Metagame Views From The Council [ SEE POST 716 ]

[BolTingBlazie]

A disorganised thought I have about Booster Energy that I feel is important to consider is that it allows for natural speed control options for offense that are extremely difficult to come by otherwise. There are a few exceptionally fast Pokemon that are already very difficult to account for like Dragapult, Roaring Moon, and Iron Boulder; the latter two are nerfed by a lack of Booster Energy for sure, but in other ways they become harder to deal with; you can't use Boulder to help against Moon, or Valiant to help against a Booster-burned Boulder, and neither can help against Dragapult anymore. This also applies to stuff like Weavile and Meowscarada in particular.

Fully aware that the goal of a Booster ban is to weaken explosive offense but I'm not really sure that'd end up being the case in practice. A prime reason for Valiant to run Booster Energy is really just so that it doesn't lose to other Booster Energy mons; Choice Scarf has been a pretty awful item for a while now in a hazard-centric metagame and there are very few mons that naturally outspeed it as is. Of course this opens up Cinderace, Weavile, Dragapult etc. as more reliable counterplay but that can't really be said for like, Iron Boulder, and a number of the ones that don't boost Speed like Raging Bolt / Gouging Fire are honestly better off using other items half the time anyway.

Idk stream of consciousness and not something I've fully thought through yet but I don't think booster is something worth considering I think? I could probably be convinced but it doesn't seem like the move to me.

What do you think of a heat rock and or drought suspect Lily? It might be necessary at this point as sun has been good all gen and these pokemon see to be more problematic under sun anyway since it gives the past Paradoxes more flexibility due to freeing up item slots as opposed to booster energy, and multiple pokemon in the meta are problematic under sun than with booster.

I think the appropriate tiering practice would be to look into a couple of Pokemon like Roaring Moon or Raging Bolt (can argue Gouging Fire as well) up front. If they’re all deemed problematic and other things still are, then we can reevaluate and potentially unban a few things that benefitted if we act on Booster Energy. I don’t think it will get all the way to that point, but no point basing it all off of theory anyway.

We are at a point where we have all generation to optimize everything, but there is some immediacy being felt for fixing the problems right in front of us, so this caters to all of that.

Yeah could not have said it better myself. There are so many things that could potentially be or are problematic that suspecting tera just isn't an option right now and should be kept om the backburner until the metagame is in a state where tera can more properly be evaluated, amongst other things that could be tested but should wait. There is no support for testing tera because we need to fix what we have first and there are many banworthy or potentially banworthy pokemon in the meta people deem as priority, so a tera suspect might not happen for months if it even does. But I do believe suspects should be prioritized before anything to do with tera. I do think action on tera should be kept on surveys, because it still is extremely controversial in singles play.

I am also a little more open to a tera blast ban though since it might take a long time before tera is considered for a suspect again.

 

[LBN]

I don't particularly follow OU that strongly, but that's primarily because it's been in an unsavory state all generation. And while tera was originally a fine target to try to alleviate this, that shit sailing has led us to try to find a new way to make the meta more tenable. Personally, I'd like to throw an idea into the ring. While not all of the current problem Pokémon are all the paradox's, a huge swath of them are. To that end, I'd like to pitch an idea.

Make activating Protosynthesis and Quark drive as unachievably as physically possible. Namely banning Booster Energy and Drought tout suite. Not heat rock, but Drought. Pokemon like Walking Wake and Gouging Fire are absurd nukes and merely limiting their chances by 3 turns is not going to fix them, as Torkoal would simply switch to more effective items to either lay the sun up easier, or bring them in easier like Eject button or Boots. While this may not save all of them, as something like Gouging fire is just Zard X with an item slot which is already questionable, this would be able to curb alot of the more polarizing Pokémon and may let some of them be ok when they usually wouldn't be. Roaring Moon would change drastically, as alot of it's current gameplans rely on Choiced in Sun or DD w booster. Raging Bolt would pivot to lefties all the time, but losing the option to have booster atall is a nice way to knock it down a peg or 2.

I'll also voice my own support for a tera blast ban but it won't come with a paragraph explaining why because I have Atelier Ryza 3 to go play. but for coles notes it simply enables far too much nonsense from things like Seperior, Volcarona and others. I intend to participate in more of the OU suspects going forward since after the Kyurem vote it seems that good outcomes are not exactly something we can count on anymore from the voterbase.

 

[Karxrida]

Its what literally has been done in DPP, BW, ORAS and SM with Soul Dew. Latias in DPP and Latios in BW remained as controversial Mons even despite that, so there is a good enough of a precedent.

The Soul Dew ban was based on an already existing precedent set by Game Freak (probably because the items were originally event exclusive), so I don't think the situation is entirely comparable. The controversy surrounding DPP Latias and BW Latios (especially the latter from what I've seen) also hurts your argument here, since it shows allowing them with the item ban arguably didn't fix anything.

As an aside, I'm pretty sure we allowed Soul Dew in SM because the item was turbo nerfed.

 

[Ryomathekillers]

Meta is considered to be extremely powerful, probably most powercrept gen since 5. Meta has a lot of extremely explosive mons who just try to kill you.

Solutions.
Ban a huge amount of pokemon (if It needs to be done it needs to be done)

Ban Booster energy (weather remains strong, sun arguably broken right now with the dogs just like how rain is arguably broken with arch)

Ban Tera which universally has fallen in regards to support for qualified and unqualified (this has a good chance of not being the case on the next survey however) (Tera blast ban will knock down some anti-counter matchup fishing options like serp and volc, but still won't decrease the powerlevel of extremely explosive mons like roaring moon)

Ban Weather (if it needs to be done it needs to be done, meta may end up just going back to webs/screens cheese for the easy explosive HO of choice)

IMO unless something happens in regards to the explosive offence that just try to kill you asap the meta will remain similar. I do not see a road to a better meta game unless one of these routes are taken. Personally I'd love to see a tera ban but until public support goes up for it a suspect isn't going to happen.

If the best that can be done is a huge amount of individual pokemon bans then it should be the route taken, if people don't want that then maybe the alternatives to keeping their favourite mons will entice them more. I as I'm sure many, do not want an extremely large ban-list, but I'd rather have a higher banlist than what currently exists. Hopefully however, public opinion on tera changes.

Thank you to the council for actively doing suspects, I hope the pace continues.

 

[Deleted User [52440]]

Correct me if my thoughts are wrong since I haven't kept to up to date with the meta since the sleep debacle but if the general consensus is that tera is staying and folk want ~8 mons getting banned (not opposed), wouldn't that lead to stall getting even stronger with less breakers and the meta being even less enjoyable?

Acknowledging that i'm seemingly in the minority, but i'm a firm believer that tera is the predominant force shaping the current meta, tilting it towards the polar extremes of hyper offense and stall.

Tera is skill expressive. I don't think this is debatable. Knowing when to tera involves recognition of the game state to:

1. Buy a turn (deal chip, break through a "counter", survive a hit, set up etc)
2. Neuter a threat (eg tera ice hydrapple against a meow, tera fight bozo against nah i'd win (king) etc)

My point above being tera has both defensive and offensive utility.

Now, if you get rid of the most flagrant offensive abusers of the mechanic, you will still get offensive abusers after all the bans but they won't be quite as potent. Ok cool, setting aside all the debate that comes with using tera offensively, the defensive side of the tera abuse spectrum will have lost nothing and stall variations will be easier to build as they will have to take into account less threats, allowing themselves to fine-tune their teras for more niche stall breakers that would pop up in the absence of less HO threats.

My only hope would be that enough stall breakers pop up once the likes of roaring moon and gouging fire are gone but I think it's worth mentioning that tera also greatly benefits stall builds and the rise in said playstyle contributes to the persistently unfavorable perception of the meta which imo won't change with additional bans.

 

[CTC]

I do not agree that things have to be banned for the meta to reach balance like njnp claims. My bro makes some good arguments but current meta does not host anything similar to the previously cancerous existences like bloodmoon or sneasler, nor does the meta see overwhelming spamming of grassy or zap gking like the previous dlc metas have shown us. Instead, this meta revolves around a rock paper scissors of ho, balance, and fat, with each style teching to beat the others (think gking pivot balance as paper, stall/fat as rock, and ho as scissors). Even archaludon who is being suspected right now can only function on rain and has a predictable set, making it essentially a conditionally bulky breaking Mon like bloodmoon but with more counterplay. It exists on literally one style which happens to be one that is most linear and difficult to innovate. I have toyed with rain structures of all categories from fat to hazard ho, only to find the staples being… staple on rain. Therefore, when facing down an arch one at least has an information advantage. Moreover, we are currently witnessing the peak of an interactive ecosystem wherein threats counterbalance threats, with no style seeming significantly out of place. While weathers and glim hos have significantly lowered the floor of entry into ou, a seasoned player can still out prep and deal with the given threats in the current metagame with a well built team. In my opinion, some balances we have seen with good countermeasures for ho setup spam but also boasting longevity to combat fatter scor or regen teams do exist, and thus holding the metagame together by deterring the two extremes of ou which venture into cheese territory: ho and stall. Because of the existence of threats like the proto mons, weather, breakers, hazards, one cannot simply sit on a crown of unawares and blissey and try to stall out every game, nor can one run 6 setups and cheese wins because well built teams will run phazing or unawares. A diverse meta in which instead of using bans to limit the proliferation of pests such as scor, zap, gking, and grassy of the past, we just let the ecosystem sort itself out, shows a lot of promise and diversity. I can tell you with certainty that this is the most expansive meta with the most amount of viable mons and sets since release of sv, and it’s not even close. I am glad we are currently able to enjoy such prosperity in ou and see underrated threats flourish, keep the game diverse and do not fuck up the ecosystem with unnecessary bans. Exemplified by the kyurem suspect, the people understand that kyu is a valuable piece of glue holding the meta together by deterring rain, sun, and trading into bulky offenses. Now we need people to realize that rain is also an essential part of the ordeal, checking other weathers so sun doesn’t dominate the cycle and bully out all the fatter styles, while also keeping speedy ho in check with its blitzing barraskewda. Arch’s existence also necessitates a defensive backbone on certain teams which curbs the ho population, while its vulnerability to stall gives it a reason to be used, creating an effect similar to that of Yellowstone park’s wolves curbing grazers while promoting plant life indirectly. If we are to remove key pieces of the ou ecosystem, we cannot foresee how the circumstances will change. Perhaps some styles will be phased out, others may become overpowered. The burden of proof is on the ban side, I must see some hard proof w statistical support showing why certain mons break the balance of the game and deserve to be banned, either with abnormal usage or win rate. Until then, let’s keep the tier in balance and harmony as is intended.


