ZUPL has to be 8 teams. The community has significantly grown since lasy year thanks to the new generation hype. SV is also a much more accessible tier than SS and SM, because of how new it is, hence underdevelopped. The quality of every slot last year wasn't worse than in the previous iterations, there have always been weaker slots and always will. Moving back to 6 teams would be a step back in ZU growth and would prevent a lot of the new community members to take part to this tournament. ZUPL made a ton of signups last year thanks to the custom avatar price and we can expect pretty much the same this year again.
Hey Tuthur, wanted to respond to a few things here.
re: 6/8 teams:
I feel you, I really do, and I tentatively agree, but I have some concerns based on my experience as a manager last year.
While it's true that the community has grown, and SV is a newer and underdeveloped tier, I believe that having eight teams last year had some negative consequences. The overall game quality dropped significantly, and teambuilding options were limited. Managing became more difficult and constraining due to the lack of competent players in certain tiers, leading to some disappointing matches. I understand that there have always been weaker slots in the tournament, but the decline in game quality last year was noticeable and affected the overall enjoyment of the tournament. I'm willing to provide specific examples privately if you're interested. I don't think it's consistent to want to push ZU for going 8 teams while also not wanting to bring up the game quality to a high standard.
(THIS IS NOT A BASH ON XAYAH vs APA, both of those players are obviously more than qualified to play in this tournament regardless even if they have a million funny games like that. Completely irrelevant here. Mentioning it specifically here because I know I've joked a lot about it in the past.)
Regarding your statement about "moving back to 6 teams would be a step back in ZU growth," I believe it's important to consider the quality of the games and the experience for both players and spectators. While having more teams may seem appealing for the sake of inclusivity, it doesn't guarantee a positive tournament experience. Fewer teams can lead to a more focused and competitive environment, allowing for better-prepared metagames and higher-quality matches. You have to remember that Olympiad was just a few months ago, which was specifically designed to be inclusive and provide a platform for new users to participate.
In the past, when we had two SM tiers in ZUPL due to the release of SS, it was a conscious decision made by the council to address the community's preference for more developed metagames in tournament environments. Similarly, reducing the team count to six could help us maintain a higher level of competition and ensure that all matches provide an enjoyable experience for participants.
When thinning out the pool of skilled players by reducing the team count, we also inadvertently thin out the dedicated and effort-driven users who contribute significantly to positive team experiences. You know, the chatters. Many of us have experienced the positive influence of those who put in the effort to build, actively participate, and engage in team discussions. With the larger team count, it becomes more challenging to maintain a sufficient number of such individuals. As a result, there is an increased likelihood of having to include players who may not share the same level of commitment or enthusiasm. This can pose difficulties when it comes to bench slots, support players, and overall team cohesion.
On slots, anything that isn't 3 SV + 1 SS-DPP makes no sense to me. Cutting one of the old gen is dumb as they now have established playerbase and proved to be competitive pools. Having less than 3 CG slot is nonsense to me, SV ZU is the priority and having only two slots won't let it develop much. I cannot think of any teamtour that has less than 3 slots of the main format.
I totally get where you're coming from regarding the slot allocation and the importance of keeping established player bases in certain formats. It's unconventional to have less than 3 slots for the main format, I get that, but there are some problems that I think need to be addressed.
EDIT CLARIFICATION: These are reasons why people dislike underdeveloped metas in PLs, not specific reasons why they should be excluded or limited
New metas can be pretty chaotic. There's a around-the-clock risk of any particular threat or wall taking over before tiering actions, and that can mess up teambuilding, integrity of the result, and the overall game quality. On top of that, there's always a shortage of resources at the start of a new generation, which puts even more pressure on the builders, since the newer players and tournament players don't have much to work with. Like I said earlier, I think the decision a few years ago to have 2 SM at the release of SS was a good decision and was well received by the community.
On retains and selfbuys, I remember some people being adamant with their inclusion last year. However, I think that they not only proved to not be broken, but also not to be that good. I would like to extend selfbuy and extend to two possible players each for this year, but also not more than two people in total; i.e. you can selfbuy both managers OR selfbuy one manager + retain one player OR retain two players. Selfbuy price should also be reduced, 15k + differential was way too much last year and will still be this year. Making selfbuy that inaccessible make the pools worse and ruin the fun of most managers, selfbuying is rarelly worth it when it means giving up on drafting more people and not getting more support. I would encourage dropping selfbuys to 10k + 1k per differential.
I believe that selfbuys should come at a high price to discourage abuse and maintain a fair playing field for all managers. The ability to selfbuy yourself or your assistant manager at a fixed price, without
any control from other managers, can easily be exploited and goes against the purpose of a manager in my opinion. Allowing selfbuys to become too strong would undermine the integrity of the tournament. While a minor price reduction could be considered, I believe that significant selfbuy buffs are not healthy for the overall competition.
I definitely see where you're coming from on these things but I don't think those are the best ways of approaching some of these issues. I'm glad you are giving your input though and I hope others will do the same!
Excited for the tour!