No, it's 80bp. You have no idea what bp means. Its 120 after STAB.
-
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 Views From The Council
- Thread starter njnp
- Start date
- Status
Tera is not getting banned. Accept it y'all, this generation is cooked. Nintendo shipped an unfixable product. Set your clocks for gen 10 or play lower tiers.
besides the fact that this absolutely is a destructive mentality that does not help the tier in anyway or contribute to anything positive to the discussion. There is still other ways to improve the tier outside of a tera ban. It’s really just about not being afraid of change and testing some bans when we still have a lot of time with gen9 to go. People are so set on this short term thinking of banning x makes x annoying that they forget that’s how we are improve the tier in the first place and how balancing is approached in a ton of other competitive games (that’s also how we’ve approached tiering for years).
Okay, I'd like to ask the people who are against banning tera blast, but what is the negatives to banning tera blast? What defensive tools do we lose to check mons if we ban it. From what I can see, the mons that use it are primarily using it to break through counters, the only exceptions I can see is Heatran(can still trap things without tera), Hydrapple(doesn't really need it as it is a niche option on one stall team) and Alomomola(lmao, just run red card acrobatics). All these mons have secondary ways to do things besides using tera blast, and I would say those options are better overall. I get the mentality of "it only breaks one mon", but we have seen in the past that it can break other mons. I wouldn't be suprised if in the future, we get a tera blast mon that completely breaks the metagame. I don't see any downsides to a tera blast ban, so wouldn't banning it just make things better? Again, prove me wrong, but that's my thinking. I know we don't tier things based on their defensive utility, but I think we should define what it is so we can see how things would change, i.e. if things would get better.
You lose the lure effect in the same way you lose offensively, but on a much smaller scale.
My problem with Blast is that I can't see the move as separate from the Terastal mechanics. I'm anti-Tera but I prefer this $h1t intact rather than mischaracterized and fragmented.
Obviously it's an option that would solve some small problems in the short term, but I'd rather lose Volcarona and maybe Enamorus.
Say it again for the people in the back.
It’s been a number of years since I’ve been active in the Pokémon community, but since I’ve been gone, it seems like there is a loud cohort of players who vehemently oppose any sort of ban. Some of those players are also some of the most influential in the tier, so their opinions unduly tip the scales toward an anti-ban sentiment. Ultimately, this is hugely unproductive because it just causes the meta to stagnate and fester. And it’s made even more infuriating because almost everyone agrees that this metagame needs some work.
The ban rate from suspects this generation currently sits at 50%, which, to me, is exactly where a well-tuned system should be. However, if you delve a little deeper into what was successfully banned, you see that some of the banned Pokémon (Ursa, Chien-Pao) arguably deserved quick bans, which artificially inflates the successful ban percentage. I don’t say this to dunk on the council, but instead to highlight how the community’s tendencies have influenced how the council is forced to act. If you need another example, look at how the community responded to the Volc quickban.
As far as how to fix these problems, I’d say the community as a whole needs to be more open in general and especially more open to bans. Yes, that means being open to revisiting Tera/Tera Blast. Saying “Tera is here to stay. Get used to it.” is unhelpful and shuts down conversation rather than forming a dialogue among the many different players who each has their own nuanced and valid opinion. People also need to get off their high horse and play by the rules and decisions set forth by the council. I totally get it if you think a different suspect should have taken place first, but that doesn’t mean you need to go nuclear with the DNB votes. Also, understand that just because something gets banned doesn’t mean it’s sent to the shadow realm for the rest of the generation. Plenty of Pokémon have been unbanned over the years, and I trust the council plus the player base writ large to be able to sort that stuff out.
The second thing I’ll say is that the ban threshold for a suspect should be reduced to 50% + 1. I am not aware of the specific conditions that led to the 60% requirement, but the only reason I have seen given in here is that it helps to stabilize the metagame. Maybe that was true in prior generations, but there are so many bigger factors contributing to the volatility of OU nowadays with the biggest contributor being the steady stream of new Pokémon via Home or DLCs. I will also point out that the mod team is going out of their way to engage with the player base to determine what should be banned or suspected regularly. I don’t think that was necessarily the case when the 60% requirement was implemented. Now, I do understand that this change is unlikely to occur until generation 10, but implementing it when the time comes should be a top priority imo.
