When Ubers was brought back to Grand Slam in 2022, a discussion regarding the format of Grand Slam was held resulting to a 6 cup GS with a best-finish limit (BFL) of 3 as per this post: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/smogon-grand-slam-xi-tier-discussion.3694630/post-9090169
As mentioned in the post, the BFL was up for discussion based on how well it was perceived. Now, after experiencing BFL 3 for the past three years I would like to open a discussion whether BFL 3 or BFL 5 is preferred, where I am strongly advocating for BFL 5.
The main reason for BFL 3 was the concern of player fatigue. Though there is definitely something to say for this, I also think this comes with a drawback, which I will come back to later. For now I want to focus on whether this should be desired in the first place. For me the competitive spirit of a trophy tournaments should not be outweighed by convenience. Trophy tournaments are supposed to be for the best to compete and show their skill, but they are just as much about grinding, working hard and earning your place. For comparison, both OLT and ST take hours and/or weeks to qualify as well. That is what makes it so satisfying when you finally succeed. I do not think BFL 3, just so people can lowball it and still have a decent shot at qualifying fits in the trophy tournament scene and is not fitting for Grand Slam.
Secondly, I think BFL 5 is preferred to maintain uniformity with Classic. Classic is in many ways a similar tournament to Grand Slam and has always kept BFL 5. If Classic has it, I don't see any reason why Grand Slam shouldn't have it.
My third argument is about the identity of Grand Slam and what it is supposed to be. For me Grand Slam has always been about competing in all lower tiers. Also the ones that you don't find too appealing or find yourself struggling in. Grand Slam should be about mastery of all lower tiers. You are supposed to show that you are competent in all lower tiers. A good example of what Grand Slam should be like, is LpZ 's run from last year. A good part of his championship run, especially play-offs, was his strong showing in Ubers and LC, two tiers that he is not known for (at least before the tournament). Being able to qualify without even playing half of the metas, not even a single game, completely goes against this identity of Grand Slam.
My fourth point is the main reason why I am making this post, and comes back to point 1. Grand Slam used to be my favorite trophy tour, but the last three years I have enjoyed it less (also last year where I qualified). When asking myself why that was the case it was pretty clear to me that was because of of BFL 3. I do realize that this point is completely personal and that others might think completely different about this. Hence also why I am asking for discussion. However, for me BFL 3 decreases motivation/fun of Grand Slam and gives rise to frustration. For me part of the excitement about Grand Slam is knowing every game counts, also the early rounds. Looking at the standings after every week to see how you are doing. Now that is completely pointless, as illustrated by JustFranco 's performance last year. Don't quote me on the exact record, but franco had an insane start of the tournament last year going something along the lines of 20-1. Yet somehow wasn't even locked in for play-offs. He ended with a record of 29-6, giving him the same amount of points as someone else with a 21-6 record. This is also why I think that BFL 3 does not necessarily only help with player fatigue/convenience. Grinding for weeks in 6 different metas, while beating all the competition without even qualifying yet can be extremely frustrating. That is my main point, in BFL 3 you have no idea how you are looking for qualification, since that is all decided in the last few weeks. On the contrary in BFL 5 you have a much better idea if you are on track for qualification and if it is worth to put in more effort.
Lastly, I want to give some numbers to help the discussion. I will include the final standings of the last 3 Grand Slams with both BFL 3, and how it would have been with BFL 5.
As you can see, nearly all play-off participants played all 6 cups regardless of the BFL 3 format.
Therefore I asked all play-off contenders from past 3 years for their preference between BFL 3 and BFL 5.
pro BFL 3: 8
pro BFL 5: 18
no preference/did not respond: 8
As mentioned in the post, the BFL was up for discussion based on how well it was perceived. Now, after experiencing BFL 3 for the past three years I would like to open a discussion whether BFL 3 or BFL 5 is preferred, where I am strongly advocating for BFL 5.
The main reason for BFL 3 was the concern of player fatigue. Though there is definitely something to say for this, I also think this comes with a drawback, which I will come back to later. For now I want to focus on whether this should be desired in the first place. For me the competitive spirit of a trophy tournaments should not be outweighed by convenience. Trophy tournaments are supposed to be for the best to compete and show their skill, but they are just as much about grinding, working hard and earning your place. For comparison, both OLT and ST take hours and/or weeks to qualify as well. That is what makes it so satisfying when you finally succeed. I do not think BFL 3, just so people can lowball it and still have a decent shot at qualifying fits in the trophy tournament scene and is not fitting for Grand Slam.
Secondly, I think BFL 5 is preferred to maintain uniformity with Classic. Classic is in many ways a similar tournament to Grand Slam and has always kept BFL 5. If Classic has it, I don't see any reason why Grand Slam shouldn't have it.
My third argument is about the identity of Grand Slam and what it is supposed to be. For me Grand Slam has always been about competing in all lower tiers. Also the ones that you don't find too appealing or find yourself struggling in. Grand Slam should be about mastery of all lower tiers. You are supposed to show that you are competent in all lower tiers. A good example of what Grand Slam should be like, is LpZ 's run from last year. A good part of his championship run, especially play-offs, was his strong showing in Ubers and LC, two tiers that he is not known for (at least before the tournament). Being able to qualify without even playing half of the metas, not even a single game, completely goes against this identity of Grand Slam.
My fourth point is the main reason why I am making this post, and comes back to point 1. Grand Slam used to be my favorite trophy tour, but the last three years I have enjoyed it less (also last year where I qualified). When asking myself why that was the case it was pretty clear to me that was because of of BFL 3. I do realize that this point is completely personal and that others might think completely different about this. Hence also why I am asking for discussion. However, for me BFL 3 decreases motivation/fun of Grand Slam and gives rise to frustration. For me part of the excitement about Grand Slam is knowing every game counts, also the early rounds. Looking at the standings after every week to see how you are doing. Now that is completely pointless, as illustrated by JustFranco 's performance last year. Don't quote me on the exact record, but franco had an insane start of the tournament last year going something along the lines of 20-1. Yet somehow wasn't even locked in for play-offs. He ended with a record of 29-6, giving him the same amount of points as someone else with a 21-6 record. This is also why I think that BFL 3 does not necessarily only help with player fatigue/convenience. Grinding for weeks in 6 different metas, while beating all the competition without even qualifying yet can be extremely frustrating. That is my main point, in BFL 3 you have no idea how you are looking for qualification, since that is all decided in the last few weeks. On the contrary in BFL 5 you have a much better idea if you are on track for qualification and if it is worth to put in more effort.
Lastly, I want to give some numbers to help the discussion. I will include the final standings of the last 3 Grand Slams with both BFL 3, and how it would have been with BFL 5.
BFL 3
BFL 5
BFL 3
BFL 5
BFL 3
BFL 5
As you can see, nearly all play-off participants played all 6 cups regardless of the BFL 3 format.
Therefore I asked all play-off contenders from past 3 years for their preference between BFL 3 and BFL 5.
pro BFL 3: 8
pro BFL 5: 18
no preference/did not respond: 8
Last edited:
