Pre-OMPL XII Discussion Thread

[Isaiah]

HI guys, to make sure everyone's on the same page about OMPL this year, we're putting up this thread of the rules ahead of time. If you have any feedback about how the tour should work, now's the time to share it! This will be open for at least a week.

To get things started, here are some things to confirm:

• Should we change player signups to include "Tiers preferred (not binding) and "Tiers not played (binding)"? Pretty much what it sounds like. Drafted players cannot play any tier they list in the "Tiers not played" section, but anything else (even if not listed in "Tiers preferred") is fair game for a manager to slot them into. This tier lock would be lifted for playoffs.
• Number of substitutes per team: It was mentioned offhand a couple of times last year that maybe 3 subs would be better. That being said, if we're adding "Tiers not played", having more subs might be beneficial for teams in situations where they need to make a substitution and are struggling to find someone who actually signed up to play in that slot. So, perhaps the wave is just keeping 4 subs. Let us know what you think!
• Budget: Last year we did 100k total budget, 13.5k fixed self-buy price. This seems fine to go ahead with again, but just wanted to be sure everyone's aware
• Tiebreaker: Is everyone fine w/ the way our tiebreaks work? Our system does involve an element of forced RNG (since at least one and up to two of the tiebreak formats are just rolled randomly by a host), so if anyone thinks they have a better way to do this, let us know.
• Designated "emergency manager" player slot for subbing people in: We've seen multiple instances now where at least one of the players in a matchup isn't available for the battle and a sub would resolve the situation, but neither manager is available to do it in time to avoid an activity call. Should we allow managers to designate this authority to one of their players after the auction?
• Extra assistant manager during auction: At least one team last year asked to promote one of their players to manager so they could bid during the auction. Should we officially make this a thing? If it does become a thing, we'd likely limit it to no more than one "extra" auction manager per team so nobody can add every player and have them spam bids uncontested.
• Activity Calls: New addition to be more in line with what's outlined in the standard tournament rules and guidelines. When attempting to make an activity call, it's required to ping an entire team's role in the OM Discord before waiting the standard 30 minutes to call for an activity decision. This way, we can be sure that entire teams are alerted to situations where their player is missing.

Stuff that's not getting changed and isn't up for discussion:

• Number of teams and number of player slots per team: (8 teams, 8 players)
• Tier lineup: SV (AAA, BH, STAB, MnM, GG, PiC, INH, Bo3 AAA/BH/STAB) is not changing for this edition of OMPL. Any tier changes will have to be proposed + implemented for next year's edition.
• Trades: No lol

OMPL XII Rules

How this works

There are 8 teams this year. Each team will have have 8 players and at least 4 subs. The players are bought using the 100k credits that managers receive during the auction. Managers and co-managers will be allowed to purchase themselves as players for their team at a fixed price of 13.5k. The managers must inform the hosts (UT and berry) of all self purchases before the beginning of the auction. Teams can win their matchup every week by winning 5 of the 8 matches that their players have to play.​

​

The tier lineup this year is as follows: Almost Any Ability, STABmons, Balanced Hackmons, Godly Gift, Inheritance, Partners in Crime, Mix and Mega.​

​

It is recommended to play all games on SmogTours in the most current version of the format corresponding to those listed above. Games can be played on the Pokemon Showdown main server, but run higher risk of interference from server restarts/crashes. The result between players may be decided in a best-of-one or best-of-three at the discretion of both players involved. If there is no agreement, the result will decided in a Bo1 by default.​

​

Winning a round rewards a team with 2 points, drawing 1 point, and losing zero points. In addition, the manner in which the round has been won will also be recorded i.e. the difference between a team's wins and losses in a specific week's round (referred to as "Win Differential"). When points and win differential are the same between teams, the next tiebreak decider is considering who won the head-to-head matchup(s).​

​

Playoffs:​

Each team will play one another for seven weeks. Based on the final standings, the top 4 teams will enter a Playoffs Round to determine the teams appearing in the finals.​

Tiebreaker

In the event of two teams being tied for a spot in the finals based on points and win differential, or a tie in the final round itself, we will have a tiebreaker round(s).​