As far as next steps for this metagame as it stands now, I think Gouging Fire, Raging Bolt, and Roaring Moon have already proven themselves suspect-worthy. I think you could also make a case for testing/retesting Kyurem, Kingambit, and maybe even Ogerpon-W.
But honestly? I am open to just about anything to bring this meta into a more playable state. I am even open to dropping Ubers to wrangle certain moms if we don’t get at least a few more bans.
PS: I remember when the council did a fake April Fools suspect for one of the Giratina forms during ORAS. Who knew that 3 generations later, people would legitimately be suggesting freeing it.
The Tera Blast ban will be devastating for my soon to cook Hisuian Zoroark set which will have 5 move coverage, normal pre tera and post tera typing :^)
In all seriousness, I don't know if Tera Blast is broken on enough things to be banned with the exact same justification as others, but also, I really dont see anything clinging to the blast for viability, at least in OU, so it really is just a small neutering of Tera that I don't see as having any real collateral.
In all seriousness, I don't know if Tera Blast is broken on enough things to be banned with the exact same justification as others, but also, I really dont see anything clinging to the blast for viability, at least in OU, so it really is just a small neutering of Tera that I don't see as having any real collateral.
Personally I think a bunch of bans at once would be a bit sloppy and reckless, especially given how we have seen certain singular quickbans end up with the reactions that they have this generation. I do think 2-3 things can afford to go, but I’m also not hellbent on them going instantly either.
I think the best approach was the approach we had for the Archaludon suspect: identify something as problematic, have members of council or communal prominence state their opinions, and see the influence trickle and ideas spread as they have (be it in favor of action or not). Like it or not: the community plays the tier and naturally should matter towards its tiering. That’s just the reality of the situation.
I think the best approach was the approach we had for the Archaludon suspect: identify something as problematic, have members of council or communal prominence state their opinions, and see the influence trickle and ideas spread as they have (be it in favor of action or not). Like it or not: the community plays the tier and naturally should matter towards its tiering. That’s just the reality of the situation.
Baloor I 100% agree this mentality highlighted by others is dumb. Hell we don't even have up to date survey results so the sentiment on tera isn't even super current necessarily. Point being things change and I think people are circling back to tera being a problem again. Point I am trying to make is that having the mentality of something not having enough support so why bother is a very dumb mindset, as for all we know support on a tera ban could go up on the next survey or down again. The meta is a constantly changing and volatile one, and with these changes bring the change of opinions. From what I have seen a lot more people after the survey wanted action on tera, just not immediately which makes me believe there is still a good portion of the community that thinks it's an issue that might be shown by the next survey having higher (hopefully) support or lower depending on how this next survey goes.
I don't know, man. I hate Tera's guts, but you've been predicting that Tornadus-Therian to OU will rise with each coming tier shift, and this insistence that the next survey will have higher support for action on the mechanic seems very much like a Déjà vu moment to me. I've seen more people who have the capability of getting suspect reqs come around to accepting Tera's presence in the tier than the other way around, which is backed by the last tiering survey's results that under half of qualified survey takers even want action on Tera, which is a marked drop-off compared to the last time a survey gauged community interest on acting on Tera.
Last edited:
Since the Kokoloko tiering method is being brought up again: what a lot of people seem to be forgetting is that it was devised to work within the specific confines of how UU exists and operates. As the tier directly below OU, it could, on any give month, either have something important to the meta stolen by its higher up or randomly be graced with a relatively overpowered sloppy second. Maybe multiple Pokémon stolen/given at a time or both at once (idk the history of the tier that deeply I never played it). The logic of the "mass ban first ask questions later" approach was to keep the tier playable until things could be examined safely, as the meta was inherently unstable.
OU, for all its faults, is a stable tier not at risk of randomly losing glues like Great Tusk. A wave of knee-jerk mass bans could potentially do more harm than good if the meta is not allowed to properly adjust to see if things are truly that dire. Also less suspects for tiering contributor I guess.
OU, for all its faults, is a stable tier not at risk of randomly losing glues like Great Tusk. A wave of knee-jerk mass bans could potentially do more harm than good if the meta is not allowed to properly adjust to see if things are truly that dire. Also less suspects for tiering contributor I guess.
Last edited:
for the record the point of my post was not just "tera ban isn't happening so the tier can't try to improve", it was that a tera blast ban is a pretty good and reasonable thing we can do,
in reply to someone saying that there is no point to a tera blast ban if you are anti tera.
