Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

[Nauts]

In my opinion, one restricted Tera user would be the way to go (without revealing the Tera type at team preview)

This would most likely keep the creative teambuilding that Tera provides while still allowing the potential of offensive and defensive Teras alike.

If the Tera user were to also be announced at team preview (without actually revealing the Tera type), this would encourage players to gain metagame knowledge so that they can figure out their opponent's Tera type, as well as scout it with the tools that they got.

 

[Alternator]

National dex is suspect testing tera - asking the question of whether it should be banned or not. They are not complicating the matter by asking about numerous theoretical restrictions and requiring all voters, regardless of whether they support limiting tera at all, to provide their preferences for restrictions. I think OU should take the same approach. If the majority of qualified voters want it banned, then ban it. Possible limited reintroductions of tera can be voted on at a later date. I understand the appeal of a compromise, where tera is nerfed in such a way that preserves its essence while maintaining OU's competitive nature. In the long-term, I believe we will find that solution. But the most sensible immediate course of action is to follow national Dex's example by subjecting tera to a suspect test.

You're going to see a no-ban in that scenario - it was (rounding) 40-30-30 No Action-Restriction-Ban, so you'd need the entirety of the Restriction bloc to favor a full ban to see it pass, which is highly unlikely.

Fast forward a week, a month, wait for Home, whatever, and we're left with a second suspect test, this time dealing exclusively with restrictions. Why not hold the two together using ranked choice voting?

 

[Finchinator]

working on stuff

 

[Beaf Cultist]

it's ok finch, I am stuff...

 

[GraylyHen94]

The minimum should be to approach it how VGC is doing it in-game right now with Tera Preview rather than going with a flat out ban. I really think the vote should initially be either keep it as is or Tera Preview. It's a mechanic in VGC right now so no more coping with "but that's not how the game handles it", it's in the official rule set right now and Tera Preview was never ridiculous to begin with. Going from free Tera usage to Tera Preview and if that's still too much mixup for everyone (it should not be) then vote on a ban. Tiering action for a mechanic like this should be a slow process, not a hasty ye or nay

 

[Finchinator]

Tiering action for a mechanic like this should be a slow process, not a hasty ye or nay

Seeing as we are willing to hold multiple suspects on it (potentially regardless of results) and it requires >60% for action to happen at all to begin with, we are content proceeding with options such as “outright ban” knowing that it’s always possible to have another vote and respecting that if that’s what the community wants, then it’s only fair

 

[Dubbidub]

You're going to see a no-ban in that scenario - it was (rounding) 40-30-30 No Action-Restriction-Ban, so you'd need the entirety of the Restriction bloc to favor a full ban to see it pass, which is highly unlikely.

Fast forward a week, a month, wait for Home, whatever, and we're left with a second suspect test, this time dealing exclusively with restrictions. Why not hold the two together using ranked choice voting?

As I've said, ranked voting cannot be relied on to produce an actionable result with majority support. Roughly 60% want tera to be limited in someway. Therefore, if ranked voting is done, tera will likely be restricted in someway but it won't be clear if that solution would obtain majority supported if it were voted on as an individual item.
It's also possible that ranked voting simply bans tera without majority support for the ban. If 30% favor restriction but no ban and 30% favor ban that the restriction vote should be split among various options, and thus banning tera will obtain plurality support. That's of course leaving out how the 40% who want it unbanned will vote - but the more options that are offered, the more likely the ban vote obtains plurality. If the non-banners rank banning tera last, that should also influence the final vote.

There are more complex considerations as well. OU is intended to resemble the mainline games with changes made to promote a competitive metagame. With restricting tera, we would essentially be rewriting the rules in a far more drastic way than banning OP Pokemon, uncompetitive abilities/moves or implementing a sleep clause. Not to mention, all of these existing modifications would garner overwhelming support from high performing players in the community. So not only would we be creating our own rules (a more complex change than simply banning individual pokemon/abilities/moves/mechanics (eg dynamic)), we would be doing so with only plurality support.

