Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v2 [Update on Post #5186]

[Karxrida]

This would be a completely correct post if it didn't take what happened to ND out of context the suspect was flooded with burners and people with an agenda to keep tera in the tier,If anything what I proposed should be the standard for suspect tests of that magnitude

You know. When the OU Tera test concluded and some asshole bitched about the results they could have changed if they bothered to get reqs due to the close race, they got banned. And unless I missed something I didn't see your name in the ND voting thread.

So maybe fucking chill.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

This would be a completely correct post if it didn't take what happened to ND out of context the suspect was flooded with burners and people with an agenda to keep tera in the tier,If anything what I proposed should be the standard for suspect tests of that magnitude

if it's that easy to get reqs with a bunch of burner accounts, why didn't you do it? you only have yourself to blame for not playing on the same footing as your imaginary enemy

 

[Napoli Burns]

​

the correct order of operations in my view is as follows:

- quickban quick claw. there are no good arguments against keeping it (not going over this again, you're all wrong if you think otherwise). no downsides to banning it.
- full suspect on tera. no other action until that point because it is far too intertwined with all of the problematic elements we currently see.
- don't even suspect gambit lol - just quickban, shit is still broken without tera.
- suspect garg.
- suspect the ghosts, starting with goldie if you want to make headway in the hazards department (see: giving teams a good ground immune+removal+steel type in one slot, freeing up building a fuckload), or pult if spdef stacking can't make it somewhat bearable as with g8.
- suspect both of the fairies, probably enam first should tera go.
- suspect spikes & maybe sam/ceaseless alongside it.
- take it from there &, depending on the timeline, see what reasonable measures dlc gives us.

very good post Finchinator, tagging u in case u missed it

also

- do NOT allow this power level to continue the standard for the generation, unless you want a total joke gen that can only be somewhat salvaged by post-gen shenanigans

 

[bigasschungusboi]

if it's that easy to get reqs with a bunch of burner accounts, why didn't you do it? you only have yourself to blame for not playing on the same footing as your imaginary enemy

It's not about whether or not people have flooded the accounts its the fact that the integrity of the suspect is fragile and it needs to be corrected as such. It doesn't reflect the active opinion of many people as there needs to be either a higher threshold or safeguard in effect for such a thing

(Nice projecting about that "imaginary enemy" btw)

 

[KamenOH]

It's not about whether or not people have flooded the accounts its the fact that the integrity of the suspect is fragile and it needs to be corrected as such. It doesn't reflect the active opinion of many people as there needs to be either a higher threshold or safeguard in effect for such a thing

(Nice projecting about that "imaginary enemy" btw)

So far, there has been nothing but claims that the integrity is fragile, and the vote does reflect the views and active opinions of the people, in that they did not want tera to be banned from NDOU. It appears to me, at the very least, that you want harsher restrictions, i.e. a higher threshold or some sort of safeguard, whatever that entails, so that the vote conforms to your opinions on the matter.
Is this correct?

 

[bigasschungusboi]

So far, there has been nothing but claims that the integrity is fragile, and the vote does reflect the views and active opinions of the people, in that they did not want tera to be banned from NDOU. It appears to me, at the very least, that you want harsher restrictions, i.e. a higher threshold or some sort of safeguard, whatever that entails, so that the vote conforms to your opinions on the matter.
Is this correct?

Why would stricter footmarks mean that I want only people who dislike tera to vote? Seems like your implying that people who are pro-tera can't get the reqs needed to vote

 

[Karxrida]

Me and the boys during the inevitable second Tera suspect.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

It doesn't reflect the active opinion of many people

so let me get this straight.

• you posit that the suspect results don't reflect the active opinion of many people.
• you also suggest that the suspect reqs be raised or changed so a higher skill level is required to vote.
• changing the suspect reqs in this manner would result in fewer people meeting the threshold.
• thus, it would result in the suspect results reflecting the active opinion of a smaller group of people.
• therefore, the way to make the results reflect the active opinion of many people is to make the results reflect the active opinion of fewer people?

now i'm no expert, but i feel like there's something wrong with the logic you're presenting here. but you know, that might just be me. could you maybe walk me through your thought process so i can reconcile these seemingly contradictory points?

 

[KamenOH]

Why would stricter footmarks mean that I want only people who dislike tera to vote? Seems like your implying that people who are pro-tera can't get the reqs needed to vote

Oh no, I fully believe pro-tera people can achieve reqs, and thats vindicated by the recent NDOU suspect test. I don't believe that safeguards could be in any way impartial in all but skill.

My belief in the idea that "stricter footmarks" would prevent pro-tera votes from occuring lies precisely in the fact that people aren't blind, and that biases would rise up out of those restrictions and safeguards. Theres a good few reasons as to why we have the standard of voting that we do, and even someone who can't attain them should be able to understand them.