I think Baloor is correct and I have said before that the community is being really weird about banning mons. I don't think a Tera ban is on the table, but I still think we should work to a better metagame.
not sure if this was a direct response to me or not because i didnt really read what other people posted after mine but just wanted respond from my perspective to clarify a few things with my post.
trying taking power away from the community is not my intent, I just wanted to point out how the perspective shift with the community being more afraid of bans this generation has not really benefitted us. obviously, we don't want to be ban happy either because that's just as stupid but we have hit a point in the tier where the short term thinking I mentioned before is not going to help us reach a desired product by the end of gen9. We still have a fair amount of time before we reach panic territory so its not that we immediately need things gone like you said, but I do think bringing up the point that we need to stop being so afraid of banning things is something that needed to be brought up sooner than later. But yeah, it was more of a reflection on how the community thinks and has been approaching things this gen rather than a plea for the council to go full dictator. Even if you weren't directly responding to me with this post, I do want to add on to this point so people don't try to run the dialogue that I want the council to go completely rogue. Introducing the surveys back in Gen8 has been one of the best things to happen to OU for a while, while I feel sometimes these are held a little too high in regard sometimes currently, I dont think anybody disagrees that giving the general community more of a platform to be outspoken is a negative considering the previous option was screaming into the empty void that is the generational metagame thread.
I am genuinely shocked how smooth the whole process of the Archaludon suspect went, I hope to see the community be that productive and overall civil in future suspects. I completely agree that this was the best approach we've seen all gen and I hope that we see more of this.
I do regret editing in the part about the kokoloko method as it was not intended to be a "WE NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW" and I worded it very poorly. Like you said banning a bunch of things right now is a bit reckless given we have quite a while left with the generation. When I edited in the kokoloko method portion what I had in mind was more of a if we continue to not being able to agree on anything perhaps its a more viable option than originally thought since I was originally not too big of the idea. Mentioning the idea of it being a "last resort-esk" option is still worthwhile to bring up since I think we did end of dismissing it all together before but yeah right now when we have the option to get our shit together, probably not. I don't think this clarification on what I meant will stop people from bringing it up so oopsies on derailing.
I also want to mention that I dont think unbanning something like Chien-Pao should be seen as a option until its the absolute last resort, I think we have more than enough resources to improve the tier if the community comes together.
Last edited:
Not really, more general commentary. I appreciate your clarity and thoroughness nonetheless.
I think this narrative is overblown. We had suspects like Zama and Kyurem on borderline broken Pokemon and Wake that wasn’t broken at the time. Kingambit also was suspected when it was going to end up reintroduced to OU a month or two later with a new release anyway; I think this hits harder now as there’s just more permanence to it all without another new release coming. But even then: there’s ample time to re-test Kyurem and 58% is nothing to scoff at. We will get to a good point.
I agree entirely with this and I think you phrased it perfectly!
Surveys are great and I love the middleground we found, but at the same time, how we use them (or don’t) needs work. I actually plan on writing a PR thread at sometime in the future on the best ways to apply and integrate them. We are always a work in progress after all.
I appreciate your posts, enthusiasm about the tier, and clarity.
At their convenience, could a council member comment on why the suspect ban cutoff for mons is 60% (as opposed to a simple majority)?
I feel that in a gen like this with so many fast paced drops and powerful threats, a simple majority (>50%) ban cutoff would enable more progess to be made quickly. For example, a majority (58%) of voters wanted Kyurem banned and yet the ban missed the 60% mark by a hair. In effect, we get borderline-broken mons languishing in the tier because 60% is difficult to reach given the vocal anti-ban contingents that inevitably pop up for every mon. And thus change in the tier progresses very slowly.
I feel that now is not the time to be conservative about bans, but instead allow a simple majority vote to swing bans so the tier can evolve.
I feel that in a gen like this with so many fast paced drops and powerful threats, a simple majority (>50%) ban cutoff would enable more progess to be made quickly. For example, a majority (58%) of voters wanted Kyurem banned and yet the ban missed the 60% mark by a hair. In effect, we get borderline-broken mons languishing in the tier because 60% is difficult to reach given the vocal anti-ban contingents that inevitably pop up for every mon. And thus change in the tier progresses very slowly.
I feel that now is not the time to be conservative about bans, but instead allow a simple majority vote to swing bans so the tier can evolve.
