okay so reading on a lot of this and the metagame discussion thread, it has come to my attention that a lot of you are completely awful and terrible at arguing an anti-terastilization stance, and often don't even understand the pro-Terastilization argument regardless of which tier
and a lot of why I know this, is because I have been on both sides of the argument, and still am; I enjoy Terastilization in some tiers, and think Terastilization is terrible in others (like this one.)
a lot of these arguments are unappealing to anyone who does not already agree with the argument, because most of them do not actually add anything to the discussion.
A common example:
-
"These Pokemon should be banned and Tera is a big part of why, I admit. But just ban the abusers rather than the mechanic."
"But it's standard and the big picture to ban the thing that breaks many Pokemon, rather than the Pokemon."
on the surface, this doesn't seem that bad, but it has a lot of implications that drag the conversation to a halt:
1. Terastilization is not just any random mechanic.
The way this argument is structed on the anti-Tera side of the argument is an easy way to explain the Smogon principle this is linked to. The difference, however, is that mechanics like that are generally more of say: A move, ability, item; and that is a large reason of why it's generally an agreeableargument.
However, the majority of people do not see Terastilization as a mechanic at that level, something you should just chuck away.
We can divide mechanics into two types:
Structural - This is the backbone of the battling mechanics. For instance, Gen 1's crit rates versus Gen 7's. The physical/special split existing or not, or Team Preview, Double Battles in Gen 3 having you switch in a Pokemon after it faints, and being open to being attacked. These are things that are directly tied to the core mechanics of the game.
Additive -This is the stuff that is generally used for tiering. Abilities, items, Pokemon, moves, etc. You can just pluck them out of a ruleset, and that's fairly small scale and easy.
However, a lot of people seem to argue against Terastilization like it's an Additive mechanic, when most people who disagree view it as Structural to the Paldean games.
This completely disconnects the two viewpoints about Terastilization more than any other, and I don't know why it isn't focused on more: Pro-Terastilization advocates (who are not just people who like the mechanic in singleplayer or whatever) see it as a structural pillar of Scarlet and Violet, and as a core mechanic rather than an additive one.
Every single point about Terastilization will at some point have to reach a side on this issue. For instance, when a lot of players who dislike Terastilization say they do not like it for X, Y and Z; it's generally framed as a mechanic that is throwaway. That because it has not been established for generations like say, Team Preview, it is on the same level as an Additive mechanic, only something that can get in the way of what they like about competitive Pokemon.
How to Argue Against this:
So, I have explained the two sides of this argument, and why it is immediately the disconnection in perspective. How do you convincea pro-Terastilization person against this argument? This depends on tier.
With Dynamax, it was simply so terrible that it really overrides any deeper implications present about what it meant for this sort of tiering to the average player. It was a month, then it was banned, and everyone moved on. This will clearly not be that way.
So, you have a few options:
>Argue using the opposite perspective.
"It's understandable to be on the fence about banning an instrumental component of battling in Gen 9, but it's simply something that has most of the community for its removal. Be this be because of them prioritizing the things that may have to be banned instead, or it not being enjoyable, or making certain teamstyles unplayable; Smogon exists to carve around Game Freak, rather than just use it to the best of our ability. While it could maybe be interesting to continue with Tera, it is in my opinion unfair that the majority of players have to play with it due to philosophical differences on what the mechanic is."
>Present the argument on the National Dex specific perspective.
"A lot of people even regarding the main Scarlet and Violet Smogon tiers still want the mechanic banned in their metagame, but in National Dex specifically, we are actively designing a game around what Game Freak has created, essentially. National Dex doesn't play much Generation 9, or give any care to its mechanics more than others. It specifically has the philosophy of carrying on past Generation 7's groundwork, and adding anything else as an additional thing, as of now. Besides some Pokemon from Paldea, Generation 9 National Dex has only really come with this one change on top of the Generation 7+ framework, that makes it come off as unimportant, naturally. Along with that, it is focused on allowing as many Pokemon as possible to relieve the community of the National Dex problem."
2. But Muh Pokemon
One of the most striking things about seeing people talk about Terastilization from an anti perspective is just how much of it is shaped by the Dynamax rhetoric of the time. And one of the most common ways I see this come out, is from the "Endless Abusers" argument. It goes a bit something like this:
"If Terastilization makes X, Y and Z abusers broken, just ban them."
"But then A, B and C will just take their place!"
I am not going to give an alternative argument in response, because any version of this is just terrible.
For one, the abusers listed in response are almost always Pokemon with very specific things that make them the way they are. Volcarona is a Pokemon known for adding matchup reliance into metagames, and has been for a time seen as broken in essentially every metagame its been in.
"Ban volc, not zama" -Finchinator, 2021
Volcarona, Regieleki, Garganacl, etc. If you HAVE to use this type of argument, only use Pokemon that are absolutely generic, or one could just as easily make the opposing argument:
"Well, why would X being broken with Tera mean A would be broken with it?"
