Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

[ThitOneGuy]

It's a manner of how terra reduces overall counter, it's not a matter of what the type will be since mons already have preferred types by this point it's more so when and which. Anyone can flip a match up on it's head to gain a major advantage so the best way to handle this is in the team builder. i.e RM comes in on an Iron Valiant that KO'd a mon and seems to be choiced. You know that's going to terra into steel or other type but how many mons can actually switch into RM after it set up and handle it? Their are similar scenarios with Terra Dragonite or other set up sweepers, they come in on a mon set up, terra, and at least leave a hole in the other team. The issue is that there will only be a few realistic options that like be able to handle these threats or the threats that will be overbearing that they will constrict teambuilding. This could make the tier more stale due to this mechanic that necessitates certain mons even though they would probably run only a handful of types anyway.

What exactly in that situation is being caused by Terastalization causing you to lose? The RM setting up would still be setting up without it, and the only type that really changes anything in this scenario would be flying for dodging Mach Punch. Terastalizing adds so many more sets for each mon that the metagame is going to be more varied than previous gens.

For example: Normal Tera D-Nite has different checks to Steel Tera D-Nite, and you can pick mons that entirely block one of the sets, or ones that can stop either. It opens the door for more pokemon being viable, especially defensive ones with a subpar type. Terastalization is currently just extremely chaotic due to how chaotic it is being in an early meta. So many new Pokémon, items, and abilities to learn and then we also need to figure out a mechanic as complex as Terastalization at the same time. At the very least we should wait for the meta to cool before deciding if action is needed. Early gen metas have always been insane and felt like BS. Losing your tank to a random Z-move that you never would've seen after the meta cooled, or to a Mega that would later drop multiple tiers. We should be careful about just quickbanning the generational gimmicks, since they've always been much less competitive in the early metagames.

 

[Moyashi]

1.) The mechanic is not game breaking nor meta defining

Terastilize is the definition of metagame defining.

Both of those defensive megas were significantly worse than the offensive options, because they lack the immediate threat of mons like Mega Zard Y, or Mega Lucario, who could end the game on the spot if used at the right time. Defensive megas are worse than offensive ones. Limiting it to one Tera that you choose at team-building will just gut the mechanic and leave it better off banned imo.

This is such a tunnel visioned way to look at things. This is like saying "offensive playstyles are stronger than defensive playstyles in X meta, why use the worse one", and it assumes you should just use whatever ends a game faster. And btw Mega Sableye, a defensive mega, got banned in ORAS. While many great offensive megas hang in OU. And Mega Latias, while possessing strong wincon potential is also a huge defensive presence on bulkier teams and is one of the best megas in gen7 OU.

If Breloom is your only check for those mons, run it with a Tera type that can check their common ones. For example, Tera Rock with Rock Tomb would allow Breloom to stop Flying RM, and still threatens Steel RM with Mach Punch. Rock would also be useful against that Chien Pao, and let you hit it decently hard with Bullet Seed. Chi Yu also has issues with Rock Tera Breloom. My point is that a Breloom with a Tera type that was chosen considering these things can still absolutely beat the things you brought it to check.

All of these are faster than Breloom and your suggestion basically ignores that you still have to make a 50/50 call if they boost or attack which is part of the problem. Also Breloom can't outrun Chi-Yu so that would be pointless.

What you bring for their Tera types are your own Tera types. Meta trends would show the common types used for these mons, while also highlighting their potential workarounds. Let's go back to the Breloom and RM example for a moment. You have a Tera Rock Breloom with Mach Punch, Bullet Seed, Rock Tomb, and whatever 4th move, holding Life Orb. RM could either be the Steel Tera set or the Flying Tera set. You look at their team and expect them to be Tera Flying, so you Tera into Rock, only for them to be Steel and you lose your Breloom. You then go into one of your defensive mons that check it, but are on the back foot. You're on the back foot for a call you made that was wrong, because the opponent built their team to do that. That's not the mechanic being broken or unbalanced, it's someone building a team to bait their opponents into a move that helps them. Something you are equally able to do.

So again, 50/50 guess based on which tera they run. Hm. I wonder why people find this to be an undesirable aspect of the mechanic in how it impacts games. What you're describing isn't isn't some clever big brain planner strategy. It's called a match up based battle.

Teams can have a wide range of styles and mons, unlike what you may see in a more centralized meta such as gen8 (Landorus had 52% usage lol)

Usage ≠ centralizing. Lando was splashable not the latter.

 

[ThitOneGuy]

It still floors me when I see people pretending Dynamax was the worst thing ever yet the more broken Terastallizing mechanic is not as bad, let alone broken and fine. How is a mechanic with more versatility than we've ever seen before, less restrictions than we've ever seen before, and opportunity cost free Protean/Adaptability boost in the most hyper offensive meta we've ever seen less broken than anything else? It's simply not. People are sweeping with like a Tera change and a turn of set up in a lot of cases. Sometimes no set up if it's a priority sweep. It's besides the point of this thread, but it genuinely bothers me that people are underselling the sheer offensive threat level of Tera.

I'm also still wondering where all the "far too early" people were in gen 8 with Dynamax. (This is rhetorical in case you couldn't tell.) All I know is it felt like there were a lot more people who hated Dynamax and wanted it gone as soon as possible than we are seeing now where we rather conveniently seem to have a lot of calls for more time and patience. Like we need more time to tell and we cant know yet and if it turns out... I gotta be blunt here, we can kinda already tell. If you've run any calcs you know what the damage outputs can be here, and you've played a few games and seen some of that in action, you can pretty much tell more or less how much offensive firepower we are in for once the meta really settles in and we find an even stronger overall lineup of abusers. And that amount of firepower is quite a bit.

The bottom line is this: Double STAB modifier x Ability modifier x Item modifier = silly damage with no restrictions

Until that issue is solved, Tera will never not be too broken to fix. I do like the idea of Tera preview, but again, you got to do something about Double STAB + Item nonsense if you want any hope of anything remotely salvageable. Yes, this is complex ban territory. But none of these half measures will work without touching that issue, and many of the suggestions here for a compromise would do more harm than good.

Dynamax, like Tera, could happen at any time, but it also set your mon up and made it tanky enough to survive hits that would've otherwise KOed it easily. Terastalizing is not going to win you the game if you weren't already in a dominant position, but it can be used to bring a losing game back to even, if you use it at the right time.

I wasn't playing the game much at the start of gen 8, and Dynamax was WAY more egregious than Terastalization is. Dynamax made for an insanely offensive game in a time when tanky mons were at their best. Recovery moves having a ton of PP, and a lot of varied, viable defensive options on both sides. Dynamax managed to shatter all of that. Terastalization doesn't consistently break the tanks of this gen, assuming you play around it effectively.

Terastalization gives you some very powerful offensive options, yes. It also allows your checks to run a defensive Tera type to offset the power boost, while boosting the check's ability to KO back.

Edit: felt the need to add that the reason I didn't play much early gen 8 OU was because of Dynamax

 

[ThitOneGuy]

This is such a tunnel visioned way to look at things. This is like saying "offensive playstyles are stronger than defensive playstyles in X meta, why use the worse one", and it assumes you should just use whatever ends a game faster. And btw Mega Sableye, a defensive mega, got banned in ORAS. While many great offensive megas hang in OU. And Mega Latias, while possessing strong wincon potential is also a huge defensive presence on bulkier teams and is one of the best megas in gen7 OU.



All of these are faster than Breloom and your suggestion basically ignores that you still have to make a 50/50 call if they boost or attack which is part of the problem. Also Breloom can't outrun Chi-Yu so that would be pointless.



So again, 50/50 guess based on which tera they run. Hm. I wonder why people find this to be an undesirable aspect of the mechanic in how it impacts games. What you're describing isn't isn't some clever big brain planner strategy. It's called a match up based battle.

One defensive mega got banned, and one sees use in OU. How many more offensive megas got banned, and how many more see more consistent OU usage? The offensive usage of Megas and a theoretical restriction where you choose your Tera mon in teambuilding Terastalizing both outstrip their defensive uses 9 times out of 10. That restriction only serves to reduce the available counterplay to Terastalization while exacerbating the more powerful aspects of it, and are outright worse than leaving it untouched.

If they boost and you Tera Rock Tomb, their speed drops, making them easy to KO on the following turns. If they Tera Acro and you Tera Rock Tomb, they lose a mon. It isn't a 50/50. It's just a turn. There's a ton of options for you and them, and those options are all context-dependent. It can be favorable to you or your opponent, as can any turn.

Breloom can Mach Punch them if they don't Tera, and Rock Tera can take the now resisted hits it gives, and KO back. Terastalization adds more paths the turn could go, and which path it ends up on is down to how well you play, and how well your opponent plays. Especially once the meta cools and we get a feel for which mons use which types and get the most problematic mons banned.

 

[Reviews2D]

What exactly in that situation is being caused by Terastalization causing you to lose? The RM setting up would still be setting up without it, and the only type that really changes anything in this scenario would be flying for dodging Mach Punch. Terastalizing adds so many more sets for each mon that the metagame is going to be more varied than previous gens.

For example: Normal Tera D-Nite has different checks to Steel Tera D-Nite, and you can pick mons that entirely block one of the sets, or ones that can stop either. It opens the door for more pokemon being viable, especially defensive ones with a subpar type. Terastalization is currently just extremely chaotic due to how chaotic it is being in an early meta. So many new Pokémon, items, and abilities to learn and then we also need to figure out a mechanic as complex as Terastalization at the same time. At the very least we should wait for the meta to cool before deciding if action is needed. Early gen metas have always been insane and felt like BS. Losing your tank to a random Z-move that you never would've seen after the meta cooled, or to a Mega that would later drop multiple tiers. We should be careful about just quickbanning the generational gimmicks, since they've always been much less competitive in the early metagames.

If you are referring to the example I made with IV vs RM, IV could have gone for Moonblast which RM could not stay in on. And I'm not saying countering terra is impossible but it restricts what is viable and counter play is limited (can you give more examples on how to counter terra without using terra)? I believe banning terra will ultimately be more healthy for the meta game in the long run since it will likely be less constricting on the team builder. Sure mons will technically have less sets but this could allow more mons to be useable(especially if we have a case where a mons is ban worthy due to terra). To something clear I'm pro terra ban but I still do think we can wait to finalize a decision and terra could be suspect tested. However if terra does get banned it doesn't mean gen9 ou is dead, there are a number of new mons, items, mechanic changes(outside of terra), etc to make this unique tier just like the other ou tiers and be interesting in it's own way(don't think you're trying to say it will "become gen8 ou" but just putting it out there since it's something people like to say)

 

[Bold School]

Dynamax, like Tera, could happen at any time, but it also set your mon up and made it tanky enough to survive hits that would've otherwise KOed it easily.

And Tera let's you survive hits due to type changing. It's essentially the same, but with far less restrictions for Tera.

Terastalizing is not going to win you the game if you weren't already in a dominant position, but it can be used to bring a losing game back to even, if you use it at the right time.

No, Terastallizing absolutely wins you games when you aren't in a dominant position. It's literally just one turn to Tera and do a setup move. Suddenly, you're sweeping. Sometimes you don't need the set up move if it is priority or a Moxie or Speed Boost ability pokemon. Plenty of people here have already gone over how they can play it perfectly and still get hit with the Tera nonsense and that's game.

