Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4

[Ehmcee]

Were there any that fell below the 10% mark in the more recent data that had been above 10% previously? Cause if so that could show us something as well. Either way I do think that Tera Blast is becoming more and more of a problem and should definitely have a suspect.

The only such cases would be dropping from 42.89% Tera Blast Usage in January to unrecorded in July (somewhere below 9.79%) in the 1695 range.

In the 1825 range we see dropping from 71.21% Tera Blast Usage in January to 7.26% usage in July, while we also see a slight drop for , going from 10.19% to 8.89%.

Otherwise, all the Pokemon that were running Tera Blast in January were still running them a decent amount in July.

 

[zbr]

It’s Tera Blast.

I think I want to highlight to a lot of people here that Tera Blast is a lot more match up fishing than it is lure. Cause I guarantee that a lot of players (like me) would assume that tailoring your Tera type so that Tera Blast can delete the mon you want to is considered luring (i.e Tera Ground Iron Moth)

Lures are generally moves that excel in taking out certain types of isolated threats that the player wants to remove. Hurricane Dragonite was a very popular option because Dragonite baited in popular mons like Great Tusk and Hurricane gave Dragonite a way to remove them with a level of surprise. These lure moves do not generally lose their value when not facing up against the victim of choice. Let’s say Dragonite faced off against other mons like Landorus T or Ogerpon Wellspring, Hurricane still has some value of use.

That’s not the same for Tera Blast. Tera Blast functionally has no coverage value if the user doesn’t Terastalize. It remains as a base 80 special normal type move and this issue is further exacerbated if you’re running it on a physically offensive mon like Kingambit for example.

This is the crucial difference between a move that lures and a move that fishes for ideal matchups. In a metagame where we are already over saturated with powerful mons, moves that encourage matchup fishing detracts the value of skill in the gameplay.

 

[Bold School]

I think I want to highlight to a lot of people here that Tera Blast is a lot more match up fishing than it is lure. Cause I guarantee that a lot of players (like me) would assume that tailoring your Tera type so that Tera Blast can delete the mon you want to is considered luring (i.e Tera Ground Iron Moth)

Lures are generally moves that excel in taking out certain types of isolated threats that the player wants to remove. Hurricane Dragonite was a very popular option because Dragonite baited in popular mons like Great Tusk and Hurricane gave Dragonite a way to remove them with a level of surprise. These lure moves do not generally lose their value when not facing up against the victim of choice. Let’s say Dragonite faced off against other mons like Landorus T or Ogerpon Wellspring, Hurricane still has some value of use.

That’s not the same for Tera Blast. Tera Blast functionally has no coverage value if the user doesn’t Terastalize. It remains as a base 80 special normal type move and this issue is further exacerbated if you’re running it on a physically offensive mon like Kingambit for example.

This is the crucial difference between a move that lures and a move that fishes for ideal matchups. In a metagame where we are already over saturated with powerful mons, moves that encourage matchup fishing detracts the value of skill in the gameplay.

While I appreciate some of these arguments, I partly dispute the idea that Tera Blast has no value outside of those matchup fishes. There are examples, such as the niche use of a few Normal type special attackers, where Tera Blast is a fine 80 BP STAB move at the baseline. But even outside of those limited cases, just gaining additional coverage can give the mon in question a really strong attacking type combo.

I'll use Roaring Moon as an example. Dark/Fairy is an extremely difficult type combination to deal with defensively. Fairy is super effective against 2 of the only 3 types that resist Dark moves and neutral against itself. This is a coverage combination Moon normally couldn't have. But even in cases where it isn't the best to Tera it, STAB Knock Off can generally create enough of a problem to add value. It's not just a matchup fish for mons like Tusk or Zama, which would be wary of Acrobatics anyways. It's something that can cleave through most of the meta with that extra coverage.

Some other examples of really strong offensive type combinations are Ghost/Fighting, Ground/Flying, Ground/Ice, Ground/Fairy, Ghost/Fairy, Fire/Grass, Fire/Fairy, Edge/Quake, and of course Bolt/Beam. There is no shortage of offensive mons that can create a set with TB in this way, making it more than just a lure or matchup fish.

 

[zbr]

While I appreciate some of these arguments, I partly dispute the idea that Tera Blast has no value outside of those matchup fishes. There are examples, such as the niche use of a few Normal type special attackers, where Tera Blast is a fine 80 BP STAB move at the baseline. But even outside of those limited cases, just gaining additional coverage can give the mon in question a really strong attacking type combo.

I'll use Roaring Moon as an example. Dark/Fairy is an extremely difficult type combination to deal with defensively. Fairy is super effective against 2 of the only 3 types that resist Dark moves and neutral against itself. This is a coverage combination Moon normally couldn't have. But even in cases where it isn't the best to Tera it, STAB Knock Off can generally create enough of a problem to add value. It's not just a matchup fish for mons like Tusk or Zama, which would be wary of Acrobatics anyways. It's something that can cleave through most of the meta with that extra coverage.

