does not support the proposal.
Male format doesn't wide the gap between the top teams and underdogs more than adding lowtiers or fairy gens , (underdogs team can just choose 2 cg ou and then it would be 2 not cg ou and not 5 or 6) and it doesn't have to be changed again in the future if we consider than a different lowgen than the ones chosen this time are better for the tourney ... because is just cg + pick .
Also, even "bigger teams" can have problems filling certain tiers (talking about spain, we have 0 ubers mains in the running uwc ,and the most close one for it in the region would be Garay which is more of a all-around player than a main of anything) so is not just a "disadvantage for small teams" but a check of the team implication to adapt to new tiers and improve as a region and as team. (plus this is pokemon, not chess, the best one doesn't always win)
Paraphrasing what troller said " the hype, they want to have big viewers and lobby go banana at crits, miss, strange techs " is something to consider as well and not only having the best possibles combats in every output (in my opinion that would the SPL appeal not the WCOP one) , and this is similar (tho less "wilder") to the format we played in pokespain in the "regional" (like wcop but with regions inside spain + latam as guest) and it was by far the most awaited tournament of the year and the one with the most hyped competitive and fun games.
PD: On another note as someone that has been out of smogon for years and didn't know about this "support small teams chances of winning over everything" situation regarding WCOP format, i found it pretty incredible and silly . It is the same as asking FIFA to make football games last 50 minutes instead of 90 and making the field small so the underdogs can do more upsets, that shouldnt be the reason a format is chosen or discarded. Inclusion is allowing everyone to play and not forcing the rules so everyone can win, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with teams which only realistic aspirations is making a good run or getting out of groups , and the upsets in that cases are better and more enjoyable (and if you want to help small teams , maybe forcing players to play for their nation and not for "superteams" like europe would be a better try), which is why i think that a group format like the one that has being proposed is better than pools because more people can participate and try their best.
PD2: In any case please just dont full CG (or any tier ) , having 40-50 games of the same tier every week is completely bs as a spectator , last year it was difficult to have interest in the tournament and i had some people that i talk in a daily basis and consider friends with a real chance of winning it (and in cases like reiku to finally achieve something they had been tried for a LONG time), imagine if the only interest i woulda have in the tournaments woulda be the games themselves
Also, even "bigger teams" can have problems filling certain tiers (talking about spain, we have 0 ubers mains in the running uwc ,and the most close one for it in the region would be Garay which is more of a all-around player than a main of anything) so is not just a "disadvantage for small teams" but a check of the team implication to adapt to new tiers and improve as a region and as team. (plus this is pokemon, not chess, the best one doesn't always win)
Paraphrasing what troller said " the hype, they want to have big viewers and lobby go banana at crits, miss, strange techs " is something to consider as well and not only having the best possibles combats in every output (in my opinion that would the SPL appeal not the WCOP one) , and this is similar (tho less "wilder") to the format we played in pokespain in the "regional" (like wcop but with regions inside spain + latam as guest) and it was by far the most awaited tournament of the year and the one with the most hyped competitive and fun games.
PD: On another note as someone that has been out of smogon for years and didn't know about this "support small teams chances of winning over everything" situation regarding WCOP format, i found it pretty incredible and silly . It is the same as asking FIFA to make football games last 50 minutes instead of 90 and making the field small so the underdogs can do more upsets, that shouldnt be the reason a format is chosen or discarded. Inclusion is allowing everyone to play and not forcing the rules so everyone can win, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with teams which only realistic aspirations is making a good run or getting out of groups , and the upsets in that cases are better and more enjoyable (and if you want to help small teams , maybe forcing players to play for their nation and not for "superteams" like europe would be a better try), which is why i think that a group format like the one that has being proposed is better than pools because more people can participate and try their best.
PD2: In any case please just dont full CG (or any tier ) , having 40-50 games of the same tier every week is completely bs as a spectator , last year it was difficult to have interest in the tournament and i had some people that i talk in a daily basis and consider friends with a real chance of winning it (and in cases like reiku to finally achieve something they had been tried for a LONG time), imagine if the only interest i woulda have in the tournaments woulda be the games themselves
First off I wanna say as someone (I think one of the few itt) to have played on pokespain with the tier pick format, I understand its appeal. It’s an exciting new experience for all managers, players and spectators which is rather unprecedented in official team tours, kinda like what snake draft failed to do. However, it isn’t without its flaws. In my eyes one of the biggest problems with old gens in this tournament and the reason they were removed doesn’t lie in accessibility. Anyone good enough can pick up an old gen and play it at a competitive level or beyond that if they put their mind to it. The resources are there, the communities are welcoming and new players come up every year in spl. The issue is that, unlike with current gen and current gen lower tiers, no matter how many hours u grind or how much effort u put in, u will never be favored against BW Soulwind or RBY Troller or GSC Conflict, the list goes on. The veterans in old gens are veterans for a reason, they’ve played these tiers for longer than most ppl have played pokemon and even if they’re not unbeatable, chances are very slim. Not every team has access to players of the highest caliber and in the past we’ve seen how World Cup was ruled by East, which had a monopoly on some of the most renowned veterans.
