i still think the council won't, and shouldn't, drop anything without community support. confidently asserting that ghold would start in ou after it got banned, without asking the community that just banned it whether they've changed their minds, just doesn't add up to me, so this coming from finch was kinda confusing
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v3
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
- Status
Gholdengo is a perfect candidate for a quickdrop. Polarizing pokemon with many arguments for and against it, that is very dependant on the current meta and might either stay the same or completely change with the new dlc. It should not be a last minute suspect and its absolutely not to the level of things like flutter mane that will never be considered to drop again.
Also, for what its worth, it's possible DLC2 gives Kingambit and Gholdengo MORE options which make them even more straining (idk what they could give Gambit tho lmao) and an even easier push for a ban.
Considering so much discussion is about the state of hazards though, I think it's unwise to take action on a Pokemon when the situation could be helped significantly with the addition of new threats, moves, and distribution.
Considering so much discussion is about the state of hazards though, I think it's unwise to take action on a Pokemon when the situation could be helped significantly with the addition of new threats, moves, and distribution.
new proposal: ghold and gambit should both be banned under evasion clause because bans are supposed to be 100% accurate but they keep dodging them
i don't think quickdrops should be a thing without the same level of community support that quickbans get, but i don't know how popular that opinion is
Last edited:
If Gholdengo at least has suspect priority in the DLC2 meta if it's still deemed to be problematic in December/January (as in the first Pokemon-specific suspect. Not Kingambit. Not a <680 BST Terapagos. Not Raging Bolt or any other potentially broken new or old mons), then I guess it's alright if suspects stopped happening atm.
If broken checks broken is okay, why not just unleash the floodgates when the pool of available pokemon is expanded.
We can go through the delibird/mag/chi-yu/eleki meta with renewed novelty
if GF is doing this new approach of rolling drops, then OU can adapt and do faster rolling suspects/bans.
I take no issue with that.
there’s been a lot of pokemon that are obviously broken in any other traditional meta, but they’re still not axed due to how many other “traditional meta broken” pokemon there are
We can go through the delibird/mag/chi-yu/eleki meta with renewed novelty
if GF is doing this new approach of rolling drops, then OU can adapt and do faster rolling suspects/bans.
I take no issue with that.
there’s been a lot of pokemon that are obviously broken in any other traditional meta, but they’re still not axed due to how many other “traditional meta broken” pokemon there are
I really hope Terapagos has box legendary stats and its signature move that horribly abuses Tera is so busted that it just starts in Ubers and we don't even have to bother.
i, for one, hope terapagos is clearly and unambiguously balanced in ou, because it has a really cool design. i hope it gets a rapid spin clone with no immunities, a super-high defense stat to deal with gambit, and an ability that's like aura break except it reverses protosynthesis and quark drive instead. i want terapagos to singlehandedly save ou so we can just play the game in peace and not have to fight like this
If it serves as this gen's Calyrex, who was the third legendary of the galar trio it definitely won't be
i know it won't, but i'm hoping it will. game freak can take everything else from me but they will never take my hope
i'm overall much more optimistic about the state of OU these days. the resurgence of balance especially following Glisc and Sneasler's bans shows that the tier has moved into a healthier state. so many more mons and sets are viable now--zapdos, moltres, torn-t, heatran, meow, garg, ting-lu, clodsire, skeledirge. great tusk is under much less pressure and can spin (relatively) easier; galarian slowking can drop ice beam for thunder wave, trick, slack off, toxic, tspikes; lando-t can actually make progress. it's a shame that we don't get to play with this set of mons for much longer, because i really think we could reach a great metagame.
while i have no love for ghold or gambit, the meta at this moment is definitely playable and a lot of fun, so i really don't think any more tiering action needs to be taken before DLC drops. given the timeline, i think we should just ride this meta into the sunset til we hit the reset button. banning ghold just for it to come back with dlc2 would feel like tom brady's fake retirement all over again and i don't think my heart can take it
while i have no love for ghold or gambit, the meta at this moment is definitely playable and a lot of fun, so i really don't think any more tiering action needs to be taken before DLC drops. given the timeline, i think we should just ride this meta into the sunset til we hit the reset button. banning ghold just for it to come back with dlc2 would feel like tom brady's fake retirement all over again and i don't think my heart can take it
Last edited:
cyberacc
formerly Suckingmoreducks
I am for a Gholdengo suspect and I am biased.