Some other examples of really strong offensive type combinations are Ghost/Fighting, Ground/Flying, Ground/Ice, Ground/Fairy, Ghost/Fairy, Fire/Grass, Fire/Fairy, Edge/Quake, and of course Bolt/Beam. There is no shortage of offensive mons that can create a set with TB in this way, making it more than just a lure or matchup fish.

rm v zama/tusk isn't the most ideal example i'd assume since none of them carry tera blast and is unlikely to (unless olt has proven me wrong)

on top of that, you're not guaranteeing the offensive combo until you tera and that means you're sacrificing tera on other mons just to be able to use tera blast for this one instance that might not have added value outside of this current moment.. i do agree that creating artificial boltbeam on mons like sandyshocks can create a lot of inherent value for the mon, but thats only because you are using tera's mechanics solely for sandy's ability to lure in ground types. thats matchup fishing since theres zero value to using tera blast in any other circumstance where you don't tera sandy

i feel that tera blast's removal from the metagame can be explored since it doesn't detract much value from the metagame outside of making the current metagame less matchup oriented. i mean i could be wrong but that's just how i feel

 

[RS25802580]

Personally, I think Tera as a whole is uncompetitive. Yes, Tera can raise the skill ceiling of the game in some ways. But fundamentally it’s a mechanic that easily flips matchups by chance and fishing rather than skill. Is that not the definition of uncompetitive?

Tera Blast is part of the problem, but not the root cause in my opinion. Banning Tera Blast but not looking into Tera as a whole feels like slapping a bandaid on what is fundamentally a larger issue worth considering.

A competitive game rewards skill. In mons, the more experienced player wins through better positioning, which comes from better plays accrued over the course of the game.

If your opponent is relying on their Gambit to sweep and win, in a Teraless meta, the player who makes correct plays to preserve their Zamazenta will prevail. But suddenly, if Gambit turns out to be Tera Ghost, the opponent flips the script and wins the Gambit v Zama endgame.

Add in all other viable Tera options and you have an inherently matchup fishy game. Tera Dark fishes for wins against Dondozo users. Tera Fire fishes for wins against Wisp. Tera Fairy fishes for Wins against Tusk. Et cetera.

Clearly this is not an issue confined to Gambit, which is not remotely considered the most problematic mon right now. The post-DLC2 meta has had a good amount of time to stabilize and there are still issues creeping up. Kyurem. Gouging Fire. Rumblings and disagreement about Zama, Gliscor, and others. All of these mons would be easier to check in a Teraless meta.

I think most will agree that a meta with Tera is objectively more chaotic than a meta without. More unpredictable. This is why some people say that Tera raises the skill ceiling, since feisty reads and creative teambuilding can sometimes capitalize on this uncertainty and reward a bold and perceptive player. But at its core, unpredictably and chaos are fundamentally opposed to the definition of a competitive game, where careful play and long term strategy should win out.

I hope I’m not stirring the pot here or dredging up unwanted topics. Just felt this needed to be said. Cheers.

 

[tommytt22]

Personally, I think Tera as a whole is uncompetitive. Yes, Tera can raise the skill ceiling of the game in some ways. But fundamentally it’s a mechanic that easily flips matchups by chance and fishing rather than skill. Is that not the definition of uncompetitive?

Tera Blast is part of the problem, but not the root cause in my opinion. Banning Tera Blast but not looking into Tera as a whole feels like slapping a bandaid on what is fundamentally a larger issue worth considering.

A competitive game rewards skill. In mons, the more experienced player wins through better positioning, which comes from better plays accrued over the course of the game.

If your opponent is relying on their Gambit to sweep and win, in a Teraless meta, the player who makes correct plays to preserve their Zamazenta will prevail. But suddenly, if Gambit turns out to be Tera Ghost, the opponent flips the script and wins the Gambit v Zama endgame.

Add in all other viable Tera options and you have an inherently matchup fishy game. Tera Dark fishes for wins against Dondozo users. Tera Fire fishes for wins against Wisp. Tera Fairy fishes for Wins against Tusk. Et cetera.

Clearly this is not an issue confined to Gambit, which is not remotely considered the most problematic mon right now. The post-DLC2 meta has had a good amount of time to stabilize and there are still issues creeping up. Kyurem. Gouging Fire. Rumblings and disagreement about Zama, Gliscor, and others. All of these mons would be easier to check in a Teraless meta.

I think most will agree that a meta with Tera is objectively more chaotic than a meta without. More unpredictable. This is why some people say that Tera raises the skill ceiling, since feisty reads and creative teambuilding can sometimes capitalize on this uncertainty and reward a bold and perceptive player. But at its core, unpredictably and chaos are fundamentally opposed to the definition of a competitive game, where careful play and long term strategy should win out.

I hope I’m not stirring the pot here or dredging up unwanted topics. Just felt this needed to be said. Cheers.

This generation is always going to have a clear divide because of the massive skill ceiling. the top players who win a lot of games probably think its great since they can flex their skill and prowess. The rest of us struggle with the unpredictability. I don't think either camp should have more weight, because while top players may understand whats "best" for a metagame competitively, they only account for maybe 5%. the rest of us need to have fun playing too, it is a game after all.

Having said that, if tera is gone next gen then i dont really care if it stays here as a novelty to revisit.

 

[peepeepoopoo722]

Personally, I think Tera as a whole is uncompetitive

I hope I’m not stirring the pot here or dredging up unwanted topics. Just felt this needed to be said. Cheers.

You're not wrong that tera is a bigger issue worth considering. However. It does offer defensive capabilities and is a little bit more balanced.

The fight to get rid of tera is much harder, being our generational mechanic. I expect that smogon has an interest in preserving tera to keep site traffic up also whether it balances or not... Tera blast is a great compromise in effort to balance while preserving the mechanic.

 

[Finchinator]

I do not find Tera Blast to be broken in the current metagame, but I do think a larger argument exists when you factor history into your internal calculus on the matter. Espathra, Regieleki, and Volcarona were all banned due to the move while Kingambit, Gouging Fire, and Kyurem remain in tiering talks currently with some (not a ton) usage of it.