Should we move forward with this format, I would expect a repeat of history. Yes I know on paper the format is technically fair because u get your own picks as well but lets not act like the strongest players on say Team Canada will give them the same edge as any of the powerhouses in the tournament. I understand this would be the most enjoyable format, but it would be the furthest from balanced. I know World Cup is inherently unbalanced, but I think we’re trying to strike a middle ground here between balance and enjoyment and this isnt it.
Team Latinamerica would prefer one of the fixed formats in Stars post.
Should we move forward with this format, I would expect a repeat of history. Yes I know on paper the format is technically fair because u get your own picks as well but lets not act like the strongest players on say Team Canada will give them the same edge as any of the powerhouses in the tournament. I understand this would be the most enjoyable format, but it would be the furthest from balanced. I know World Cup is inherently unbalanced, but I think we’re trying to strike a middle ground here between balance and enjoyment and this isnt it.
Team Latinamerica would prefer one of the fixed formats in Stars post.
I think that the Malekith format works against competitive interests of this tournament across multiple vectors.
-It inherently invites significant skill discrepancies in matchups. The two teams' respective wildcard slots may in theory equalize each other (and I would disagree with this anyway), but the individual games suffer for it, as most teams are unlikely to have an equitable (let alone optimal) performance spread across every possible tier selected during the course of the tournament. This format--in the context of WCoP--promotes sacrificial one-sided beatdowns, match-up cheesing, and players being put on the spot to grind a metagame for a single week or wing a match-up completely (neither of which are desirable from their end of the tournament experience).
-It is a severe restrictive factor on countries with shallow pools, which negatively impacts their chances of advancing through the tournament and growing from the experience--this is something I would pose as detrimental to the long-term health of the WCoP format, as it promotes stagnation.
This said, the Malekith format does have significant novelty / entertainment value and its logistical issues are not impossible to navigate depending on how the pool of contestants is set up. I would be in favor of testing it in a new team tournament.
-It inherently invites significant skill discrepancies in matchups. The two teams' respective wildcard slots may in theory equalize each other (and I would disagree with this anyway), but the individual games suffer for it, as most teams are unlikely to have an equitable (let alone optimal) performance spread across every possible tier selected during the course of the tournament. This format--in the context of WCoP--promotes sacrificial one-sided beatdowns, match-up cheesing, and players being put on the spot to grind a metagame for a single week or wing a match-up completely (neither of which are desirable from their end of the tournament experience).
-It is a severe restrictive factor on countries with shallow pools, which negatively impacts their chances of advancing through the tournament and growing from the experience--this is something I would pose as detrimental to the long-term health of the WCoP format, as it promotes stagnation.
This said, the Malekith format does have significant novelty / entertainment value and its logistical issues are not impossible to navigate depending on how the pool of contestants is set up. I would be in favor of testing it in a new team tournament.
US South strongly supports the format from Luigi's OP and Star's post, with a preference for 10 slots and SV DOU over SV OU5.
While I and a couple others find the idea of Malekith's format fun, we agree with the sentiments shared by Canada and LATAM. The format is too favorable for teams with top 0.1% players and harsh on teams without deep benches. We believe the original format proposed strikes a better balance between competitiveness and enjoyment, allowing the most teams possible to be contenders while addressing the issue of staleness.
edit: we're cool with groups/weeks or pools, don't really care either way
While I and a couple others find the idea of Malekith's format fun, we agree with the sentiments shared by Canada and LATAM. The format is too favorable for teams with top 0.1% players and harsh on teams without deep benches. We believe the original format proposed strikes a better balance between competitiveness and enjoyment, allowing the most teams possible to be contenders while addressing the issue of staleness.
edit: we're cool with groups/weeks or pools, don't really care either way
Last edited:
Team Latin America fully supports the original formats proposed by both Luigi (in the op) and starmaster.
While we believe Malekith's format is fun and fresh, we think it accentuates the issues that inherently WCoP already has as a region-based tour (historically stronger teams being able to slot more players into a wider diversity of tiers). Another factor to consider is the amount of tiers that said players have to learn in order to perform decently specially considering each team would do different picks. I think it's unrealistic to pretend the learning curve of some tiers is small enough to pick it up in just a few days.
While we believe Malekith's format is fun and fresh, we think it accentuates the issues that inherently WCoP already has as a region-based tour (historically stronger teams being able to slot more players into a wider diversity of tiers). Another factor to consider is the amount of tiers that said players have to learn in order to perform decently specially considering each team would do different picks. I think it's unrealistic to pretend the learning curve of some tiers is small enough to pick it up in just a few days.
I'm a little late on this now that the discussion has moved onto Malekith's proposal, but back when people were talking about Doubles players being "on an island," I figured I'd actually talk to a singles player learning Doubles and see how they felt about the process. This wasn't a conversation with a Big Deal Tournament Player, just someone I knew was actively learning DOU and could talk to about it. (I also censored their name because I forgot to ask for permission to use it, WHOOPS)
Honestly I think a lot of the detractors in this thread would benefit a lot from just trying out DOU - Pokemon is Pokemon, and I think a lot of good singles players who have never touched DOU would be pretty good at it; once they get over the basic mechanics hurdles, a lot of the same skills are still important.