I have never once liked the pressure it exerts on the builder and in the tier; It has been nothing but a detriment to me enjoying the tier and would like it gone entirely.
Hazard removal should not be restricted from turn one from something just existing, and before I get some cute remark on "but what about BW and below with ghosts and spin", metagame correlation on a generation to generation basis is such a big can of worms I really do not want to entertain it. Gholdengo is not that fun. I do not find it that competitive. I will be for a suspect at any opportunity possible.
It has now been presented to me. I will gladly take it.
I have never once liked the pressure it exerts on the builder and in the tier; It has been nothing but a detriment to me enjoying the tier and would like it gone entirely.
Hazard removal should not be restricted from turn one from something just existing, and before I get some cute remark on "but what about BW and below with ghosts and spin", metagame correlation on a generation to generation basis is such a big can of worms I really do not want to entertain it. Gholdengo is not that fun. I do not find it that competitive. I will be for a suspect at any opportunity possible.
It has now been presented to me. I will gladly take it.
Let's not forget also adding Toxic onto Blissey, Lando-T (alongside knock and defog) and the existence of Terapagos automatically doubling the PP of all recovery moves.
adding toxic onto blissey would be pretty based. lando-t can get fucked though, and i personally haven't had too many problems with the recovery pp nerf
I hate Lando-T but it would make the metagame a lot less stale/bearable if it was back to its old tricks, due to Pivot + Intimidate + defogger all in one.
And I always notice the recovery nerve though, that's because I like to run gimmicky bulky set up sweepers and they need there recovery PP.
In regards to suspecting Gholdengo and dying metas, I fully sympathize with the feeling that there's not enough time to make a suspect and potential ban relevant, as its effects would be short-lived and its after-effect wouldn't balance itself out in time, which would lead to a result that could be deemed as "pointless".
However, I also believe that Gholdengo's case is special and unique enough to serve as an exception to this rule, all the more when we combine it with the Hazards issue that this generation has had since day one. What little time we get after this hypothetical ban would be an opportunity to see just how much the Hazards landscape changes with Gholdengo out, even if it were to be for merely a week. While the reasons to suspect Gholdengo are not limited to its influence in hazards, discussions about its actual influence in that particular problem have been commonplace since day 1, and are ultimately summarized by people arguing about the importance of having unstoppable Defog versus people talking about how the abundance of setters and lack of removal would still make it unbalanced in favor of hazards. But that is all we have: arguments. We don't have data to Gholdengo's influence on this matter because we don't have a OU without it, which is the only way to ever know with data just how much responsibility does it hold for the current state of the meta.
Even if its influence in the hazards meta were to be proven to be minimal, this mon would deserve a suspect in the future regardless. But then we'd be able to filter these topics from one another, being able to talk about Gholdengo's properties as a mon without the mention of its influence on hazards, as well as ponder on what we may do (or even not do) about hazards knowing that Gholdengo wasn't the problem.
After DLC2 drops, topics of greater importance such as Tera, re-suspecting/banning some of the Uber drops and whatever new broken stuff GF spits on our faces will completely halt this topic and delay any debate on both hazards and Gholdengo for months, at least. Which gives greater emphasis to the importance of this very limited time frame to make the most of it.
Honestly, a quickban of Gholdengo just to test its influence on the meta as a way to have data for a future post-DLC2 discussion would be the best course of action in a vacuum, but I understand this is would be a grey area of tiering policy usage, to say the least.
