Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4

[FCKNfuego]

Enjoyment: 3
Competitiveness: 3
Kingambit: 2
Kyurem: 4
Ogerpon-W: 3
Zamazenta: 1
Raging Bolt: 2
Gliscor: 2
Tera Blast: 1



Enjoyment
It is what it is....too many things that add up to just make it not that great of an experience.

Competitiveness
Excessive variability and competitiveness don't go hand in hand for me.


Gambit is fine. It has enough consistent counterplay and is extremely predictable.


Loaded Dice DD is probably too strong for the meta. The other sets are manageable but this one is always problematic as it's relatively easy to set up given it's bulk and resistances coupled with tera. Teams without strong priority or some kinda of consistent speed control get run through by this set pretty easily and it still does well versus the teams that have these.


Borderline but it's inability to boost it's speed while retaining decent coverage or power keeps in check as far as the meta is concerned.


Same as gambit.


Same as gambit


Always annoying but annoying doesn't mean broken. Both offensive and defensive sets have consistent counterplay. The defensive counterplay isn't as good comparatively but there is enough out there to get the job done to the point where it isn't overwhelming teams.

Tera Blast
Banning it does nothing to solves peoples gripes with what causes it to even be a viable moveslot option which is Tera. it wouldn't be banned as per tiering policy as it's clear the move is inherently not broken and every argument attributed towards banning it is a viable reasoning that can be applied to Tera itself. Banning this would be the biggest nothingburger for the meta and opens its own can of worms around adhering to the policy. Nah

Other Stuff



This mon is garbage and could easily see this going dropping to UU in terms of usage if allowed in OU. Defensively it doesn't deal well with status, OU is littered with Dark types, Knock Off, Status moves...etc. It's decent at phazing, can tank hits and could be good as a check to a number of the stonger mons given it's defensive profile and multiscale, but this is all it really brings defensively. Offensively as a CM sweeper it might have merit sometimes. It realistically needs to +3 to be a huge threat and it's also a tera hog whilst tera isn't really doing much to mitigate the weaknesses it does have. Free big bird already.

 

[BobbyHill]

Idk about anyone else. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the meta but I haven’t enjoyed it in a very long time. I know Finch likes to say “oh look Araquanid instead of Ribombee, the meta is always changing” but just a different webs setter seems like the same boring offense/HO that’s has defined this gen. I am skeptical that any Mon will be be banned for the rest of gen 9. Maybe Tera blast will go and that will remove some variance. But the voter base seems to agree “everything is sort of broken if you look at it funny, but also nothing is broken you’re skilless.”

 

[AerionT]

Enjoyment: 7
Competitiveness: 8
Kingambit: 3
Kyurem: 1
Ogerpon-W: 3
Zamazenta: 1
Raging Bolt: 3
Gliscor: 1
Tera Blast: 2
Write ins: Solgaleo, Regieleki, Terastalization.

I don't find tera blast particularly concerning, Ogerpon-W has no switch ins if you don't know the set because it has too much potential coverage. While 110 speed is nothing to write about in today's age, it is still very speedy.
Raging Bolt has 2 mons that feel confortable switching in and they are Treads and Ting Lu. And it is so tanky it can survive many supereffective hits and then Thunderclap. A calm minded Raging Bolt is one of the most frightening creatures in the pokemon world.
A very strong priority move supported by a great mon who can tera Fairy to deal a mortal blow to your team is what Raging Bolt and Kingambit have in common. Both are a 3, and if I probably should have given Bolt a 4.
Kyurem and Gliscor are not so scary.
Zamazenta is a good boy.

Solgaleo is strong and has good coverage, but it can't boost its attack, it's slow, and shares an exploitable typing (and speed tier 97 vs 98) with Crown. It also has no way to pivot while dealing damage (it only has teleport), so it can't do it with AV.
Regieleki has 80/50/50 bulk and 100 special attack. Is 200 speed and VoltBeam enough to make it broken when everyone and their mother has priority and it can't even ohko Dragapult with TBlast?
252 Atk Choice Band Dragapult Quick Attack vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Tera Ice Regieleki: 107-127 (35.5 - 42.1%)
252 SpA Tera Ice Regieleki Tera Blast (80 BP) vs. 0 HP / 0 SpD Dragapult: 278-330 (87.6 - 104.1%)
This thing without TBlast is RU at best. With it, I'd have to see a retest to be sure it's too much for OU.