I do not view Tera Blast as a priority over Gouging Fire and I probably do not view it as my number two either, but I am willing to defer to other council members and the survey, which will be targeting those who qualified for OLT and coming out early this week. My guess is Pokemon go first, but it’s a discussion that we can have and I am glad has already been touched on by posters in recent pages.

I will admit I am curious about a tier without Tera Blast and with some Pokemon reintroduced. However, I am most focused on removing immediate problems from the tier as I think Gouging Fire and even Kyurem are problematic.

 

[Alternator]

Personally, I think Tera as a whole is uncompetitive. Yes, Tera can raise the skill ceiling of the game in some ways. But fundamentally it’s a mechanic that easily flips matchups by chance and fishing rather than skill. Is that not the definition of uncompetitive?

Tera Blast is part of the problem, but not the root cause in my opinion. Banning Tera Blast but not looking into Tera as a whole feels like slapping a bandaid on what is fundamentally a larger issue worth considering.

A competitive game rewards skill. In mons, the more experienced player wins through better positioning, which comes from better plays accrued over the course of the game.

If your opponent is relying on their Gambit to sweep and win, in a Teraless meta, the player who makes correct plays to preserve their Zamazenta will prevail. But suddenly, if Gambit turns out to be Tera Ghost, the opponent flips the script and wins the Gambit v Zama endgame.

Add in all other viable Tera options and you have an inherently matchup fishy game. Tera Dark fishes for wins against Dondozo users. Tera Fire fishes for wins against Wisp. Tera Fairy fishes for Wins against Tusk. Et cetera.

Clearly this is not an issue confined to Gambit, which is not remotely considered the most problematic mon right now. The post-DLC2 meta has had a good amount of time to stabilize and there are still issues creeping up. Kyurem. Gouging Fire. Rumblings and disagreement about Zama, Gliscor, and others. All of these mons would be easier to check in a Teraless meta.

I think most will agree that a meta with Tera is objectively more chaotic than a meta without. More unpredictable. This is why some people say that Tera raises the skill ceiling, since feisty reads and creative teambuilding can sometimes capitalize on this uncertainty and reward a bold and perceptive player. But at its core, unpredictably and chaos are fundamentally opposed to the definition of a competitive game, where careful play and long term strategy should win out.

I hope I’m not stirring the pot here or dredging up unwanted topics. Just felt this needed to be said. Cheers.

Why is it always, exclusively, portrayed from the standpoint of the player who didn't use the game-winning terastalization?

If your opponent has a Kingambit they're preserving, and you have a healthy Zamazenta, and they aren't doing everything in their power to force it in to expend Dauntless Shield and accumulate some chip, you should be expecting either Tera Flying/Fairy with Terablast, or Tera Ghost. From the moment they decided that was their game plan, they had to focus on removing other checks, preserving their use of terastalization, and not allow Kingambit to be forced in and take chip early. If they pull that off and win, why shouldn't they win? You were outplayed!

Tera Dark isn't "fishing" for Dondozo, it's packing coverage for an otherwise-counter; the coverage is just its tera type, rather than a move slot. If I slot Wisp on a Dragapult, is that "fishing" for Kingambit? What if I pack Play Rough on an Ogerpon-W to ensure dragons aren't safe checks?

Fishing requires something to be meaningful sub-optimal normally, but excel hugely in a specific matchup. Simple good options aren't a fish, unless you want literally every coverage move to qualify.

 

[pika pal]

rm v zama/tusk isn't the most ideal example i'd assume since none of them carry tera blast and is unlikely to (unless olt has proven me wrong)

on top of that, you're not guaranteeing the offensive combo until you tera and that means you're sacrificing tera on other mons just to be able to use tera blast for this one instance that might not have added value outside of this current moment.. i do agree that creating artificial boltbeam on mons like sandyshocks can create a lot of inherent value for the mon, but thats only because you are using tera's mechanics solely for sandy's ability to lure in ground types. thats matchup fishing since theres zero value to using tera blast in any other circumstance where you don't tera sandy

i feel that tera blast's removal from the metagame can be explored since it doesn't detract much value from the metagame outside of making the current metagame less matchup oriented. i mean i could be wrong but that's just how i feel

I disagree with this assessment if Sandy Shocks is your primary example at least. A more convincing example may exist but if anything I think Sandy Shocks is a perfect example of a mon that uses Tera Blast in a very fair capacity.

In the case of something like Kingambit there is the reasonable argument that its counterplay is narrow enough for Tera Blast to fish for "oh, you picked the wrong answer out of 5, I win," but Sandy Shocks leans insanely hard on Tera in an OU environment where it otherwise has concerns with Landorus, Gliscor, several bulky Dragons, other Fat Grounds, and the couple viable Grass Types. These are all mons with varied roles in the Meta such that some teams end up carrying multiples of them without actively building to do so, and whether or not Shocks uses Tera Ice, you'd want your team to be prepared to answer these mons anyway.

I also think, as silly as this may sound, that the usage/prevalence of the mons in question also affect this dynamic. Returning to Kingambit, this is a mon with significant enough teambuilding contributions in OU that teams can run it and the Tera Blast usage is a niche (if effective) option that isn't inherent enough to assume. Sandy Shocks meanwhile is a more specific Pokemon to build with, so it's reasonable to assume the team is built with the concession it with Teras in the face of the above checks, or is accepted to not contribute in matches where the user deems Tera best saved for another member.

