i'll drop my two cents as well after yesterday's discussion i had with some other players on discord, without too many expectations due to what i've seen on this thread/discord chats, but let's give it a try. so, my initial stance on dynamax can be found
here. i'll add a few things to that post. i've noticed how teambuilding became much less important with dynamax (many games in the previous generations among the best players were already decided before the game started because of the nature of the tier and the importance of getting a good matchup), and this is a positive factor because it gives emphasis to playing abilities - you can win against any other team by playing better than your opponent, tough matchups still exist but you can circumvent them way more easily thanks to dynamax. now, someone who enjoys building counterteams in team tours and thinks he is a great builder (!) will be sad about not being able to do so as effectively as they used to
.
now, onto short-term vs. long-term planning. so, dynamax is a very powerful tool in the short-term, as it can easily make your opponent think twice about doing certain moves because it adds more possibilities every single turn. this is undeniably true, but there's more. in most scenarios that occur when playing a game, you can be proactive and use your dynamax first to open holes or you can wait for your opponent to use it by eventually exploiting secondary effects of your opponent's dynamax (based on your team - see ditto), or you can use it defensively if you 100% need to win a 1v1 against a threat/ensure you are not getting flinched/phazed or w/e. this way of weighing all the different possibilities in the short-term, while still keeping focus in the long-term is - my friends - the definition of long-term planning with some degree of adaptation. very far from being uncompetitive in my opinion. i am sure that even in previous gens everybody playing this game competitively needed to adapt their long-term plan to some sequences that happened in the game (be it an unexpected tech, the fear of a certain move, bad luck...). dynamax brings nothing new on the table from this point of view. some people say getting one turn wrong against dynamax means a loss. that is completely untrue and an exaggeration, because it depends on a myriad of factors, but even if you spot some degree of truth, i could show a good number of games where someone (me included) got outplayed the whole game except for one turn, capitalized the one chance he had (in general because of good matchup) and still managed to win. this game doesn't often reward the one who played better, it is a huge mistake assuming so.
as i stated in my old PR post, there are some mons i deem incredibly annoying to face combined with their dynamax, and here it is where teambuilding is important. as a tour player, i've always been careful about bringing teams weak to most types of cheese because, while i always accept losses, i tend to get very annoyed when such losses come from the impossibility to touch the opponent's team. the same applies to this dynamax meta. if you are not inclined to see hazards on your field, you will run double defog teams; in the same way if you are not inclined to see the opponent boosting his stats and revenge-killing with usual mons, you will run ditto or haze. if you are not inclined to play for 150 turns, you will bring a team that wins (or loses) earlier. no big deal. this is part of the problem eo addressed in his pro-ban reasoning and it has nothing different from what teambuilding has always been. to add onto what eo's said and possibly tdk too, is dynamax a 50/50 decision? it usually is not. it is impossible to say there's a fixed scheme about when using dynamax or not, but 50/50s occur almost solely when you are facing a choice locked mon (usually cb darmanitan) for which you often haven't got a midground that covers both dynamax and the cb move or protect on your dedicated check. that is a sort of 50/50 as in "will he dynamax or not" - note that he can switch back too, but it isn't a 50/50 for you, as you just weigh pros and cons of staying in and not caring about his dynamax vs. dynamaxing your own mon vs. scouting his dynamax. now these choices all have some pros and cons. if you don't care about his dynamax and you lose your dedicated check, you know that you can deal damage back (with interests) by using your own dynamax - this is my preferred choice in most cases; if you win the 1v1 when both mons use dynamax and there is no particular drawback in case he switches back, this is your preferred choice; otherwise you can decide to scout for his dynamax when you can afford a possible loss of the mon you switch in to the cb move. as you clearly see, it's easy to see "oml 50/50s" when in reality the whole picture is way more complex and the chances there's an actual situation similar to the bisharp vs gengar tdk talked about are incredibly low from a pure game theoretic perspective. then if we are talking about approximations and biases - that some of pro-ban arguments include - there's not much to be done.
finally, competitive pokemon is and has been (with rby being a partial exception) a game with incomplete information, otherwise we would be watching AIs play against each other and cheer for the one with the nicest name. incomplete information is nothing but a perk, else mazar's bot would have been encouraged.
i tried to address to the most significant opinions by council members - don't get me wrong, most of those arguments are valid and well-explained, some are not arguments, so i just skipped them. my post isn't aimed at contradicting the statements in the OP about dynamax, i just wanted to add some points to the entire picture and explain why i am voting
NO BAN. i believe there are ways to have a healthier metagame by addressing this problem gradually rather than drastically.
(also if you are interested in how the post dynamax metagame will look like in the short-term, you can come here and have a look at
replays among some of the best players on smogon in this discord invitational tournament. note that this is for mere curiosity, this is a developing metagame, without the chance to properly test teams on the ladder. future state shouldn't shape your decision about the current state, but there's nothing bad about having a genuine look imo).
Thanks for reading.