One of which, the one pertaining to why its only a matter of ELO/wolf-glicko, is that skill is what matters, not opinion. The 6th gen vote that was an utter fiasco disregarded that, and invoked the reason for voting in the first place as a "safeguard". Obviously, should a tier owner or owners in the council of nerds feel sufficiently opinionated, they could disregard any voter they disagreed with, and thus ruin the point of the suspect; said point being a community vote on a serious and divisive issue. Quickbans are typically, and ought to be, reserved for things that would be a waste of a lengthy vote due to their immediate problem(s).

Lets wrap back around to skill mattering over opinion. Skill is not linked to how someone votes, no matter how you twist the data. A no-ban and a ban voter will have to meet the same skill requirements, which so far no other indicator, safeguard, or restriction can pull off.

So, why would someone want to instill another filter? Personally, I think its due to bias in the instiller, and they would want to make voting harder for those they disagree with. Not surprising given that the one in discussion, i.e. you, didn't meet the normal requirements. This may come off as harsh, and probably uncalled for, but I sincerely doubt your failure to meet reqs and vote was due to your opinion on Tera, nor was it due to other people voting in any which way, but rather due to your own lack of skill. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think your thoughts on how the vote was carried out matter, since seemingly everyone else was accepting of the results. Would they agree with them is up to them, and not up to me, or to you.

Yes, I have my own biases, and if they aren't apparent, let me make them clear: Tera is good for the OU meta. However, I do not try to change how suspect tests go because of them, nor do I think lesser of those who gets reqs yet disagree with me. Hell, I think better of them because they are more skilled than I am, whether or not I am happy with such outcomes. I may throw a shitfit, but thats all it is at the end of the day: a shitfit from someone that didnt get their way.

Im done with you, so please explain your contradictions and log off. It does wonders for my mental health at least.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

The root argument is that there has to be more secure ways of voting so flooding does not happen. Because if someone wants this to happen, they can just do it again and again. Fact is that because of this outcome, ND will need to ban multiple pokemon and fundamentally alter the tier for the forseeable future, and it was partly because of a large group of people coming together and using the low gxe and elo requirements,alternate accounts and burners to change the vote to what they wanted.





I just want to see more safety added to the procedure to ensure that no group gets to have a large say in a vote of this magnitude or any vote from here on out.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Oh no, I fully believe pro-tera people can achieve reqs, and thats vindicated by the recent NDOU suspect test. I don't believe that safeguards could be in any way impartial in all but skill.

My belief in the idea that "stricter footmarks" would prevent pro-tera votes from occuring lies precisely in the fact that people aren't blind, and that biases would rise up out of those restrictions and safeguards. Theres a good few reasons as to why we have the standard of voting that we do, and even someone who can't attain them should be able to understand them.

One of which, the one pertaining to why its only a matter of ELO/wolf-glicko, is that skill is what matters, not opinion. The 6th gen vote that was an utter fiasco disregarded that, and invoked the reason for voting in the first place as a "safeguard". Obviously, should a tier owner or owners in the council of nerds feel sufficiently opinionated, they could disregard any voter they disagreed with, and thus ruin the point of the suspect; said point being a community vote on a serious and divisive issue. Quickbans are typically, and ought to be, reserved for things that would be a waste of a lengthy vote due to their immediate problem(s).

Lets wrap back around to skill mattering over opinion. Skill is not linked to how someone votes, no matter how you twist the data. A no-ban and a ban voter will have to meet the same skill requirements, which so far no other indicator, safeguard, or restriction can pull off.

So, why would someone want to instill another filter? Personally, I think its due to bias in the instiller, and they would want to make voting harder for those they disagree with. Not surprising given that the one in discussion, i.e. you, didn't meet the normal requirements. This may come off as harsh, and probably uncalled for, but I sincerely doubt your failure to meet reqs and vote was due to your opinion on Tera, nor was it due to other people voting in any which way, but rather due to your own lack of skill. Frankly, I'm not sure why you think your thoughts on how the vote was carried out matter, since seemingly everyone else was accepting of the results. Would they agree with them is up to them, and not up to me, or to you.

Yes, I have my own biases, and if they aren't apparent, let me make them clear: Tera is good for the OU meta. However, I do not try to change how suspect tests go because of them, nor do I think lesser of those who gets reqs yet disagree with me. Hell, I think better of them because they are more skilled than I am, whether or not I am happy with such outcomes. I may throw a shitfit, but thats all it is at the end of the day: a shitfit from someone that didnt get their way.

Im done with you, so please explain your contradictions and log off. It does wonders for my mental health at least.