—— avatar Basedlord

ps not even gonna address the tera ban crowd like just use ur mind for one second and have any semblance of skill child, I believe in you

 

[TheTraininator]

The burden of proof is on the ban side, I must see some hard proof w statistical support showing why certain mons break the balance of the game and deserve to be banned, either with abnormal usage or win rate. Until then, let’s keep the tier in balance and harmony as is intended.

Speaking about Archaludon specifically, I think that burden of proof has already been met with the SPL winrate and usage statistics. The fact that rain dominated SPL across multiple weeks despite players going out of their way to prepare for it shows that the playstyle is currently just too consistent at what it does to be healthy for the metagame, and Archaludon is the centerpiece for it. I’m not opposed to the concept that minimal bans may be the best in the long run, (though I don’t agree Kyurem should have stayed), but I can say pretty confidently that the evidence shows at the moment that Archaludon rain definitely has a bit of a stranglehold on the meta.

 

[TheTraininator]

Its what literally has been done in DPP, BW, ORAS and SM with Soul Dew. Latias in DPP and Latios in BW remained as controversial Mons even despite that, so there is a good enough of a precedent.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you can’t ban items as a whole, even ones signature to a few Pokémon. What I am saying is:

a) Booster Energy does not meet the burden of proof to be banned; it makes several Pokémon better, but it only actually breaks, (or arguably breaks), one Pokémon. One could even argue some Pokémon capable of using it would be improved by its ban since it also removes certain counterplay to revenge them after setup, (i.e. Gouging Fire after a DD being outsped by Booster Valiant or Booster Boulder).

b) Booster Energy is inarguably not broken on the majority of its users. I’m not saying it needs to be broken on 100% of all of them for a case to be made that it’s unhealthy, but the majority of Paradox Pokémon aren’t even OU or Uber at this time. Simply having access to this item clearly does not break a Pokémon; the best use case for it is being able to use it to boost speed while being able to boost offenses, or using it to boost offenses while being able to boost speed or soam priority, and that comes down to stat distribution + movepool, aka based on the skillset of the individual Pokémon.

c) Banning a tool a Pokémon can use specifically in an attempt to nerf it, ignoring potential collateral and without even being sure that the tool is what breaks the Pokémon in the first place, is fundamentally against core Smogon tiering philosophy. This may seem like it counteracts what I was saying at the start, but the key here is that when we ban a tool multiple Pokémon can use, it’s because that element itself is essentially fundamentally argued to be both broken and unhealthy for the metagame across multiple users; it requires a very high burden of proof and is not something we do haphazardly just to nerf things. Shadow Tag, Moody, Baton Pass, and Shed Tail were not banned as targeted nerfs against their users but rather because these elements were considered fundamentally unhealthy to have in the metagame while simultaneously being inarguably the sole reason a lot of their users were even being used at all. I have yet to see Booster Energy meet this level of burden of proof; if a significant number of Pokémon relied super heavily on it like Roaring Moon while also being inarguably broken and unhealthy, that would be different, but that’s not remotely the case. I think Booster Energy’s impact is if anything lesser than the impact Stored Power has had on bans, (Espathra and Magearna being both primarily banned due to it), while also making a lot of other Pokémon stronger, and we never banned or even suspected Stored Power.

d) A case can be made that Booster Energy is actually healthy for the metagame as a whole because it provides valuable speed control in an otherwise incredibly hostile offensive metagame environment. I touched on this in my initial post when I said Valiant is actively healthy for the metagame at the moment, and I think Lily also summed this up pretty solidly in her last post in this thread, but banning Booster Energy isn’t something that would just inherently make offensive threats easier to manage. Let’s talk about Valiant for a second; with its speed tier, typing, and access to Booster Energy, Valiant actually happens to match up very well vs a large portion of the currently contentious Pokémon that make up the top threats of the metagame. Remove Valiant’s access to Booster Energy, however, and a valuable source of speed control is gone from the metagame, which actually improved a lot of fast offensive threats that don’t have to rely on Booster Energy.

e) This is a lot less important so I put this at the bottom, but pre-nerf Soul Dew isn’t remotely comparable to Booster Energy. That item was so unfathomably broken that even Game Freak had to ban the Latis from using it themselves. Booster only provides a 30% boost to one stat once per game, or a 50% to speed once per game, whereas Soul Dew provided the Latis with two 50% stat boosts for the whole game, essentially turning them into cover legendaries.

 

[WilhelmTheOkay]

I think that burden of proof has already been met with the SPL winrate and usage statistics. The fact that rain dominated SPL across multiple weeks

Hello, sorry for moving into what feels like discussion better suited for the suspect thread. Just want to say, regardless of one's own opinion on Arch or Rain's brokenness, this part about dominant SPL usage rates just isn't quite true at the moment. While Rain had a great showing in Week 1 going 5-2, it has only been used three times since then (going 2-1 if you're curious) while Archaludon has appeared five more times since week 1 (going 3-2), appearing twice without Rain. At the time of writing, we're still waiting for either Arch or Peli's first appearance in week 4. While the winrate is still high, I don't think this quite fits the bill of dominant usage nor is it the kind of hard evidence that would sway CTC or anyone else who holds similar opinions.

 

[Mario With Lasers]

I know everyone's entertained discussing possible suspects but

snip

Okay, this post honestly sounded weird to me. We have a voting threshold that lets a Ban majority lose if it doesn't get a wide enough margin over the DNB vote. I do not know who decided this threshold, I wasn't around, but I do not see its net benefit. While a 60-40% vote could bring more "certainty" to a ban vote, the threshold also means that we'll get close votes like Kyurem's where both the Council and the majority of voters (and arguably of the community) will be disappointed at the results and nothing will change and the metagame will keep being shitty.