 

[Treantomologist]

Testing tera preview seems like the obvious answer to me. Anything other than no ban, preview, and outright ban goes against smogon policy of avoiding arbitrarily specific bans. The general consensus seems to be that no ban is broken which I agree with, but jumping to an outright leaves no room for further action whereas a restriction allows for a potential ban later if it's necessary.

 

[Beaf Cultist]

Honestly all this percentage talk feels like cope over people's preferred choice being less likely to win. If a restriction is a necessary compromise, it's a necessary compromise. Personally I only want to see the extremes, but I can't speak for the entirety of the playerbase, and the fact is that whatever outcome we get will speak for the majority. In a 40-30-30 split, the 40 is not the majority lol. It's still 40%. It may be the most preferred option, but saying it should take precedent over a compromise option just because you personally prefer it is like, the definition of bad faith.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

A lot of people keep throwing around "60% of people want this" and "no, 60% of people want that" but there have been enough people in this thread and the policy review thread who have expressed that they think the only good options are full ban and no restriction, that it seems extremely ill-advised to lump any two options together.

 

[Dubbidub]

Honestly all this percentage talk feels like cope over people's preferred choice being less likely to win. If a restriction is a necessary compromise, it's a necessary compromise. Personally I only want to see the extremes, but I can't speak for the entirety of the playerbase, and the fact is that whatever outcome we get will speak for the majority. In a 40-30-30 split, the 40 is not the majority lol. It's still 40%. It may be the most preferred option, but saying it should take precedent over a compromise option just because you personally prefer it is like, the definition of bad faith.

The default option to to maintain the rules of Pokemon battles in the mainline games. Smogon also implements a number of modifications, intended to make the metagame more competitive, that are agreed upon by the community.

I think it's bad faith to compare taking no action that does not have majority support to taking an action that does not have majority support. Just because there is a sense that something must be done, we still need to follow proper procedure.

 

[DaemonChop]

The minimum should be to approach it how VGC is doing it in-game right now with Tera Preview rather than going with a flat out ban. I really think the vote should initially be either keep it as is or Tera Preview. It's a mechanic in VGC right now so no more coping with "but that's not how the game handles it", it's in the official rule set right now and Tera Preview was never ridiculous to begin with. Going from free Tera usage to Tera Preview and if that's still too much mixup for everyone (it should not be) then vote on a ban. Tiering action for a mechanic like this should be a slow process, not a hasty ye or nay

how could this possibly be a slower process by smogon standards lmao, we already have the cards set up for multiple large suspect tests in a row.

NOT A ONE LINER BTW - I've kind of come around on terra being broken af, but mostly in UU and LC and other tiers where the teambuilding pool is a whole lot smaller. When you have inherently fewer checks and counters to something, that something being able to completely change its checks and counters on a teambuilder whim is a much bigger deal. I'm very interested to see how Tera is considered in lower tiers if OU keeps it around in whatever form

 

[Go Go Nihilego]

I’ve already made it clear that I believe an outright ban is the only way to go, but the bare minimum is to show Tera types on team preview. The display needs to be modded in to showdown for randbats regardless (seriously, try playing challenge cup where you don’t know your own tera types, let alone your opponent’s). It also draws from official VGC tournament rules, but not the ingame ladder, which Smogon rules are most akin to, so there is some precedent unlike the other arbitrary restrictions. Even though I dislike that it’s not a direct 1:1 since team sheets show nearly everything about a mon, not just tera types, I’d take it over nothing.

 

[LoseToRU?]

Finchinator!

I know this is random, but I'd like to suggest another option for limiting Terra but not banning it:
Players MUST Terra turn 1 of all games, or not Terra at all

In Gen 6, due to the mega mechanic, a lot of mons had to run protect to get the mega boosts/abilities on the next turn.
So, we know the meta can warp around something like this if needed.

I believe this restriction may remedy a lot of issues with Terra.