I'm not a council member, but I believe the 60%+1 vote ban threshold for has been standard across OU for many generations to ensure that there is a consensus on tiering decisions. Let's take the Kingambit vote for example. 55% of voters voted to ban Kingambit, whereas 45% didn't, which is still quite a notable community split. With a 60%+1 margin for bans, it ensures that any Pokemon that is banned is banned by a large number of voters that is a much larger block than the anti-ban camp.
Personally, I am opposed to the ban threshold being changed and feel it serves its purpose in ensuring what is broken or unhealthy beyond reasonable doubt is banned (Although I feel the Mega Sableye ban in Gen 6 coming at the end of the generation when most people had tuned out was a mistake. Arena Trap was what was broken, not Mega Sableye).
Last edited:
I plan to make a thread about moving it to 55% potentially in the future, but personally think it’s best keeping it as is during the generation — changing it right now would feel like a bit of a crybaby move after the Kingambit and Kyurem results.
With this in mind, something over 50% straight majority is important to assure a sufficient amount of support to flip a status quo. Council bans are over 2/3, too. We take bans and tiering action seriously and they should require noteworthy support — it is all arbitrary though and discussion can (and will continue to) happen.
Nah now I don't think tornadus will rise unless booster gets banned, due to booster creating too many knock absorbers in the meta for it to function, even if it's kind of solid
But my point still stands that the metagame is changing and that these things can change. Natdex uu was fine with tera at first, then they banned the fuck out of it. People are still quite split even at top level play, and things can change very quickly. Even if people have accepted tera, people are still gonna be split on it at high level play. And I've been seeing a lot of discourse against it as of late from qualified players and regular players alike. So time will tell if the next survey has anything to say
Also we had an entire tiering discussion during dlc1 that kind of feels wasted since nothing has been done with it as of yet, and I think another might be warranted at this point since people are still split on with what do with it. Maybe it's time for a second discussion, because most agree that tera blast being banned probably isn't a good solution as it only solves one part of the problem but not all of the offensive and defensive cheese it enables. Point being I think tera should still be somewhat monitored and included on surveys from here on our due to how controversial it still is in singles, even if it is less so if the next survey is like the previous
Last edited:
given that tera is the current topic of discussion, i wanted to propose something that i've been thinking about for a while.
disclaimer: i am an extremely casual participant in SV OU. i do follow the metagame, mostly through youtubers and forum lurking, but i don't play it very often. i would like to think i have an informed opinion of this tier, but i don't think i could claim i have much tangible experience in it.
anyhow, the basic concept is this: a new clause where pokemon are only allowed to terastallize into a type if that type is present on an attacking move in their moveset. for example, Dragapult would not have access to terastallize fairy, because it can't learn a fairy type attack, but it could terastallize into a water type, because it has access to Hydro Pump.
for clarification, a pokemon does not need to include that move on its moveset to gain access to its corresponding tera type (dragapult could tera water without running Hydro Pump, in the previous example). additionally, tera stellar is always available.
the intent with this would be to curb both the general power and the unpredictability of the tier. many pokemon would lose powerful defensive tera options, and pokemon like Volcarona and Serperior would have their coverage brought back into line with the original constraints of their moveset. i've attached a notepad document to this post with some data about current OU pokemon (and a few others) and what tera types they would have access to under the constraints of this proposal.
i realize that this is likely an unrealistic tiering option, given it strays quite far from cartridge mechanics. however, i think it is an interesting thought experiment that could potentially lead to some revelations about tera's current existence in the tier. if the moderation team finds this too off topic i would be happy to move it elsewhere (metagame discussion is currently discussing potential suspect candidates, so i didn't want to distract from that).
i would love to hear y'alls thoughts on this. i think it has many of the advantages of a tera blast ban, and more generally i would like to see more discussion of ways to take tiering action on tera that fall outside of options that have already been discussed.
disclaimer: i am an extremely casual participant in SV OU. i do follow the metagame, mostly through youtubers and forum lurking, but i don't play it very often. i would like to think i have an informed opinion of this tier, but i don't think i could claim i have much tangible experience in it.
anyhow, the basic concept is this: a new clause where pokemon are only allowed to terastallize into a type if that type is present on an attacking move in their moveset. for example, Dragapult would not have access to terastallize fairy, because it can't learn a fairy type attack, but it could terastallize into a water type, because it has access to Hydro Pump.
for clarification, a pokemon does not need to include that move on its moveset to gain access to its corresponding tera type (dragapult could tera water without running Hydro Pump, in the previous example). additionally, tera stellar is always available.