And yet you try to convince the minority that they need to change their mind and accept we need more bans, like the majority does, lest the Council intervenes.

Huh? What? You already have the majority on your side! You literally tied your own hands with this 60% threshold instead of going with 50%+1. You don't need to beg or convince the minority they're wrong, if they were right they'd be the majority. Just change the threshold to a simple majority from now on. Hell, put it to a vote and use the 60% threshold one last time just to be sure everyone's on board.

 

[Lily]

What do you think of a heat rock and or drought suspect Lily? It might be necessary at this point as sun has been good all gen and these pokemon see to be more problematic under sun anyway since it gives the past Paradoxes more flexibility due to freeing up item slots as opposed to booster energy, and multiple pokemon in the meta are problematic under sun than with booster.

I'd much rather just ban some of the Protosynthesis abusers. The three dragons in particular are what "break" sun, stuff like Tusk/Slither/Shocks aren't really problematic and neither are other abusers like Iron Moth and Cinderace. I doubt sun would be an overbearing presence if Raging Bolt and Gouging Fire were to be removed from the tier (or Walking Wake, but that is pretty clearly a level below by now).

 

[Alternator]

I know everyone's entertained discussing possible suspects but



Okay, this post honestly sounded weird to me. We have a voting threshold that lets a Ban majority lose if it doesn't get a wide enough margin over the DNB vote. I do not know who decided this threshold, I wasn't around, but I do not see its net benefit. While a 60-40% vote could bring more "certainty" to a ban vote, the threshold also means that we'll get close votes like Kyurem's where both the Council and the majority of voters (and arguably of the community) will be disappointed at the results and nothing will change and the metagame will keep being shitty.

And yet you try to convince the minority that they need to change their mind and accept we need more bans, like the majority does, lest the Council intervenes.

Huh? What? You already have the majority on your side! You literally tied your own hands with this 60% threshold instead of going with 50%+1. You don't need to beg or convince the minority they're wrong, if they were right they'd be the majority. Just change the threshold to a simple majority from now on. Hell, put it to a vote and use the 60% threshold one last time just to be sure everyone's on board.

50%+1 isn't used because it's volatile; a few extra players being sick that week, or having real life be more time consuming than usual, and the result changes and a move/mon/mechanic is banned to Ubers. That's always going to be literally the case, of course, but (say) CTC getting sick and Raging Bolt being banned with 60.1% is much less problematic than it being banned with 50.1%.

There's no big fancy reason, it's that basic. 60% specifically is used because it's a nice even number and looks pretty, but a supermajority is used to ensure that if something is banned, it really deserved it.

 

[termi]

50%+1 isn't used because it's volatile; a few extra players being sick that week, or having real life be more time consuming than usual, and the result changes and a move/mon/mechanic is banned to Ubers. That's always going to be literally the case, of course, but (say) CTC getting sick and Raging Bolt being banned with 60.1% is much less problematic than it being banned with 50.1%.

There's no big fancy reason, it's that basic. 60% specifically is used because it's a nice even number and looks pretty, but a supermajority is used to ensure that if something is banned, it really deserved it.

Why is an "undeserved" ban where 50.1% of the voters vote ban an issue while an "undeserved" dnb result where 40.1% of the voters vote dnb isn't? What makes the status quo so inherently appealing that it should be maintained even if a majority of the voters thinks otherwise? If it is the case that a large part of the competitive OU scene finds the meta to be in a bad state and wants change, why should we inherently privilege the status quo by making the threshold for a ban result higher than that of a dnb result? Plenty of other tiers don't do this, in fact OU is unique compared to all the tiers below it in this regard. OU in a sense has even less reason to have this threshold compared to other tiers, since the pool of voters is much bigger and therefore the odds that a few people being too sick or busy to make reqs ends up swinging a result are much lower.

 

[BigFatMantis]

60% is a good threshold for changing oldgens because of the nature of changing something that has been in place for so long. For CG it's probably not needed since the tier changes constantly. However I think dropping it to 50% + 1 is too big of a change from 60% (plus that leaves absolutely no margin for "error" I guess, whatever error that is) - just split the difference and go 55%. There's no reason why it has to be 60% or 50%, it can be somewhere in between. The numbers are meaningless. There are places that hold votes that require a 50% +1, a 55%, a 60%, a 66%, and a 75% majority. I am pretty sure we do 60% because someone just decided to pick that number at one point and it stuck.

 

[tempolaly]

The value of a supermajority system should be measured independently of the actual case of SV OU. Maintaining an ironclad precedent is always more valuable than the possible short term benefits of decision-making based on the expected immediate benefits. And there are several reasons a supermajority process is appropriate.
A bad ban (or unban) does far more damage to a playerbase's enjoyment and belief in Smogon's reputation and tiering system than a bad no-ban does. People without control over the decision-making process have a much greater tolerance for a questionable status quo than they do for a questionable change.
However, people who do have control over a decision collectively have a bias towards changing something if they can. Meaning voters tend towards a ban bias, whereas non-voters tend towards preferring non-bans.
It's also true that people fight harder for change than they do for non-change. Meaning those who work to collect reqs will have a ban bias for that reason as well.
Additionally, barring a number of situations related to DLC-style in-gen metagame shifts, across the history of Smogon tiering, it's more common for a no-ban result to be revisited with a second ban vote than it is for a banned Pokemon to be revisited for a reinclusion vote.
Considering these factors, putting a greater standard on banning than non-banning is simple and sensible.