Right now, the biggest factors in players wanting to ban Terra are, in no order: The surprise factor, the 50/50's, the fact mons can take advantage of one type, then change to another to counter their counter, and the fact that, usually, the player who holds onto their Terra the longest has the advantage.

My proposal remedies all of those complaints, and let's us keep this generation's identity.

This may also fix the issue of mons being OP when Home drops.

Let's take Terra Flying/Ground/Whatever Lando for example- it's going to be a menace, and possibly be banned.
We would have to play OU w/o Lando in that case, which would be weird and unfortunate.
Or, we ban Terra- which a lot of players would not be pleased with.

Now, instead of Lando setting up with it's great typing mid-game or w/e, it would be forced to Terra turn 1, which would leave it open for revenge.

Even something we've discussed as obviously OP, Regieleki, would be much more balanced if it had to go Ice turn 1.
Scizor can now revenge kill it, it's weak to SR, it can't switch into as many moves with such a poor defensive typing, etc.
It may still be OP, but you can see how being forced to Terra turn 1 really nerfs even this extreme example.

This is the only restriction I would be in favor of, otherwise it would be a full ban vote from me.

The other restrictions don't really address the concerns of the playerbase, in my humble opinion.

If you would please consider adding this to the options of restrictive measures I would appreciate it; thank you in advance for your consideration.

Btw, this came to me in a dream lol

I'm really looking forward to your, the council's, and the player's thoughts on this proposal!

 

[Clueless Crusader]

Seeing as we are willing to hold multiple suspects on it (potentially regardless of results) and it requires >60% for action to happen at all to begin with, we are content proceeding with options such as “outright ban” knowing that it’s always possible to have another vote and respecting that if that’s what the community wants, then it’s only fair

If Tera gets outright banned, I'd wager it's never getting unbanned. Without Tera being present in the meta and new evidence of its effects being created, it's really hard to see how support for it could grow after a ban. Stall being crazy strong would probably be the only thing that could drive it, but that would likely require a lot of other stuff getting banned, which would then probably get unbanned instead of Tera.

 

[Dubbidub]

Carry out the two question (must answer both to for your vote to qualify) suspect test as discussed. Question 1: should tera be banned? Question 2: If tera is to be restricted in some manner, rank your preferences among the options provided by the OU council. If there is a majority consensus for the first question, implement it. If not, do a second binary vote on whether to implement the restriction with the highest tally from ranked voting on the second question. Implement this restriction if it obtains majority approval. If not, keep tera unchanged.

Importantly, there is no reason to include outright ban as an option for the ranked voting. Whether there is majority support for it will be addressed by the first question.

 

[Skyuchi]

Finchinator!

I know this is random, but I'd like to suggest another option for limiting Terra but not banning it:
Players MUST Terra turn 1 of all games, or not Terra at all

In Gen 6, due to the mega mechanic, a lot of mons had to run protect to get the mega boosts/abilities on the next turn.
So, we know the meta can warp around something like this if needed.

I believe this restriction may remedy a lot of issues with Terra.

Right now, the biggest factors in players wanting to ban Terra are, in no order: The surprise factor, the 50/50's, the fact mons can take advantage of one type, then change to another to counter their counter, and the fact that, usually, the player who holds onto their Terra the longest has the advantage.

My proposal remedies all of those complaints, and let's us keep this generation's identity.

This may also fix the issue of mons being OP when Home drops.

Let's take Terra Flying/Ground/Whatever Lando for example- it's going to be a menace, and possibly be banned.
We would have to play OU w/o Lando in that case, which would be weird and unfortunate.
Or, we ban Terra- which a lot of players would not be pleased with.

Now, instead of Lando setting up with it's great typing mid-game or w/e, it would be forced to Terra turn 1, which would leave it open for revenge.

Even something we've discussed as obviously OP, Regieleki, would be much more balanced if it had to go Ice turn 1.
Scizor can now revenge kill it, it's weak to SR, it can't switch into as many moves with such a poor defensive typing, etc.
It may still be OP, but you can see how being forced to Terra turn 1 really nerfs even this extreme example.

This is the only restriction I would be in favor of, otherwise it would be a full ban vote from me.

The other restrictions don't really address the concerns of the playerbase, in my humble opinion.

If you would please consider adding this to the options of restrictive measures I would appreciate it; thank you in advance for your consideration.

Btw, this came to me in a dream lol

I'm really looking forward to your, the council's, and the player's thoughts on this proposal!

This is actually a good idea, whether or not you added in preview. You still allow for the defensive uses everyone seems to agree contribute to the metagame while curbing the offense. I think if nothing else it's worth a shot. I like it.
You still would need to ban some double STAB offenders though.

 

[alephgalactus]

Finchinator!

I know this is random, but I'd like to suggest another option for limiting Terra but not banning it:
Players MUST Terra turn 1 of all games, or not Terra at all

In Gen 6, due to the mega mechanic, a lot of mons had to run protect to get the mega boosts/abilities on the next turn.
So, we know the meta can warp around something like this if needed.

I believe this restriction may remedy a lot of issues with Terra.

Right now, the biggest factors in players wanting to ban Terra are, in no order: The surprise factor, the 50/50's, the fact mons can take advantage of one type, then change to another to counter their counter, and the fact that, usually, the player who holds onto their Terra the longest has the advantage.

My proposal remedies all of those complaints, and let's us keep this generation's identity.

This may also fix the issue of mons being OP when Home drops.

Let's take Terra Flying/Ground/Whatever Lando for example- it's going to be a menace, and possibly be banned.
We would have to play OU w/o Lando in that case, which would be weird and unfortunate.
Or, we ban Terra- which a lot of players would not be pleased with.

Now, instead of Lando setting up with it's great typing mid-game or w/e, it would be forced to Terra turn 1, which would leave it open for revenge.

Even something we've discussed as obviously OP, Regieleki, would be much more balanced if it had to go Ice turn 1.
Scizor can now revenge kill it, it's weak to SR, it can't switch into as many moves with such a poor defensive typing, etc.
It may still be OP, but you can see how being forced to Terra turn 1 really nerfs even this extreme example.

This is the only restriction I would be in favor of, otherwise it would be a full ban vote from me.

The other restrictions don't really address the concerns of the playerbase, in my humble opinion.

If you would please consider adding this to the options of restrictive measures I would appreciate it; thank you in advance for your consideration.

Btw, this came to me in a dream lol

I'm really looking forward to your, the council's, and the player's thoughts on this proposal!

You know what? I actually really like this. Cuts out every argument about 50/50s except on turn 1 (and 50/50s on turn 1 almost never decide battles), removes most of Tera’s unpredictability while allowing it to retain some versatility, most of the Tera abusers rely on some setup before Tera-ing and don’t really work well as leads, and it’s possible to enforce on cartridge. If it doesn’t get implemented in OU, I’d totally play this as an OM.

 

[LoseToRU?]

Ty Skyuchi & alephgalactus !

It seems like we will keep Terra in some capacity, if the survey is even remotely accurate.

Going off the results for qualified players, even those who think Terra needs action taken, there was a slight favor on restricting over outright ban.

It also illustrates that pro full ban Terra will most likely never get a super majority; inversely neither will no action needed.

So, it seems we will keep Terra, with a restriction of some kind- even post Home.

No one seems to be actively supporting much of the proposed options besides showing Terra types, but again, this doesn't really do much, imo.
Most, and I'm talking 90%, of the Terra issues are not resolved by this restriction, or the other proposed restrictions, unfortunately.

I know this seems like a complex ban/restriction and a gentleman's handshake thing, but this is a complex issue.
This is the only restriction idea that would make both sides happy, while still keeping a fun meta.

You could still change a mon's type, which is cool, really, but not abuse the mechanic, or push as many mons into Ubers.
In my head, this would be a fun meta to play. I hope others agree and can visualize the concept.

Ty both for getting behind this suggestion ^.^

 

[Karxrida]

I was planning on switching my profile pic to something other than Klefki today but I guess not.

Finchinator!

I know this is random, but I'd like to suggest another option for limiting Terra but not banning it:
Players MUST Terra turn 1 of all games, or not Terra at all

In Gen 6, due to the mega mechanic, a lot of mons had to run protect to get the mega boosts/abilities on the next turn.
So, we know the meta can warp around something like this if needed.

I believe this restriction may remedy a lot of issues with Terra.

Right now, the biggest factors in players wanting to ban Terra are, in no order: The surprise factor, the 50/50's, the fact mons can take advantage of one type, then change to another to counter their counter, and the fact that, usually, the player who holds onto their Terra the longest has the advantage.

My proposal remedies all of those complaints, and let's us keep this generation's identity.

This may also fix the issue of mons being OP when Home drops.

Let's take Terra Flying/Ground/Whatever Lando for example- it's going to be a menace, and possibly be banned.
We would have to play OU w/o Lando in that case, which would be weird and unfortunate.
Or, we ban Terra- which a lot of players would not be pleased with.

Now, instead of Lando setting up with it's great typing mid-game or w/e, it would be forced to Terra turn 1, which would leave it open for revenge.

Even something we've discussed as obviously OP, Regieleki, would be much more balanced if it had to go Ice turn 1.
Scizor can now revenge kill it, it's weak to SR, it can't switch into as many moves with such a poor defensive typing, etc.
It may still be OP, but you can see how being forced to Terra turn 1 really nerfs even this extreme example.

This is the only restriction I would be in favor of, otherwise it would be a full ban vote from me.

The other restrictions don't really address the concerns of the playerbase, in my humble opinion.

If you would please consider adding this to the options of restrictive measures I would appreciate it; thank you in advance for your consideration.

Btw, this came to me in a dream lol

I'm really looking forward to your, the council's, and the player's thoughts on this proposal!

This is an awful proposal. This pigeonholes all Tera users into being bulky mons that have to be able to lead in most situations lest they risk getting OHKO'd the first turn, and heavily stifles teambuilding because you cannot plan around using a specific Tera consistently anyway. Also, I'd argue that it makes the """"""""50/50"""""""" problem worse because you have to predict what your opponent led with and hope you were right if you're relying on a defensive Tera to deal with it. Guess wrong on that first turn and you might be boned before the match even started.

I'd rather have the mechanic gone than go with this complex ban BS.

 

[alephgalactus]

Ty Skyuchi & alephgalactus !

It seems like we will keep Terra in some capacity, if the survey is even remotely accurate.

Going off the results for qualified players, even those who think Terra needs action taken, there was a slight favor on restricting over outright ban.

It also illustrates that pro full ban Terra will most likely never get a super majority; inversely neither will no action needed.

So, it seems we will keep Terra, with a restriction of some kind- even post Home.

No one seems to be actively supporting much of the proposed options besides showing Terra types, but again, this doesn't really do much, imo.
Most, and I'm talking 90%, of the Terra issues are not resolved by this restriction, or the other proposed restrictions, unfortunately.

I know this seems like a complex ban/restriction and a gentleman's handshake thing, but this is a complex issue.
This is the only restriction idea that would make both sides happy, while still keeping a fun meta.

You could still change a mon's type, which is cool, really, but not abuse the mechanic, or push as many mons into Ubers.
In my head, this would be a fun meta to play. I hope others agree and can visualize the concept.

Ty both for getting behind this suggestion ^.^

I really do think this will solve a lot of problems with some of Tera’s biggest abusers.

• Dragonite doesn’t like coming in as a lead; it much prefers being behind Screens and Shed Tail as often as it can. Dragon/Flying has a lot of resistances and a Ground immunity that it would be required to discard on turn 1. If you want a Normal Dragonite behind SubScreens, you now have to send it in turn 1, Tera immediately, pray your opponent sets up hazards or something instead of attacking because Dragonite can’t switch out that turn and it’s a lot harder to set up once Multiscale breaks, then switch out and set up the nonsense. (Giving up a moveslot for Roost solves the “what if my opponent attacks” problem, but creates a host of new problems.)
• Annihilape has to shed its two natural immunities right away if it wants to do some Water or Fire or Fairy or whatever shenanigans.
• Chi-Yu is broken no matter what we do to Tera, get this shit out of here.
• Espathra has to come out on turn 1 and basically start setting up right away, which it has a lot of trouble doing without Substitute up unless you’re running Protect. Switching out isn’t really something Espathra ever does because it basically wastes your Speed Boost turns, giving a huge leg up to your opponent momentum-wise.
• As you pointed out previously, Regieleki has to lead and give itself a Stealth Rock weakness in order to do basically anything, and it’s not a Pokémon that can afford to run Boots most of the time. Possibly still broken because it can Volt Switch out on turn 1, eliminating the momentum problem a lot of the other current Tera abusers would face.
• Dragapult is still busted under this system because it can just U-Turn out and doesn’t exactly miss Dragon, but I wouldn’t really be sad to see it go.

 

[Dusk Mage Necrozma]

My problem with this proposal is it's just... so arbitrary. Wouldn't "choose which mon you'll Tera on team preview, reveal it and its Tera type" be a better version of this that doesn't make weird turn 1 mindgames and only let Pokemon that make good leads Tera?

 

[Wolf-X]

Facts are:

Unqualified: (thousands of votes)
No ban wins by far

Qualified vote: (143 votes, only like 90 voted restriction or ban)
39% No Ban
32% Some restriction (Everyone here wants something different and except team preview all ot restrictions range from too complicated to dowright terrible or useless)
29% Ban

In my opinion, grouping ban and restriction into "action" seems bad faith in order to try to group the votes to guarantee a ban or some kind of restriction which are not the same outcome. If u force No Ban to decide into restriction or ban u are squewing the results in favor of tis to try to guarantee a super majority.
It will result in a compromise with the No Ban people having to choose between an initially low voted option like restrictions (as there is no consensus are the least voted ones as everysingle one is a different vote) or Ban which holds if u separate each restriction more votes.

Giving the option of different restriction is a mistake and the only options should be: No Ban, Team Preview and Ban.

 

[Finchinator]

The must Tera T1 restricts the mechanic far more severely than every other restriction proposed and is incredibly arbitrary.

In my opinion, grouping ban and restriction into "action" seems bad faith in order to try to group the votes to guarantee a ban or some kind of restriction which are not the same outcome.

It’s really the opposite considering even 40% is enough to keep it fully as the status quo and a ranked choice initial vote would decimate no action in all likelihood as so many people would put it last or close to last. The suspect is purposefully designed to give the status quo a chance, not the opposite.

 

[Dubbidub]

The must Tera T1 restricts the mechanic far more severely than every other restriction proposed and is incredibly arbitrary.

It’s really the opposite considering even 40% is enough to keep it fully as the status quo and a ranked choice initial vote would decimate no action in all likelihood as so many people would put it last or close to last. The suspect is purposefully designed to give the status quo a chance, not the opposite.

So the plan is for question 1 to be take any action on tera, yes or no? And for question 2 to be ranked voting for various options including full ban? 60% support for implement at least one of a diverse range of options does not justify taking action based on the results of ranked voting among those options.

If you have 5 Pokemon that are argued to be overpowered, and the suspect test is should action be taken on at least one of these Pokemon, it' sure to pass with over 60% support. And if ranked voting were to occur as the second step, the most popular option may have only 40% support but would be implemented. It's not a perfect analogy but I don't think the argument that there are too many proposed options; therefore, it's infeasible to hold individual suspect tests is valid. It's up to the OU council - or even ranked voting - to determine which proposals should be voted on.