Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v3

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaddyBuzzwole said:
so, i'd like to ask this because it's thanksgiving: what about gen 9 ou are you most thankful for?
Click to expand...
I'm thankful for how most players I meet here are actually helpful and encouraging, as long as you're not being a complete jackass when you ask for help or bring something up. I like the shared commitment to genuinely trying to help everyone improve and not judge, which is really nice for me as someone who has really bad anxiety when it comes to the idea of embarrassing myself or looking incompetent. I'm really comfortable with this space, despite how hostile the tone of it can seem if you're just looking at posts head-on, cause I know most people I meet here are chill.
 
Finchinator said:
This is from my recent policy review post here:

The second DLC of this generation is set to be released on the 13th of December, which is just under three weeks from now. There is technically time for another suspect test, which takes about two weeks, but there is also a sentiment that this would generate diminished returns as any potential suspect would end up back in OU upon the release of DLC 2.

SV OU will undergo what some can call a "partial reset" at this time. We will evaluate some potential Ubers to drop down and examine the status of the Pokemon being added to the game that may have been Uber in the prior generation, too. This post is not about that metagame, however, which we will deal with once we have more confirmed information. It is about the current metagame, which has an expiration date within the next month.

Our tiering system has evolved to focus more on data and addressing the evolving needs of the community, which includes the practice of regular community surveys on the metagame. Pokemon that receive high amounts of support within the surveys end up as potential subjects of tiering action. Pokemon like Baxcalibur and Sneasler received overwhelming support and got quickbanned, but other Pokemon received good, but not overwhelming, amounts of support, leading to suspect tests of Pokemon like Roaring Moon or Gliscor.

Currently Gholdengo is comfortably within the margin of support that something would get to be a potential suspect -- it is at a 3.8 out of 5, which is on par with or higher than various prior suspects. There has also been a large outcry about it throughout the community, which you can see across thousands of posts on the forum and discord in recent weeks.

If we had a more permanent metagame state, a suspect would likely be up already (although there is some dispute within the council, this data would be hard to ignore I would personally say) given the uptick in recent support. However, suspecting Gholdengo could be seen as pointless as the verdict would only be in place for about a week before DLC2. This leads me to the point of this thread: when do we draw the line to stop tiering action prior to a release? Is it 2 weeks? A month? 2 months? Situationally dependent?

We have had various suspects and bans recently that are able to help people play a more balanced metagame on the ladder and in tournaments, and this feeling of the metagame improving is reflected in survey results, too. However, players would hardly be able to experience a post-Gholdengo metagame, if it even were to get banned, and with Gholdengo being such a major presence in the metagame, it seems like we would be flirting with futility by suspecting it -- or anything -- this late in the game.

The natural counter to this is that the support is there, there is no precedent or guideline that says when to stop, and we just went ahead on various other suspects/bans that could very well be undone with DLC2 as well, so where do we truly draw the line? We should focus on the current metagame while it is current as it is true that everything else is speculative and unconfirmed until it becomes the current, real metagame in the future post-release. And I personally understand and resonate with this side as we have been focusing on the current metagame for months, so this would be a bit of an abrupt stop. However, I also feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere and now may be the ideal time for that...hence this discussion

I am curious on what the community feels on this. I am ok to go forwawrd with a suspect to give the people what they support, but I also feel that it could be a waste at this point in our timeline and the results would not actually have any longstanding impact.
Click to expand...

Thing is, there is no time for a suspect. And reasonable time to settle. The format as we know it is is going to be gone in 3 weeks.

I think the council's best option here is just to vote on QBing Ghold (and/or gambit). QB with a future retest is a tool that the OU council has used in the past for Mons (Melmetal and Cinderace last gen). Except we get the Mon back in 3 weeks. That's what I think should be done. And if the council vote DNB, then it's set in stone until the next meta.
 
Ctann said:
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
Click to expand...
Broken checks broken isn’t and never has been “ok” “the status quo” or anything of the sort please get your shit straight before posting unless you want to be known as yet another forum shitter.
 