As far as the actual topic on hand goes, I think Malekith's proposal is a cool idea, but not very good in practice. I would personally hate to play in a tournament where I didn't know the format until pairings got posted, and preparing with my teammates for every single oldgen and lowtier seems like a waste of time when only a small number of those formats will get played. I don't think I'd be good enough to get onto my WCOP team regardless of the format though, so this might just be ramblings.
[12:08 PM]Arcticblast: how has learning doubles been going?
[12:09 PM]x: very well actually
[12:10 PM]x: even though it feels like i'm relearning pokemon it's still kinda the same game?
[12:10 PM]x: honestly i think the differences between singles and doubles are probably overestimated by pple
[12:10 PM]x: although they are still very significant, i think
[12:11 PM]Arcticblast: I should know the answer to this one but I Done Did Forget - how long have you been working on it now? A couple months?
[12:13 PM]x: i've been sparsly playing doubles for a couple months but only have been really trying to learn for like 1 month now
[12:22 PM]Arcticblast: what do you think the most difficult part has been?
[12:30 PM]x: idk if i can pin point something in particular, it's just that there are quite a bunch of interactions and scenarios that can happen in doubles that couldn't in singles you have to learn about: for example, i recently realized you can bait the double protect with a fake out user by doubling to an other fake out user so you get a potential fake out that cannot be blocked by protect.
There also are some stuff that you can pull off in singles that you couldn't do as easily in doubles: for ex i felt like you don't really have for ex as much setup sweepers/cleaners in doubles that can just win the game when some checks are in range, stuff like that (maybe there are idk, my knowledge of doubles is still quite limited, but so far i was under the impression it at least doesn't work the same way at all). Of course stall and spikes are also examples
Honestly so far it just felt like that doubles shares a lot of aspects with singles, there are just new things that become possible and some other that stop becoming possible
[12:31 PM]x: i feel like if you take a good singles player and give them the time to familiarize with scenarios specific to doubles i think they probably would do well enough?
[12:32 PM]x: i honestly am not too sure
[12:32 PM]x: i've heard about [a prominent tour player] not doing great in doubles so maybe i'm underestimating the difference between doubles and singles
[12:09 PM]x: very well actually
[12:10 PM]x: even though it feels like i'm relearning pokemon it's still kinda the same game?
[12:10 PM]x: honestly i think the differences between singles and doubles are probably overestimated by pple
[12:10 PM]x: although they are still very significant, i think
[12:11 PM]Arcticblast: I should know the answer to this one but I Done Did Forget - how long have you been working on it now? A couple months?
[12:13 PM]x: i've been sparsly playing doubles for a couple months but only have been really trying to learn for like 1 month now
[12:22 PM]Arcticblast: what do you think the most difficult part has been?
[12:30 PM]x: idk if i can pin point something in particular, it's just that there are quite a bunch of interactions and scenarios that can happen in doubles that couldn't in singles you have to learn about: for example, i recently realized you can bait the double protect with a fake out user by doubling to an other fake out user so you get a potential fake out that cannot be blocked by protect.
There also are some stuff that you can pull off in singles that you couldn't do as easily in doubles: for ex i felt like you don't really have for ex as much setup sweepers/cleaners in doubles that can just win the game when some checks are in range, stuff like that (maybe there are idk, my knowledge of doubles is still quite limited, but so far i was under the impression it at least doesn't work the same way at all). Of course stall and spikes are also examples
Honestly so far it just felt like that doubles shares a lot of aspects with singles, there are just new things that become possible and some other that stop becoming possible
[12:31 PM]x: i feel like if you take a good singles player and give them the time to familiarize with scenarios specific to doubles i think they probably would do well enough?
[12:32 PM]x: i honestly am not too sure
[12:32 PM]x: i've heard about [a prominent tour player] not doing great in doubles so maybe i'm underestimating the difference between doubles and singles
Honestly I think a lot of the detractors in this thread would benefit a lot from just trying out DOU - Pokemon is Pokemon, and I think a lot of good singles players who have never touched DOU would be pretty good at it; once they get over the basic mechanics hurdles, a lot of the same skills are still important.
As far as the actual topic on hand goes, I think Malekith's proposal is a cool idea, but not very good in practice. I would personally hate to play in a tournament where I didn't know the format until pairings got posted, and preparing with my teammates for every single oldgen and lowtier seems like a waste of time when only a small number of those formats will get played. I don't think I'd be good enough to get onto my WCOP team regardless of the format though, so this might just be ramblings.
let's reduce the tedium of 8x SV OU by doing 6x SV OU, and 4 curb stomps. 
I won't address any of the other obvious flaws with the format that other people have touched but instead I'll mention something that stands out to me the most, and hasn't gotten that much attention, which is the fact that I'm just not seeing the hype you guys are seeing with this format. Take for example the groups Drifting made a few pages ago:
Let's say Spain picks BW for SoulWind and DPP for Malekith. Are you really excited to see SoulWind and Malekith vs the best UK, India, LA and China have to offer in BW and DPP? That's hype to you?
For the sake of argument, let's say one of the teams, for example LA, actually has a great BW. Nice, we get to see SoulWind vs that guy! Except, Spain isn't stupid and instead the week they face LA they pick ADV for M Dragon instead, and put SW elsewhere (probably one of LA's tiers). Now we get to see M Dragon curbstomp Leo instead. Woo.