There isn't any contradictions if you needed someone to guide you through a crisis of your own null argument there are plenty of references in my previous post. Nothing you have said negates the fact that suspect tests need to be handled in a more secure fashion. But if you feel the need to log off and chat gpt a response then be my guest.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

I just want to see more safety added to the procedure to ensure that no group gets to have a large say in a vote of this magnitude or any vote from here on out.

so you're freely admitting that you want to change the rules to manipulate the outcome of the vote?

 

[Finchinator]

We are likely to have a separate thread on the topic of Terastallization in the near future.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

We are likely to have a separate thread on the topic of Terastallization in the near future.

thank god, we can get back to complaining about quick claw

 

[MegaScizor32]

We are likely to have a separate thread on the topic of Terastallization in the near future.

The sooner the better. Also when discussing the gen 9 meta it’s impossible not to talk about tera since the meta revolves around it.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Overall this is a plus for the entirety of the meta and I hope that the people who i've been discussing with can continue to discuss with me.

See you at the thread ya'll

 

[Piplz]

I'd go as far as to argue a Quick Claw with a 100% chance of going faster than an opponent in the same priority bracket, would actually make the item more competitive. Because it would be consistent, so you'd just know that it will occur. Yes this would probably get banned, but that would not make it uncompetitive, just overpowered, which is not the same thing.

I think you make a lot of interesting points and in theory I agree; however, in actual reality, I do not see that logic being what has been applied.

What happened when it came to banning Brightpowder and Sand Veil/Snow Cloak is actually the exact opposite of that logic. It got banned because it got too consistent. People were not just using random sand veil garchomps out of nowhere, they were using Substitute to fish for procs, using either lefties for more sub attempts or brightpowder to increase the odds. With Brightpowder you have at least 73.2% chance to get at least one miss across your 4 substitutes and to get a free turn - with lefties, it's more complicated due to protect and what not but it remains in the same ballpark at worst after 5 sub attempts, way more average value if you actually get misses. That's more likely than a focus blast hitting. It's almost the same chance as Static or Scald proccing at least once after 4 attempts (76%). It's more or less the same odds as spamming substitute against magma storm to get a free turn (which is very viable). It's very much in the realm of being consistent enough to be reliable and that's precisely why people were getting annoyed at it. It wasn't just a matter of 'oh welp i couldn't do anything about it but i just got very unlucky I guess' like when you get randomly frozen by a stray ice beam or w/e - it became a matter of 'welp not only i couldn't do shit but the odds were also against me, this is bullshit'

That consistency is also why people got their attention drawn to QC lately - because it's been made semi-consistent by simply stacking it. Eventually given enough users the odds of it eventually proccing reach levels where it's kinda expected to eventually happen unless you're giga unlucky, and that's what is rubbing people the wrong way. Those discussions wouldn't exist if it was just a random mon here and there using QC - that's never been noteworthy in any way, besides maybe Glowbro. (who, again, stacks the effects to make it more reliable) It's the stacking of QC that annoys people.

So in theory I completely agree with that whole game designer outlook to cherrypick some elements that we dislike, but in practice I don't think that's how tiering has ever really been done - I think the goal has always been to stay as close to cartridge as possible unless your hand is absolutely forced (and there are both positives and negatives to that approach too, but that's another discussion). And it's what rubbing me the wrong way with banning QC - I don't really see any particular reason to single it out compared to the myriad of other RNG we've grown to accept. The other options we all stockholm syndromed ourselves into believing they're fine, but really, they're just the same thing with a different layer of paint.

The only argument that really sticks with me, personally, is that unlike banning Scald or Moonblast or Static, there's really no big practical downside to banning QC. and I can't exactly refute that in any capacity because it's just generally true. It's not an argument that's going to make me support it, however - it's just gonna make me not care if it happens because quite frankly its inconsequential either way other than setting a precedent and winning/losing an internet keyboard battle.

 

[Vall]

In light of the recent discussion, there's one question that's been on my mind recently: how would you rank the different types of Teras in terms of power? Types being:

• Double STAB tera: Gaining extra damage & shedding weaknesses of a type to brute force checks & Countersf
• Triple STAB tera: changing to a third type with the purpose of gaining an extra stab either through coverage or tera blast to improve the mons you can hit for SE Damgae
• Setup tera: changing to a third type without corresponding coverage to buy turns to setup for a sweep
• Defensive tera: changing to a third type to consitently change the pool of pokemon you can cunter

I personally suprisingly hard to determine which I think is strongest. It probably used to be setup, but most of the best abusers got banned, so triple stab is probably the best.

 

[DoofV3]

so you're freely admitting that you want to change the rules to manipulate the outcome of the vote?