Last edited:
As far as Gholdengo, as someone that would vote ban given Reqs in this Meta, I think it should not be suspected but be kept on the Radar/Surveys going into DLC2 Meta. At this point it’s a good idea to go into the new stuff with a Stable Meta, even if not balanced persay, so that we fan more easily see what disruptions are unhealthy vs just new factors. Gholdengo is high on reactions but some of that is being argued to come from a Meta we don’t have anymore like Gliscor time.

I want DLC1 to have some stable idea how it works so that going into DLC2 we can then see, after any obvious “no” stuff, if the new stuff alleviates Gholdengo’s problems (meaning it was the removal scarcity like some propose) or if it still does all the same stuff against more mons (meaning it’s WHAT it does and not simply how much). Most seem to agree the state of things isn’t good, so best to solidify it and see what the Meta IS instead of what we get the impression of right after some removals since Ghold is a very Meta defining rather than just Meta-Stomping piece
 
choicebadkyurem said:
Hey bud notice I asked Mimikyu Stardust a very good player who I respect and know not some random forum shiter read the post next time bud.
Click to expand...
Thank you for immediately providing a counterexample to my post about people here being cool and chill. People don't need your permission to reply to your posts, especially if yours is part of a larger conversation and they're being on-topic and constructive. Don't keep this behavior up, man. People will dislike and not listen to people if they're assholes even when they're sometimes right, so don't be an asshole or you might turn into the random forum shitter.
pika pal said:
As far as Gholdengo, as someone that would vote ban given Reqs in this Meta, I think it should not be suspected but be kept on the Radar/Surveys going into DLC2 Meta. At this point it’s a good idea to go into the new stuff with a Stable Meta, even if not balanced persay, so that we fan more easily see what disruptions are unhealthy vs just new factors. Gholdengo is high on reactions but some of that is being argued to come from a Meta we don’t have anymore like Gliscor time.

I want DLC1 to have some stable idea how it works so that going into DLC2 we can then see, after any obvious “no” stuff, if the new stuff alleviates Gholdengo’s problems (meaning it was the removal scarcity like some propose) or if it still does all the same stuff against more mons (meaning it’s WHAT it does and not simply how much). Most seem to agree the state of things isn’t good, so best to solidify it and see what the Meta IS instead of what we get the impression of right after some removals since Ghold is a very Meta defining rather than just Meta-Stomping piece
Click to expand...
This is sort of my main worry with everything, yeah. DLC 2 might just introduce the changes that make Gholdengo perfectly fine since its chokehold on the meta now is contingent on this metagame not having the options that deal with it. I want some kind of sticker we can put on it that goes "Will suspect if it turns out next metagame is also dog water".
 
What is up with people being so hostile and edgy on this thread jesus fucking christ

-

Now, even though I believe (if we're talking about pure meta health) a flash suspect would be best, I 100% empathize and understand if the council refuses just because the suspect process must be exhausting. That is true especially now that they have to be really careful because some dumbasses are trying to rig the whole thing

edit for clarity
 
choicebadkyurem said:
Ik this is kind of a dick head thing to say but do you think the Flutter, Hound, Palafin, Bundle, and Eleki bans were to quick were is the line in your opinion not trolling genuinely curious what you have to say and respect you as a player.
Click to expand...
I'd consider those necessary quickbans, if I was generous maybe I'll take palafin off that list but probably not since they shape the meta around "how do I not lose to x" instead of "how do I beat x" if that makes sense. I'm talking more so of pokemon like gliscor, roaring moon and volcarona who are real parts of the tier and wasn't that much of a hassle to fight and contributed something to the tier. Those pokemon I'd rather take the time with the meta and suspect if they're truly that dominating.
 