Tiebreaker Rules: One metagame will be picked by each manager, and each manager will also pick one metagame to strike. Additionally, each manager will submit a backup meta to strike in case their choice is the same as the opposing team's pick. The third format will be determined at random by the hosts from the remaining unpicked, unstruck metagames. In the event that the picks and strikes from each manager are the same, the hosts will determine both the second and third format at random based on the remaining options. All three metagames must be unique, so no format can be picked twice.​

Substitutes

Substitutes are to be used in the case of extenuating circumstances, whether on the first day of the week, or the last. At the same time, players should be relatively well-aware of who all are available to play in the opponent's camp. If last minute substitutes are being frequently used or abused and the hosts find explanations unsatisfactory, the hosts still reserve the right to veto them. In order to further prevent this being the case, teams are only granted a maximum of two substitutes per week. Any substitutions after the second will be vetoed.​

Trades
The hosts have decided to not include trades this year due to reasons outlined in this thread - all roster decisions will be final, so draft carefully!

Activity Calls
When attempting to make an activity call, it's required to ping an entire team's role in the OM Discord before waiting the standard 30 minutes to call for an activity decision. This way, we can be sure that entire teams are alerted to situations where their player is missing. Tagging the role for any other reason can result in removal from the OM discord.

​

 

[UT]

Should we change player signups to include "Tiers preferred (not binding) and "Tiers not played (binding)"? Pretty much what it sounds like. Drafted players cannot play any tier they list in the "Tiers not played" section, but anything else (even if not listed in "Tiers preferred") is fair game for a manager to slot them into.

I like this rule, but have one concern I would like to mitigate if possible: it can increase the number of activity wins in the tour.

Let’s say a team has their BH player miss a scheduled time, and during the 30 minute sub window, they have two subs available…but they both listed BH in tiers not played. This would result in an act win despite a team having players available (this concern is also exacerbated if we reduce the minimum number of subs).

I do not have a great solution to this; first thoughts were to not have “tiers not played” apply to players that go for 3 or 4k, or that tier lock only applies to starters and subs are unrestricted. Both of these have obvious drawbacks still and I don’t love them.

At the minimum, if we go with “tiers not played” (which other than this concern, I think is a good rule), we should keep subs at four. I would also love to come up with a rule that doesn’t increase the number of activity decisions, but admittedly don’t have a great idea myself.

The rest of the proposed changes I either like or do not feel strongly on.

 

[Evie]

• Should we change player signups to include "Tiers preferred (not binding) and "Tiers not played (binding)"? Yes. Prevents pricefixing. UT's ideas are okay but dont prevent pricefixing properly.
• Number of substitutes per team: At least 4. 4 subs gives good opportunites for up-and-comers to breakout and make a name for themselves. Also reduces likelihood of act wins, if "Tiers not played (binding)" is implemented we could even opt for 5 subs, as id expect to have the volume of signups to accomodate
• Budget: Last years is fine, if 5 subs are chosen we could increase it but i think last year's works well
• Tiebreaker: Not ideal but i cant think of any better alternatives.
• Designated "emergency manager" player slot for subbing people in: Yes. no downsides to this. Honestly I wouldn't even limit it to one and let any player the managers want be able to sub someone in. reduces act wins which is always a good thing
• Extra assistant manager during auction: I like this, definitely limit it to one player though
• Activity Calls: Yes, definitely enforce team pings.

 

[Vertigo]

"Tiers not played (binding)" is pretty much becoming standard in non-trophy team tours as well, with each subforum having their own set of rules regarding exceptions. A common one that UT mentioned is not having tierlock applying to 3k pickups, which also happen to be subs most of the time, so I think overall the drawbacks mentioned are mitigated in the specific scenario brought up above. Can't think of anything else where having tierlock not applying to 3k pickups is detrimental bar obvious situations which can easily be dealt with accordingly so I think it's a good idea to implement it that way.

Edit: The tierlock is lifted for playoffs, right? I see no mention of this but I assume this would be the case

 

[Isaiah]

The tierlock is lifted for playoffs, right?

Yes, forgot to include that and will edit it in

 

[DeepFriedMagikarp]

cant the players/team themselves break the "binding tiers not played" if needed for subbing in

 

[UT]

cant the players/team themselves break the "binding tiers not played" if needed for subbing in

The main idea for tiers not played is to prevent price fixing; if the players and managers can opt out of it, it no longer prevents price fixing.

 

[Fc]

• Should we change player signups to include "Tiers preferred (not binding) and "Tiers not played (binding)"? Pretty much what it sounds like. Drafted players cannot play any tier they list in the "Tiers not played" section, but anything else (even if not listed in "Tiers preferred") is fair game for a manager to slot them into. This tier lock would be lifted for playoffs.

Yes, it's not common but price fixing is cringe and there's no drawback to this

• Number of substitutes per team: It was mentioned offhand a couple of times last year that maybe 3 subs would be better. That being said, if we're adding "Tiers not played", having more subs might be beneficial for teams in situations where they need to make a substitution and are struggling to find someone who actually signed up to play in that slot. So, perhaps the wave is just keeping 4 subs. Let us know what you think!

3 subs is fine, I think requiring less players makes it easier for managers to plan a draft when you just have more credits for your starting roster rather than subs but also 4 felt like it worked fine last year so I have no preference.

• Budget: Last year we did 100k total budget, 13.5k fixed self-buy price. This seems fine to go ahead with again, but just wanted to be sure everyone's aware
• Tiebreaker: Is everyone fine w/ the way our tiebreaks work? Our system does involve an element of forced RNG (since at least one and up to two of the tiebreak formats are just rolled randomly by a host), so if anyone thinks they have a better way to do this, let us know.

Budget was good, with self buys you're down over a quarter of your budget so you can't buy too many super expensive players but it also doesn't make self buys unreasonable, good middle ground I found. Keeping tiebreaker the same is also fine, I think locking it to one specific meta as the starter is unfair in its own ways, like if one team wants to pick AAA already (since I assume that would be the main one chosen as the starter) you're just already down a game in terms of advantage. Random has issues too but w a PL for tiers like these it's hard to pick an objective best starter so random is fine.

• Designated "emergency manager" player slot for subbing people in: We've seen multiple instances now where at least one of the players in a matchup isn't available for the battle and a sub would resolve the situation, but neither manager is available to do it in time to avoid an activity call. Should we allow managers to designate this authority to one of their players after the auction?
• Extra assistant manager during auction: At least one team last year asked to promote one of their players to manager so they could bid during the auction. Should we officially make this a thing? If it does become a thing, we'd likely limit it to no more than one "extra" auction manager per team so nobody can add every player and have them spam bids uncontested.
• Activity Calls: New addition to be more in line with what's outlined in the standard tournament rules and guidelines. When attempting to make an activity call, it's required to ping an entire team's role in the OM Discord before waiting the standard 30 minutes to call for an activity decision. This way, we can be sure that entire teams are alerted to situations where their player is missing.

Agree with all of these, I think all team members should be allowed to sub if absolutely necessary but just appointing one is fine, helps for timezone conflicts with managers. Most tiers allow for a third bidder during auctions so this is fine, limit to 1 is also good but should be allowed imo. As long as tier roles are set up the third one is good too, tagging both managers worked fine but if we're allowing players to sub as well then it should be team wide.

I also want to suggest adding retains to this tournament. They help give returning franchises an identity by keeping cores of players that succeeded together, and are present in almost all team tours. For non-returning teams you can do something like this with retain preferences, but I think it would be a good change to have. Teams that are returning with the same managers or players from that team's last year should have automatic priority for taking the retains of their team last year, but beyond that it can just be up to preference in a signup format.

Manager signup format with retains

Manager name:
Co-manager name (if applicable):
Team name:
Team preference 1:
Team preference 2:

 

[UT]

I also want to suggest adding retains to this tournament. They help give returning franchises an identity by keeping cores of players that succeeded together, and are present in almost all team tours. For non-returning teams you can do something like this with retain preferences, but I think it would be a good change to have. Teams that are returning with the same managers or players from that team's last year should have automatic priority for taking the retains of their team last year, but beyond that it can just be up to preference in a signup format.

I am pretty against the idea of adding retains. Getting a good player for cheap already has a hefty reward the season you do it, there’s no need to add an additional benefit the subsequent year.

Additionally, since our player base is relatively small, we have a lot of volatility in starters every year; this would disproportionately advantage managers that got lucky and had a random sub evolve into a top-five player in their meta the next year, oftentimes largely through luck.