the intent with this would be to curb both the general power and the unpredictability of the tier. many pokemon would lose powerful defensive tera options, and pokemon like Volcarona and Serperior would have their coverage brought back into line with the original constraints of their moveset. i've attached a notepad document to this post with some data about current OU pokemon (and a few others) and what tera types they would have access to under the constraints of this proposal.
i realize that this is likely an unrealistic tiering option, given it strays quite far from cartridge mechanics. however, i think it is an interesting thought experiment that could potentially lead to some revelations about tera's current existence in the tier. if the moderation team finds this too off topic i would be happy to move it elsewhere (metagame discussion is currently discussing potential suspect candidates, so i didn't want to distract from that).
i would love to hear y'alls thoughts on this. i think it has many of the advantages of a tera blast ban, and more generally i would like to see more discussion of ways to take tiering action on tera that fall outside of options that have already been discussed.
Thanks for the reply. I see how a buffer is important to guard against a swing vote changing the tier. I also agree that messing with the status quo probably wouldn’t be a great look in the wake of Kyurem test. I appreciate the open-mindedness though.
Any value above 50% is arbitrary. But 55% seems like a fair and acceptable path for both sides.
In a 55% x 45% scenario there is still a 10% difference in votes/players to guarantee the desired consistency in the decision.
For actions in the council there is nothing to change imo.
Happy to see the council increasingly adept at taking different steps without losing organization.
Agree with a lot of these points. I think the council/high levels player often leave behind newer/mid tier players trying to improve. The meta is not friendly to anyone but experienced players right now or people who heavily lean into HO/offense. There are so many threats it feels very difficult to even try and build a team and then Tera allows a lot of gimmicky stuff to control low ladder. I (and I’m sure a lot of other players) would like to eventually get reqs to have a say in the direction of the meta but it feels like practicing on the ladder is sort of meaningless right now.
In hindsight Volcarona was too strong and had far too few reliable answers, but it felt less oppressive than several other Pokémon that actually received a suspect test. They were fine for generations and weren't nearly as egregious as Palafin or Flutter Mane, two Pokémon who had recently set the perceptions of what kind of Pokémon deserve a quick ban. I can understand why the community had pushed back so hard.
That said, I also didn't tap dance on the council's throat over it.
IMO Waterpon suspect needs to be a priority. It has very few common checks and tbh it isn't even bad against HO. The set variety can also make it even less consistent to fight against for the filler slot.
One notable thing is also that the coverage of Grass/Water/Fairy does not have any single Tera type to even check it, which makes it even less consistent to fight. If you Tera Dragon your Skarmory or something, you are now weak to Play Rough. Tera Grass is definitely the best one to check it, but even then Play Rough is neutral.
I'm not gonna say that Waterpon sweeps entire teams for free, but it is clear that, yes, Archaludon forcing Superpower really held Waterpon back. Now its weights are off, and I think it should be the Suspect priority.
While I think the Dragons also have to go, none of them stand out as much as Waterpon IMO. Gouging can have several semi checks, Raging Bolt is usually forced to Tera to consistently stay alive, and Roaring Moon is still kind of at the borderline as of now.
Waterpon, though, is really not borderline IMO. Unless you are a Gterrain team, you have to go very far out of your way to check it and you will probably still fail/get dunked on by other sets than the SD/Play Rough (imo the best one, and the priority when checking it).
One notable thing is also that the coverage of Grass/Water/Fairy does not have any single Tera type to even check it, which makes it even less consistent to fight. If you Tera Dragon your Skarmory or something, you are now weak to Play Rough. Tera Grass is definitely the best one to check it, but even then Play Rough is neutral.
I'm not gonna say that Waterpon sweeps entire teams for free, but it is clear that, yes, Archaludon forcing Superpower really held Waterpon back. Now its weights are off, and I think it should be the Suspect priority.
While I think the Dragons also have to go, none of them stand out as much as Waterpon IMO. Gouging can have several semi checks, Raging Bolt is usually forced to Tera to consistently stay alive, and Roaring Moon is still kind of at the borderline as of now.
Waterpon, though, is really not borderline IMO. Unless you are a Gterrain team, you have to go very far out of your way to check it and you will probably still fail/get dunked on by other sets than the SD/Play Rough (imo the best one, and the priority when checking it).
Second this Woger has been testworthy for a long while and rn it's at a relative peak.
- Status