Mimikyu Stardust said:
I'd consider those necessary quickbans, if I was generous maybe I'll take palafin off that list but probably not since they shape the meta around "how do I not lose to x" instead of "how do I beat x" if that makes sense. I'm talking more so of pokemon like gliscor, roaring moon and volcarona who are real parts of the tier and wasn't that much of a hassle to fight and contributed something to the tier. Those pokemon I'd rather take the time with the meta and suspect if they're truly that dominating.
Click to expand...
I agree on Glisc and Moon but Volc was just kind of an asshole mon that just played terra guessing games fuck it just ban terra but other than that makes sense and thanks for your take
 
DaddyBuzzwole said:
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
Click to expand...


Even with all the busted mons and meta problems, I am thankful we can have Zamazenta-H as an acceptable mon down here, even if it can feel cheap sometimes.

Also i'm thankful for some of the less busted but not quite OU mons we got like Quaquaval and Ceruledge, as both are crazy fun pokemon to use. (Quaquaval is always fun to use even if its kinda busted to some degree in UU and never really has been super duper balanced down there, its still fun to sweep with it down there though.)

Also I'm thankful Ausma and Finch are goated council members who are always super fun council members to interact with, hope they are having a good thanksgiving btw. They have both definitely done a fantastic job leading OU considering the hand Game Freak dealt us this time, and i'm thankful they are doing the best they can to improve the meta, along with the other council members
 
1700787164684.png

Happy Thanksgiving, you buncha turkeys...
 
Finchinator said:
This is from my recent policy review post here:

The second DLC of this generation is set to be released on the 13th of December, which is just under three weeks from now. There is technically time for another suspect test, which takes about two weeks, but there is also a sentiment that this would generate diminished returns as any potential suspect would end up back in OU upon the release of DLC 2.

SV OU will undergo what some can call a "partial reset" at this time. We will evaluate some potential Ubers to drop down and examine the status of the Pokemon being added to the game that may have been Uber in the prior generation, too. This post is not about that metagame, however, which we will deal with once we have more confirmed information. It is about the current metagame, which has an expiration date within the next month.

Our tiering system has evolved to focus more on data and addressing the evolving needs of the community, which includes the practice of regular community surveys on the metagame. Pokemon that receive high amounts of support within the surveys end up as potential subjects of tiering action. Pokemon like Baxcalibur and Sneasler received overwhelming support and got quickbanned, but other Pokemon received good, but not overwhelming, amounts of support, leading to suspect tests of Pokemon like Roaring Moon or Gliscor.

Currently Gholdengo is comfortably within the margin of support that something would get to be a potential suspect -- it is at a 3.8 out of 5, which is on par with or higher than various prior suspects. There has also been a large outcry about it throughout the community, which you can see across thousands of posts on the forum and discord in recent weeks.

If we had a more permanent metagame state, a suspect would likely be up already (although there is some dispute within the council, this data would be hard to ignore I would personally say) given the uptick in recent support. However, suspecting Gholdengo could be seen as pointless as the verdict would only be in place for about a week before DLC2. This leads me to the point of this thread: when do we draw the line to stop tiering action prior to a release? Is it 2 weeks? A month? 2 months? Situationally dependent?

We have had various suspects and bans recently that are able to help people play a more balanced metagame on the ladder and in tournaments, and this feeling of the metagame improving is reflected in survey results, too. However, players would hardly be able to experience a post-Gholdengo metagame, if it even were to get banned, and with Gholdengo being such a major presence in the metagame, it seems like we would be flirting with futility by suspecting it -- or anything -- this late in the game.

The natural counter to this is that the support is there, there is no precedent or guideline that says when to stop, and we just went ahead on various other suspects/bans that could very well be undone with DLC2 as well, so where do we truly draw the line? We should focus on the current metagame while it is current as it is true that everything else is speculative and unconfirmed until it becomes the current, real metagame in the future post-release. And I personally understand and resonate with this side as we have been focusing on the current metagame for months, so this would be a bit of an abrupt stop. However, I also feel a line needs to be drawn somewhere and now may be the ideal time for that...hence this discussion

I am curious on what the community feels on this. I am ok to go forwawrd with a suspect to give the people what they support, but I also feel that it could be a waste at this point in our timeline and the results would not actually have any longstanding impact.
Click to expand...