Edit: I have no interest in point by point squabbling. If you need something to look up, look up action bias, preferably somewhere other than Wikipedia.

 

[termi]

A bad ban (or unban) does far more damage to a playerbase's enjoyment

First of all I'd like to note that nothing you are saying in this post is relevant to the primary purpose of tiering decisions, namely to create a more competitive, balanced metagame. I'd like to see some arguments why a 60% threshold leads to a better metagame than the more obvious 50%+1 threshold.

As for this specific argument, I do not see why a bad change of status quo leads to "less enjoyment" than bad maintenance of the status quo. Do the ~58% of people who qualified for the Kyurem suspect test and voted ban count for less? Are they not hindered in their enjoyment? Are they not especially hindered in their enjoyment, since they might feel that the outcome of that suspect test was not simply wrong but unjust since their side was in the majority?

and belief in Smogon's reputation

Public suspect tests are open to anyone who makes a (free) Smogon account so if people are unhappy with a decision maybe they should've done something about it. Who cares about r/stunfisk users throwing shit from the sidelines, seriously. Let's not forget that Smogon is in the merciful position to have something of a captive audience, since there is no immediate alternative to Pokemon Showdown where it comes to playing competitive singles online (without all the bullshit that comes with playing on cartridge). I don't want to completely throw appeals to reputation out of the window, but a lot of the time when I encounter this argument it strikes me as a disingenuous attempt to hide behind the rabble, especially since this public that supposedly would think much less of Smogon due to some "incorrect" tiering decision is nebulous compared to the perfectly quantified and qualified majority of voters that wanted this or that thing banned and got their way.

However, people who do have control over a decision collectively have a bias towards changing something if they can.

Oh worm? Is this a researched fact of human psychology or just something you believe? Because there is plenty of evidence that people are predisposed towards maintaining the status quo - there is even a Wikipedia article on status quo bias! - whereas what you say here does not sound very familiar to me. Of course, suspect tests do tend to result in a ban more often than not, but maybe that is because suspects aren't randomly selected, but rather happen after a significant number of people have signaled that they find this or that mon problematic. This "bias" just seems to be the result of selecting mons that already enjoy popular support for a ban to be tested. And anyway, if such a bias did exist within this particular context, would this not simply be balancing out status quo bias? Or should we for some reason assume that status quo bias is by definition more reasonable than the inverse?

It's also true that people fight harder for change than they do for non-change. Meaning those who work to collect reqs will have a ban bias for that reason as well.

Again, given the existence of status quo bias, this seems unlikely. People can feel quite strongly about wanting to maintain things the way they are, as you yourself already acknowledged!

Additionally, barring a number of situations related to DLC-style in-gen metagame shifts, across the history of Smogon tiering, it's more common for a no-ban result to be revisited with a second ban vote than it is for a banned Pokemon to be revisited for a reinclusion vote.

This is true because unbans are not typically considered as long as the metagame is not in a sufficiently stable state (unless there is reason to assume that this or that unban would stabilize the meta further rather than doing the opposite). Did a no-ban decision on Kyurem aid or hinder metagame balance? If not banning Kyurem hindered metagame stabilization, does this not make it more unlikely that bans that were controversial at the time or seem less relevant to the metagame now than then can be reassessed?

To be clear, there are instances where a supermajority system makes sense. Some decisions that are especially impactful and difficult to reverse once set in motion should perhaps not be left to a simple majority. For ordinary Pokemon bans in current gen OU I do not see the necessity though.

 

[pulsar512b]

50%+1 isn't used because it's volatile; a few extra players being sick that week, or having real life be more time consuming than usual, and the result changes and a move/mon/mechanic is banned to Ubers. That's always going to be literally the case, of course, but (say) CTC getting sick and Raging Bolt being banned with 60.1% is much less problematic than it being banned with 50.1%.

There's no big fancy reason, it's that basic. 60% specifically is used because it's a nice even number and looks pretty, but a supermajority is used to ensure that if something is banned, it really deserved it.

also like. every point is volatile? i don't understand what you're saying. i guess you're saying is some already more borderline things get banned w 50%? but that just doesn't make sense @ all to me? and if they do who cares there is a thing known as unbanning things

 

[ant4456]