Piggybacking off Alternator 's post right before mine, Sandy Shocks needs Tera Blast for certain targets to such a degree that if it doesn't Tera in front of them, you can assume they have a more important use for it later, meaning you either have less to fear from Shocks or forcing it to Tera throws off the game plan heavily.

If anything I'd compare Sandy Shocks more to your earlier example of Hurricane Dragonite used as a Lure: if the opponent doesn't carry the couple targets that that move grants an advantage against, Hurricane is a move that Dragonite simply does not gain value from carrying in that match-up. Similarly, if your opponent doesn't carry Fat Grounds or Grass types, Shocks is in the same boat as Dragonite in being down a moveslot, but the cost of Terastalizing it isn't committed until the move is made in battle rather than at the teambuilding stage.

Additionally, Dragonite has multiple moves that could go in that Hurricane slot (assuming the standard DD/ES/EQ for the first 3 slots) such as Fire Punch, Ice Spinner, Roost, a Dragon STAB, or Encore; Sandy Shocks really doesn't have a lot to work with in place of Tera Blast without them being equally niche (Scorching Sands for Burns, Power Gem to maybe hit Zapdos slightly harder?) or serving a completely different role that you probably accounted for if you gaveit TB anyway (Spikes or Thunder Wave for hazards/Speed Control). If anything Sandy Shocks is more match-up fishy by this definition without TB because it relies so heavily on the mechanic just to do its standard role, that if you switch into it you should be default assume Ice Blast is a strong possibility and getting a Spike or TW thrown at you would be a bigger surprise.

Sandy is the furthest mon from what I would call a match-up fish; most users of the move create absurd amounts of pressure by their existence and don't lose a great deal from not using the Fishing move. Sandy Shocks is a mon that provides immense value, but at a steep investment (team-wide Tera Flexibility) because it depends so heavily on the mechanic to provide its base-line performance, in spite of how strong it becomes if given that allowance. Sandy Shocks is not "I cover everything I need to, now what else do I want to shoot once in a while?" so much as "I hit a few things but I'm also the first to go if I need Tera and someone else needs it more for this opponent."

By the metric posed in the original response I feel like "match-up fishing" is either not well defined or too broad a term to focus in on Tera Blast. Many teams find themselves built with Pokemon that contribute heavily to one type of opposition but yield little value against another, and recognizing which those are is considered a part of battling ability. The line is crossed when this extends to the Pokemon's very nature (Volcarona infamously can snowball enough to 6-0 teams and Tera Blast removed several hard-losses at no detriment to its general performance) and the Pokemon absolutely bulldozes those match-ups rather than simply improving against them (Ice Sandy Shocks has much better coverage but an even worse defensive type and retains its mediocre bulk and OU-relative Speed).

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

the difference between a matchup fish and a lure is that it's a matchup fish if my opponent's using it and a lure if i am

 

[Tio Chico]

the difference between a matchup fish and a lure is that it's a matchup fish if my opponent's using it and a lure if i am

So this explains why when an average ladder player wins with an unusual set it's a gimmick, but if a well-known tournament player does the same thing it's a metagame innovation.

 

[Avira]

So this explains why when an average ladder player wins with an unusual set it's a gimmick, but if a well-known tournament player does the same thing it's a metagame innovation.

Nice paraphrasing.

It's kind of sad to see your custom status/title be "Out until the end of SV". I know the meta is not great, but change won't happen unless the people who can make a difference push for it. I remember encouraging you to go for reqs for the Volcarona suspect, and IT was banned! Don't be too discouraged by the state of the meta.

 

[RS25802580]

Why is it always, exclusively, portrayed from the standpoint of the player who didn't use the game-winning terastalization?

If your opponent has a Kingambit they're preserving, and you have a healthy Zamazenta, and they aren't doing everything in their power to force it in to expend Dauntless Shield and accumulate some chip, you should be expecting either Tera Flying/Fairy with Terablast, or Tera Ghost. From the moment they decided that was their game plan, they had to focus on removing other checks, preserving their use of terastalization, and not allow Kingambit to be forced in and take chip early. If they pull that off and win, why shouldn't they win? You were outplayed!

Tera Dark isn't "fishing" for Dondozo, it's packing coverage for an otherwise-counter; the coverage is just its tera type, rather than a move slot. If I slot Wisp on a Dragapult, is that "fishing" for Kingambit? What if I pack Play Rough on an Ogerpon-W to ensure dragons aren't safe checks?

Fishing requires something to be meaningful sub-optimal normally, but excel hugely in a specific matchup. Simple good options aren't a fish, unless you want literally every coverage move to qualify.

I appreciate the reply. I had a feeling this would be brought up. I was thinking about it a lot and came to this conclusion:

Tera is inherently matchup fishy. Here's a better (and more realistic) example. Let's say you are running a team with two Gambit checks in Zamazenta and Dondozo. Your opponent's strategy is to bruteforce your physical walls to make way for a Gambit sweep. They are putting a lot of offensive pressure on you with Gambit's physical teammates. Because of this, you can only save one healthy mon for the end to check Gambit. Do you save Zama or Dozo?

If your opponent is running Tera Ghost Gambit, they win in the scenario where you save your Zama. They lose if you save your Dondozo. On the other hand, if they are Tera Dark, they win against Dozo and lose against Zama.

Since you cannot adequately predict the Tera, the outcome of the game is reduced to a flip that is outside of either player's ability to strategize.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a simple example that illustrates the uncompetitive nature of Tera. You mention coverage moves, and I want to address this.

In order to prove that something is uncompetitive, we need to first define the word competitive.

