Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [PALAFIN RETEST]

[ausma]

Y’all, the mod team was pretty lenient because it was Christmas but Finch literally just said that this isn’t the shitpost emporium. Please stop or infractions will start to be handed out.

 

[Finchinator]

(Some already have been to egregious/repeat offenders, too)

 

[RainebowValiant]

Making a post so bad multiple fucking council members have to step in what am I doing

Anyways why the fuck is corv in B+. Bro is better than lokix and enam, both A- mons. Corv should be A- or even A tbh, it's an insanely common and powerful defensive pivot in OU usable on stall, balance, and even some bulkier offenses.

 

[Insolence]

To not shitpost: I'm not sure if this is more suited for Policy Review than the discussion thread, but it's interesting that the unban threshold on quickbans is 50%+1 when National Dex just had a 60% threshold. Would it be worth potentially exploring either a drop in the ban threshold to 50%+1 or increasing the unban threshold to 60%? These two seem more intuitive than the system today, but I could be misguided.

I'll focus purely on OU, as I'm not familiar with NatDex, but the conclusion should be the same for both.
The way I see it, there are two competing principles here. Using justification from this thread:

1. If the threshold to unban quickbans is 60%, the process could be used for suspect manipulation (Instead of a suspect needing 60% to ban, quickban and then have a 60% supermajority required to reintroduce the element).
2. It should require the aforementioned supermajority to overturn the current state of the meta. (Tiering policy: "The onus of providing justification is on the side changing the status quo... The side suggesting this must demonstrate why this is necessary and how it affects the ladder and the tournament scene, as well as provide evidence for both")

The issue here is that the current implementation of these rules leads to a contradiction. Palafin was not legal in OU for two years. Additionally, Palafin did not receive enough survey support for the council to consider dropping it during DLC2. Its reintroduction is therefore a clear change to the status quo and should, under current policy, require a supermajority. As it was quickbanned, however, even two years after it left the metagame, it only requires 50%+1 to be allowed back in. There was clear metagame development between its ban and now, not to mention multiple suspect tests, meaning the status quo changed dramatically in that period. This is completely ignored by current policy, and is a clear example of it not lining up with the needs of the playerbase. The side here attempting to change the status quo does not require a supermajority to change the tier. Regardless of your opinion of the 'mons in question, this feels like a loophole, and not one that should remain open.

The most straightforward way to solve this issue would be to have 50%+1 votes required for a certain duration (to prevent suspect manipulation). Then, after a certain amount of time has passed (6 months is probably a reasonable amount, seeing as that was roughly the length of time between the two Gouging Fire tests), it should revert to a supermajority. That way we can avoid the current situation - something that has been gone for 2 years, which clearly would have had massive implications for the metagame during this period, being reintroduced with only a simple majority.

(I'm also in favor of changing the supermajority requirement to 55%, but that is clearly a discussion that needs to happen for Gen 10.)

 

[RainebowValiant]

I'll focus purely on OU, as I'm not familiar with NatDex, but the conclusion should be the same for both.
The way I see it, there are two competing principles here. Using justification from this thread:

1. If the threshold to unban quickbans is 60%, the process could be used for suspect manipulation (Instead of a suspect needing 60% to ban, quickban and then have a 60% supermajority required to reintroduce the element).
2. It should require the aforementioned supermajority to overturn the current state of the meta. (Tiering policy: "The onus of providing justification is on the side changing the status quo... The side suggesting this must demonstrate why this is necessary and how it affects the ladder and the tournament scene, as well as provide evidence for both")

The issue here is that the current implementation of these rules leads to a contradiction. Palafin was not legal in OU for two years. Additionally, Palafin it did not receive enough survey support for the council to consider dropping it during DLC2. Its reintroduction is therefore a clear change to the status quo and should, under current policy, require a supermajority. As it was quickbanned, however, even two years after it left the metagame, it only requires 50%+1 to be allowed back in. There was clear metagame development during this period, not to mention multiple suspect tests, meaning the status quo changed dramatically during that period. This is completely ignored by current policy, and is clearly an example of it not lining up with the needs of the playerbase. The side here attempting to change the status quo does not require a supermajority to change the tier. Regardless of your opinion of the 'mons in question, this feels like a loophole, and not one that should remain open.