 

[peepeepoopoo722]

People don't mention that regileki was banned with transistor programmed much stronger. It is probably not even OU with tera blast banned, but there's reasonably a discussion to be had about it due to its quickban occurring with bad mechanics, anyways. But i wouldn't bother making this argument too often until the tera blast bridge is crossed since that settles it immediately

The poster above that stated tera blast ban goes against policy and i don't see how. We have banned moves for being broken but also purely on not being competitive. Argument against competitiveness is easy but also remember that some (a few) of our banned, broken mons did use tera blast often. Kyurem will still be a monster but taken down a peg without tera blast.

This is a revolving door of dead internet conversation

I will never mention Tera blast again if it scores low.

Edit: just reread the "views from the council" thread discussing kokoloko and bruh look at some of the suggested quickbans. Serperior. Fortunately we didn't go that direction. Many mentioned it at the time though

 

[Dead by Daylight]

Idk about anyone else. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the meta but I haven’t enjoyed it in a very long time. I know Finch likes to say “oh look Araquanid instead of Ribombee, the meta is always changing” but just a different webs setter seems like the same boring offense/HO that’s has defined this gen. I am skeptical that any Mon will be be banned for the rest of gen 9. Maybe Tera blast will go and that will remove some variance. But the voter base seems to agree “everything is sort of broken if you look at it funny, but also nothing is broken you’re skilless.”

I think one of the biggest problems is threat saturation. This generation has introduced numerous offensive threats that just so happen to check one another on the offensive teams that would otherwise fold to them, which creates a dynamic where those same offensive teams end up getting the riches of being able to deal with one threat that deals with a threat on their team while balance and fat end up with near auto-loss MUs while having decent MUs into both one another and certain forms of offense. Banning one thing doesn't make a difference - we either have to go all the way or go nowhere, as many of the current suspects are piecing the metagame together.

 

[Smashburn]

Haven't played seriously in awhile and don't plan on it, but wanted to chime in and somewhat agree with Fuego and Bobby. My enjoyment with the meta is very low, and I'm not satisfied with the progress this tier has made. My sentiment hasn't necessarily changed or stayed the same, banning Tera Blast may or may not reduce the variance issue. My problem lies with Kyurem after it slipped through the cracks of that suspect test, this meta would be a lot better without it objectively speaking. Everything else is more or less balanced to me except for Darkrai beyond that. Not perfectly so, but enough. Like Daylight said, threat saturation is very high. Threats so happen to check each other which gives the illusion of a balanced metagame, hence why I'm not fond of it. How much of that is influenced by Tera and or Tera blast? Undeterminable exactly. Would banning Tera Blast help? Again, maybe. It's an option I'm willing to stick around for and see through. Coming from a background favoring Sword and Shield, I understand a top heavy metagame with centralizing threats. It's actually what I like, and to some degree it's healthy. However, this is more than just that. This is unhealthy. This goes to the point of matchup fishing and inconsistency among otherwise commonplace reliable playstyles.

I understand the sentiment of hesitancy towards banning Tera and or Tera Blast, I think it's reasonable to believe that it would do nothing. That is a logical conclusion to reach given the lack of information we have about the potential outcome. However, a suspect test couldn't possibly be worse than what we have right now. I think the upside is just as likely as the downside. Some of it's a community issue, this is to-date one of the most divided generations in the history of Smogon. Some of this is a meta issue, this is also to-date one of the most power-crept metas in the history of Smogon. That said, it wouldn't hurt to try. I mean, we tried to suspect Gliscor. That was the biggest nothingburger I have ever witnessed in my entire life. What's another one at this point? Have we failed to wring the feeling of shame and embarrassment out of ourselves? Just saying.

 

[ausma]

Banning it does nothing to solves peoples gripes with what causes it to even be a viable moveslot option which is Tera. it wouldn't be banned as per tiering policy as it's clear the move is inherently not broken and every argument attributed towards banning it is a viable reasoning that can be applied to Tera itself. Banning this would be the biggest nothingburger for the meta and opens its own can of worms around adhering to the policy. Nah

I know you're my biggest fan of all time (as evident by you hahaing every post I make, I know I'm a huge entertainer like that) but I'm unfortunately going to have to break your heart here buddy because you're saying some stuff that just isn't true wrt policy, regardless of your stance on Tera Blast.