In short, I would fully agree that we don't have time to make a suspect at this point and that it's better to just adapt to the current meta for the following weeks knowing that it's end is close with any other pokemon, but a Gholdengo ban is the specific exception where, I believe, there would be long-term merits to seeing a meta without it, even if only for about a week.
Ultimately though, and while I'm very much biased against Gholdengo's existence, I'm "objectively conflicted" myself due to the time frames we have and would understand opposing positions, but if there's a short-lived ban that wouldn't be just a waste of time, it's Gholdengo's.
However, I also believe that Gholdengo's case is special and unique enough to serve as an exception to this rule, all the more when we combine it with the Hazards issue that this generation has had since day one. What little time we get after this hypothetical ban would be an opportunity to see just how much the Hazards landscape changes with Gholdengo out, even if it were to be for merely a week. While the reasons to suspect Gholdengo are not limited to its influence in hazards, discussions about its actual influence in that particular problem have been commonplace since day 1, and are ultimately summarized by people arguing about the importance of having unstoppable Defog versus people talking about how the abundance of setters and lack of removal would still make it unbalanced in favor of hazards. But that is all we have: arguments. We don't have data to Gholdengo's influence on this matter because we don't have a OU without it, which is the only way to ever know with data just how much responsibility does it hold for the current state of the meta.
Even if its influence in the hazards meta were to be proven to be minimal, this mon would deserve a suspect in the future regardless. But then we'd be able to filter these topics from one another, being able to talk about Gholdengo's properties as a mon without the mention of its influence on hazards, as well as ponder on what we may do (or even not do) about hazards knowing that Gholdengo wasn't the problem.
After DLC2 drops, topics of greater importance such as Tera, re-suspecting/banning some of the Uber drops and whatever new broken stuff GF spits on our faces will completely halt this topic and delay any debate on both hazards and Gholdengo for months, at least. Which gives greater emphasis to the importance of this very limited time frame to make the most of it.
Honestly, a quickban of Gholdengo just to test its influence on the meta as a way to have data for a future post-DLC2 discussion would be the best course of action in a vacuum, but I understand this is would be a grey area of tiering policy usage, to say the least.
In short, I would fully agree that we don't have time to make a suspect at this point and that it's better to just adapt to the current meta for the following weeks knowing that it's end is close with any other pokemon, but a Gholdengo ban is the specific exception where, I believe, there would be long-term merits to seeing a meta without it, even if only for about a week.
Ultimately though, and while I'm very much biased against Gholdengo's existence, I'm "objectively conflicted" myself due to the time frames we have and would understand opposing positions, but if there's a short-lived ban that wouldn't be just a waste of time, it's Gholdengo's.
In fairness, Calyrex is a completely acceptable power level for Gen 9 OU.
To add to the discussion a bit, rather than a cheeky one-liner, I noticed that over in OUPL VII, there's an actual "suspect slot" being used to try out questionable mons, and see how they fare. That seems like a great use of resources, and hopefully it'll help decide some of these debates with actual, real-world data?
..who am I kidding, it'll make things worse, somehow. But i'm still glad to see it.
Jotform is free and has an option for this
so, i'd like to ask this because it's thanksgiving: what about gen 9 ou are you most thankful for?
i'm thankful for the council being so much more open, transparent, and active than it's been in the past. it's helped improve the meta so much more than older iterations of the council would have. looking at day 1, you'd think the meta would never be playable, but we've made so much progress in such a short time and it's all thanks to the efforts of our council
also, N I C E
i'm thankful for the council being so much more open, transparent, and active than it's been in the past. it's helped improve the meta so much more than older iterations of the council would have. looking at day 1, you'd think the meta would never be playable, but we've made so much progress in such a short time and it's all thanks to the efforts of our council
also, N I C E
Last edited:
this thread being great comedy value
there is no other good thing about gen 9 ou
The OU council for staying on top of things and being super transparent this gen. They got handed a really tough job in terms of the ludicrous power creep and they’ve really stepped to the plate in terms of both balancing the tier and trying to keep the community’s wishes in mind.