A competitive game is one in which the better player wins through strategy and skill, and the worse player loses. The platonic ideal is chess. All players operate on complete information. The better player wins 100% of the time (not counting blunders).

Anything that detracts from this ratio is uncompetitive.

Some examples are pretty obvious. Critical hits and secondary effects are clearly uncompetitive, but we keep them because they're a part of what Pokemon is. For that, we're willing to sacrifice some of the competitiveness of the game.

What about random coverage moves to lure your opponent? Stone Edge on Zama? Energy Ball Jellicent? If you think about it, this is actually uncompetitive. That is why some VGC tournaments run open team sheets! We don't do open team sheets on Showdown because getting surprised can add to the excitement of the game and the use of niche lures is not so oppressive as to detract from peoples' enjoyment. Now, if there was an option for any mon to get an on-demand coverage move of their choice, that would be more uncompetitive. Wait a minute...

Finally, we get to Tera. Going through these examples, it's pretty clear that Tera is uncompetitive. You could draw a valid comparison to slotting random lure moves. Zama can click Tera Fire to turn the tables Moltres, just as it could click Stone Edge. Now it can also click Tera Dark to beat Ghold or Tera Steel to beat Fairies. When we add Tera into the equation, this is yet another layer, accessible to every mon, that increases the unpredictability of the game.

The devil's advocate point of view is that sometimes we make sacrifices to increase the fun of the game. Just as it's exciting to snipe your opponent's Moltres with a Stone Edge Zama, Tera adds a new layer of nuance to the game that is arguably fun, albeit decreasing the competitiveness. Let's face it, we're here to play Pokemon. If we only cared about playing the most competitive game, we'd be playing chess.

What's up for debate is the following: By how much does Tera decrease the game's competitiveness? And is the trade-off for excitement and fidelity to Pokemon worth it?

I do not know the answers to these questions. And there are many players more skilled and knowledgable than I who could weigh in on this.

What I do know is that we can and should continuously re-evaluate the controversial mechanics of this game. We did it with Sleep. I don't know if Tera should be banned, but it's not so sacrosanct as to be immune to reconsideration.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

I appreciate the reply. I had a feeling this would be brought up. I was thinking about it a lot and came to this conclusion:

Tera is inherently matchup fishy. Here's a better (and more realistic) example. Let's say you are running a team with two Gambit checks in Zamazenta and Dondozo. Your opponent's strategy is to bruteforce your physical walls to make way for a Gambit sweep. They are putting a lot of offensive pressure on you with Gambit's physical teammates. Because of this, you can only save one healthy mon for the end to check Gambit. Do you save Zama or Dozo?

If your opponent is running Tera Ghost Gambit, they win in the scenario where you save your Zama. They lose if you save your Dondozo. On the other hand, if they are Tera Dark, they win against Dozo and lose against Zama.

Since you cannot adequately predict the Tera, the outcome of the game is reduced to a flip that is outside of either player's ability to strategize.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a simple example that illustrates the uncompetitive nature of Tera. You mention coverage moves, and I want to address this.

In order to prove that something is uncompetitive, we need to first define the word competitive.

A competitive game is one in which the better player wins through strategy and skill, and the worse player loses. The platonic ideal is chess. All players operate on complete information. The better player wins 100% of the time (not counting blunders).

Anything that detracts from this ratio is uncompetitive.

Some examples are pretty obvious. Critical hits and secondary effects are clearly uncompetitive, but we keep them because they're a part of what Pokemon is. For that, we're willing to sacrifice some of the competitiveness of the game.

What about random coverage moves to lure your opponent? Stone Edge on Zama? Energy Ball Jellicent? If you think about it, this is actually uncompetitive. That is why some VGC tournaments run open team sheets! We don't do open team sheets on Showdown because getting surprised can add to the excitement of the game and the use of niche lures is not so oppressive as to detract from peoples' enjoyment. Now, if there was an option for any mon to get an on-demand coverage move of their choice, that would be more uncompetitive. Wait a minute...

While we don't do team sheets, we did add team preview because not knowing your opponents' mons ended up being oppressive in additon to uncompetitive. A good example of how there are layers to how "uncompetitive" something can be.

Finally, we get to Tera. Going through these examples, it's pretty clear that Tera is uncompetitive. You could draw a valid comparison to slotting random lure moves. Zama can click Tera Fire to turn the tables Moltres, just as it could click Stone Edge. Now it can also click Tera Dark to beat Ghold or Tera Steel to beat Fairies. When we add Tera into the equation, this is yet another layer, accessible to every mon, that increases the unpredictability of the game.

The devil's advocate point of view is that sometimes we make sacrifices to increase the fun of the game. Just as it's exciting to snipe your opponent's Moltres with a Stone Edge Zama, Tera adds a new layer of nuance to the game that is arguably fun, albeit decreasing the competitiveness. Let's face it, we're here to play Pokemon. If we only cared about playing the most competitive game, we'd be playing chess.

What's up for debate is the following: By how much does Tera decrease the game's competitiveness? And is the trade-off for excitement and fidelity to Pokemon worth it?

I do not know the answers to these questions. And there are many players more skilled and knowledgable than I who could weigh in on this.