Honestly its not even a question, Ghold needs to be suspected. Saying its too late before DLC2 really means nothing. What was even the point of having a survey if we were simply going to ignore the results and know that going into DLC2 meant those results would be invalid anyways. Waiting does nothing but make people suffer more in this metagame which isn't being enjoyed atm.

There is potentially the ONLY chance we'll actually have to experience a ghold-free meta. This is no guarantee that Ghold will be next, if ever in DLC2. If we were told that Ghold needed less support going into early DLC2 or it was the next thing to be tested, then sure, I can understand waiting. But realistically, its not gonna be like that. When you add in the combination of old threats like Serp and Blaze, both who can abuse Tera extremely well, unbans bringing in likely broken Ubers, new moves and new Pokemon alongside the brand new changed Tera, with a Suspect which is guaranteed to happen, Ghold is probably not even getting on Radar on initial DLC2.

At least having a Ghold test, lets us experience the meta where for the first time, we aren't forced to spam HDB and Defog becomes a viable move again. and we'd have almost 2 weeks (Assuming a suspect went up today and PS got all the DLC changes right on release) to actually experience this meta. And for the people who don't like this, you would have complained the same way if a mon you thought was broken or unhealthy was allowed to live and you'd had to put up with it for almost another month just because a new DLC was coming.

TLDR; There is support for this action. Its likely our only chance for a Ghold free meta for at least months.
 
Where exactly do we draw the line for what is unhealthy and what isn’t? I think the core problem with what Mimikyu proposes is that yes, in theory it should work, and everything checks everything in a very twisted kind of way, but then the same arguments can be made to unban every single mon that is banned. I personally think every ban was justified in some way, but if we were to theoretically time travel to the beginning of home, and basically implement Mimikyu’s policy of suspecting, do you all think the meta would be better or worse? (For the record, bax, roaring moon, blood moon and gliscor was held back to back, with bax getting qbed with maybe 1 week to let the format settle.)
 
Archer Kirby said:
Honestly its not even a question, Ghold needs to be suspected. Saying its too late before DLC2 really means nothing. What was even the point of having a survey if we were simply going to ignore the results and know that going into DLC2 meant those results would be invalid anyways. Waiting does nothing but make people suffer more in this metagame which isn't being enjoyed atm.

There is potentially the ONLY chance we'll actually have to experience a ghold-free meta. This is no guarantee that Ghold will be next, if ever in DLC2. If we were told that Ghold needed less support going into early DLC2 or it was the next thing to be tested, then sure, I can understand waiting. But realistically, its not gonna be like that. When you add in the combination of old threats like Serp and Blaze, both who can abuse Tera extremely well, unbans bringing in likely broken Ubers, new moves and new Pokemon alongside the brand new changed Tera, with a Suspect which is guaranteed to happen, Ghold is probably not even getting on Radar on initial DLC2.

At least having a Ghold test, lets us experience the meta where for the first time, we aren't forced to spam HDB and Defog becomes a viable move again. and we'd have almost 2 weeks (Assuming a suspect went up today and PS got all the DLC changes right on release) to actually experience this meta. And for the people who don't like this, you would have complained the same way if a mon you thought was broken or unhealthy was allowed to live and you'd had to put up with it for almost another month just because a new DLC was coming.

TLDR; There is support for this action. Its likely our only chance for a Ghold free meta for at least months.
Click to expand...
Imagine we had the cutoff at 1 month and we had to suffer through the rillaboom sneasler meta for another month, potentially even more, considering that they might fly under the radar because of the possibilities of tapus coming back
 
Archer Kirby said:
What was even the point of having a survey if we were simply going to ignore the results and know that going into DLC2 meant those results would be invalid anyways. Waiting does nothing but make people suffer more in this metagame which isn't being enjoyed atm.
Click to expand...
As I said, I’m fine suspecting Gholdengo and personally in favor of it when, but this is headass.

The survey already helped lead to a Sneasler quickban, so I’d say that’s a pretty sizable “point” of having the survey. And the fact that we did that and we are now making threads and posts on how to proceed is the exact opposite of “simply going to ignore the results” — I have devoted hours of my time within the last week to the results, so this is just rude and outright false.

Going further, you claim the tier isn’t being enjoyed, but the same survey — which you claim we ignored — I guess you actually ignored as the results show the metagame as being increasingly enjoyable and at an overall good point in that metric.
 
qways said:
Also pls drop giratina-a with the dlc. it migth be broken but it migth be not and deserves to get tested.
Click to expand...
as the former leader of the movement, no. i've witnessed enough roomtours and unofficial ou + gira-a matches to firmly believe that giratina-altered is broken broken broken and does not have a place in this tier. i got the data i asked for and it led to the conclusion i suspected
 
Finchinator said:
As I said, I’m fine suspecting Gholdengo and personally in favor of it when, but this is headass.

The survey already helped lead to a Sneasler quickban, so I’d say that’s a pretty sizable “point” of having the survey. And the fact that we did that and we are now making threads and posts on how to proceed is the exact opposite of “simply going to ignore the results” — I have devoted hours of my time within the last week to the results, so this is just rude and outright false.

Going further, you claim the tier isn’t being enjoyed, but the same survey — which you claim we ignored — I guess you actually ignored as the results show the metagame as being increasingly enjoyable and at an overall good point in that metric.
Click to expand...

Let me just clarify something. I didn't say you ignored the survey. I was saying what would be the point of having this survey if no action was taken, as that would be ignoring those results. So I just wanna say I feel you misread that and if you found that rude, thats my bad for not making that sound more clear. Again, I was specifically referring to this most recent survey that the question is if there is enough time to act on it.
 
Archer Kirby said:
Let me just clarify something. I didn't say you ignored the survey. I was saying what would be the point of having this survey if no action was taken, as that would be ignoring those results. So I just wanna say I feel you misread that and if you found that rude, thats my bad for not making that sound more clear. Again, I was specifically referring to this most recent survey that the question is if there is enough time to act on it.
Click to expand...
I'm still confused by this response. Is QBing Sneasler not an "action" that was taken?
 
Carl_the_turtle said:
I'm still confused by this response. Is QBing Sneasler not an "action" that was taken?
Click to expand...

Right, now I see the confusion, thanks for that Carl. Makes complete sense. Because that Sneasler QB was like a week before these results came out and we've had surveys at a fairly consistent pace. My dumbass mind gracefully excluded Sneasler and thought it wasn't a part on this Survey and a earlier one due how early it got covered compared to other results. Completely my bad and I'll go stand in the corner. (I still do think action should be taken though)
 
DaddyBuzzwole said:
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
Click to expand...

Imo quickdrops are fine. this is ou, so if a pokémon isn't broken or has the potential to not be broken it should be dropped. Especially when the pokémon was contentious, not a previous quickban, etc. The main difference between idk roaring moon and something like arceus bug is that the point of quickdrops is to evaluate mons on the perspective of the ou power level, while a lot of legendary drop spam is just going "Idk it sucks ass and cheeks in ubers"
 
Bakugames said:
Imo quickdrops are fine. this is ou, so if a pokémon isn't broken or has the potential to not be broken it should be dropped. Especially when the pokémon was contentious, not a previous quickban, etc. The main difference between idk roaring moon and something like arceus bug is that the point of quickdrops is to evaluate mons on the perspective of the ou power level, while a lot of legendary drop spam is just going "Idk it sucks ass and cheeks in ubers"
Click to expand...
thankfully, arceus-bug supporters have basically vanished off the face of the planet after firepon proved that you can still fuck up modern ou six ways from sunday with a stealth rock weakness and an inability to wear shoes. that was kind of their main argument and it had more holes punched through it than the average team did facing firepon
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top