The most straightforward way to solve this issue would be to have 50%+1 votes required for a certain duration (to prevent suspect manipulation). Then, after a certain amount of time has passed (6 months is probably a realistic amount, seeing as that was roughly the length of time between the two Gouging Fire tests), it should revert to a supermajority. That way we can avoid the current situation - something that has been gone for 2 years, which clearly would have had massive implications for the metagame during this period, being reintroduced with only a simple majority.

(I'm also in favor of changing the supermajority requirement to 55%, but that is clearly a discussion that needs to happen for Gen 10.)

Fantastic post. No words, good take. Palafin unban being 50%, regardless of policy, feels like a massive mistake, almost like cheating in some ways. I feel like this post perfectly explains why.

 

[Sp0oN1oRd]

Making a post so bad multiple fucking council members have to step in what am I doing

Anyways why the fuck is corv in B+. Bro is better than lokix and enam, both A- mons. Corv should be A- or even A tbh, it's an insanely common and powerful defensive pivot in OU usable on stall, balance, and even some bulkier offenses.

Most neutral hits force it to burn roosts quick and a lot of the most common offensive mons hit it neutrally rn. It's also quite passive, all it can really do is u-turn around. It also competes in that role as a physdef pivot with great mons like mola. I wouldn't put it any higher than B+, I personally have voted it lower the last few VR slates iirc.

 

[RainebowValiant]

Most neutral hits force it to burn roosts quick and a lot of the most common offensive mons hit it neutrally rn. It's also quite passive, all it can really do is u-turn around. It also competes in that role as a physdef pivot with great mons like mola. I wouldn't put it any higher than B+, I personally have voted it lower the last few VR slates iirc.

spdef corv is also one of the best all-purpose gking checks (and kyurem scouts) in the game, while also walling mons like ival, quite a few tusk, and spikes scor along the way.

not to mention that corv is the single best defensive SD scor answer behind like fuckin Tera Ice hydrapple and your own SD scor rn.

corv is still really solid on fat rn even if it's struggling to fight its way for a spot on offense and more offensive balances rn. I think it's definitely better than a few a- mons rn.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

let’s remember this is OU metagame discussion and not the shitpost emporium, thanks.

To not shitpost: I'm not sure if this is more suited for Policy Review than the discussion thread, but it's interesting that the unban threshold on quickbans is 50%+1 when National Dex just had a 60% threshold. Would it be worth potentially exploring either a drop in the ban threshold to 50%+1 or increasing the unban threshold to 60%? These two seem more intuitive than the system today, but I could be misguided.

honestly, i'm not sure why natdex didn't follow suit when ou changed the unquickban threshold to a simple majority. maybe they just didn't know—this kind of scenario comes up so rarely that virtually no one seems to be familiar with the policy (seeing as it's had to be explained something like a dozen times across this and the palafin thread). i believe the unban percentage for quickbans should remain as a simple majority to prevent manipulation of the tiering process. if it were 60% to reverse a quickban, a less scrupulous council could qb something and then test it back down and only require 40% of people wanting it to stay banned, instead of just normally suspecting it and needing 60% to ban it. technically the policy as it stands still makes things a little asymmetrical, so the danger is still present, but the only way to solve that would be to make the threshold for every suspect a simple majority and a lot of people consider that undesirable. i do think the suspect threshold being lowered to 55% might work, but i don't think that would be approved

 

[irobutz]

Hello, im not up to the discussion but i got a question of my own... most teams im facing got either palafin or kyurem, or both, on them and i have a lot of trouble keeping up. how have you guys been keeping up with that double threat? thx in advance.

 

[RainebowValiant]

Hello, im not up to the discussion but i got a question of my own... most teams im facing got either palafin or kyurem, or both, on them and i have a lot of trouble keeping up. how have you guys been keeping up with that double threat? thx in advance.

Cry

(mola + gking is a fantastic pair. Best paired with a knocker to remove covert cloaks)

Otherwise idk. I mainly play stall and HO so idk how balance survives