I do not agree that things have to be banned for the meta to reach balance like njnp claims. My bro makes some good arguments but current meta does not host anything similar to the previously cancerous existences like bloodmoon or sneasler, nor does the meta see overwhelming spamming of grassy or zap gking like the previous dlc metas have shown us. Instead, this meta revolves around a rock paper scissors of ho, balance, and fat, with each style teching to beat the others (think gking pivot balance as paper, stall/fat as rock, and ho as scissors). Even archaludon who is being suspected right now can only function on rain and has a predictable set, making it essentially a conditionally bulky breaking Mon like bloodmoon but with more counterplay. It exists on literally one style which happens to be one that is most linear and difficult to innovate. I have toyed with rain structures of all categories from fat to hazard ho, only to find the staples being… staple on rain. Therefore, when facing down an arch one at least has an information advantage. Moreover, we are currently witnessing the peak of an interactive ecosystem wherein threats counterbalance threats, with no style seeming significantly out of place. While weathers and glim hos have significantly lowered the floor of entry into ou, a seasoned player can still out prep and deal with the given threats in the current metagame with a well built team. In my opinion, some balances we have seen with good countermeasures for ho setup spam but also boasting longevity to combat fatter scor or regen teams do exist, and thus holding the metagame together by deterring the two extremes of ou which venture into cheese territory: ho and stall. Because of the existence of threats like the proto mons, weather, breakers, hazards, one cannot simply sit on a crown of unawares and blissey and try to stall out every game, nor can one run 6 setups and cheese wins because well built teams will run phazing or unawares. A diverse meta in which instead of using bans to limit the proliferation of pests such as scor, zap, gking, and grassy of the past, we just let the ecosystem sort itself out, shows a lot of promise and diversity. I can tell you with certainty that this is the most expansive meta with the most amount of viable mons and sets since release of sv, and it’s not even close. I am glad we are currently able to enjoy such prosperity in ou and see underrated threats flourish, keep the game diverse and do not fuck up the ecosystem with unnecessary bans. Exemplified by the kyurem suspect, the people understand that kyu is a valuable piece of glue holding the meta together by deterring rain, sun, and trading into bulky offenses. Now we need people to realize that rain is also an essential part of the ordeal, checking other weathers so sun doesn’t dominate the cycle and bully out all the fatter styles, while also keeping speedy ho in check with its blitzing barraskewda. Arch’s existence also necessitates a defensive backbone on certain teams which curbs the ho population, while its vulnerability to stall gives it a reason to be used, creating an effect similar to that of Yellowstone park’s wolves curbing grazers while promoting plant life indirectly. If we are to remove key pieces of the ou ecosystem, we cannot foresee how the circumstances will change. Perhaps some styles will be phased out, others may become overpowered. The burden of proof is on the ban side, I must see some hard proof w statistical support showing why certain mons break the balance of the game and deserve to be banned, either with abnormal usage or win rate. Until then, let’s keep the tier in balance and harmony as is intended.


—— avatar Basedlord

ps not even gonna address the tera ban crowd like just use ur mind for one second and have any semblance of skill child, I believe in you

You can use the "oh this in the ecosystem dissuades this from being used" all you want but then you have a metagame where you actually have to deal with all of these threats with one single team. Kyurem staying unbanned also did nothing to stop all of this Rain, and now the end result is actually just that every team has to prepare for Kyurem and Rain at the same time. We keep doing this for every teamstyle, and you end up with a metagame where there is just too much to prep for for a single team. Because this is what we will be doing from now on. Cannot wait for the Roaring Moon DNB Suspect, Gouging Fire DNB suspect.

Most banned Pokemon in history are not fucking Bloodmoon, they are Pokemon that are just too good and put too much pressure, they maybe trade a bit too positively too consistently, or just generally distort matchups. The tier is not even that slowly just spreading thin to HO and Stall because those are the only two playstyles that can consistently take on the most threats. That is not to say other teamstyles are completely unviable, but frankly, both HO and Stall being very good playstyles is not that good of a sign. Both are playstyles that are very extreme.

Realistically, most well-regarded tiers in Smogon history are Bulky Offensive, and sometimes Balance inclined. Let's not pretend otherwise. So are we going to try and make a tier that will actually be fine, or are we going to be opening up Policy Review threads in the year 2046 about how there are just too many threats in the builder to make more consistent teams.

We can say we have all the time in the world, an optimistic idea. But I dunno about that. We have likely around 2 years with the 3 year generational cycle, and you never know what the next February Pokemon Day can have with how fast they are pumping these games out lol. We have a lot of council action right now but it keeps being denied by slim margins, and I do not see this trend slowing down. Time is not infinite, we should have plenty but we are essentially stalling.

 

[SetsuSetsuna]

I am a bit puzzled as to if and why action on tera is out of the question. I understand the latest survey showed only ~1/4 of the qualified playerbase felt like an outright ban was warranted. At the same time, it also revealed

Qualified: 72 said Yes, 82 said No -- 46.8% support for tiering action on Terastallization

Sure with only 1/4 of support for a ban, then there seems like there would be no way for Tera to be outright banned specially with the way voting was conducted last time, but what about different voting systems? Would those help Tera be restricted? There are a couple of posts in the Terastallization Tiering Discussion Part II Thread in PR that tackle this.

Even if you consider the 46.8% number instead of 1/4 then that would still leave Tera intact, but I feel its unfair to completely draw these numbers from a tiering survey in which, correct me if I am wrong, most of the people filling it are players invested in the current metagame. But players that have long abandoned Gen 9 OU in part due to tera, arent likely to fill this survey. A quick look at the Tera Suspect Voting Thread shows several users who voted Action that havent made suspect requirements/havent been invested in the tier for a long while. All this to say I dont really buy a Tera suspect would show only a 46.8% of the playerbase wanting action. Are you sure a suspect would lead to any sort of action on tera? Of course not, but it does read a bit unfair to me to treat it as a completely lost cause not worth looking at, specially when the community at large was told "tera will be look at later" for a good portion of last year.

With the above my question really is, Is any sort of action on tera out of the question right now? Would it be possible in lets say a year somehow even if we have still over half the generation to go but it seems like the window to ban it has close? What about Tera Blast like ausma mentioned? Is that actually on the table, and the only thing on the table?