I wasn't playing the game much at the start of gen 8, and Dynamax was WAY more egregious than Terastalization is. Dynamax made for an insanely offensive game in a time when tanky mons were at their best. Recovery moves having a ton of PP, and a lot of varied, viable defensive options on both sides. Dynamax managed to shatter all of that. Terastalization doesn't consistently break the tanks of this gen, assuming you play around it effectively.

Another thing that isn't really true. We have old defensive staples like Pex, Slowking, and Corv still as well as new mons like Dondozo, Clodsire, Garganacl, Ting-Lu, and Skeledirge. We arguably have more defensive power than we had before, and yet, these mons are actually getting broken a lot and the game is more offensive than it has ever been before. That's right, the game is literally more offensive NOW with tera than it ever was even with Dynamax, so I don't know why you are perpetuating this myth that it's the opposite.

You said you didn't play a lot in the early stages of gen 8, and my guess is that's probably because you didn't like the mechanic. You like this one, though? While there is nothing wrong with liking one mechanic more or less than another, this obviously isn't the same thing as balance.

Terastalization gives you some very powerful offensive options, yes. It also allows your checks to run a defensive Tera type to offset the power boost, while boosting the check's ability to KO back.

You can do that to them even if it isn't to counter Tera. And vice versa. The momentum shifts are extremely abrupt and usually become game.

 

[Monai]

I believe tera is just a blatantly broken mechanic that will lead to ridiculously unpredictable turns if allowed to remain as is. I do think with some pretty severe limitations/handshakes, it might reach a compromise between competitive balance and keeping the core mechanic in some form. Both players agreeing to tera only a single designated mon, as well as revealing their tera type pre-game, could be pretty reasonable in comparison to a mechanic like megas. It would be sad to see tera go but obviously "predicting meta trends" will not be remotely enough to keep the mechanic in check.

just my 2 cents

 

[Moyashi]

One defensive mega got banned, and one sees use in OU. How many more offensive megas got banned, and how many more see more consistent OU usage?

Almost like we got more offensive megas than defensive ones. Not that such is relevant anyways.

That restriction only serves to reduce the available counterplay to Terastalization while exacerbating the more powerful aspects of it, and are outright worse than leaving it untouched.

No actually. Theoretically a restriction with one designated tera user per team would actually let people realistically gleam from preview which mon is the abuser and to plan from there. Especially with teams packing multiple offensive options. As opposed to now wherr anything at any point could tera which just adds to the nonsense.

If they boost and you Tera Rock Tomb, their speed drops, making them easy to KO on the following turns. If they Tera Acro and you Tera Rock Tomb, they lose a mon. It isn't a 50/50. It's just a turn. There's a ton of options for you and them, and those options are all context-dependent. It can be favorable to you or your opponent, as can any turn.

Here is the turn options when they tera:
-RM teras (flying) and boosts. You click rock tomb expecting flying. Cool.
-RM teras (flying) and clicks acro. Breloom dies. You lost offensive check.

And this gets worse if "rock-tera breloom" caught on because now the RM adapts and now can click EQ. This leads to more coin flip guessing and could see ground tera RM pop up. This makes it even messier. You say "there is a ton of options" but don't say what such options are.

Breloom can Mach Punch them if they don't Tera, and Rock Tera can take the now resisted hits it gives, and KO back. Terastalization adds more paths the turn could go, and which path it ends up on is down to how well you play, and how well your opponent plays. Especially once the meta cools and we get a feel for which mons use which types and get the most problematic mons banned.

Wanted to highlight this especially, but no. More paths mean more on the spot 50/50 guesses. Guessing "will they tera and attack or tera and boost", and "should i tera to match theirs and which move should i click? Or should i switch" is not a skill. There is no consistency there. No practice will help there.

 

[Leonheart45]

I agree that Tera should be restricted and the option that I think will best deal with the inconveniences that may arise if Tera is not modified would be the second option: Limit the amount of Mons that can use the Tera, and specifically what It can only be used for 1 Mon, in turn it could be combined with the first option of showing the Tera type in the team preview.

I know Smogon isn't a big fan of making complex bans/restrictions, however I'm happy that this time they decided to give Tera's restriction as an option instead of just giving two options to choose from.

In the same way I agree that it is not worth limiting Tera over and over again just to try to maintain it, so I think that the restriction of Tera should be tested with the option that I mentioned before and in case the mechanics continue being a problem, consider the total ban.

 

[Lord Xen III]

Terastalizing is something you can build your team around by selecting more optimal Tera types. Teambuilding is part of player skill. If someone builds a better team than you, that's a skill issue on your end. For the Breloom example, the player that chose to run a set on their mon to bait in and beat Tera Rock Breloom outplayed the Breloom player. They built a team to deal with things, called the Breloom player on the right turn, and got rewarded for it. There is no step of this that the more skilled player can't play around. Rock isn't the only type that can do what I brought up Rock for on Breloom. They could've picked another type, like Electric, for example, or they could've scouted for the Tera type by running a move like Protect in the 4th slot.

The scenario you illustrated wasn't proof of a better team though, just a better team matchup, and overwhelmingly so.

Let's go back to RM vs Breloom example. Their RM is Steel Tera, your Breloom is Rock Tera. You incorrectly read them as being flying, and lose your Breloom for the misplay. Or you read them as Steel, Mach Punch and keep your Breloom and your Terastalization.

This is just another 50/50 basically. not a skill issue.

Hell, you can even midground and Tera Mach Punch to take Acro and kill Steel Tera. There's a lot of room for play in every step of this scenario.

This is the only part that is actually skilled based though, because the capacitiy for the identification and existence of the middleground play shows a healthy competition. Your other examples do not. The loss of a 50/50 wouldn't be a big issue if not for the incredible overall power of Terrastalizing.