Tera Blast is not broken, but saying that it isn't is contesting a stance that isn't even being argued. I beg all pro-Tera Blast arguers to stop making this claim because nobody disagrees with you. The argument is that it errs closer toward being uncompetitive/unhealthy, which tiering policy actually also addresses as a valid reason to tier an element. The reason why people make this argument is because it impacts dynamics involving Tera usage, sends a Pokemon's coverage profile into overwhelming territory that is not established by a pre-existing movepool, and introduces a very serious element of matchup fishing. If anybody wants more information on this I've elaborated quite a bit in previous posts as well as my Youtube video if you want something more bite-size.

These reasons can potentially be tethered to Tera, as you claim, but in my opinion it doesn't really at all. There is a very tangible skill around being aware of and maneuvering around the kinds of Tera types your opponent Pokemon may be inclined to use based on their role and team composition. While it's tied to the mechanic the reasons to tier it are pretty distinct from Tera in practice. It also is a super easy element to tier and is the only real compromise between both ends of the Tera spectrum that isn't a policy-disrupting half-measure since there is a shitton of precedent to tier moves, including earlier this generation when we banned Last Respects and Shed Tail.

It not only opens exactly 0 cans of worms but it also does have some merit in terms of improving the tier regardless of how obvious or subtle its impact may be. I can say for sure it would be felt in gameplay sequencing even if it isn't as felt in areas like building.

 

[Avira]

I think one of the biggest problems is threat saturation. This generation has introduced numerous offensive threats that just so happen to check one another on the offensive teams that would otherwise fold to them, which creates a dynamic where those same offensive teams end up getting the riches of being able to deal with one threat that deals with a threat on their team while balance and fat end up with near auto-loss MUs while having decent MUs into both one another and certain forms of offense. Banning one thing doesn't make a difference - we either have to go all the way or go nowhere, as many of the current suspects are piecing the metagame together.

I don't agree with this completely. Sure, banning 1 mon won't solve the issue, but I believe banning 2-3 could get us to the point where threat saturation is not a big issue anymore. I neither agree with the crowd that there are no issues with the tier nor with the crowd that believes the tier has a ton of issues.

 

[gephicka]

I don't agree with this completely. Sure, banning 1 mon won't solve the issue, but I believe banning 2-3 could get us to the point where threat saturation is not a big issue anymore.

the classic BW OU conundrum

Enjoyment: 6
Competitiveness: 6
Kingambit: 2
Kyurem: 3
Ogerpon-W: 4
Zamazenta: 1
Raging Bolt: 1
Gliscor: 1
Tera Blast: 5

I think OU is fine. I definitely think Ogerpon-W and Tera Blast should be first up on the suspect bracket.

Wellspring, especially after the increased uses of bulkier sets and pivoting sets, has proven itself as one of the most defining mons in the metagame. I think its set variety and its role compression give you very limited reasons not to run it, as its ability to threaten and disrupt a large chunk of the metagame cannot be understated. I am not necessarily pro-ban or anti-ban on Wellspring, but I do think some action is absolutely warranted. I think if Wellspring is banned, it'll put into perspective how much it has warped the metagame around it. Whether or not it warps it to the extent of being broken, only time will tell.

Tera Blast– I agree with ausma on this– is not necessarily broken. However, I do think tera blast is something that makes tera as a whole a more unhealthy mechanic. Being able to give yourself a second or third STAB has proven itself to both cause unpredictability in the metagame and led to the banning of at least three mons: cheespathra, volcarona, and regieleki. To me, there are no real detriments to banning tera blast, as it would both make playing the tier more competitive by reducing cheesy surprise teras and seal the deal on mons that really should have dropped to UU forever ago (hi enam!).

fair enough, tera blast is niche enough on many of those mons that a ban of it won't actually affect them. most of them have other sets that they use, so it's easier to just count the ones that use tera blast a lot of the time. so this time around, let's only count the pokemon that run tera blast 25% or more of the time:

This comment does a very good job of outlining all of the mons in lower tiers affected by a tera blast ban. Suffice it to say, I do not think banning tera blast will be the end of the world for lower tiers, and it's a good first step to take before examining tera itself.