What I do know is that we can and should continuously re-evaluate the controversial mechanics of this game. We did it with Sleep. I don't know if Tera should be banned, but it's not so sacrosanct as to be immune to reconsideration.

you're making the assumption that your position on tera being "uncompetitive" is objective and everyone agrees with you. this isn't the case. you can't just start from the position of "this is a problem, what's up for debate is how we address it" when the community at large has rejected the notion of tera being a problem every time the topic has come up. a lot of people (including plenty of good players who know what they're talking about) consider it a healthy and competitive part of the meta. i personally think its ability to flip matchups actually prevents matchup fishing in a larger sense by giving teams defensive (or offensive) options against things they would otherwise have huge holes against. that adds a dimension of "ok, normally i'd lose on preview to this despite having a good and well-built team because it turns out that [this offensive threat 2hkos everything i have/this defensive core walls my entire team/my team can't deal well with the specific flavor of hazard stack this person is running/my wincon really needs to avoid a burn but this mf brought three potential wisp mons], but if i preserve this one particular thing with a certain tera and tera it at the right moment i can win" (and then the opponent can be like "ok, this guy's game plan is to preserve x mon that probably has y tera until z time so i'll try to bait tera on something else or lure the mon out early or etc etc"). that sounds to me like something that adds skill to the game instead of detracting from it, especially in a gen with so many lose-on-preview mons or cores

While we don't do team sheets, we did add team preview because not knowing your opponents' mons ended up being oppressive in additon to uncompetitive. A good example of how there are layers to how "uncompetitive" something can be.

for the record, we didn't add team preview because of… whatever this is. we added it because the cartridge games did. old gens still don't have it because their games don't

 

[RS25802580]

you're making the assumption that your position on tera being "uncompetitive" is objective and everyone agrees with you.

I think Tera is uncompetitive and I tried to explain why from first principles. From there it's "is it a problem or not? (for which I don't have the answer). It's just an argument dude, you don't have to agree with me :)

the community at large has rejected the notion of tera being a problem every time the topic has come up. a lot of people (including plenty of good players who know what they're talking about) consider it a healthy and competitive part of the meta.

Many of the players who were vehemently against Tera (including several good players) have gradually quit and stopped playing. No doubt most people who stick with the meta now are ones who like it. This is sample selection bias.

i personally think its ability to flip matchups actually prevents matchup fishing in a larger sense by giving teams defensive (or offensive) options against things they would otherwise have huge holes against. that adds a dimension of "ok, normally i'd lose on preview to this despite having a good and well-built team because it turns out that [this offensive threat 2hkos everything i have/this defensive core walls my entire team/my team can't deal well with the specific flavor of hazard stack this person is running/my wincon really needs to avoid a burn but this mf brought three potential wisp mons], but if i preserve this one particular thing with a certain tera and tera it at the right moment i can win" (and then the opponent can be like "ok, this guy's game plan is to preserve x mon that probably has y tera until z time so i'll try to bait tera on something else or lure the mon out early or etc etc"). that sounds to me like something that adds skill to the game instead of detracting from it, especially in a gen with so many lose-on-preview mons or cores

This is a great point. However, this gen is also super saturated with threats largely in part of Tera. Personally, I think there would be less pressure on the builder without Tera than with. It's hard to say for sure because we've never gotten to experience a Teraless meta. I would love to play an unofficial meta without Tera and just see what it's like and compare to what we have now. Unfortunately this seems unfeasable.

for the record, we didn't add team preview because of… whatever this is. we added it because the cartridge games did. old gens still don't have it because their games don't

Thanks for the correction, I'm gonna edit this.

 

[SittinGamer]

Many of the players who were vehemently against Tera (including several good players) have gradually quit and stopped playing. No doubt most people who stick with the meta now are ones who like it. This is sample selection bias.

I don't know why we would tier for people who aren't playing the game. People can more than have their feelings on Terastal, but it is 100% on them for either not responding or not playing enough to meet a "qualified" requirement on the surveys, which have been stated to be a way to guage community sentiment. If they want to be included in decision making, they're more than welcome to respond on the surveys when they're posted. It feels like anti tera, when confronted with the raw numbers, always goes to something along the lines of "oh yeah well i bet if you counted the people who stopped interacting with our community we wouldn't be a minority position" as if that is some kind of affirmative dunk.

 

[RS25802580]

I don't know why we would tier for people who aren't playing the game. People can more than have their feelings on Terastal, but it is 100% on them for either not responding or not playing enough to meet a "qualified" requirement on the surveys, which have been stated to be a way to guage community sentiment. If they want to be included in decision making, they're more than welcome to respond on the surveys when they're posted. It feels like anti tera, when confronted with the raw numbers, always goes to something along the lines of "oh yeah well i bet if you counted the people who stopped interacting with our community we wouldn't be a minority position" as if that is some kind of affirmative dunk.

I didn't say anything about tiering. To quote DaddyBuzzwole were simply talking about the feelings of the "community at large". People who used to play OU but are less active now are part of that. Actual tiering action, of course, should cater to the current playerbase.

 

[Anchor9]

Hello, the SV OU Trio Tour has come to an end and congratulations to Spfc for winning. While there technically are two playable games left, this should be the usage data for the entire tour.
Moves and Teammates