Finally, we have the significant challenge of our formats often change. This year for example, if you happened to be lucky enough to draft one of the PiC or Inh mains for 3k last year, you have a starting-caliber slot for extremely cheap through sheer luck. We should not be rewarding that.

I strongly dislike disadvantaging teams unnecessarily, and allowing some teams to purchase players for below market rate without competition is a significant disadvantage that new teams / managers cannot avoid. We need to be encouraging new managers, not discouraging them. Outside of manager self buys, which I view as a necessary evil to get adequate manager sign ups, I believe firmly that we should start teams on equal playing fields every season, and retains are antithetical to that.

 

[PandaDoux]

Free camomons

 

[UT]

Tiebreaker: Is everyone fine w/ the way our tiebreaks work? Our system does involve an element of forced RNG (since at least one and up to two of the tiebreak formats are just rolled randomly by a host), so if anyone thinks they have a better way to do this, let us know.

Quick post coming out of #tournaments: proposal to make AAA always included in the tiebreaker over the RNG slot (and then each team still picks one). Quick questions:

• Can a team pick AAA again? imo no
• What if both teams pick the same meta? probably never going to happen, but I say just !pick the third slot then
• Can bo3 be picked? idrc, but imo no

 

[Lana]

Counterpoints:

adding a little bit more to this, I think randomizing the 3rd slot in the tiebreaker can be disadvantageous to teams. Last year in semis tb we rolled stabmons which is the only tier we didn't want out of the 4 because we wanted to put Fc in whatever our opponents had picked, but rolling stabmons messed up our plans since Fc was our only Stab player. In tiebreakers where stakes are super high and each game matters way too much, I'd like to see a fixed slot like Bo3 (probably the fairest?) or AAA (seems to be the most popular OM this gen by a mile, you'd probably have multiple AAA players on your team because I feel like everyone plays it lol) to make it somewhat fairer to both teams. Additionally, tiers should be allowed to repeat IMO. Pretty sure that's how it works for every PL on Smogon and I dont see any issues with this in OMs. I dont actually play OMs except for a few tours here and there, but this seems pretty logical to me UT bullied me into posting this

edit: the suggestions below are nice as well, anything but randomizing is fine in my eyes

 

[Evie]

After some discussion in #tournaments, I'd like to propose a solution to tiebreaks that doesn't have any randomized aspects. Each team will strike two metagames, with the Bo3 slot being excluded from tiebreaks. This leaves us with 7 slots - 2 struck by each team = 3 slots for the tiebreaks. To eliminate the possibility of teams striking the same metagame, the teams would take turns striking metagames, with the order being based on seeding.

higher seed strikes first -> lower seed strikes twice -> higher seed strikes again

This could lead to tiebreaks going up later in the week, around like Tuesday or Wednesday; though I think this is worth having a tiebreak format that isn't RNG dependent. A deadline could be enforced, with a strike being randomized if the team does not respond within a set period of time.

 

[willdbeast]

After some discussion in #tournaments, I'd like to propose a solution to tiebreaks that doesn't have any randomized aspects. Each team will strike two metagames, with the Bo3 slot being excluded from tiebreaks. This leaves us with 7 slots - 2 struck by each team = 3 slots for the tiebreaks. To eliminate the possibility of teams striking the same metagame, the teams would take turns striking metagames, with the order being based on seeding.

higher seed strikes first -> lower seed strikes twice -> higher seed strikes again

This could lead to tiebreaks going up later in the week, around like Tuesday or Wednesday; though I think this is worth having a tiebreak format that isn't RNG dependent. A deadline could be enforced, with a strike being randomized if the team does not respond within a set period of time.

We talked about this in OMcord in 2020 and it's still a better idea than random or fixed choice meta

edit: it also doesn't need to take two "steps" of submitting if the slight delay is a problem (though managers are terminally online so that shouldn't take very long) since both teams could just submit their worst 4 metas in order the admin chooses their strikes in that order from the list

 

[Isaiah]

To summarize how this has all been received so far based on this thread and some discussion in #tournaments @ the OM Discord:

• Should we change player signups to include "Tiers preferred (not binding) and "Tiers not played (binding)"? Pretty much what it sounds like. Drafted players cannot play any tier they list in the "Tiers not played" section, but anything else (even if not listed in "Tiers preferred") is fair game for a manager to slot them into. This tier lock would be lifted for playoffs.