The dream you're envisioning of Roro vs Tama in DPP, or the random that Bangladesh threw at Troller in RBY winning is gonna be a very small percentage of games on the wildcard slots. The crushing majority of them are gonna be curbstomps, when you get a strong team vs a weak team, or 2 guys you never heard of in SV RU, cause Belgium thought that that's where they had an edge vs the other team. And at the end of the tournament all teams will have 2 guys that are 1-5 or 0-6 and that had a dogshit time in the tour.
When the entire justification for the format is how hype it is, and this is the result, I just don’t see it.
I won't address any of the other obvious flaws with the format that other people have touched but instead I'll mention something that stands out to me the most, and hasn't gotten that much attention, which is the fact that I'm just not seeing the hype you guys are seeing with this format. Take for example the groups Drifting made a few pages ago:
Let's say Spain picks BW for SoulWind and DPP for Malekith. Are you really excited to see SoulWind and Malekith vs the best UK, India, LA and China have to offer in BW and DPP? That's hype to you?
For the sake of argument, let's say one of the teams, for example LA, actually has a great BW. Nice, we get to see SoulWind vs that guy! Except, Spain isn't stupid and instead the week they face LA they pick ADV for M Dragon instead, and put SW elsewhere (probably one of LA's tiers). Now we get to see M Dragon curbstomp Leo instead. Woo.
The dream you're envisioning of Roro vs Tama in DPP, or the random that Bangladesh threw at Troller in RBY winning is gonna be a very small percentage of games on the wildcard slots. The crushing majority of them are gonna be curbstomps, when you get a strong team vs a weak team, or 2 guys you never heard of in SV RU, cause Belgium thought that that's where they had an edge vs the other team. And at the end of the tournament all teams will have 2 guys that are 1-5 or 0-6 and that had a dogshit time in the tour.
When the entire justification for the format is how hype it is, and this is the result, I just don’t see it.
Last edited:
I mean, wouldn't it be interesting tho ? We generally see this only in tiebreak case, to pick a tier depending of the opponent's team. For once, being able to do that a whole tournament could be fun and refreshing, at least in my opinion.
----
Without any quoting, my opinion in the general question would be :
Either you want a more fun tournament, in that case Malekith's idea would be a very cool format to at least try
Or you want a "as fair and square" tournament possible, and full current OU
If we start talking about "smaller country will have a rough time finding a player in X" or "yes but the pool would be very rough for Y", it sucks. It's impossible to do something totally fair for everyone since every single country would have a more or less big playerbase in each tier, and the thing that come as close as possible to "it's the same for everyone" would just be current OU for everyone. No need to have your RBY star or your ORAS enjoyer.
in terms of core players; oceania leans towards the op's format. ninjadog and eternally prefer tierpick.
personally, i do not understand the appeal of a format which incentivises sacking slots to raid bosses (unless your squad goes 15 deep with spl-caliber players across all tiers -- which is not the case for the overwhelming majority of teams). there is almost never a benefit to matching your best players vs another team's best players. ironic that what many seem to think will be the most inclusive is a format in which the best players from any given nation are incentivised to sit in their own tier specialised tier and beat up the throwaway scraps from other teams; leading to inflated records for the top dogs, and ruining the experience for the guys (often newer players) that will be thrown away.
i also find it absolutely terrific the logic gymnastics that some of the team representatives in this thread have been willing to go through. in one breath exclaiming that a format including lower tiers will "prevent countries from playing". to then, only days later, unequivocally supporting tierpick for being "optimal for smaller teams to incorporate new tiers". comedy.
on an aside, we still need to fix the problem that, for some reason, the strongest players for a handful of teams are allowed to completely shirk the entire purpose of the tournament format and instead run off to play for a worldstar compilation which shouldn't exist. i don't know how we can put so much focus onto the expansion of wcop, both in terms of inclusivity and format, but conveniently leave these smaller teams to die by forcing them to compete without their best players.
personally, as both the captain of oceania and a td, i hated the 8 cg ou format. it is utterly boring as both a spectator and a player, and does absolutely nothing for this purported "metagame development" that half the number of slots wouldn't also achieve. however, i did particularly enjoy the idea of wcop being a showcase for a nation's newgen chops, which is why i was so happy about the potential inclusion of tiers like uu and ubers. i don't think i can convince myself that dou is a necessary addition; i fundamentally do believe in the island concept. additionally, the inclusion of the masters gens does little to move the needle for me. i would say that i am definitely more of an enjoyer of ss, sm, oras than the average smogoner (and i definitely appreciated having tiers other than cg ou in the format), but the appeal of this wcop format was never sold to me on the masters tiers, it was the lower tiers. all of this is to say that i think the most important thing for any format we choose is that we adequately allow for teams to showcase their current gen talent, let's not miss the wood for the trees and have every team start cheffing up their own format. let's grow current gen and make it the best it can be.
lastly, i think the "proper" world cup format with previous year seeding & group drawing would be quite cool. if there's a way to make the numbers work then i'd absolutely be keen to see that format implemented.
personally, i do not understand the appeal of a format which incentivises sacking slots to raid bosses (unless your squad goes 15 deep with spl-caliber players across all tiers -- which is not the case for the overwhelming majority of teams). there is almost never a benefit to matching your best players vs another team's best players. ironic that what many seem to think will be the most inclusive is a format in which the best players from any given nation are incentivised to sit in their own tier specialised tier and beat up the throwaway scraps from other teams; leading to inflated records for the top dogs, and ruining the experience for the guys (often newer players) that will be thrown away.