SV OU Trio Tour Usage Data

+ ---- + ------------------ + ---- + ------- + ------- +
| Rank | Pokemon            | Use  | Usage % |  Win %  |
+ ---- + ------------------ + ---- + ------- + ------- +
| 1    | Great Tusk         |   78 |  34.82% |  46.15% |
| 2    | Kingambit          |   77 |  34.38% |  51.95% |
| 3    | Iron Moth          |   60 |  26.79% |  61.67% |
| 4    | Landorus-Therian   |   58 |  25.89% |  50.00% |
| 5    | Gholdengo          |   55 |  24.55% |  47.27% |
| 6    | Zamazenta-*        |   51 |  22.77% |  62.75% |
| 7    | Samurott-Hisui     |   47 |  20.98% |  57.45% |
| 8    | Raging Bolt        |   45 |  20.09% |  51.11% |
| 9    | Slowking-Galar     |   44 |  19.64% |  47.73% |
| 10   | Ogerpon-Wellspring |   43 |  19.20% |  46.51% |
| 11   | Iron Valiant       |   41 |  18.30% |  46.34% |
| 12   | Gouging Fire       |   39 |  17.41% |  51.28% |
| 13   | Primarina          |   37 |  16.52% |  54.05% |
| 14   | Dragonite          |   36 |  16.07% |  47.22% |
| 14   | Gliscor            |   36 |  16.07% |  44.44% |
| 16   | Darkrai            |   34 |  15.18% |  47.06% |
| 17   | Roaring Moon       |   32 |  14.29% |  56.25% |
| 18   | Dragapult          |   31 |  13.84% |  54.84% |
| 19   | Kyurem             |   25 |  11.16% |  40.00% |
| 20   | Deoxys-Speed       |   24 |  10.71% |  66.67% |
| 21   | Clefable           |   23 |  10.27% |  52.17% |
| 21   | Glimmora           |   23 |  10.27% |  47.83% |
| 21   | Rillaboom          |   23 |  10.27% |  34.78% |
| 24   | Hatterene          |   20 |   8.93% |  45.00% |
| 25   | Iron Treads        |   17 |   7.59% |  52.94% |
| 25   | Garganacl          |   17 |   7.59% |  52.94% |
| 27   | Iron Crown         |   16 |   7.14% |  31.25% |
| 28   | Cinderace          |   15 |   6.70% |  40.00% |
| 29   | Ting-Lu            |   14 |   6.25% |  71.43% |
| 30   | Moltres            |   13 |   5.80% |  61.54% |
| 30   | Enamorus           |   13 |   5.80% |  38.46% |
| 32   | Blissey            |   12 |   5.36% |  33.33% |
| 33   | Walking Wake       |   11 |   4.91% |  54.55% |
| 33   | Dondozo            |   11 |   4.91% |  54.55% |
| 35   | Toxapex            |   10 |   4.46% |  60.00% |
| 35   | Ribombee           |   10 |   4.46% |  40.00% |
| 35   | Corviknight        |   10 |   4.46% |  30.00% |
| 35   | Weavile            |   10 |   4.46% |  20.00% |
| 39   | Zapdos             |    9 |   4.02% |  66.67% |
| 39   | Tinkaton           |    9 |   4.02% |  66.67% |
| 39   | Volcanion          |    9 |   4.02% |  55.56% |
| 39   | Scizor             |    9 |   4.02% |  33.33% |
| 39   | Skarmory           |    9 |   4.02% |  33.33% |
| 44   | Hydrapple          |    7 |   3.12% |  71.43% |
| 44   | Clodsire           |    7 |   3.12% |  57.14% |
| 44   | Meowscarada        |    7 |   3.12% |  57.14% |
| 44   | Hawlucha           |    7 |   3.12% |  28.57% |
| 44   | Alomomola          |    7 |   3.12% |  28.57% |
| 49   | Ursaluna           |    6 |   2.68% |  50.00% |
| 49   | Torkoal            |    6 |   2.68% |  33.33% |
| 51   | Ninetales          |    5 |   2.23% |  80.00% |
| 51   | Ogerpon-Cornerstone |    5 |   2.23% |  20.00% |
| 53   | Rotom-Wash         |    4 |   1.79% |  50.00% |
| 53   | Ogerpon            |    4 |   1.79% |  50.00% |
| 53   | Serperior          |    4 |   1.79% |  50.00% |
| 53   | Garchomp           |    4 |   1.79% |  25.00% |
| 53   | Heatran            |    4 |   1.79% |  25.00% |
| 53   | Sinistcha          |    4 |   1.79% |  25.00% |
| 59   | Manaphy            |    3 |   1.34% | 100.00% |
| 59   | Pecharunt          |    3 |   1.34% |  66.67% |
| 61   | Sylveon            |    2 |   0.89% | 100.00% |
| 61   | Amoonguss          |    2 |   0.89% |  50.00% |
| 61   | Skeledirge         |    2 |   0.89% |  50.00% |
| 61   | Indeedee           |    2 |   0.89% |  50.00% |
| 61   | Ninetales-Alola    |    2 |   0.89% |  50.00% |
| 61   | Blaziken           |    2 |   0.89% |  50.00% |
| 61   | Hoopa-Unbound      |    2 |   0.89% |   0.00% |
| 61   | Greninja-*         |    2 |   0.89% |   0.00% |
| 61   | Quagsire           |    2 |   0.89% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Cryogonal          |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Pelipper           |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Barraskewda        |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Breloom            |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Zapdos-Galar       |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Azumarill          |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Quaquaval          |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Beartic            |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Muk                |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Latios             |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Cyclizar           |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Polteageist        |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Venusaur           |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Chansey            |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Grimmsnarl         |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Slowbro-Galar      |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Iron Hands         |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Enamorus-Therian   |    1 |   0.45% | 100.00% |
| 70   | Okidogi            |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Sandy Shocks       |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Jirachi            |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Lokix              |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Regidrago          |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Tyranitar          |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Excadrill          |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Weezing-Galar      |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Lilligant-Hisui    |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Cobalion           |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Polteageist-Antique |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Muk-Alola          |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Golurk             |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Arcanine-Hisui     |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |
| 70   | Goodra-Hisui       |    1 |   0.45% |   0.00% |