Yes, likely with an exception for players who cost 3k.

• Number of substitutes per team: It was mentioned offhand a couple of times last year that maybe 3 subs would be better. That being said, if we're adding "Tiers not played", having more subs might be beneficial for teams in situations where they need to make a substitution and are struggling to find someone who actually signed up to play in that slot. So, perhaps the wave is just keeping 4 subs. Let us know what you think!
• Budget: Last year we did 100k total budget, 13.5k fixed self-buy price. This seems fine to go ahead with again, but just wanted to be sure everyone's aware

There didn't seem to be any actual proposals to change these elements (not counting Fc since even he said he's fine with 4), so we'll probably go with status quo of 4 subs per team and 100k budget with 13.5k fixed self-buy price.

• Designated "emergency manager" player slot for subbing people in: We've seen multiple instances now where at least one of the players in a matchup isn't available for the battle and a sub would resolve the situation, but neither manager is available to do it in time to avoid an activity call. Should we allow managers to designate this authority to one of their players after the auction?
• Extra assistant manager during auction: At least one team last year asked to promote one of their players to manager so they could bid during the auction. Should we officially make this a thing? If it does become a thing, we'd likely limit it to no more than one "extra" auction manager per team so nobody can add every player and have them spam bids uncontested.
• Activity Calls: New addition to be more in line with what's outlined in the standard tournament rules and guidelines. When attempting to make an activity call, it's required to ping an entire team's role in the OM Discord before waiting the standard 30 minutes to call for an activity decision. This way, we can be sure that entire teams are alerted to situations where their player is missing.

Yes. For the designated emergency manager to slot people in, maybe we can also include a clause saying it's okay for any available player on a given team to make a sub (including subbing themselves in) as long as the managers have explicitly informed the host that they're okay with it beforehand?

• Tiebreaker: Is everyone fine w/ the way our tiebreaks work? Our system does involve an element of forced RNG (since at least one and up to two of the tiebreak formats are just rolled randomly by a host), so if anyone thinks they have a better way to do this, let us know.

Evie's suggestion:

Each team will strike two metagames, with the Bo3 slot being excluded from tiebreaks. This leaves us with 7 slots - 2 struck by each team = 3 slots for the tiebreaks. To eliminate the possibility of teams striking the same metagame, the teams would take turns striking metagames, with the order being based on seeding.

higher seed strikes first -> lower seed strikes twice -> higher seed strikes again

This could lead to tiebreaks going up later in the week, around like Tuesday or Wednesday; though I think this is worth having a tiebreak format that isn't RNG dependent. A deadline could be enforced, with a strike being randomized if the team does not respond within a set period of time.

Alternatively,

I'd like to see a fixed slot like Bo3 (probably the fairest?) or AAA (seems to be the most popular OM this gen by a mile, you'd probably have multiple AAA players on your team because I feel like everyone plays it lol) to make it somewhat fairer to both teams. Additionally, tiers should be allowed to repeat IMO. Pretty sure that's how it works for every PL on Smogon and I dont see any issues with this in OMs. I dont actually play OMs except for a few tours here and there, but this seems pretty logical to me

Tiebreak format kind of split into seed-based strike system vs fixed tier + strikes, so if anyone has further feedback (or maybe even yet another way to do tiebreaks) pls share. Also, tiebreaks are usually bc there was a tie, so...who is the "higher seed"? Do we still have to do a coinflip for who gets to strike first?

 

[Vertigo]

Posted in #tournaments, but reposting here for visibility:

What we can do is ask both teams to send a list of ALL tiers ranked by "I want to strike this the most" and then go down both lists at the same time.
- Ideal case: both top 2 are different and you have your tiebreak tiers
- If at any point in the top 2 they have the same tier then you strike it and go down the list; you then strike the meta of the higher seed on the next iteration until you reach 4 strikes
- If there's a perfect tie, you randomize that step

 

[willdbeast]

Do we still have to do a coinflip for who gets to strike first?