i also find it absolutely terrific the logic gymnastics that some of the team representatives in this thread have been willing to go through. in one breath exclaiming that a format including lower tiers will "prevent countries from playing". to then, only days later, unequivocally supporting tierpick for being "optimal for smaller teams to incorporate new tiers". comedy.
on an aside, we still need to fix the problem that, for some reason, the strongest players for a handful of teams are allowed to completely shirk the entire purpose of the tournament format and instead run off to play for a worldstar compilation which shouldn't exist. i don't know how we can put so much focus onto the expansion of wcop, both in terms of inclusivity and format, but conveniently leave these smaller teams to die by forcing them to compete without their best players.
personally, as both the captain of oceania and a td, i hated the 8 cg ou format. it is utterly boring as both a spectator and a player, and does absolutely nothing for this purported "metagame development" that half the number of slots wouldn't also achieve. however, i did particularly enjoy the idea of wcop being a showcase for a nation's newgen chops, which is why i was so happy about the potential inclusion of tiers like uu and ubers. i don't think i can convince myself that dou is a necessary addition; i fundamentally do believe in the island concept. additionally, the inclusion of the masters gens does little to move the needle for me. i would say that i am definitely more of an enjoyer of ss, sm, oras than the average smogoner (and i definitely appreciated having tiers other than cg ou in the format), but the appeal of this wcop format was never sold to me on the masters tiers, it was the lower tiers. all of this is to say that i think the most important thing for any format we choose is that we adequately allow for teams to showcase their current gen talent, let's not miss the wood for the trees and have every team start cheffing up their own format. let's grow current gen and make it the best it can be.
lastly, i think the "proper" world cup format with previous year seeding & group drawing would be quite cool. if there's a way to make the numbers work then i'd absolutely be keen to see that format implemented.
Since we must choose a dogshit format where LT are just random, (I’m still team Cg ou) let’s just choose Luigi’s format with 5x SV OU, Ubers UU SSOU (or smh else please lol) SM, and ORAS (???) or if we stick to 8 slots 5x SV OU and 3x old gens (I think this format is the best format actually but nvm), I don’t support Malekith format (even if it sounds really fun) at all, I don’t think a tierpick is the good choice for an official World Cup, I still believe this would just shut competitiveness and advantage bigger teams. While Malekith idea give a new shot to Classics tiers (for example) like RBY and GSC, including 18 tiers is just not possible to cover for at least half of the teams in this « prestigious » tournament (this won’t be the case anymore if you choose what is worse for WCoP) and while people are arguing that smaller teams will always be smaller teams, full CG OU was the most competitive format as we had new winners every years and plenty of « small » teams reaching playoffs. At least, give us fixed tiers, no matter what these tiers are, Trophies tournaments should always be competitive, we can try to make it fun, but without shutting competitiveness.
Last edited:
Really fast post: Don't overrate chosen tiers. No one is unbeatable in pokemon, specially in Bo1.
While I understand the posts mentioning examples like SoulWind in BW, Heroic Troller in RBY or whatever mainer of any Low Tier, you will have more info to prep than any of them against you, which is not enough to make the match-up even, but it helps, and the chosen slot is meant for you to have advantage. And on another note, whats the difference between the examples you said and, lets say, MDB2 in SS if you choose SS always to be played?
And last, I'm gonna bring here the last Tie-Breaks of the official team tournaments:
SPL: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/smogon-premier-league-xiv-finals-won-by-team-raiders.3718716/
SCL: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...n-by-studio-gible.3732434/page-2#post-9897400
3 matches were played with chosen tiers (SM OU / ORAS OU / SV DOU), ALL the players that did choose the tiers lost.
While I understand the posts mentioning examples like SoulWind in BW, Heroic Troller in RBY or whatever mainer of any Low Tier, you will have more info to prep than any of them against you, which is not enough to make the match-up even, but it helps, and the chosen slot is meant for you to have advantage. And on another note, whats the difference between the examples you said and, lets say, MDB2 in SS if you choose SS always to be played?
And last, I'm gonna bring here the last Tie-Breaks of the official team tournaments:
SPL: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/smogon-premier-league-xiv-finals-won-by-team-raiders.3718716/
SCL: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...n-by-studio-gible.3732434/page-2#post-9897400
3 matches were played with chosen tiers (SM OU / ORAS OU / SV DOU), ALL the players that did choose the tiers lost.
Last edited:
Then if we aim for competitiveness, 8 CG is just the format that provides the most of it.
soulgazer, SoulWind, Tuthur and BIHI all made detailed posts about why this format should, in their opinion, be at least regarded, and some of those counted among the most supported posts of the thread, but since the ten or so first posts where against it, the option instantly got disregarded. I know that for some people 'playing another 8 CG is unbearable', but if we are really coming back on the 'it would not be competitive' track talking about Luigi/Malekith format, you all have to realize that going for those was for the fun aspect, apparently.