 

[Taka]

If they boost and you Tera Rock Tomb, their speed drops, making them easy to KO on the following turns. If they Tera Acro and you Tera Rock Tomb, they lose a mon. It isn't a 50/50. It's just a turn. There's a ton of options for you and them, and those options are all context-dependent. It can be favorable to you or your opponent, as can any turn.

First, off, just wanna tell you this:
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (144 BP) vs. 0 HP / 4 Def Breloom: 221-261 (84.6 - 100%) -- 6.3% chance to OHKO

So after a DD, tera acro does just blow through tera rock breloom regardless, though this is irrelevant to the discussion as a whole.


Firstly, the issue is that offensive mons abuse terastalization too bad. Yes, defensive tera might be neutered by the clause of choosing a singular tera mon, but if that balances out the mechanic as a whole offensively, why call it a bad thing? Although I would personally prefer to remove the mechanic itself, if by restricting to one tera mon we make the mechanic as a whole more bearable for many playstyles, then what is the issue?


Additionally, I just want to point to something that people mention about the metagame being new.

We started out with Tera Dark Roaring Moon. Cool mon, but it can be revenged easily by a ton of the mons in the tier, and is still walled by Great Tusk. So we got to Tera Flying Roaring Moon, which beats Great Tusk. Now we see the occasional Tera Steel and Electric Great Tusk to beat TF Roaring Moon, and as a counter-response, Tera Ground Roaring Moon. This is just the development of a singular mon in a single month. Dragonite is similarly egregious, with tons of sets available to readily deal with standard checks. If we have this much development in such a short period, what's going to happen over a couple months? Yes, it may stagnate, but Tera promotes too much diversity in teambuilding, in a way that stretches common defensive cores thin.

The main issue is this: One way we define brokenness is by looking at a mon. If it can comfortably run multiple good sets, all of which are incredibly dominant and only have a few checks, and you have to guess(or predict based on team) what it would be, the mon is probably broken to an extent, especially if you need to consider multiple mons on your team just to check different possible sets. The roaring moon and tusk scenario is one example where you never really know if the opponent is running a bait set or the set you expected, or a multi-layered bait like Tera Ground. A one mon mechanic would at least let players have a team built around a single tera wincon that could flip the game, but will not guarantee to be incredibly threatening every game.

Building is the main issue. Oftentimes it feels like you're not really building to play a 1v1, you're building to play a 1v2, since your opponents team has a whole second set of typings. You can't feasibly scout out a Tera with a uturn/switch since the timing is not necessarily that predictable (at least on high ladder, since low ladder seems to just toss it out when they start a sweep), not without losing out on significant positioning and momentum at least. Why does your team have to be able to deal with a Tera Normal Dnite as well as a Tera Fire Dnite, and on top of this potentially even a Tera Steel or Fighting Dnite. There's just way too much to account for in the builder, and games are a lot more matchup fishy as a result.

Pokemon is a game of luck, but to an extent, we players and the OU council, want to minimize that to a reasonable extent. Tera really just feels like every battle is a 6v6 where each mon is trying to bait out the other mons set, hoping that they end up having the right type matchup/movepool. It might be hard to notice but tera really just exacerbates the issues that pokemon already has underlying, just making them to an unreasonable and uncompetitive amount. Having a single tera mon is nowhere near this egregious, as single bait mons are common parts of offensive and defensive structures, and scouting for a single mons potential tera is a lot safer than scouting 6 different ones.

Tera's own offensive potential is another huge issue. Superstabs are just like Z moves, but having them last the whole game makes them much more difficult to deal with, especially in such an offensive metagame (which Gholdengo hazard stack is no doubt heavily contributing to). Knowing that one mon is going to superstab is a lot easier to deal with in the builder, though in practice a lot of these mons might just be able to break past their checks and plow through the game with superstab (tera dragon specs pult can 2hko blissey from 60%). Granted, I would much rather enter a battle knowing what gauntlet I will be put through rather than cast completely blind against a team that can't really be easily guessed from preview.

Ultimately, my choice of options would be between banning the mechanic altogether and allowing a single tera mon on your team/team preview, though I prefer banning the mechanic altogether bc superstab still remains an issue whatever option is chosen.

 

[BlackKnight_Gawain]

To summarize my thoughts from the metagame discussion thread, I really like terastallization and think it is competitive as is. I don't think the variance it creates is any more than previous mechanics like Z moves, hidden power, random resist berries or sashes, or even any metagame pre team preview. I appreciate the team synergy opportunities the mechanic grants as well. I accept the criticisms of the mechanic, I just don't think they're as big a deal as people are saying. I also think that we will get better at scouting tera types as the metagame evolves. So a lot of the frustration I think people are having is temporary.

It seems a lot of the people who lean in my direction have already stated why they think so so I won't relitigate that here unless people ask.

Instead, I want to push back a bit on this idea that terastallization encourages short term thinking. In my experience I don't actually find this to be true.

On the ladder, I've found myself in situations like this all the time:

It's, say, my Gholdengo against an opposing Great Tusk. I've got tera flying on Gholdengo so I greedily click it, avoid headlong rush, and do a decent chunk to Great Tusk with Shadow Ball. Cool, yes, I've won this interaction. I've made the play that puts me ahead for this specific turn. But then, later on, I still lose, because another member of my team needed the extra damage boost from tera to actually break through the opposing team. Plus, since I used my tera first, my opponent can actually tera something more relevant and threatening, because they know I can't tera anything else again.

I feel like if tera was such a short-term mechanic, the best strategy would almost always be to tera at the first opportunity it's any good, but I really don't think this is the case. I find myself thinking of tera a lot more like a resource that needs strategy to learn when to spend than something greedy.