Here's some noticable Tera Blast usage, although I didn't find much.


| Rank | Moves | Use | Usage % | Win % |
| 5 | Tera Blast | 5 | 8.33% | 40.00% |


| Rank | Moves | Use | Usage % | Win % |
| 9 | Tera Blast | 3 | 7.69% | 66.67% |


| Rank | Moves | Use | Usage % | Win % |
| 5 | Tera Blast | 5 | 13.89% | 100.00% |

 

[Bold School]

rm v zama/tusk isn't the most ideal example i'd assume since none of them carry tera blast and is unlikely to (unless olt has proven me wrong)

This misses the point about tera Fairy not being just a lure for Zama/Tusk. I was saying how Dark/Fairy STAB is very difficult to account for defensively in general, and therefore, that a powerful mon like Moon could tear through teams often regardless of if mons like Zama or Tusk were opposing it or not. No point was ever made about Zama or Tusk using TB.

As for Roaring Moon in OLT, I don't know how much innovation on that mon specifically has happened. But what I do know is that Moon has long had more viable set diversity than was typically seen in use, for some reason. I have been beating that dead horse for awhile now. Not all of these alternatives run TB. For instance, something like Tera Steel could run Iron Head. But Tera Fairy is a legit scary set and it does run TB.

Furthermore, I had already made the point that Moon would generally hold value even without Tera due to BE Attack Knock Off. I have tested Tera Fairy on several teams with one other mon that could be considered Tera needy and felt it was generally fine to pick and choose as needed. It isn't just a matchup fish. Nor is it useless when it doesn't Tera.

on top of that, you're not guaranteeing the offensive combo until you tera and that means you're sacrificing tera on other mons just to be able to use tera blast for this one instance that might not have added value outside of this current moment.. i do agree that creating artificial boltbeam on mons like sandyshocks can create a lot of inherent value for the mon, but thats only because you are using tera's mechanics solely for sandy's ability to lure in ground types. thats matchup fishing since theres zero value to using tera blast in any other circumstance where you don't tera sandy

The biggest difference between Roaring Moon and Sandy Shocks is you are comparing a legit, solidly OU mon with a fringe case. Although Tera Ice gives you two awesome coverage combos of Ground/Ice and Bolt/Beam for the price of one Tera, it isn't that good a mon in the first place. At least not by gen 9 OU standards. Another example of a solidly OU mon that is seen as more of a lure than a true threat is Lando-T. While it can Tera Ice or Flying for great attacking combinations, the limited speed tier and the general lack of ways to boost speed limits how threatening it can be. But if it still had, say, Rock Polish, it might actually be a problem with that 145 base attack.

This leads me back to my main point. Take any solidly OU mon with good attacking capabilities. You can often find threatening STAB combination it otherwise couldn't get using Tera Blast. If it has good enough speed and/or speed boosting capabilities, you have just created a major threat. Attacking combinations that are good in general are not just lures. They would be tools to tear through much of the metagame. And many of these mons can pull enough weight where they still have value even if you decide it isn't appropriate to Tera them in a particular match. As I said before, this goes beyond the scope of how you framed Tera Blast as merely a sacrifice for niche value. No, not always.

i feel that tera blast's removal from the metagame can be explored since it doesn't detract much value from the metagame outside of making the current metagame less matchup oriented. i mean i could be wrong but that's just how i feel

My feeling is that Tera Blast is just another factor that helps stack the deck in favor of offense for really no good reason. Like Booster Energy would be another one, even though most people seem to think it isn't a problem. And that's fine. It all does add up, though. I would like to see something curtailed at some point.

As for TB itself, I think a lot of people underestimate the usefulness of it. They might hyperfocus on the fact that TB could give them a dead move slot. Outside of like stall, how often do you click all 4 moves on a mon in a match? There are some mons where you might. But there are also probably some mons where you often only click several of its moves. I feel like there has been a lot more room to experiment, and despite the recent uptick of that in OLT, I really don't think we as a community have even scratched the surface of what is possible with the move.

 

[Torvikk]

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-2188707575

 

[MC Squared]

https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-2188707575

Ew stall

 

[BobbyHill]

I do not find Tera Blast to be broken in the current metagame, but I do think a larger argument exists when you factor history into your internal calculus on the matter. Espathra, Regieleki, and Volcarona were all banned due to the move while Kingambit, Gouging Fire, and Kyurem remain in tiering talks currently with some (not a ton) usage of it.

I do not view Tera Blast as a priority over Gouging Fire and I probably do not view it as my number two either, but I am willing to defer to other council members and the survey, which will be targeting those who qualified for OLT and coming out early this week. My guess is Pokemon go first, but it’s a discussion that we can have and I am glad has already been touched on by posters in recent pages.

I will admit I am curious about a tier without Tera Blast and with some Pokemon reintroduced. However, I am most focused on removing immediate problems from the tier as I think Gouging Fire and even Kyurem are problematic.

Do you know how many total responses there were to the last survey? I saw there were 154 qualified responses but no number for the general.

 

[Finchinator]

Do you know how many total responses there were to the last survey? I saw there were 154 qualified responses but no number for the general.

800 is the number off the top of my head — I am on phone at work and can check when I am back on laptop if needed

This survey will only be the 32 OLT qualifiers, but the next one (probably late September or October? TBD) will return to normal

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

So this explains why when an average ladder player wins with an unusual set it's a gimmick, but if a well-known tournament player does the same thing it's a metagame innovation.