i guess v2 of this thread was also pretty funny i was funnier then
This gen has so many absurdly broken things that make us mad that perhaps we can point out our fav new lads and sets. Maybe I'm a normie, but Ceruledge is one of the dopest mons we've got in years and abilities like Weak Armor just always end up feeling fun when you set up something unstoppable. With so many options its also versatile and fun to experiment with, so it's probably my favorite Pokemon holistically since Excadrill. Meowscarada is also up there in terms of fun factor for me.
I haven't read everything because I'm quite busy, but just my two cents on the whole "is it effective to apply a 1-week ban":
My opinion is that it is worth for two reasons:
1) It's a very rare opportunity to see the meta without the specific threat and evaluate it
2) It creates precedent on that pokemon - when DLC drops there will be many threats and new toy syndrome will kick in HARD and there's a decent chance it'll escape our minds. Having it been banned before creates the precedent and adds to the discussion.
My opinion is that it is worth for two reasons:
1) It's a very rare opportunity to see the meta without the specific threat and evaluate it
2) It creates precedent on that pokemon - when DLC drops there will be many threats and new toy syndrome will kick in HARD and there's a decent chance it'll escape our minds. Having it been banned before creates the precedent and adds to the discussion.
I used to be convinced that a Gholdengo suspect was the way to go, despite how little time we have until DLC2's release. But after reading through this thread and the one on the Policy Review subforum, I'm starting to feel like a Gholdengo suspect right now would have more drawbacks than benefits.
I hope that I'm not mistaken, but I think that a decent amount of the people who gave Ghold a high score on the most recent survey didn't imagine that it would come back to OU right after the 2nd DLC's release if it ever got banned.
If so, how would potential reqs voters feel about the idea of obtaining said requisites for a decision which would only be upheld for 10 days or so? Could that sap their motivation to partake in the suspect process altogether? And more broadly speaking, would the general playerbase be satisfied with the notion of banning a mon only to let it come back in so quickly?
If either (or both) of these groups aren't convinced by the usefulness of this suspect, I don't believe it should go through, despite the (temporary) positive impact it may have on the tier. I believe that taking the time instead to study the effects of the recent Gliscor and Sneasler bans would yield better results in the long run. It would provide both the general and qualified playerbases with the opportunity, for the next few weeks, to experience a somewhat stable meta without looming questions over X or Y Pokémon remaining or not in the tier ; something which hasn't been possible due to all the necessary tiering actions that have been made. I also feel like the current balance and enjoyment average scores, though not ideal, are acceptable enough to not go through with an immediate suspect at present.
I hope that I'm not mistaken, but I think that a decent amount of the people who gave Ghold a high score on the most recent survey didn't imagine that it would come back to OU right after the 2nd DLC's release if it ever got banned.
If so, how would potential reqs voters feel about the idea of obtaining said requisites for a decision which would only be upheld for 10 days or so? Could that sap their motivation to partake in the suspect process altogether? And more broadly speaking, would the general playerbase be satisfied with the notion of banning a mon only to let it come back in so quickly?
If either (or both) of these groups aren't convinced by the usefulness of this suspect, I don't believe it should go through, despite the (temporary) positive impact it may have on the tier. I believe that taking the time instead to study the effects of the recent Gliscor and Sneasler bans would yield better results in the long run. It would provide both the general and qualified playerbases with the opportunity, for the next few weeks, to experience a somewhat stable meta without looming questions over X or Y Pokémon remaining or not in the tier ; something which hasn't been possible due to all the necessary tiering actions that have been made. I also feel like the current balance and enjoyment average scores, though not ideal, are acceptable enough to not go through with an immediate suspect at present.
- Status