UnderUsed Premier League V - Format / Discussion

Welcome to the fifth edition of UUPL! This thread is to be used for general discussion, memes (as long as they're better than Shiba's), and other such shenanigans. An explanation of the format as well as retentions and relegations can be found below.

This year, 8 teams will be facing off against each other over the course of 7 weeks in a round robin format, and the top 4 teams will advance to a playoffs stage. Right now, we are aiming for 10 playing slots per team, but we might only be able to fit 8 depending on the number of sign-ups. The proposed format for 10 slots is 3 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 2 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager, while the proposed format for 8 slots is 2 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager.

Every team is allowed to retain up to 2 players from last year, and can buy retention rights off other teams. A player that went for 7k or less last year will cost 10k to retain, while everything above 7k will cost last year's price + 3k. The reason 10k is chosen as the minimum is due to that being the average cost of a player in the 10 slots format. Every manager is required to draft 9 players and 2 subs minimum, and every team starts out with 110k credits.

As always, both the manager of a team and the player he wishes to retain need to agree. As such, if you are a manager looking to retain a player, create a forum PM including the host (Hikari), yourself and the player you wish to retain, and both of you will need to confirm the retention. If you are a manager and wish to trade away retention rights, create a forum PM containing the host (Hikari), yourself, the player in question as well as the manager of the team that wishes to acquire retention rights, and have all parties confirm the trade.

As there were no such plans as retentions last year, every team is allowed to retain up to 2 players this year. However, to incentivize competition amongst the worst ranked teams, only the top 6 teams are allowed retentions starting next year. That means the bottom two teams of this year will start fresh next year, with all of their players becoming free agents. As this would put new managers at a disadvantage, those will be given extra credit to purchase retention rights from other teams.

At this point, it needs to be clarified that any team may purchase any player during the auction; even if you, as a player, refused to be retained, you will be expected to function as part of any team that buys you during the auction. If that happens to be the same team that originally wanted to retain you, it is expected of you to behave as well as you would for your dream team, and not show any signs of unsportsmanlike conduct.

With that said, happy posting!

UUPL V Schedule

Week 1 - April 3rd
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs Slateport City Socialites
Mikan Island Monsters vs Route 30 Youngsters
Safari Zone Smashers vs Dewford Town Delinquents
The Black City Burglars vs Cerulean City Sailors

Week 2 - April 10th
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs Mikan Island Monsters
Safari Zone Smashers vs Slateport City Socialites
The Black City Burglars vs Route 30 Youngsters
Cerulean City Sailors vs Dewford Town Delinquents

Week 3 - April 17th
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs Cerulean City Sailors
Dewford Town Delinquents vs The Black City Burglars
Route 30 Youngsters vs Safari Zone Smashers
Slateport City Socialites vs Mikan Island Monsters

Week 4 -April 24th
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs Dewford Town Delinquents
Route 30 Youngsters vs Cerulean City Sailors
Slateport City Socialites vs The Black City Burglars
Mikan Island Monsters vs Safari Zone Smashers

Week 5 - May 1st
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs Route 30 Youngsters
Slateport City Socialites vs Dewford Town Delinquents
Mikan Island Monsters vs Cerulean City Sailors
Safari Zone Smashers vs The Black City Burglars

Week 6 - May 8th
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs The Black City Burglars
Cerulean City Sailors vs Safari Zone Smashers
Dewford Town Delinquents vs Mikan Island Monsters
Route 30 Youngsters vs Slateport City Socialites

Week 7 - May 15th
The Blackthorn City Battle Girls vs Safari Zone Smashers
The Black City Burglars vs Mikan Island Monsters
Cerulean City Sailors vs Slateport City Socialites
Dewford Town Delinquents vs Route 30 Youngsters

Semifinals - May 22nd
#1 vs #4
#2 vs #3

Finals - May 29th
(#1 vs #4) vs (#2 vs #3)
 
Last edited:

Pearl

Romance は風のまま
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis the 7th Grand Slam Winneris a Past SPL Champion
short post as i don't have much time right now but if you do 8 slots it'd be better to have 3 sm uu slots and a single oras slot as opposed to 2/2 for many valid reasons, but mostly because oras is officially an old gen now and should receive no special treatment and also cause sm is the main uu meta rn and having more slots of it would help catering to solidified tour players joining uupl in order to learn sm uu for slam and, on top of that, would also help promoting the metagame's growth even further. also, 8 players>10 but i don't feel like developing on that much rn

just some food for though
 

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
short post as i don't have much time right now but if you do 8 slots it'd be better to have 3 sm uu slots and a single oras slot as opposed to 2/2 for many valid reasons, but mostly because oras is officially an old gen now and should receive no special treatment
Didn't we do ORAS x2/BW x2 last year? This doesn't seem any different. I personally prefer the formats as proposed, although I'm hoping we get enough sign-ups to go for 10 slots so that it's a non-issue either way.