The only time the But Muh Pokemon argument works, is when the opposing person has no clue what they are doing. Straight up. A lot of the time the listical of "Pokemon potentially broken by Terastilization" is filled with a lot of dumb things. Going back through National Dex threads, there have been a lot of Pokemon listed by good players who dislike Terastilization saying "this will probably have to be banned if Tera is not gone!!!" and they aren't even that good now.
You are going to have to work with the revision of the arguments from 1., because this argument leads to nothing: Even if you were to prove that 295828 something Pokemon have to be banned supposedly, if your perspective is that it takes prominence over individual Pokemon, then this does nothing.
also... "Slippery slope is a logical fallacy tha-"
Then How Do You Call Attention To This Fact In A Rhetorically Sound Matter?
Any argument using any number of Pokemon that "have to be banned" to save the mechanic, should be very conservative (and not riddled with "well maybe this one wouldn't be", along with "this one is debatable"s) to where they are generally just strong Pokemon that use the mechanic to a degree that is likely banworthy. One of the better examples I usually use is Tapu Lele: While generally just very strong, it has rarely ever been seriously on the chopping block ever since the Terrain nerf in Generation 8. Its Special Attack and Speed aren't even amazing, and its ability does a lot of the work while not being unconventional to work around. A strong and fast Pokemon that has an ability that boosts its power noticably, but not to an insane level; and yet Terastilization can push this much over the edge.
If that list comes out, then hopefully you already established a counter to the aforementioned usual flaws in arguing the side, and make great note about National Dex's strong identity about having as many Pokemon as possible. A lot of people directly go to National Dex to have the most full roster in an Overused-esque environment possible.
This way, you avoid the problem of the "power level"/scaling argument, which doesn't really make much sense. A lot of mechanics can power up Pokemon, but generally do get less absurd the lower you go. However, the National Dex priorities argument keeps this on track: Yes, we could trade a lot of power, but the tier is not about to cater to an (now established in context) additive mechanic, that low.
And for the love of God, I've seen many use examples that in main SV OU barely even Terastilize as arguments for its banworthiness, Yes different metagames different threats, but there are plenty of inarguable examples (ie. say, Roaring Moon) than Pokemon that could go from pressing Tera every game to once in every twenty in a few months.
3. How Does it Impact The Match
This is a point that a lot of anti-Terastilization arguments have done pretty well actually, so I don't have many notes. Kingambit Tera-Flying on Earthquake or Close Combat is a good example I've seen quite a bit, though it's also a bit exaggerated. A lot of these arguments fall short with how the conditions of the match have to be imagined, and how specific they get.
"You have 2 Pokemon left and the opponent has 0.6315 health remaining. If you click Earthquake on Landorus-Therian it will defeat the Kingambit and win the game, but if it Tera Fly's and uses Swords Dance, it wins the game with Sucker Punches. If you use Stone Edge, it will win the game if it does that."
it gets oddly specific and you can get into long tangents about the nature of how the game plays, risk versus reward, stuff like that. In fact, I'd argue the word "uncompetitive" is actually a very large flaw in these arguments, because a lot of people see this as risk reward, rather than an example of uncompetitiveness. This gets into another philosophical argument after another, and it's easier to just not say that word and instead imply the issue with a thing.
And don't be afraid to straight up say you just don't find it fun. For some reason a lot of people have been convinced on both sides that enjoyment cannot be a part of a Smogon competitive topic, which I at least find very silly. A lot of what we find competitive or uncompetitive is defined by ingrained philosophy and what we find fun. Arena Trap doesn't even require luck,, but people dislike it, and it makes teambuilding worse, so we don't play with it.
Calling people out for mentioning that they find the mechanic fun is also silly, because no, saying you find something fun does not actually imply that person thinks it is uncompetitive. This is the weirdest Twitter shit I see all the time. If someone says "I have fun with Terastilization" where in that sentence did that mfer say they think it's fun in spite of being uncompetitive. Fuck, we are on a competitive game forum, you could very easily get the opposite conclusion: "I have fun with Terastilization (in this competitive game, meaning it does not hinder my enjoyment with uncompetitiveness)".
Everyone here wants the best game possible. Don't just assume negatively because of some weird bias.
4. But We Have Options
The largest hurdle of the anti-Terastilization argument in National Dex is this: There are a lot of options to deal with Terastilization in tiering. And this is something I don't necessarily have an argument against. l think the simplest and easiest way to deal with the mechanic is to just ban it from the tier, no matter the "could've would've" scenarios. But a lot of people have valid opinions on the topic for restriction, and I won't be the one to shut that down.
However, from a binary, it really isn't that hard to argue for banning Terastilization in National Dex, and some of you are throwing.
I hope this sincerely helps lock out the last percentage of pro-Tera ND sentiment from the actual playerbase (will never convince some people), and helps readers develop their rhetorical skills. While I was a bit aggressive in the initial writing of it, I simply see it as tough love. I believe that with better rhetorical analysis and argumentation skills, we can guarantee that something gets done on this topic.
Cheers. <3
---
---
---
. all the replays they provided were high level tour replays too, just in case you try to dispute it on that basis.