Amaranth said it all: either you want fairness, fully competitive, and a maximum equity, and you do full CG OU, or you want to make the tournament fun and inclusive (and that's fine if it's your opinion, to each their own take on the tour!), and we go for Malekith's idea. But the half ass project of 'let's impose some tiers to the playerbase, but not too much, but a little more, but not to that extent' is a penible walk back and forth towards achieving the format of this tour.
Just so people know, I'm not writting out of a preference for one or the other of those three formats, I'm now fine with whatever the community can agree upon after discussing with our team, as long as it's not utter '15 main slots and we put in some OMs', but I just think that this middle option cognitive bias is going nowhere.
Yes.
Last edited:
There's a difference in roster quality between the tiebreak players in SPL and picking who to send to opponents chosen tiers in a world cup. When your options to send into your opponents strongest slot are McMeghan or Soulwind, its much easier than when you are facing McMeghan or Soulwind in their tiers of choice.
Staying out of the rest of this, false already spoke for Oceania, but the chosen tiers in draft tours like SPL and SCL is different because you can send your best overall player (who, if you're in playoffs of SPL or SCL, is likely to be one of the best players on the website already) into your opponents chosen slot to maximise your win %.
Belgium's opinion : Full CG OU > Luigi/Star model's (5SV no DOU) > Malekith's model
I'll try to take as many points as possible into consideration.
1) I think we're having this discussion today because of the lack of hype around the 9th generation. Last year, we would certainly have debated it, but not with such ardour and consideration. I've got a few guys in the group who are against it because it annoys them, but full CG OU is still the most competitive model. Maybe I'm not being objective because last year was incredible for Belgium, but personally I don't think we had a shit time at the last World Cup. We followed all the matches right to the end and there was a lot at stake. Beyond the natural potential of the players, we saw that those who put in the effort were capable of anything. With that in mind, we're in favour of the most stable format possible. To try and maintain as much of a collective dynamic as possible, where everyone can take part in the preparations.
In the event of a change, there will still be time to revert to full CG OU next year.
2) I'm tired of reading comments that belittle 'small teams' and that obviously don't realise the efforts they've made. In the words of Lhions , we're not trying to shorten the duration of a football match in the hope of getting draws, we're trying to avoid lengthening the duration of the match, whether it's the Luigi/Star or Malekith format. On the other hand, we're not giving up on the issue of player eligibility for continental teams. You'll be hearing from us again on this subject. It's clear that we're still paying for the privileges offered to players who can choose to play in Europe rather than in their home country at the current main event. To stay with football, it's as if, at the next World Cup, you took the best players from the different countries, who decided amongst themselves to form an All-Stars team in order to maximise their chances of success (bizarre, Europe almost won last year). To be clear, I don't blame the players from Europe (apart from those who speak badly and who will recognise themselves) but the system that allows this to happen. My request doesn't mean that we intend to introduce these players directly into our line-up, that's not a given.
3) Arguments in favour of the Luigi/Star format : Insofar as we are starting with a new format, this provides greater stability. Being able to choose lower tiers such as NU, PU or LC is detrimental to stability and will create inequalities. We want to emphasise collective efforts. Here, all you need is one guy in a team who's really strong in a tier and you're 70% guaranteed a weekly win. It's random. On the other hand, if you don't have one, there's an 70% chance of 2 loses. You could say that you just have to prepare for it and that a good player can adapt and have his chances. But given the number of tiers in the Malekith format, that's not possible. So, in a way, the Malekith format is going to give more of an advantage to teams with a large player base and distort collective preparation.
And to be honest, PU, DOU and LC in the World Cup? Welcome to the fourth dimension.
Personally, if the Malekith model were to be chosen, I would advocate "4SV OU + 2 choices of tiers per team between SV OU, SS OU, SM OU, ORAS OU" or "4SV OU + 2 choices of tiers per team between SV OU, SS OU, SM OU, ORAS OU, SV Ubers, SV UU (, SV DOU)".
Limiting the number of tiers would limit the gaps between players linked to personal experience and make it easier for team members to follow and participate in the mates' preparations. I insist that, by definition and by nature, a World Cup is an event in which the country must be able to feel involved. We don't want a random teamtour where everyone prepares a tier that most of the guys don't know about in their own channel discord.
I'll try to take as many points as possible into consideration.
1) I think we're having this discussion today because of the lack of hype around the 9th generation. Last year, we would certainly have debated it, but not with such ardour and consideration. I've got a few guys in the group who are against it because it annoys them, but full CG OU is still the most competitive model. Maybe I'm not being objective because last year was incredible for Belgium, but personally I don't think we had a shit time at the last World Cup. We followed all the matches right to the end and there was a lot at stake. Beyond the natural potential of the players, we saw that those who put in the effort were capable of anything. With that in mind, we're in favour of the most stable format possible. To try and maintain as much of a collective dynamic as possible, where everyone can take part in the preparations.
In the event of a change, there will still be time to revert to full CG OU next year.