TL;DR, Wellspring needs a suspect, but I am not necessarily sure if I would be for or against banning it, and Tera Blast should be suspected in order to make the meta more competitive by removing cheesy nonsense.

 

[FCKNfuego]

I know you're my biggest fan of all time (as evident by you hahaing every post I make, I know I'm a huge entertainer like that) but I'm unfortunately going to have to break your heart here buddy because you're saying some stuff that just isn't true wrt policy, regardless of your stance on Tera Blast.

Tera Blast is not broken, but saying that it isn't is contesting a stance that isn't even being argued. I beg all pro-Tera Blast arguers to stop making this claim because nobody disagrees with you. The argument is that it errs closer toward being uncompetitive/unhealthy, which tiering policy actually also addresses as a valid reason to tier an element. The reason why people make this argument is because it impacts dynamics involving Tera usage, sends a Pokemon's coverage profile into overwhelming territory that is not established by a pre-existing movepool, and introduces a very serious element of matchup fishing. If anybody wants more information on this I've elaborated quite a bit in previous posts as well as my Youtube video if you want something more bite-size.

These reasons can potentially be tethered to Tera, as you claim, but in my opinion it doesn't really at all. There is a very tangible skill around being aware of and maneuvering around the kinds of Tera types your opponent Pokemon may be inclined to use based on their role and team composition. While it's tied to the mechanic the reasons to tier it are pretty distinct from Tera in practice. It also is a super easy element to tier and is the only real compromise between both ends of the Tera spectrum that isn't a policy-disrupting half-measure since there is a shitton of precedent to tier moves, including earlier this generation when we banned Last Respects and Shed Tail.

It not only opens exactly 0 cans of worms but it also does have some merit in terms of improving the tier regardless of how obvious or subtle its impact may be. I can say for sure it would be felt in gameplay sequencing even if it isn't as felt in areas like building.

It's cute you think I would be a fan bud but theres a big difference between laughing at and laughing with.

As far as Tera Blast goes, if it's agreed that it's not broken then it shouldn't be brought up as a serious topic for ban discussion. It's as simple as that really. You can do all the mental gymnastics in the world to show how it's tangibly different from Tera itself but if the focus of your argument is that it's unhealthy because of the interactions it causes then it just falls short as Tera at it's core creates the same issues. Sure you can state the subtle differences of using moves versus the full mechanic but the inherent problem you're addressing is the same. Matchup fishy interactions that can swing games if you guess wrong at something that can be highly variable.

We also have never banned things just because they have elements of being unhealthy, there is a ton of stuff in this game that fits that criteria. Onus is on the status quo for proving it to be unhealthy enough to warrant tiering action and as per the tiering policy regarding things being unhealthy:

• This is the most controversial and subjective one and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The Tiering Councils will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player.
• When trying to argue a particular element's suspect status, please avoid this category unless absolutely necessary. This is a last-ditch, subjective catch-all, and tiering arguments should focus on uncompetitive or broken first. We are coming to a point in the generations where the number of threats is close to overwhelming, so we may touch upon this more often, but please try to focus on uncompetitive and broken first.

Does it look like we have a community outcry for this?
Do you see the conviction in the playerbase that this move is producing notable instances where you consistently see lesser players beating better players?

Sorry buddy, my heart's no where near broken after that response....

 

[Carl The Turtle]

It's cute you think I would be a fan bud but theres a big difference between laughing at and laughing with.

Sorry buddy, my heart's no where near broken after that response....

sarcasm is dead colourized 2025
In all seriousness, the distinction between Tera Blast and Tera overall is incredibly cut and dry, and I really don't think that's something that I needed to say, but:
Tera makes the existing moves of a pokemon stronger. This is arguably fine, as all it does is enhance the tools a pokemon already has. If a pokemon doesn't have an ice-type coverage move, for example, Tera-ing into the Ice type is not going to suddenly help it fix that problem. It won't be able to hit the things that deal with its standard coverage moves with an Ice type move it doesn't have.
Tera Blast provides a pokemon with an entirely new move that it never had access to, which is in itself a problem because Pokemon movepools are inherently designed around not giving every single pokemon access to strong moves from all 18 types in the game so that there are always blindspots somewhere. It's arguably problematic because its existence has caused issues for multiple pokemon already, and is already contentious on several more in OU simply because its universal type coverage makes it needlessly difficult to reliably answer a pokemon defensively.
If you can't understand that a mechanic that can be used offensively and defensively with limitations is fundamentally different from a move that can become whatever type you want and is almost exclusively used to matchup fish into a specific answer to a pokemon, I don't believe that you are arguing in good faith.

 

[Heatranator]

As far as Tera Blast goes, if it's agreed that it's not broken then it shouldn't be brought up as a serious topic for ban discussion.

This is literally untrue, things can be banned because they are a) uncompetitive b) broken c) unhealthy. What tera blast ban people are trying to argue, is that it is unhealthy/uncompetitive, which is perfectly reasonable.

You can do all the mental gymnastics in the world to show how it's tangibly different from Tera itself but if the focus of your argument is that it's unhealthy because of the interactions it causes then it just falls short as Tera at it's core creates the same issues.

Tera blast is VERY different from Tera. I love Tera and am heavy anti-ban, but Pro Tera Blast Ban. The difference between Tera Blast and Tera, is that Tera Blast has none of the upsides of Tera, you cannot use Tera Blast defensively. It is a purely offensive tool pokemon use to blast past checks of the pokemon that usually wall them.

We also have never banned things just because they have elements of being unhealthy, there is a ton of stuff in this game that fits that criteria. Onus is on the status quo for proving it to be unhealthy enough to warrant tiering action and as per the tiering policy regarding things being unhealthy:

Announcement Thread 'Tiering Policy Framework'

Feb 6, 2018

Assumptions in Tiering Policy:


I.) We play, to the best of our simulator's capabilities, with the mechanics given to us on the cartridge.

• Some exceptions exist, such Sleep Clause and Freeze Clause (RBY / GSC), but they are to be avoided as much as possible.
• Suggestions to "remove critical hits" or "make Baton Pass fail in battle" are not valid tiering proposals.

II.) We cater to both ladder players (the higher end of the ladder) and tournament players.

• For actions to be taken in tiering policy, it is important to show how that action affects BOTH the...

• shiloh
• Replies: 1
• Forum: Policy Review

• 
• 
• 

Do you actually want to look at the Tiering policy? Or just spurt things that simply are untrue. Nevermind, you took a specific part of Tiering policy, to frame it a certain way.
Here's the full part for unhealthy:

• These are elements that may not limit either team building or battling skill enough individually but combine to cause an effect that is undesirable for the metagame.
• This can also be a state of the metagame. If the metagame has too much diversity wherein team building ability is greatly hampered and battling skill is drastically reduced, we may seek to reduce the number of good-to-great threats. This can also work in reverse; if the metagame is too centralized around a particular set of Pokemon, none of which are broken on their own, we may seek to add Pokemon to increase diversity.
• This is the most controversial and subjective one and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The Tiering Councils will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player.
• When trying to argue a particular element's suspect status, please avoid this category unless absolutely necessary. This is a last-ditch, subjective catch-all, and tiering arguments should focus on uncompetitive or broken first. We are coming to a point in the generations where the number of threats is close to overwhelming, so we may touch upon this more often, but please try to focus on uncompetitive and broken first.

The seoncd point is literally what a Tera Blast ban would help with, there is too much threat diversity in the tier and banning Tera Blast helps nerf a lot of pokemon. Kyurem, Kingambit, Dragapult, D-nite, Moth, Iron Valiant, Roaring Moon (and others like Tera Blast Raging Bolt, yes, Raging Bolt can run Tera Blast Ghost) would all be nerfed and reduce there set diversity, meaning you can now answer them a lot easier.

II.) Uncompetitive - elements that reduce the effect of player choice / interaction on the end result to an extreme degree, such that "more skillful play" is almost always rendered irrelevant.

• This can be matchup related; think the determination that Baton Pass took the battling skill aspect out of the player's hands and made it overwhelmingly a team matchup issue, where even the best moves made each time by a standard team often were not enough.
• This can be external factors; think Endless Battle Clause, where the determining factor became internet connection over playing skill.
• This can be probability management issues; think OHKOs, evasion, or Moody, all of which turned the battle from emphasizing battling skill to emphasizing the result of the RNG more often than not.

