This thread is expected to be open until manager signups. The intent of this thread is to determine the format of UMPL IV. Hosts are as of yet undecided, but we have a group of offers that we are are considering. Manager signups will go up September 8th.
Some useful links include the manager signups, player signups, and administrative decisions threads from last year. This will allow folks to have an understanding of what this tournament looked like last year so people can make informed posts. To be entirely clear: the format for UMPL IV will change. The question is not a matter of whether or not to change the tournament, the question is in what manner. In the time since the last UMPL, we've introduced two new UMs to our scene - 1v1, which admittedly already had a presence in last UMPL, and Ubers UU, which did not. Six UMs is a rough spot to be in for the format. Last year, we had eight slots and eight teams, and we'd ideally not want to downgrade from that structure too much.
Of particular note: 2v2's leadership are considering requesting to be removed from UMPL for a number of reasons. This is currently undecided, but each section will include an addendum of what the structure might look like if 2v2 does request removal. However, by default, format considerations in the OP will assume all 6 UMs are going to participate in UMPL.
edit: 2v2 will remain in UMPL
Here are some options that Isaiah and I have discussed. Not all are particularly ideal or preferred. Some are being brought up primarily as thought exercises and would take as-of-yet unforeseen levels of interest signups-wise to justify doing.
Most ideas are on the table. We want this to be a successful tournament, and that starts by figuring out what format works the best for the most people. Please be kind and courteous to leadership, hosts when they are announced, other members in the thread, and other UM tiers. Tier bashing will not be tolerated and can lead to infractions. The quickest way to get your suggestion or argument discarded is by tearing down or trashing another tier.
Some useful links include the manager signups, player signups, and administrative decisions threads from last year. This will allow folks to have an understanding of what this tournament looked like last year so people can make informed posts. To be entirely clear: the format for UMPL IV will change. The question is not a matter of whether or not to change the tournament, the question is in what manner. In the time since the last UMPL, we've introduced two new UMs to our scene - 1v1, which admittedly already had a presence in last UMPL, and Ubers UU, which did not. Six UMs is a rough spot to be in for the format. Last year, we had eight slots and eight teams, and we'd ideally not want to downgrade from that structure too much.
Of particular note: 2v2's leadership are considering requesting to be removed from UMPL for a number of reasons. This is currently undecided, but each section will include an addendum of what the structure might look like if 2v2 does request removal. However, by default, format considerations in the OP will assume all 6 UMs are going to participate in UMPL.
edit: 2v2 will remain in UMPL
Here are some options that Isaiah and I have discussed. Not all are particularly ideal or preferred. Some are being brought up primarily as thought exercises and would take as-of-yet unforeseen levels of interest signups-wise to justify doing.
By default, this would be two slots for each UM.
This is not an ideal structure, but exists for the sake of full conversation as something that we have considered. It would allow for 2x representation for all UMs, while not ballooning the size of the tour to an unreasonable amount.
2v2 drop addendum: This is not a valid structure if 2v2 drops. This format cannot be considered if 2v2 drops.
This is not an ideal structure, but exists for the sake of full conversation as something that we have considered. It would allow for 2x representation for all UMs, while not ballooning the size of the tour to an unreasonable amount.
2v2 drop addendum: This is not a valid structure if 2v2 drops. This format cannot be considered if 2v2 drops.
Here there be dragons, folks. By default, this would be two metas with 2 slots, and four metas with 1 slot. Alternatively, each UM can get one slot and then the final 2 be unique in some manner: change on a week-by-week basis, multi-tier Bo3s, homefield advantage, pick-ban, so on and so forth. There is a lot of potential design space, whith 2 slots in the limbo of not knowing where they could go. There may even be arguments for a metagame that is not strictly speaking a top level subforum of Unofficial Metagames, but I don't know what those would look like.
On the assumpion of 2x2 + 4x1, which metas fall where is difficult to determine. Ubers UU and ZU have the largest average tournament presence when looking at the Open and the Seasonal in 2024, but NFE and AG both fill out decent team tour numbers in their local PLs. 1v1's circuit tournaments were not in the calculations when Isaiah and I discussed back in July, but they likely have a higher average than either or both of Ubers UU and ZU, as well as being one of the tiers (alongside AG) to recieve two slots last UMPL. There are fractally endless ways to objectively or subjectively judge which metagame goes where, and with time and spunk anyone can probably concoct an argument for every combination of metagames that they think should get 2 slots.
To be fully clear: There is no objective answer to which slots would get chosen, and the decision lies exclusively with UM leadership and UMPL planning. Every single objective means of measuring which tier earns a second slot in 8x8 is a subjective decision of which objective measure to use. Individual tournament signups, UMPL signups (2024 or 2023!), community vote, PL representation elsewhere, Discord activity, et cetra - all of these have objective logic that can be used to slot tiers, but have heavily subjective logic behind which one should be chosen.