EDIT: To expand, I like the idea of 3 SM slots for the development reasons you mentioned, but not if we're only talking about 8 slots total - especially as there's a pretty good chance the manager game will be SM as well. 3-4/8 games being the same tier is boring and takes away from the diversity of games that is one of my favorite aspects of UUPL. 10 slots would be cool because we could comfortably have 3 SM players and still have a good mix of other tiers (plus it would mean we could fit an extra BW slot, which is my second favorite UU tier).
 
Last edited:

Kink

it's a thug life ¨̮
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I think the signups this year could easily support 10 slots that'll still produce high-level content, in terms of matches and replays. If that happens, here's the format I'd like to see the most: 3 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 2 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager. Considering that many of the manager matches will be played in the SM format, I think 3-4 SM matches are enough for us to gauge the competitive atmosphere. There are a plethora of ORAS competitors, and a decent selection of BW competitors, that'll make the games live up to ORAS, however, if a compromise needs to be reached then I think this is a reasonable alternative: 4 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager. Even though that would mean 4 SM slots, if we deem there's a higher chance of high-level play come out of the 4th-line games as opposed to the 2nd-line BW games, then I think that needs to be considered.

If we keep it 8, then the format Hikari suggested is fine with me, but I do hope we make the plunge and expand this year in order to accommodate the ever-rising talents in today's metagame.
 
I'm in favor of an 8 slot format with 3 SM / 1 ORAS / 1 BW / 1 DPP / 1 ADV / 1 Manager. I do not think ORAS needs 2 slots as it is now an old gen. Although last year had 2 BW that was because we needed to make the format have an even number of slots without using 4 ORAS. 8 slots rather to 10 mean the level of competition will be higher and more entertaining while still using 3 SM slots to ensure new talent get their chance to prove themselves. I'm not completely opposed to 10 slots, and believe the format Hikari suggested is fine if that is the decision that is made.
 

fatty

is a Tiering Contributor
NUPL Champion
eh idk having two old gens with two slots just seems rly odd to me. lots of stagnant stuff, and trust me I love old gens as much as the next dude.

having said that, I think it is the best option when it comes to 10 slots because I also don't wanna see 5 sm slots a week lol (including managers). that is, if we do it the traditional way...

another thing we could possibly try is adding a little bit of variability to the tournament. have a traditional 8 team initial lineup (3/1/1/1/1/manager) and then add a sort of "flex" slot for each team, each round. this would allow both teams to pick an extra tier that they believe matches up well vs the opponent, would get us to 10 slots, but not restrict us to an awkward, solidified 10 person lineup. obviously this is very different than past iterations of the tournament, but i think it could be a very cool addition to the tournament, altering draft strategies and creating more "matchup" variability between teams. this does create issues in how lineups would be submitted (maybe have the extra tier chosen by Saturday at the latest so next weeks team knows?) but I think this is minimal. just an idea if we deem 8 to be too little and a solidified 10 person lineup is too much.
 

Amaroq

Cover me.
is a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I am fully in support of 10-man lineups. I firmly believe that the size and quality of the playerbase is sufficient to support 12 players per team (10 starters + 2 mandatory subs). Since I'm bored, don't want to pay attention in class, and haven't farmed likes recently, I have elected to discuss the formats and some of the associated arguments, benefits, and detriments. Some of these arguments may overlap, so bear with me if I start rambling.

3 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 2 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager
  • Provides relatively balanced representation for various tiers, weighted toward current gen UU and recent UU metas.
  • Precedent for supporting 2 slots for "recent gens" exists in the form of the last UUPL.
  • Quality of ORAS and BW matches last year supports the inclusion of 2 slots for each.
  • 2 BW slots were present last year at least partially to ensure an even number of slots.
  • Expansion of the playerbase during Gen 6 means that the ORAS/SM playerbase overlap to some extent, and many of these players may prefer to play SM (i.e. there is concern that finding 16 high-quality players willing to play ORAS over SM may not be possible).
4 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager
  • Provides impetus for the development of the SM UU meta by enabling a possible 16-20 matches per week, depending on what meta(s) managers choose to play.
  • Precedent exists in the form of last year's format, where manager matches (which defaulted to current UU if managers did not agree otherwise) + current UU made up half of the matches each week.
  • Continues the recent trend of devoting half the format to current UU, giving the most recent old gen more representation, and giving everything else one slot each.
  • Encounters the same playerbase overlap problem as the first format.
  • There may be difficulty finding 32 high-quality SM UU players, especially considering the playerbase's overlap with ORAS.
  • With so many SM games, players may begin recycling teams.
If we are forced to go with 8 slots, I think that 3 SM UU / 1 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager would be best in order to drive the development of the current UU.

2 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager
  • Increases "competitiveness" by ensuring that fewer people can play and thus providing incentive to the managers to pick only the best of the best.
  • Reduces the number of players who can play.
  • Restricts SM UU slots in particular, weighting the current gen on par with an old gen.
3 SM UU / 1 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager
  • Increases "competitiveness".
  • Reduces the number of players who can play.
  • Continues the existing trend of devoting half the format to current UU, but does not give the most recent old gen more representation.
  • Drives development of SM UU.
Overall, my preferred format is the second one I listed (4 SM UU / 2 ORAS UU / 1 BW UU / 1 DPP UU / 1 ADV UU / 1 Manager), but the other 10-man format is also fine with me. I am adamantly against 8-man lineups because they constrict the available playerbase too much and either don't give the most recent old gen any weight or stifle the development of the current UU. I also don't think we need to design the format in order to specifically cater to tour players (if we end up with a format that happens to benefit tour players, there is nothing wrong with that). UUPL should be primarily designed for the UU playerbase, not the tours playerbase. If tournament players want to learn UU for Grand Slam, they can do it the same way as anyone else. There are plenty of resources available to any player interested in learning UU in preparation for Grand Slam (just to clarify, I have nothing against tournament players showing interest in UU. I simply don't believe that we should make them UUPL's primary audience and cater to them at the expense of the UU playerbase). UUPL is an amazing learning experience for up-and-coming talent with minimal tournament exposure and gives promising players the opportunity to build connections with more experienced members of the community.
 
Last edited:

Hogg

grubbing in the ashes
is a Tournament Director Alumnusis a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I've come around and agree with SMx3/ORASx1 if we do 8 slots. I still really don't much like SMx4 if we do 10 slots though.
 
[10:11] #Hikari: 117 SM UU signups
[10:13] #Hikari: 119 for ORAS
[10:13] #Hikari: that's
[10:13] #Hikari: odd
[10:14] #Hikari: 73 for BW
[10:15] #Hikari: 66 for DPP
[10:16] #Hikari: 55 for adv
[10:26] #Hikari: 6 exclusive SM UU singups
[10:26] #Hikari: nice overlap
[10:27] #Hikari: 5 for ORAS UU
[10:27] #Hikari: 9 for BW
[10:28] #Hikari: 2 for DPP
[10:28] #Hikari: lul
[10:28] #Hikari: 6 for ADV
[10:29] #Hikari: 158 signups
[10:29] #Hikari: so far


Do note that I marked all tiers when listing all the unfunny, stale meme signups, so those numbers aren't 100% accurate.
 
Last edited:
not gonna rehash too much but i guess since im a manager i should say something, i agree with the 3 sm + 1 oras if we decide to go with 8 slots, anything else seems awkward. given the number of signups we already have in like two days i'd say theres probably a good chance there will be 10, and if thats the case hikaris format seems best.

i also agree with hogg tho in that 4 sm slots seems really messy.. i have pretty strong doubts that there will be more metagame development if we include 4 > 3 sm slots, and while the uu playerbase alongside the tour players that usually sign up for lower tier pls make for a pretty sizable # of available players, like amaroq said people are just gonna recycle teams which imo stagnates development if anything, and having that many sm games is gonna get boring after a while to me at least.
 

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

Top