 

[ianlazerbeem]

The value of a supermajority system should be measured independently of the actual case of SV OU. Maintaining an ironclad precedent is always more valuable than the possible short term benefits of decision-making based on the expected immediate benefits. And there are several reasons a supermajority process is appropriate.
A bad ban (or unban) does far more damage to a playerbase's enjoyment and belief in Smogon's reputation and tiering system than a bad no-ban does. People without control over the decision-making process have a much greater tolerance for a questionable status quo than they do for a questionable change.
However, people who do have control over a decision collectively have a bias towards changing something if they can. Meaning voters tend towards a ban bias, whereas non-voters tend towards preferring non-bans.
It's also true that people fight harder for change than they do for non-change. Meaning those who work to collect reqs will have a ban bias for that reason as well.
Additionally, barring a number of situations related to DLC-style in-gen metagame shifts, across the history of Smogon tiering, it's more common for a no-ban result to be revisited with a second ban vote than it is for a banned Pokemon to be revisited for a reinclusion vote.
Considering these factors, putting a greater standard on banning than non-banning is simple and sensible.

Facts, not to mention that there is no real correlation between ban percentage and correctness of a ban, eg Gliscor comfortably got over 60% ban votes and that ban was still a colossal mistake that ruined the tier until it was reversed

I am a bit puzzled as to if and why action on tera is out of the question. I understand the latest survey showed only ~1/4 of the qualified playerbase felt like an outright ban was warranted. At the same time, it also revealed

Qualified: 72 said Yes, 82 said No -- 46.8% support for tiering action on Terastallization

Sure with only 1/4 of support for a ban, then there seems like there would be no way for Tera to be outright banned specially with the way voting was conducted last time, but what about different voting systems? Would those help Tera be restricted? There are a couple of posts in the Terastallization Tiering Discussion Part II Thread in PR that tackle this.

Even if you consider the 46.8% number instead of 1/4 then that would still leave Tera intact, but I feel its unfair to completely draw these numbers from a tiering survey in which, correct me if I am wrong, most of the people filling it are players invested in the current metagame. But players that have long abandoned Gen 9 OU in part due to tera, arent likely to fill this survey. A quick look at the Tera Suspect Voting Thread shows several users who voted Action that havent made suspect requirements/havent been invested in the tier for a long while. All this to say I dont really buy a Tera suspect would show only a 46.8% of the playerbase wanting action. Are you sure a suspect would lead to any sort of action on tera? Of course not, but it does read a bit unfair to me to treat it as a completely lost cause not worth looking at, specially when the community at large was told "tera will be look at later" for a good portion of last year.

With the above my question really is, Is any sort of action on tera out of the question right now? Would it be possible in lets say a year smehow even if we have still over half the generation to go but it seems like the window to ban it has close? What about Tera Blast like ausma mentioned? Is that actually on the table, and the only thing on the table?

Very well said; personally I think it's pretty ridiculous for the council to keep saying "we won't even include Tera on this survey or do anything, we'll address it later" and now later is now and the tune is "well the tier is terrible But uh it's been too long, Tera is out of the question" like excuse me uh WHY?

25% of players said yes upon being asked if they are certain Tera needs a full ban right now. 46% are swing votes, who believe something needs to give but can't pinpoint what. The 54% that haven't already abandoned the tier currently aren't ACTIVELY PUSHING for action (which is to say, they chose to fill out the survey with the intention of encouraging action on other things, not that they will never vote yes or have their minds changed during a suspect)

saying "too late! No Tera test even though this tier will exist for 5+ more years in tournament and god knows how long on ladder" is council incompetence, or perhaps even malice. Claiming "One month after the final DLC drop is too late" is genuinely insane

 

[TCTphantom]

Honestly, I think the biggest reason we have had many close tests is the result of what was tested and quickbanned, not the fault of the community or council.

While SV OU has had plenty of bans, most of these are quickbans. I will stress this imo is a good thing before I dig deeper. Would spending time suspect testing each of the quickban respondents be productive? No, of course not. The community already let the council know Espathra, Baxcalibur, Hearthflame, or so on was busted on surveys. Imagine how slow our progression would be if we individually suspect tested even half of our quickbans.

I think the problem on this front though is what’s left to suspect test. Most of the time, the suspect hasn’t been this decisive slam dunk test and has been somewhat divisive. I’d say BloodMoon, and to a lesser extent Chien Pao and Roaring Moon were pretty decisive. But most of the mons weren’t easy to get a consensus on. Kyurem was a divisive mon, but the anti ban side made compelling arguments about why it should stay. Kingambit back in HOME was a similar story, you saw plenty of good players make solid arguments that it should not be banned. Zamazenta Hero and Walking Wake also dodged the ban hammer even easier than those two. Most of what we have been left to suspect aren’t these easy slam dunk cases. I think Archaludon is personally, but most of what we suspect tends to be mons the community wants action on, but not as uniformly or as vocally. Again, this isn’t an attack on the council: their quickbans have done the tier a ton of service and I’d say outside of Volc in Home nothing screams to me as a bad call quickban wise. But when you’re leaving the community with closer call tests, you’re gonna get closer results.

I know some people will dislike high power level metas with power creep, look at BW. You can call it broken checking broken. That’s arguably true, but I think there’s more nuance to it and that isn’t strictly the answer. We have had a generation with a ton of strong Pokemon and a powerful new mechanic we chose to keep. Sure, we have to do some bans. I think everything in Ubers right now except maybe Zam C is broken and would be broken in OU right now (and I think testing Zam C rn would be a terrible idea and wouldn’t touch it until the meta feels in a better spot). But I feel like the later you get into a generation, the harder it’s gonna be to get your 60%+1 vote on tests. You’re gonna have more close calls when the big obvious broken mons get the axe early on. Hoopa U in ORAS or Kyurem in SV are gonna be much closer tests than your Mega Lucarios or Chien Paos. I think a big part of this is just the fact high power level metas can feel bad. There’s less player agency when the meta is as strong as it is right now. Is there inherently a problem with that? No, but it leads to the current situation: people are broadly unhappy about the meta but unhappy in many directions.

I’d say the healthiest path forward is one of two things.

• High confidence tests. Sure, we would have issues with mons sometimes surviving, but there are a few mons I think you could do high confidence tests for. Archaludon is one, but if you tested Gouging Fire I wouldn’t be shocked if it got the axe as well. Hitting those two imo opens up bulkier teams a lot and lets balance have more room to breathe. After that, we let the meta settle and see what the community wants to focus on next.
• This would be my preferred option, but we revisit Tera one final time. SetsuSetsuna made an exceptional post before I could finish mine, and they explain things well. I feel like right now would be the ideal time to revisit and discuss Tera and how to restrict it. After touching Archaludon and maybe Gouging Fire, we can look into Tera and discuss how to revisit the mechanic and potentially restrict it. Would this do anything? I don’t know. But I think if we revisited Tera, it would be the best choice long term. Even if nothing happens again, it lets us focus entirely on bans.

 

[Finchinator]

Action on Tera isn’t out of the question and NJNP’s wording was a bit of exaggeration (I think people are reading a bit much into it); it will be on the next survey like it was the last, for example. We are committed to getting a detailed profile on what the community thinks.

It does seem unlikely given the lack of support currently (no matter which metric you look at), but that is subject to change. It is most likely we focus on the issues plaguing the current metagame first if you want my most realistic guess, but that isn’t to say “never” so much as “we’ll see” and “I have my own personal doubts given the response data”. I hope this answers your questions SetsuSetsuna

 

[1234hjkl]

.

I am a bit puzzled as to if and why action on tera is out of the question. I understand the latest survey showed only ~1/4 of the qualified playerbase felt like an outright ban was warranted. At the same time, it also revealed

Qualified: 72 said Yes, 82 said No -- 46.8% support for tiering action on Terastallization

Sure with only 1/4 of support for a ban, then there seems like there would be no way for Tera to be outright banned specially with the way voting was conducted last time, but what about different voting systems? Would those help Tera be restricted? There are a couple of posts in the Terastallization Tiering Discussion Part II Thread in PR that tackle this.

Even if you consider the 46.8% number instead of 1/4 then that would still leave Tera intact, but I feel its unfair to completely draw these numbers from a tiering survey in which, correct me if I am wrong, most of the people filling it are players invested in the current metagame. But players that have long abandoned Gen 9 OU in part due to tera, arent likely to fill this survey. A quick look at the Tera Suspect Voting Thread shows several users who voted Action that havent made suspect requirements/havent been invested in the tier for a long while. All this to say I dont really buy a Tera suspect would show only a 46.8% of the playerbase wanting action. Are you sure a suspect would lead to any sort of action on tera? Of course not, but it does read a bit unfair to me to treat it as a completely lost cause not worth looking at, specially when the community at large was told "tera will be look at later" for a good portion of last year.

With the above my question really is, Is any sort of action on tera out of the question right now? Would it be possible in lets say a year somehow even if we have still over half the generation to go but it seems like the window to ban it has close? What about Tera Blast like ausma mentioned? Is that actually on the table, and the only thing on the table?

That's my opinion right here, Tera really killed my enjoyment of SVOU, last time I was mostly active other than the bare minimum to keep on the uptake of current state and trends was the Chien-Pao suspect. It's been over a year since Tera was suspected, and even though people kept asking for a another suspect it was always cast aside for other stuff like DLC 1, DLC 2, other suspects etc, the excuse was it was never a good time because the meta was in the middle or waiting another shake-up, well, unless GF come next pokemon day, decides to announce another DLC pack this Gen meta is on it's closing stages, a Tera suspect is warranted considering how even after a year it's always brought back as suspect topic and like Setsu said, there's a big amount of people who left because Tera was taken no action at all and ever since it's initial suspect it was shoved aside to be revisited some time in the future.

 

[Finchinator]

I also don’t really get why this thread devolved into a 50%+1 vs 60% majority discussion. I have noted after the last test that we are open to reevaluating the supermajority system, but only after this generation.

This is a topic that, with all due respect, isn’t one that will be solved in an OU subforum thread, which is geared towards discussing problematic Pokemon in the metagame, but rather a policy review thread later on. And, most importantly, it’s not something we are changing as a knee-jerk reaction to 1-2 suspects like Kyurem. The optics on that are awful. I will personally make a topic on it late this generation or at the start of next generation.

In short, the useful life of that discussion here is over (and never really begun), but we hear you and it’s on the shortlist of things to discuss come the appropriate time. Changing it right now after the Kyurem result is a non-starter.

 

[Dece1t]

Getting rid of the supermajority is dumb imo. It shows consensus and more unity on an issue and allows for much less polarization as a whole. Yea there's some interesting (to put it lightly) elements in the metagame atm, but banning 10 or more Pokemon is a lot especially in a metagame that's still shifting and settling arguably. In a lot of cases, I imagine things will lighten up on their own just by metagame adaptation.