2) I'm tired of reading comments that belittle 'small teams' and that obviously don't realise the efforts they've made. In the words of Lhions , we're not trying to shorten the duration of a football match in the hope of getting draws, we're trying to avoid lengthening the duration of the match, whether it's the Luigi/Star or Malekith format. On the other hand, we're not giving up on the issue of player eligibility for continental teams. You'll be hearing from us again on this subject. It's clear that we're still paying for the privileges offered to players who can choose to play in Europe rather than in their home country at the current main event. To stay with football, it's as if, at the next World Cup, you took the best players from the different countries, who decided amongst themselves to form an All-Stars team in order to maximise their chances of success (bizarre, Europe almost won last year). To be clear, I don't blame the players from Europe (apart from those who speak badly and who will recognise themselves) but the system that allows this to happen. My request doesn't mean that we intend to introduce these players directly into our line-up, that's not a given.
3) Arguments in favour of the Luigi/Star format : Insofar as we are starting with a new format, this provides greater stability. Being able to choose lower tiers such as NU, PU or LC is detrimental to stability and will create inequalities. We want to emphasise collective efforts. Here, all you need is one guy in a team who's really strong in a tier and you're 70% guaranteed a weekly win. It's random. On the other hand, if you don't have one, there's an 70% chance of 2 loses. You could say that you just have to prepare for it and that a good player can adapt and have his chances. But given the number of tiers in the Malekith format, that's not possible. So, in a way, the Malekith format is going to give more of an advantage to teams with a large player base and distort collective preparation.
And to be honest, PU, DOU and LC in the World Cup? Welcome to the fourth dimension.
Personally, if the Malekith model were to be chosen, I would advocate "4SV OU + 2 choices of tiers per team between SV OU, SS OU, SM OU, ORAS OU" or "4SV OU + 2 choices of tiers per team between SV OU, SS OU, SM OU, ORAS OU, SV Ubers, SV UU (, SV DOU)".
Limiting the number of tiers would limit the gaps between players linked to personal experience and make it easier for team members to follow and participate in the mates' preparations. I insist that, by definition and by nature, a World Cup is an event in which the country must be able to feel involved. We don't want a random teamtour where everyone prepares a tier that most of the guys don't know about in their own channel discord.
Last edited:
The difference is that if SS is always to be played one-sided games do not happen against teams that have a strong SS slot. In your format - even if the opposing team has a strong SS slot - we will just pick Michael in ORAS or Conflict in GSC or whatever gen we have the most advantage in making one-sided matchups a lot more frequent because they basically happen whenever the opposing team has any weak old gen and not only if they have a weak SS. Also it is easier to find a player willing to learn SS with months in advance of preparation time than to cover 16 different tiers across the whole team.
I don't think this format is in any way comparable to tie breaks (especially in SCL/SPL). Like Soulwind winning against Skype in SM is not a surprising win but most teams in wcop don't have a Soulwind who doesn't have to play SV OU to move into their opponents picks. In this format for wcop you still need your top players to cover the SV OU slots. Also in SCL/SPL you at least have a guarantee that every team has a mainer in every tier so no tie break matchup will be completely one-sided.
That's why I could see this format actually working in SCL/SPL, if we're willing to experiment there, but it isn't suited for a tour with limited player accessibility for every team and unequal teams. It could maybe work in wcop, if we limit the possible tiers to be chosen enough to ensure that most teams have a mainer in every tier (because then at least we won't have a majority of one-sided games) but then we run into the same problems already discussed with the Luigi format (which tiers do we cut and too strong of a disadvantage for smaller teams).
If you must change the format, go with the Doubles OU Star format.
Doubles OU is Smogon's take on The Pokemon Company's very own competitive format. It is highly competitive and worth picking up. Plus it will reduce the amount of SV OU slots, the exact thing you wish to do by not making it full CG OU - If you want change, just go all in. Don't be wishywashy.
Doubles OU is Smogon's take on The Pokemon Company's very own competitive format. It is highly competitive and worth picking up. Plus it will reduce the amount of SV OU slots, the exact thing you wish to do by not making it full CG OU - If you want change, just go all in. Don't be wishywashy.
After reading the many and varied points made by the other commenters in this thread, I want to share my experience of being the captain of a World Cup of Pokemon team. I hope this experience will help explain why I believe some of the more extreme proposals in this thread should not applied this year.
In 2014 I decided to work towards getting Greece to participate in the World Cup of Pokemon. I started gathering any Greek competitive players I could find. Their ability didn't matter as much, cause those of us that were experienced players could train them. The Smogon Tournament Director team of the time welcomed us into the World Cup of Pokemon and gave the opportunity to earn our spot through a qualifier. We had our first chance in 2015 and lost. We spent a year preparing, came back in 2016, and successfully qualified; eventually finishing in the Top 8.
Even though we could barely put together a squad of 15 players, we became a strong team mainly* because of the long preparation time combined with the stability of the format. Back then the format was 5x ORAS OU + 1x BW/DP/ADV/GSC/RBY OU. Since we knew the format, we knew exactly how to prepare. We assigned specific tiers to specific people for learning and built up a way stronger lineup than we had in 2015.
*(I say "mainly" instead of "exclusively" because 2/10 of our starting spots were filled by veterans that dekzeh recommended to us, and they made a return to competitive play.)
As a small team, we wouldn't be able to prepare properly if the Tournament Directors had made huge changes to the format that year. I'm not saying that the format shouldn't be changed ever; I'm saying that changes should be gradual and/or communicated early. We are currently just a few months before the 2024 tournament and I've read some proposals here that would completely change the tournament's format with several slots of different tiers. Small teams can't sufficiently adapt to such drastic changes on such a short notice.