If we're talking about making a "competitive" metagame, where we define "competitive" as a game where the player with the better preparation, strategy, and decision-making almost always wins, I actually think that all the proposed decisions, from no action to modifying to outright banning will lead to a competitive metagame. I don't get the sense that I can play like shit, click tera when it's obviously beneficial, and then win. I also don't get the sense that removing tera will make the game uncompetitive.

The only action I would support are no action or tera on team preview. Banning tera blast is pointless I feel. Trying to restrict the number of Pokemon that can use it is artificial and hacky. Only allowing previous stab tera actually makes the mechanic way more one dimensional and offensive.

Basically if we're going to make substantial changes to the mechanic just to bend over backwards to keep it, we might as well just ban it. And if it does get banned I will probably just spend more time grinding battle spot singles and VGC than the Smogon ladders.

TL;DR banning tera is "competitive" but uninteresting. Keeping or lightly modifying tera makes the game more interesting and strategic, at the cost of a bit more variance than gen8.

I think this by far and away the most well thought out response in this entire thread. It's a very realistic scenario and outright lists what is and isn't working on both sides of the argument while also keeping in mind that aside from purely competitive interests there is a very legitimate factor of casual play that should be given consideration. I also think that while pre-emptive, how we handle tera is inevitably going to set a precedent going forward on generational gimmicks (and let's be real, these are here to stay) which seems dumb to talk about less than a month in, but is a good point of consideration because how do we handle mechanics that are going to be core parts of a generational identity while also making room for competitive balance going forward. IMO, this tera thread is unintentionally a lot more than just about the mechanic and rather a consideration as what the community (both more competitive and casual) should want in a metagame(s) going forward.

 

[ExXIII]

My preference : NO TIERING ACTION


Banning Tera Blast
Not relevant right now, but we might need to think about it again when DLCs come out.

Limiting Tera typing to previously existing STAB types
Very cringe solution and by far the worst one.

Limiting the amount of Pokemon on any given team that have access to possibly Terastallize during a battle
Honestly, it's too far from the cartridge if we start doing that kind of things.

Showing Tera type at Team Preview
This one is relatively fine, it doesn't change how the mechanic is working at least. It's closer to an open list system.
I could accept this middle ground, but I'd still prefer we don't change anything at all.

Outright ban
In my opinion, 8g was the most boring metagame that ever existed and 9g will be worse if Tera is banned. It's fine wanting to create the most competitive metagame (which isn't exactly what Smogon is doing since they also want diversity, look at SSBM and tell me if it's necessary), but if you remove all the fun then you'll only be able to flex about how good you are at a child game with a dozen of players and nobody will care about it. The community NEEDS to grow so we need to find a good balance between competitivity and attractivity. I think Tera is the most creative mechanic that has ever been introduced. There are so much teambuilding possibilities and it's very satisfying to have your theorycrafting being recompensed.

I don't think it's uncompetitive either. Your skill is rewarded when you build your team, when you identify the threats in your opponent team and most importantly when you successfully bait the Tera activation. Once your opponent burns it, you can have a very clear view on your win conditions and I'm sure the metagame will revolve around that as there are many ways to do so.


Anyway, NO TIERING ACTION on Terastallization.

 

[Moyashi]

but if you remove all the fun then you'll only be able to flex about how good you are at a child game with a dozen of players and nobody will care about it.

When you have to resort to "it's just a child game" to try and argue against any kind of tiering action against a very contentious mechanic, you kill whatever point you may have had (not that you had much of one tbh). No one will care about it? That's what people said when dmax was on the chopping block last gen. And that didn't come true. Frankly this whole bit reeks of contempt and personal bias and isn't constructive at all.

The community NEEDS to grow so we need to find a good balance between competitivity and attractivity. I think Tera is the most creative mechanic that has ever been introduced. There is so much teambuilding possibility and it's very satisfying to have your theorycrafts being recompensed.

Says who? What does "attractivity" even mean here? Competitive singles will likely always be niche compared to some really huge competitive games but there isn't necessarily something wrong witu that. Tera can be creative but that doesn't make it balanced.

I don't think it's uncompetitive either. Your skill is rewarded when you build your team, when you identify the threats in your opponent team and most importantly when you successfully bait the Tera activation. Once your opponent burns it, you can have a very clear view on your win conditions and I'm sure the metagame will revolve around that as there are many ways to do so.

Baiting someone into burning their tera is not something so easily done as it depends on a number of factors, particularly having the right mons to do so (which is never guaranteed), which makes such a thing match up dependant. That is not a skill.

 

[Darkphantom9]

I feel like a reasonable solution is to require a pokemon to be carrying tera blast in order to terastalize. This keeps the uniqueness terastalizing has on Gen 9 competitive but removes the ability to advantageously switch types whenever it's convenient.

 

[qways]

I think a lot of people overestimate the unpredictable aspect of tera. Like many people mention, while all mons have 18 tera types, only 1-4 can be considered viable.
Then after you see team preview it may be further possible to reduce the possible tera types based on teammates and what mons are most likely to tera can be guessed based on whats most effective against your team.
I think tera makes the metagame more complex, but not less competetive.
In general i havent had many battles where getting the rigth turn to tera seemed crucial in deciding the outcome of a game
An issue i see however is the stab boost for same type tera. While i think that changing to a tera type for 3rd stab is balanced by defense being able to tera for a better defensive typing with a lack of weaknesses (normal, water, electric, fairy, ghost have 2 or less weaknesses) there is no real counterplay to same type tera as defensive tera doesnt give you a defensive boost.
Therefor my favorite solution would be to ban same type tera.

My opinion on other possible restrictions:
Showing Tera type at Team Preview:
I dont see a need for it, but i would prefer this compared to a complete ban.
I dont think it would solve that some mons would get power levels with same type tera, that they shouldnt have.

Limiting the amount of Pokemon on any given team that have access to possibly Terastallize during a battle
I would prefer this compared to a complete ban.
I dont think it would solve that some mons would get power levels with same type tera, that they shouldnt have.
I would like to point out that terablast, which is rarely used so far, migth be become more viable with this rule, as the opportunity cost to use it that exists nowadays, woudlnt exist with this restricion. So while currently electric type terablast roaring isnt viable, because you cant ensure that you want to terasterialize roaring moon and not another mon and dont want to have terablast on a mon you dont tera, such a set may exist with this restriction, which may increase the amount of viable sets per mon and thus fails to make tera less unpredictable.

Banning Tera Blast
This alone would hardly change anything, since its barely used. Only with the restriction above it may have an effect.

Limiting Tera typing to previously existing STAB types
I think this is the worst solution and i would prefer even a complete ban compared to this restriction. It would just help offense and make tons of pokemon broken, that could otherwise may be checked by defensive tera.

No Tiering Action
This is my second favorite option.

 

[MTB'er Ben]

I've been in the Tera preservation conservation camp after playing for a bit and as one individual said, it plays just like another crazy OM. The question is whether to keep it as a mainstay or to treat it like an OM. If it is that powerful of a mechanic, toss the whole concept to Ubers where it can be played/tiered to its hearts content. If abusers of said mechanic are broken in ubers, then ban them to Anything Goes ala the Mega Ray treatment.

This is a compromise I'd be okay with...let Ubers deal with the broken things as a separate council. I think Dynamax was still allowed in gen 8 Ubers iirc. Then we can play a stable OU meta with some degree of healthy prediction and competitiveness.

 

[makra_nyx]

I want to talk about the proposed middle-ground approaches that I don't like. While I have preferences among the remaining options, I would be fine if the council settles on any decision that isn't one of the ones below:

Limiting Tera typing to previously existing STAB types
I feel like the intention here is to skew the function of the mechanic towards only a damage boost, and trying to cancel its defensive characteristics, and I have several problems with this:
- Why is the double STAB boost the desirable trait to keep around from the mechanics, discarding everything else? It favors certain playstyles more than others, and I don't find that it's the case that the ones that stand to gain the most out of it are the ones that are lagging behind.
- My guess is that what I just said above is false, or in more straightforward terms, I think that a defensive tera is quite strong even if it only helps you lose a secondary type. Now, why am I saying that something that I was finding a problem not being true is a problem in itself? Because if that were the case, this tera restriction wouldn't have produced the effects that it was bringing as justification. A restriction on the mechanic that doesn't have a reason behind it, or that doesn't produce effects that reflect that reason, is essentially random, and even if it ends up producing a more enjoyable meta, it will have been by chance. If we're happy with this, there's no reason not to try other possible arbitrary restrictions on the off chance that they produce an healthier meta.
- TB would lose almost any nuance, which I find undesirable for the reasons below.

Banning Tera Blast
This would be an outright mistake, because TB is a very well thought out move, with a fair risk/value proposition and that adds nuance to more than one decision making moment during the course of the battle. When using TB you're committing to being less flexible with your tera, whether you end up using it on the pokemon with TB or not. This is harsh, given that the main strength of the mechanic is its flexibility, consequence of not having a "teambuilding cost" (having to use an item, etc.) associated to it. In all the situations where it would be very good to tera another pokémon, you now would be "paying" 1 moveslot on your TB mon, along with the role that you assigned during the teambuilding phase to the latter. Overall, it feels like a higher investment, higher reward hidden power, which I've historically found to be a healthy move to have, and in terms of a discussion on the healthiness of tera as a mechanic, TB is an argument in favor of it, especially in a meta without, precisely, HP.

 

[ant4456]

Almost like we got more offensive megas than defensive ones. Not that such is relevant anyways.



No actually. Theoretically a restriction with one designated tera user per team would actually let people realistically gleam from preview which mon is the abuser and to plan from there. Especially with teams packing multiple offensive options. As opposed to now wherr anything at any point could tera which just adds to the nonsense.



Here is the turn options when they tera:
-RM teras (flying) and boosts. You click rock tomb expecting flying. Cool.
-RM teras (flying) and clicks acro. Breloom dies. You lost offensive check.

And this gets worse if "rock-tera breloom" caught on because now the RM adapts and now can click EQ. This leads to more coin flip guessing and could see ground tera RM pop up. This makes it even messier. You say "there is a ton of options" but don't say what such options are.



Wanted to highlight this especially, but no. More paths mean more on the spot 50/50 guesses. Guessing "will they tera and attack or tera and boost", and "should i tera to match theirs and which move should i click? Or should i switch" is not a skill. There is no consistency there. No practice will help there.

For people playing a game where half of your best moves can outright fail with accuracy, we sure are calling things a "50/50" when they aren't and not telling people to "get good" and make better midground plays like we do when they complain that Scald destroyed their endgame, which was otherwise supposedly perfect.

We used to have a time where you straight up had to predict or play around not knowing the enemy team in its entirety. Or not knowing the Z-Move. In rare cases, not knowing the Mega. Tera is a mechanic that allows you to very easily combat enemy Teras with better teambuilding. The skill ceiling for teambuilding has never been higher. I'm sick of this "unskillful play" nonsense, I strictly see better players winning more

"50/50s"

than worse players. Because it's a buzzword in this context.

Like, what is even this Breloom example? Havs you heard of option 3:

Go to your Pokemon that can play against both of these moves. There's quite a few better plays you can make than blindly Terastilizing to hope to catch another Terastilization. This isn't a mechanic to use to counter another in the same turn, it's much better to hold onto later.

That's a 20/20/60 because 60% of players would rather decide to not risk an entire Pokemon and Tera on such a ridiculous play.

If you have no other counters? Well, that's before Tera was even used, and that's the result of how you played. "If Scald destroyed your endgame, you could've played better." moment. Nothing in competitive Pokemon is a true given, and we have to play around it to the best of our abilities. Tera gives more options, and you can use it pretty skillfully in the teambuilder and match itself.

Have none of you baited a Z-Move before? That's a not-so-uncommon play in Gen 7, despite in concept being quite "risky", and not knowing for sure the other person's Pokemon has the crystal. But eventually you learn what types of Pokemon and on what team has a set like that, and you learn to bait it out as a midground play that is recoverable on most of the time.

Z-Moves and Tera are by no means the same mechanic, but once Tera is popped, it's immediately way less threatening because now you can more knowledgeably counter their Tera'd mon.

And if the metagame is too strained by a Pokemon like that, making it almost impossible to counter? Ban it.

Some people here keep saying: "We can't work on the premise that this will later become more predictable and managable."

Which bothers me as others in the thread and in general, only a week in, are saying it's become way more predictable and managable.

Maybe learn what they have.

 

[HDF0]

This is a random thought but I just felt like adding that Tera does add an additional layer to learning the game, so it feels like it heightens the skill floor (gatekeeping more people from competition) despite increasing appeal to the ruleset (encouraging more people to play). Of course, it has never been easier to get into the game with more and more resources available, perhaps there will be resources available to help a new player to learn how to counteract Tera.

My other thought more on the tiering policy angle is that Tera is in the centre of generational mechanics in terms of bannability (with Dynamax on the more obviously bannable end and Z Moves on the less obviously bannable end). I am just wondering, wouldn't it set a precedent? I agree with what some people have brought up about precedent here, if Dynamax is allowed in Gen 10 (or looking at tiering National Dex in the present), are we going to allow such restrictions? (Dynamax level 0 for 50% hp boost, restricting number of mons that can dynamax, forcing dynamaxing mons to drop items, banning moves of a certain BP on dynamaxing mons, banning non stab attacking moves on mons that are going to dynamax)

 

[5camp]

The argument I'm struggling a little with is the forced 50/50s argument. It's not that I disagree with the argument. To use an example I ran into, we have boosted Annihilate vs Iron Valiant. Valiant could click spirit break to KO. But it could also predict it changing to steel or normal and click close combat to KO. That is a 50/50, I'm not arguing against that.

But isn't Pokemon full of these already? Will he click sucker punch and KO me so I click substitute? Or will he predict that and attack with knock off? Will this Zard X change form so I should click earthquake? Or will it stay in Zard form and I should click an electric move? Will this Zapdos click roost so I should EQ? Or will it click hurricane and I'm left looking extremely silly? Will they switch Lando-T into my Sand Excadrill so I should click swords dance, or will this Heatran in front of me click eruption and KO me if I don't just click EQ?

I don't see how tera forcing predicts is different from these scenarios. Don't say "because you win or lose games from these predictions" because I constantly win or lose games based off sucker punch predictions. Tera forces you to make predicts, but so does every Pokemon game.

I'm not even necessarily anti-ban. But the more I think about it, the weaker I feel the 50/50 argument is.

 

[Moutemoute]

After playing/watching dozens, dozens and dozens of games during the last week, and seeing a ton of them ending due to this new mechanic, I trully think that Terastallization is far more troublesome than people would like to admit it. With that in mind, it's obvious that a "no tiering action" isn't the outcome we want from a competitive point of view.

Without quoting a lot of people who already posted, I would like to make people empathize the fact that we can't compare Terastallization to anything we knew in the past and this includes : Mega-Evolution, Z-Move and Dynamax (and even more things like Hidden Power, for real I don't know what you people are smoking to compare those mechanics with each other).

Unlike Mega-Evolution and Z-Move, Terastallization can be used by basically any Pokemon you have in your team which forces way more 50/50 than those past mechanics. When you were facing Mega's and Z-Move in Gen 6 and 7, you were able at team preview to know which Pokemon was going to Mega-Evolve and if you knew about the metagame you were playing in, you were almost always able to determine the Z-Move user of the opponent's team or at least to limit the potential users at less than half the team. With that in mind, it was way more easy to play around. But this doesn't take in account another specificity of Terastallization which is the fact that like Dynamax, you don't need an item to use it ! And this is quite quite big because unlike Mega's and Z-Move, this mechanic is basically "free to use" by any of your Pokémon without costing anything. Of course you were able to play Z-Moves in Gen 7 on each of your Pokémon, but let's be honest, this was awful because you were sacrificing most of your Pokemon utility in order to just be able to use Z-Move on the one you wanted at the right moment. Also, Terastallization may be seen as even better than Dynamax on some points mainly because unlike Dynamax, Terastallization doesn't disappear upon switch-out but also doesn't negate Choice Lock items unlike Dynamax.

Now let's focus on why I think Terastallization is too much to handle in solo 6v6.
My main issue with this mechanics is that it allows really nasty 50/50 on both offensive and defensive spectrum. What I want to explain is that unlike before, you can't really determine when you're sure to be able to win. You can setup a Pokémon and lose right away because of 50/50's Terastallization creates. Do I need to use X or Y move in order to beat my opponent Pokemon ? X move would be the best option if Terastallization wasn't happening / existing but on the other hand, Y move could cover potential types into which it could Terastallize. This is a really big issue in my opinion and there isn't a current good answer to it outside of outright ban of the mechanics. Of course we can decide to show Tera type at Team Preview but let's be honest, this doesn't remove our main issue here which is the fact that Terastallization makes game way to coinflippy. I mean, with time, metagame will settling up itself and players will be able to know what kind of Terastallization are used on X or Y Pokemon based on experience (much like when players knew what kind of Hidden Power or items Pokemon were running). So knowing the Tera type at Team Preview, will only bring a smaller thing to players knowledge and I'm sure this will not remove the 50/50's issue we have right now. People could argue that Pokemon is already filled with 50/50 and while it's true you can't also deny that Terastallization brings up the issue to a more filthy level. Do we really want tournaments in Smogon to end with 50/50's due to Terastallization ? I personally don't want this to happenned.