Uncompetitive is something that isn't as easy to argue, but I would say the first point for matchup related is the closest.

Does it look like we have a community outcry for this?

If its getting onto the survey, then yes, I would say it is. And the responses have ranged from 2-5 for tera blast, so I would say the community does want action on it (in particular top players want action on it).

Also you yourself stated that Loaded Dice DD kyurem sets are too strong, yet a tera blast ban literally nerfs that set into obscurity since it now struggles to get through steel types (and before someone exclaims earth power, at that point run mixed dd, which gets countered by volcarona, which would most likely drop into the tier). I fail to see your logic on completely dismissing a Tera Blast Ban, yet saying that Kyurem's DD sets are too problematic.

 

[Cape Canaveral]

i feel like im watching an avengers movie

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

i feel like im watching an avengers movie

because the dialogue is unconvincing and the plot isn't going anywhere?

 

[Cyber-DJ]

because the dialogue is unconvincing and the plot isn't going anywhere?

Landorus-Therian switches in

"He's right behind me, isn't he?"

Kingambit, moments before it's forced out

 

[Magcargo]

Meowscarada @ Expert Belt
Ability: Protean
Tera Type: Ghost
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Spikes
- Knock Off
- Low Kick
- Triple Axel

Been liking this set lately on Meow. Gets a good material advantage vs many teams with Spikes + Knock progress. Low Kick is really nice on it, cleanly OHKOes Kyurem and Gambit with the protean + Expert Belt Boost, and Expert Belt makes it so that Axel can KO Gliscor even if you mispredict against it initially. The speed advantage makes it quite difficult for a lot of these Lando-T / Samu / Gambit teams to contest. With how much it threatens out, it will get a fair number of oppurtunities to Spike. The main weakness is to the various bootspam teams / webs, which are a bit difficult MUs.

 

[CaptainKing06]

wrote in static, and flame body for ban. mentioned tinglu for tiering action bc its op. mentioned ape and espa for a retest bc they have low bst and were banned in a wildly different tier, tho im not particularly fired up about either of them i think both are more valid retests unlike lugia and solgaleo both of which would be op. voted 1 on wellspring and qrem. idr what i voted on gambit, zama, bolt maybe 2 for each with 1 3. 5 on glisc bc i hate that uninteractive cancer but i know it wont be banned. enjoying the meta and finding it competitive, this is definitely a high ceiling gen unlike 8. im content with the status quo and shifted against a tb ban bc i dont want volc coming back. its a low skill wincon that fishes for burn. i didnt find it broken with terablast in the tier but dislike it enough to where i wont de facto vote to bring it back through tb ban w/o a flame body (and static) ban beforehand.

 

[JackRG]

this is definitely a high ceiling gen unlike 8

Dude can we please stfu with saying shit like this, gen 8 is one of the most skillful metagames

 

[Srn]

verifiably untrue if you look at SPL and recent teams that have peaked ladder. its fair that you dont enjoy the meta though.

W1 of spl proves his point actually. The vast majority of players brought safe BOs with tinglu/zama/dnite/ghold or pecharunt cores precisely because it's the best playstyle and there's not much room to experiment.

We saw a similar phenomenon with archaludon rain last SPL w1 (and even that to a much lesser extent), and I can only hope things change, but my hopes aren't high.

 

[Cape Canaveral]

W1 of spl proves his point actually. The vast majority of players brought safe BOs with tinglu/zama/dnite/ghold or pecharunt cores precisely because it's the best playstyle and there's not much room to experiment.

We saw a similar phenomenon with archaludon rain last SPL w1 (and even that to a much lesser extent), and I can only hope things change, but my hopes aren't high.

yeah, in hindsight even though there was some wacky stuff like latios or whatever the vast majority of teams played in abt the same way. i still don't think it's fair to say it's impossible or inordinately difficult to innovate, though.