I guess they're hoping that this will alleviate the issue of any random group influencing the outcome of a vote that will decide the outcome of the tier if they rally enough people behind their group even if they don't really interact with the community. (And Smogon has changed the rules to "manipulate" (using this word in the loosest sense of the word) tiering changes before with the Hitmontop situation)

That being said, just because those users/accounts only had 2 posts and were only created during the suspect test, it doesn't mean that they never interacted with the community. Lots of non-english people play Showdown/never post in the English based forums. Those accounts could have main Showdown accounts they play on all the time, there's no way to prove that allegation. Speculating without having all the details and only based on hearsay is dangerous and should be avoided imo.

 

[MegaScizor32]

In light of the recent discussion, there's one question that's been on my mind recently: how would you rank the different types of Teras in terms of power? Types being:

• Double STAB tera: Gaining extra damage & shedding weaknesses of a type to brute force checks & Countersf
• Triple STAB tera: changing to a third type with the purpose of gaining an extra stab either through coverage or tera blast to improve the mons you can hit for SE Damgae
• Setup tera: changing to a third type without corresponding coverage to buy turns to setup for a sweep
• Defensive tera: changing to a third type to consitently change the pool of pokemon you can cunter

I personally suprisingly hard to determine which I think is strongest. It probably used to be setup, but most of the best abusers got banned, so triple stab is probably the best.

This is the kind of discussion we need.

My personal ranking in terms of strength.
1. Setup Tera- can straight up win games if done properly.
2. Triple stab tera- having three stabs is extremely beneficial
3. Defensive tera- helps to stop sweeps or the other players from progressing
4. Double stab tera- still good but I feel like using tera the other ways provides more upside. Still powerful tho

 

[DoofV3]

My favorite Tera that I have taken a shining to is the Defensive Tera that helps you set up. That late game Bax that changes into a resist to clean up might not hit as hard as a full offensive Tera with nuclear Glaive Rushes, but man does it feel good to do in the 1300-1400 range ladder :D

 

[Alternator]

This would be a completely correct post if it didn't take what happened to ND out of context the suspect was flooded with burners and people with an agenda to keep tera in the tier,If anything what I proposed should be the standard for suspect tests of that magnitude

There is evidence (I do not know how strong) that the "burners" were Chinese players, who would not be expected to routinely participate in an English language forum like Smogon. There is also evidence that they genuinely do play on Showdown, since they were able to earn voting requirements.

What there isn't is evidence that they are any less skilled, nor is there (publicly known) evidence that this was all one or two people earning requirements with a bunch of different accounts - presumably this was/is being looked into, to ensure it wasn't actually a brigade. Without such evidence, though, it's just a conspiracy theory.

It's getting really hard to interpret this as anything other than, "They don't post here, therefore they shouldn't get to vote," and given that there's a good chance they don't post here due to lacking English proficiency, there's no practical way to bring them in.

 

[Athyestic]

The more I click Hurricane with Zapdos and the more I get hurricane clicked on by Zapdos and (and other hurricane spammers, Zapdos is the most egregious just by nature of how good Zapdos is rn) the more I'm convinced that this move is extremely bullshit. It uniquely is the only viable widespread move (That I can think of) that has 3 separate RNG checks tied into it:
-It's innate 70% accuracy
-It's 30% chance to confuse
-Confusion's chance to self hit (33% percent)
Sure, on it's own these chances are too low to realistically change any outcomes--but Zapdos can click Hurricane a lot. And eventually you will get haxxed or hax with hurricane. It feels like any answer to Zapdos has to fight through the chances of hurricane hax and whenever you get confused by it your heart rate doubles.

Is it banworthy? No, it doesn't meet that threshold. Is it the most miserable thing in the world? Absolutely.

 

[pokeclysm]

thank god, we can get back to complaining about quick claw

Great, I can finally talk about the competitive merits of my complex ban of only allowing Quick Claw on NFE's (except for Surskit and those with exactly 6 letters in their name) and pokemon starting with the letter D.

 

[BolTingBlazie]

That's the benefit of Tera Preview (No what do they tera to, but when)

See I think we should try tera preview, do I think it will keep the mechanic from being broken? I doubt it. Do I think its worth trying if it ends up being balanced? Yeah. I personally want tera gone, but a tera preview would be fine honestly for the moment

We are likely to have a separate thread on the topic of Terastallization in the near future.

This is either gonna be a trainwreck or people will actually get something done out of it. I guess its better than natdex ou's council fucking up the tera suspect hard I guess by keeping the GXE and ELO scores too low...

I do have to say everyone on the SV OU council have been handling this tier way better than how natdex OU's council is handling things. (Even if volc beeing yeeted was semi questionable in some ways.)