In 2017 I was no longer directly involved with Team Greece's participation in the World Cup of Pokemon, and in 2018 I quit competitive Pokemon entirely for 5 years. But I was still following the World Cup of Pokemon as a spectator, and was happy seeing more and more teams become a part of it. One of the most beautiful things about the World Cup of Pokemon is its diversity. So many teams from all over the world coming together to compete in an international event; isn't that amazing? I believe the World Cup of Pokemon should be structured in a manner that encourages more and more teams to participate, not make it harder for them.
So please, I just ask one thing of you all. When you make your suggestions, consider if what you are suggesting would disproportionately affect the small teams. Big teams have deep playerbases and will be able to find knowledgeable players, even on short notice, no matter which tiers are in the tournament. But small teams are not able to do that.
In 2014 I decided to work towards getting Greece to participate in the World Cup of Pokemon. I started gathering any Greek competitive players I could find. Their ability didn't matter as much, cause those of us that were experienced players could train them. The Smogon Tournament Director team of the time welcomed us into the World Cup of Pokemon and gave the opportunity to earn our spot through a qualifier. We had our first chance in 2015 and lost. We spent a year preparing, came back in 2016, and successfully qualified; eventually finishing in the Top 8.
Even though we could barely put together a squad of 15 players, we became a strong team mainly* because of the long preparation time combined with the stability of the format. Back then the format was 5x ORAS OU + 1x BW/DP/ADV/GSC/RBY OU. Since we knew the format, we knew exactly how to prepare. We assigned specific tiers to specific people for learning and built up a way stronger lineup than we had in 2015.
*(I say "mainly" instead of "exclusively" because 2/10 of our starting spots were filled by veterans that dekzeh recommended to us, and they made a return to competitive play.)
As a small team, we wouldn't be able to prepare properly if the Tournament Directors had made huge changes to the format that year. I'm not saying that the format shouldn't be changed ever; I'm saying that changes should be gradual and/or communicated early. We are currently just a few months before the 2024 tournament and I've read some proposals here that would completely change the tournament's format with several slots of different tiers. Small teams can't sufficiently adapt to such drastic changes on such a short notice.
In 2017 I was no longer directly involved with Team Greece's participation in the World Cup of Pokemon, and in 2018 I quit competitive Pokemon entirely for 5 years. But I was still following the World Cup of Pokemon as a spectator, and was happy seeing more and more teams become a part of it. One of the most beautiful things about the World Cup of Pokemon is its diversity. So many teams from all over the world coming together to compete in an international event; isn't that amazing? I believe the World Cup of Pokemon should be structured in a manner that encourages more and more teams to participate, not make it harder for them.
So please, I just ask one thing of you all. When you make your suggestions, consider if what you are suggesting would disproportionately affect the small teams. Big teams have deep playerbases and will be able to find knowledgeable players, even on short notice, no matter which tiers are in the tournament. But small teams are not able to do that.
This is the point, luigi format does not solve anything we have with Full CGOU, the discussion should be to continue with Full CGOU(competitiveness) or the Kith format (fun, variety)
Team Italy is in support of the original format outlined in this thread (4-5 CG OU with a mix of old gens and lower tiers to reach 10 slots). Malekith's format could work in a draft tournament but applied to WCOP it exacerbates the inherent issue of the tournament, widening the gap between teams, and overall will make the experience for some of the players miserable.
Previous posts have already explained the issues with the format, I just want to add that the tiebreak scenarios that have been posted are not applicable or similar to what will happen here. Not only every player fielded in those tbs mained or at least was already competent in the tier picked or picked against (BIHI vs Troller in SPL 13 finals would've been a better example), but even if they weren't a mainer or competent already, learning a tier to win a game in a SPL/SCL tiebreak that can potentially win you the tournament or get you to the final is different than learning a tier for a game in a week that holds way less weight than a finals / semifinals tb which is an extraordinary occasion everyone is extremely motivated for. Luigi's format solves the issue of 8 CG OU, which is saturation of games in a single gen leading to boredom and overall less interest about the tournament, while striking a middle ground between enjoyment and balance; the only problem there is finding a criteria to pick whichever old gen / low tier will be part of the tournament. That said, whatever format ends up getting picked we would still prefer a round 1 with groups of teams and weeks instead of pools.
Previous posts have already explained the issues with the format, I just want to add that the tiebreak scenarios that have been posted are not applicable or similar to what will happen here. Not only every player fielded in those tbs mained or at least was already competent in the tier picked or picked against (BIHI vs Troller in SPL 13 finals would've been a better example), but even if they weren't a mainer or competent already, learning a tier to win a game in a SPL/SCL tiebreak that can potentially win you the tournament or get you to the final is different than learning a tier for a game in a week that holds way less weight than a finals / semifinals tb which is an extraordinary occasion everyone is extremely motivated for. Luigi's format solves the issue of 8 CG OU, which is saturation of games in a single gen leading to boredom and overall less interest about the tournament, while striking a middle ground between enjoyment and balance; the only problem there is finding a criteria to pick whichever old gen / low tier will be part of the tournament. That said, whatever format ends up getting picked we would still prefer a round 1 with groups of teams and weeks instead of pools.
- Status