Alphabetical order, then it's skill based on who can submit the name starting with the most "A"s and still get accepted as a manager

 

[Sylvi]

I like the rules, especially one player allowing to mae a sub call, thats a good add to avoid ugly situations.
No Problem winning OMPL under these rules
Thanks in advance for hosting!

 

[Ren]

harrow

Should we change player signups to include "Tiers preferred (not binding) and "Tiers not played (binding)"?

seeing a lot of standard tiers do this. I like this rule for them. I like it less for OMs. I think the metagames and playerbases are too different for making this work in a 1:1 way. standard tiers have transferable skills. oms less so. my proposal is preventing them from starting in that slot but allowing them to sub in. if stresh signed up (lol as if) and he didn't wanna play bh but my bh starter dipped last min, he should be allowed to change his mind.

this does leave open an exploit of "lol here's my lineup, now I'm immediately subbing a better player in" but I think being down a potential sub and subbing in one of your stronger players while also taking away from your ability to manage an activity win is sufficient punishment for that "exploit".

would rather have this implemented 1:1 than not implemented at all, though.

Number of substitutes per team:

keep it at 3 or 4, allow two-three subs per week. this allows more flexibility in budget. realistically, most teams SHOULD get four subs at least, but I know in past drafts it's been an issue figuring out who to get as your last slot since none of the options were left.

also, drafting subs is a part of management. 4 subs is a way of saying "you have to have a minimum of 12 players on your team" and not "you have to have exactly 12 players on your team". there's very real cases where you'd wanna keep it to a minimum, but I think managers just need to draft smartly lmao.

Budget:

am fine w this, but stick to it once hosts have made a decision. think of the managers you're most worried about self buying.

Tiebreaker:

consider this: higher seed > differential > h2h. loser of that picks one, winner picks another, winner strikes one, loser strikes two, winner strikes two, last metagame left is played. gives an advantage to the "better" team in season and incentivizes teams to still try even after qualifying while eliminating the rng element and adding an element of strategy into what the managers do. alternatively strike bo3 by default and make the winner finally strike one instead of two.

also really like vortex's suggestion though. and i also like the idea of excluding bo3 entirely so if you go w that disregard my prior suggestion. I still think bo3 is a mid slot to include but if you guys have to deal with it then at least keep it out of tiebreaks. not metabashing (or maybe I'm roasting 3 metas at once, you'll have to figure that out :D)

Designated "emergency manager" player slot for subbing people in:

yes. Fardin is fortunately tourbanned permanently so no need to worry about people using this to sabotage their team.

Extra assistant manager during auction:

also yes, keep it at one. managers, pls dont use this unless you have to, have a plan and be smart plees.

I also want to suggest adding retains to this tournament.

no

go friends

 

[willdbeast]

if stresh signed up (lol as if) and he didn't wanna play bh but my bh starter dipped last min, he should be allowed to change his mind.

I like this universe where by an absolute miracle stresh signs up and a manager playing 7D chess drops 30k on him only to put him on the bench in case the BH player flakes

 

[Ren]

I like this universe where by an absolute miracle stresh signs up and a manager playing 7D chess drops 30k on him only to put him on the bench in case the BH player flakes

I was moreso thinking the starter just doesn't play for that week bc shit happens but what if I manage and make stresh sign up so he can sit there and be the mascot of my team

 

[UT]

Clarification for tiers not played:

bo3 will be considered its own distinct “tier.” For example, if you put AAA in “tiers not played” that will not disqualify you from playing bo3 (which includes AAA). Obviously, if you really do not want to play a single game of AAA, you’re free to put both AAA and bo3 in “tiers not played.”

 

[UT]

Making a potential final proposal for tiebreaker, let me know if you hate it:

The higher seed will strike two of the eight formats; the lower seed will then strike two formats; the higher seed will then strike one additional format. The remaining three formats will be played.

In the event of an absolute tie (teams are tied on points, head-to-head, and win differential) we will use !pick to determine the higher seed.

 

[Ren]

I think both teams should be able to pick one tier to be guaranteed in tiebreaker

 

[Evie]

I think both teams should be able to pick one tier to be guaranteed in tiebreaker

could do something like

both teams pick a format to be played -> higher seed strikes two -> lower seed strikes two -> higher seed strikes one