Overall I think Finchinator made interesting proposals to the community about Terastallization. But I also think most of them are iffy if not bad options in order to deal with the mechanics. Like I said earlier, we could surely pick "Showing Tera type at Team Preview" but will it remove the inherent issue about Terastallization ? I don't think so. And the same sadly applies to other choices we have. Like "Banning Tera Blast" is in my opinion as useful as doing nothing about the Terastallization issue. There isn't a lot of Pokemon which are using this move to begin with, people rarely Terastallize their mons to use this attack but more so to benefit of the typing change in order to take a hit from the opponen in order to retaliate back or to benefit the "Adaptability" buff the mechanic provides. I also think "Limiting the amount of Pokemon on any given team that have access to possibly Terastallize during a battle" or "Limiting Tera typing to previously existing STAB types" are poor options or and an admission of weakness from our part that we can't really deal with Terastallization without making complex arrangements just in order to keep the new mechanic usable.

I understand that people hate the idea of banning the mechanic of a generation because it kinda defines the generation itself but we have to put our feeling on the side and think about what is the best from a competitive point of view. Do we really want tournaments in a couple months ending with wacky 50/50's which will not take in account (or at least take lesser in account) players level ? I personally don't think this is what we want. This may be seen as an elitist call but I personally don't give a fuck about it. Dynamax was ass, we were criticize for banning it but in the end, we made the right call and people saying the opposite either don't know what they're talking about or are acting in bad faith. Also, people will still be able to play with Terastallization on other tiers such as dedicated OM so please don't think with your heart but with your brain.

 

[MANNAT]

The argument I'm struggling a little with is the forced 50/50s argument. It's not that I disagree with the argument. To use an example I ran into, we have boosted Annihilate vs Iron Valiant. Valiant could click spirit break to KO. But it could also predict it changing to steel or normal and click close combat to KO. That is a 50/50, I'm not arguing against that.

But isn't Pokemon full of these already? Will he click sucker punch and KO me so I click substitute? Or will he predict that and attack with knock off? Will this Zard X change form so I should click earthquake? Or will it stay in Zard form and I should click an electric move? Will this Zapdos click roost so I should EQ? Or will it click hurricane and I'm left looking extremely silly? Will they switch Lando-T into my Sand Excadrill so I should click swords dance, or will this Heatran in front of me click eruption and KO me if I don't just click EQ?

The difference between tera and those things is that tera induces those 50/50s every single game. Additionally there is an enormous information disparity with tera, as there are 18 types that they can tera into and while you can make some educated guesses, you certainly can’t guarantee which type they will tera into. All of your examples are those where there are two plays that you have but there’s not tough luck scenarios like there are with tera (ie you can play around tera flying and stay regular form roaring moon but lose if it’s fairy). It’s a really unhealthy mechanic in its current form and needs to be severely limited if not banned pending the community failing to agree on the best way to limit it.

 

[Winddragon48]

Out of curiosity has any suggested only letting the last remaining pokemon on a team use Tera? Sort of as an attempted comeback mechanic.

1. It solves the advantage tera has over Dynamax, that being you can then switch in and out the pokemon as normal

2. It lowers the problem of it completely dominating the match from the start if you mispredict, if you have worked yourself into a 3 to 1 lead there's a much lower chance that last pokemon using tera is going to cheap shot win, and if it does it may very well be because they had thought 4 moves ahead (this is already possible with things like berries and baiting counters or using mon-standard sets so it's not a great diversion from normal gameplay)

3. It preserves the "feel" of the new generation, this is somewhat less on the competitive side of things but people always tend to react adversely to bans on mechanics, the in game trainers already use it this way so it should sate that crowd

4. It still allows a form of comeback, inverse to 2, it is very competitive if you were able to analyze your opponents team and moves throughout the match to save the perfect tera for the end and push out a win, this is the type of mechanical use people would get excited about versus normal tera Dnite just sweeping the opposing team 5-0 with Espeed, conversely if the player with the lead can figure out the tera you may be saving it would be easy to keep his lead, also via skill smd planning

There's probably more benefits (and obviously some downsides) but I feel if tera is deemed to be a bit overpowered this might be an easy compromise

 

[ThitOneGuy]

If you are referring to the example I made with IV vs RM, IV could have gone for Moonblast which RM could not stay in on. And I'm not saying countering terra is impossible but it restricts what is viable and counter play is limited (can you give more examples on how to counter terra without using terra)? I believe banning terra will ultimately be more healthy for the meta game in the long run since it will likely be less constricting on the team builder. Sure mons will technically have less sets but this could allow more mons to be useable(especially if we have a case where a mons is ban worthy due to terra). To something clear I'm pro terra ban but I still do think we can wait to finalize a decision and terra could be suspect tested. However if terra does get banned it doesn't mean gen9 ou is dead, there are a number of new mons, items, mechanic changes(outside of terra), etc to make this unique tier just like the other ou tiers and be interesting in it's own way(don't think you're trying to say it will "become gen8 ou" but just putting it out there since it's something people like to say)

Let's say you've got IV in against RM. RM is Steel Tera to take Moonblast and set up. You click Close Combat, killing RM without using your Tera. Now let's say it's Tera Flying RM. You click Thunderbolt, which is a 2HKO, limiting them to 1 turn of setup. Or if you have Rocks up, you could Icy Wind into T-bolt to KO them after Rocks. Icy Wind covers everything except attacking with Iron Head/Acro. You can build your checks to actually check the common options with high percent moves.