 

[gephicka]

wrote in static, and flame body for ban. mentioned tinglu for tiering action bc its op. mentioned ape and espa for a retest bc they have low bst and were banned in a wildly different tier, tho im not particularly fired up about either of them i think both are more valid retests unlike lugia and solgaleo both of which would be op. voted 1 on wellspring and qrem. idr what i voted on gambit, zama, bolt maybe 2 for each with 1 3. 5 on glisc bc i hate that uninteractive cancer but i know it wont be banned. enjoying the meta and finding it competitive, this is definitely a high ceiling gen unlike 8. im content with the status quo and shifted against a tb ban bc i dont want volc coming back. its a low skill wincon that fishes for burn. i didnt find it broken with terablast in the tier but dislike it enough to where i wont de facto vote to bring it back through tb ban w/o a flame body (and static) ban beforehand.

i think someone just one-upped Seraphyde on a baitpost

 

[Alternator]

When people are citing tournament and/or ladder statistics, they need to remember that there's massively different incentives between the two, and - per tiering policy - both are important, and need to be considered.

Tournaments favor reliable, "safe" teams because they minimize the chance of losing at team preview, minimize the chance of losing to bad RNG, and maximize the chance that you can come back by outplaying your opponent if you're losing. Consistency is key, and balance is much easier to design for consistency than offensive styles. Even if HO is "stronger" - however you care to define the term - it's also more prone to a bad matchup, and a bad matchup can cost you the tournament.

To some extent this is psychology rather than strict game theory, but that doesn't change that it's how people actually play. It feels worse to get bounced from contention in a game where you never had a chance, so people try to avoid that, leading to balance being more common.

Meanwhile, the ladder doesn't care so much about any given game, but rather favors the aggregate. Running an HO team that wins at team preview 30% of the time, loses 20% of the time, and splits the rest is a terrible tournament strategy, but that's entirely viable to climb the ladder - preferred, even, since the games will be fast and you can climb faster. Consistently having a chance to win is nice, but until you're at the very top, win rate matters more; a few auto-losses in exchange for a better win rate is a good trade.

I didn't mention stall above, and that's because stall is there doing its own thing, unaware of the difference between formats.

 

[gephicka]

Tournaments favor reliable, "safe" teams because they minimize the chance of losing at team preview, minimize the chance of losing to bad RNG, and maximize the chance that you can come back by outplaying your opponent if you're losing. Consistency is key, and balance is much easier to design for consistency than offensive styles. Even if HO is "stronger" - however you care to define the term - it's also more prone to a bad matchup, and a bad matchup can cost you the tournament.

Especially for a tournament like SPL where the games are all bo1 and you have the pressure from your team to succeed

it's a lot easier to bring HO in a bo3 than it is a single game.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Terastilization and Tera Blast have been my favorite addition to the series since Z moves. However, I do feel it is somewhat unbalanced in that it heavily favors Offense over Defense. One of my main problems with Terastilization is the ability to stack STAB. Things can get out of hand really quick if you team doesn't have answers to Mons that often stack STAB with Terastilization on top of boosting items.

It also doesn't help that there is no Defensive equivalent to this since a mon Terastilizing defensively is always going to be monotype and therefore will never have any 4x resistances

 

[Finchinator]

W1 of spl proves his point actually. The vast majority of players brought safe BOs with tinglu/zama/dnite/ghold or pecharunt cores precisely because it's the best playstyle and there's not much room to experiment.

We saw a similar phenomenon with archaludon rain last SPL w1 (and even that to a much lesser extent), and I can only hope things change, but my hopes aren't high.

Comparing the Arch Rain metagame to this is misguided imo

Arch Rain metagame was compromised because it was an offensive option that was just so strong and durable that it was too good to dismiss. It was an uneven power level and clearly stood out to the point that a lopsided ban was the result. Had it lingered without tiering attention longer, we would’ve seen extreme ripples and responses to those ripples rather than healthy standards.

This current format is a tier where you can achieve some balance and consistency at least and there are plenty of micro-level innovations, but there’s one or two playstyles that have the most consistency across the board. Nothing completely breaks the metagame wide open, but there’s are a handful of candidates for action and any of them being removed could improve the tier and diversify things depending on how players react (I’m talking Wellspring or Kyurem types). Nothing is head-and-shoulders above the rest and causing the metagame to be unplayable like that. Is it ideal? Not necessarily and I, too, hope for tiering action, but it’s way better than the Archaludon metagame.

Claiming this comparison proves his point, which was that the top guys are way too broken, is incorrect because it shows that the metagame is playable with the top Pokemon around — there is counterplay to everything, especially relative to Archaludon’s OU stint. That doesn’t mean we should not look for suspects — we actively are, but the Arch Metagame comparison is off-base for sure.