This one's the difficult one.
2v2 drop addendum: three metas with 2 slots, two metas with one. Alternatively, 8x6 with each meta getting one slot and then a unique slot as a sixth. Or, jump up to 8x10 below.
On the assumpion of 2x2 + 4x1, which metas fall where is difficult to determine. Ubers UU and ZU have the largest average tournament presence when looking at the Open and the Seasonal in 2024, but NFE and AG both fill out decent team tour numbers in their local PLs. 1v1's circuit tournaments were not in the calculations when Isaiah and I discussed back in July, but they likely have a higher average than either or both of Ubers UU and ZU, as well as being one of the tiers (alongside AG) to recieve two slots last UMPL. There are fractally endless ways to objectively or subjectively judge which metagame goes where, and with time and spunk anyone can probably concoct an argument for every combination of metagames that they think should get 2 slots.
To be fully clear: There is no objective answer to which slots would get chosen, and the decision lies exclusively with UM leadership and UMPL planning. Every single objective means of measuring which tier earns a second slot in 8x8 is a subjective decision of which objective measure to use. Individual tournament signups, UMPL signups (2024 or 2023!), community vote, PL representation elsewhere, Discord activity, et cetra - all of these have objective logic that can be used to slot tiers, but have heavily subjective logic behind which one should be chosen.
This one's the difficult one.
2v2 drop addendum: three metas with 2 slots, two metas with one. Alternatively, 8x6 with each meta getting one slot and then a unique slot as a sixth. Or, jump up to 8x10 below.
By default, this would be two slots for four UMs, and one slot for two UMs.
Which UMs those would be are up for discussion, as seen in the 8x8 conversation. This would be a small expansion from last year, providing two more slots to adjust for the changes since last year. This is a bit of a weirder one, since its existence becomes strongly more preferable if 2v2 ends up withdrawing, but can be considered anyway if they don't. I won't go into more depth about which tiers would be prioritized here, since I did enough of that in 8x8 (as of writing this I haven't even written 8x8 yet.)
2v2 drop addendum: this would become two slots for every UM if 2v2 drops.
Which UMs those would be are up for discussion, as seen in the 8x8 conversation. This would be a small expansion from last year, providing two more slots to adjust for the changes since last year. This is a bit of a weirder one, since its existence becomes strongly more preferable if 2v2 ends up withdrawing, but can be considered anyway if they don't. I won't go into more depth about which tiers would be prioritized here, since I did enough of that in 8x8 (as of writing this I haven't even written 8x8 yet.)
2v2 drop addendum: this would become two slots for every UM if 2v2 drops.
By default, this would be two slots for every UM.
This would expand the tournament somewhat significantly, adding an additional four slots on each team, for a total of 32 additional starters. This is a hard justification to make, as we'd have to expect signups to be exceptionally strong - this doesn't mean signup count, but you'd have to anticipate 16 starter-level players for each tier, as well as another 10 or so viable substitutes.
2v2 drop addendum: this would become 8x10 if 2v2 drops.
This would expand the tournament somewhat significantly, adding an additional four slots on each team, for a total of 32 additional starters. This is a hard justification to make, as we'd have to expect signups to be exceptionally strong - this doesn't mean signup count, but you'd have to anticipate 16 starter-level players for each tier, as well as another 10 or so viable substitutes.
2v2 drop addendum: this would become 8x10 if 2v2 drops.
By default, this would be a single slot for every single UM.
This is the largest we feel, team-wise, that the tournament could reasonably support. Having this many teams, however, would necessitate a smaller amount of slots - 10x8 is viewed as less preferable to 8x12 or 8x8. There is no relevant variance for this format in slot representation, this is the only structure 10x6 can support - or, in reality, 10xN overall. Additionally, this would necessitate more quality manager duo signups than most other formats.
2v2 drop addendum: 10x6 or 10xN is not a valid structure if 2v2 drops. This format cannot be considered if 2v2 drops.
This is the largest we feel, team-wise, that the tournament could reasonably support. Having this many teams, however, would necessitate a smaller amount of slots - 10x8 is viewed as less preferable to 8x12 or 8x8. There is no relevant variance for this format in slot representation, this is the only structure 10x6 can support - or, in reality, 10xN overall. Additionally, this would necessitate more quality manager duo signups than most other formats.
2v2 drop addendum: 10x6 or 10xN is not a valid structure if 2v2 drops. This format cannot be considered if 2v2 drops.
Most ideas are on the table. We want this to be a successful tournament, and that starts by figuring out what format works the best for the most people. Please be kind and courteous to leadership, hosts when they are announced, other members in the thread, and other UM tiers. Tier bashing will not be tolerated and can lead to infractions. The quickest way to get your suggestion or argument discarded is by tearing down or trashing another tier.
Last edited:
