Definitely. I just think right now there are so many threats it‘s hard for balance to properly walk every breaker. Also we’ll see how this suspect goes. Whether or not people agree with the entirety (or any) of CTC’s post, I do agree removing 1 mon from the meta can make a massive difference.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4
- Thread starter TPP
- Start date
Definitely. I just think right now there are so many threats it‘s hard for balance to properly walk every breaker. Also we’ll see how this suspect goes. Whether or not people agree with the entirety (or any) of CTC’s post, I do agree removing 1 mon from the meta can make a massive difference.
Is Balance truly that bad right now? I mean it makes sense in all honesty with all the breakers. Maybe that's why I lose so much
It’s usable, but limited. It’s hard to run balance that covers Kyurem, Darkrai, Wellspring, etc. when they’re all close to peaking. You can cut corners, but it leads to inconsistency.
I was just asking exactly for that reason, thanks for the explanation! I like Excadrill so its cool seeing it being used, but also awesome to hear Moltres rising up.
I also think this gen has just been defined by some form of HO at all of its inflection points, whether it be screens, veil, rain, or webs.
Zama is cool and all, and I don’t quite think it’s broken (yet?), but Zama vs Zama when the other checks are dead and they win the speed tie to Roar you and sweep makes me want to use Explosion irl
If you write up a PR-quality thread on Yawn, whether or not I support it, I'll post it for you.
Do bear in mind, however, that without Sleep Clause, you'd be able to put multiple opponents to sleep with Yawn. Apart from tiering policy itself, that'll be the biggest hurdle you'll need to argue against.
I am not well articulated enough to write a convincing argument on the matter when others are likely more passionate and well written regarding Drowsy, but I think the ability to sleep multiple mons would be an inherent thing. When faced against a hazard stack yawner, toxic situations could arise, but one, if you see like Dirge Clef Skarm than you have an idea they want to set up that position, and are also banking on you not simply allowing another sleep intentionally so as to force breaking progress against the yawner in question.
there was a discussion about yawn during the wider discussion regarding sleep clause mod and the general consensus was that without the clause it's too horrifically toxic to consider keeping. think about it: after you click yawn one time, the opponent is forced to either switch or sleep. so if you click yawn the next turn also, they either fall asleep or their switch-in gets yawned and has to make the same choice of switching or sleeping, and so on and so forth. combine it with protect and you've got a series of 50/50s that, if you play it properly, is virtually guaranteed to put something to sleep. all that is possible with sleep clause mod already, but without it, you can no longer stop them by sleep-sacking your least useful mon. i was actually a supporter of keeping yawn myself until i realized how gross and uninteractive the game would get
also, for anyone who supports the freeing of yawn, just take look at some of the mons currently viable in ou that would get access to it:
i actually reached my ladder peak with a sun team that made use of yawn torkoal. it's a fantastic way to generate opportunities for breakers or sweepers to come in, especially if you have a strong prediction game
giving something with future sight and a slow-pivoting move the option to force switches as easily as unclaused yawn does would end up being, at minimum, absolutely deranged
dear god no
oh yeah, don't think you were safe from unaware yawn just because you aren't up against a stall team, dirge gets it too. with hex. and no clause.
i guarantee there's a stupid cheese yawn ursaluna set out there that absolutely devastates all of ursaluna's usual checks and i thank god every day that we'll never have the chance to find it
Last edited:
Yeah I.... really don't have an issue with this. It feels like a play error* to be put in a situation where you're forced to phase into chip death or have not a single other option on your team to cripple the yawner without auto losing the game. No matter what, the sleep isn't immediate. Yawn's PP isn't infinite. Boots and limited removal do exist. Mind games would occur, but in a tier that considers Gambit glue, I really don't see the issue with the conditional downsides of Yawn phasing.there was a discussion about yawn during the wider discussion regarding sleep clause mod and the general consensus was that without the clause it's too horrifically toxic to consider keeping. think about it: after you click yawn one time, the opponent is forced to either switch or sleep. so if you click yawn the next turn also, they either fall asleep or their switch-in gets yawned and has to make the same choice of switching or sleeping, and so on and so forth. combine it with protect and you've got a series of 50/50s that, if you play it properly, is virtually guaranteed to put something to sleep. all that is possible with sleep clause mod already, but without it, you can no longer stop them by sleep-sacking your least useful mon. i was actually a supporter of keeping yawn myself until i realized how gross and uninteractive the game would get
also, for anyone who supports the freeing of yawn, just take look at some of the mons currently viable in ou that would get access to it:
whatever archetype you hate the most, it's gonna find some way to slot yawn onto it and it'll be degenerate as all hell, so think long and hard about whether that's the timeline you really want to exist in
Edit, since it was like a full page ago, I do not think this is worth much serious discussion until the current tiering plate is notably less filled.
Last edited:
if you don't see how it's an issue to be able to put multiple opponents to sleep with any sort of consistency whatsoever, i don't think there's much i can do to convince you otherwise. relic song meloetta is bad enough and it's a shitmon with a 20% sleep chance on a move that you can't even spam properly, so we sure as hell don't need to add a 100% accurate move that can do it, even if it takes 2 turns. sleep doesn't belong in competitive play, at all. end of story.
Man, after reading the policy review forums really has reinforced that people love fear mongering without any real solutions. Not even a metagame progress chart of what should and shouldn't be allowed in the OU tier. Just, if you ban one more Pokemon SV OU will die, but hey how about we unban this mon for fun!
Chill, man. The survey showed that people greatly prefer the current metagame over the Volcarona meta, so Volcarona is not going to be dropped back down to OU, so as much as CTC complains about the ban, Volc is 99% not coming back to OU.
People are entitled to their opinions and philosophies. You guys are, too. They are not fear mongering so much as discussing their beliefs. Even if I do not agree with them, they should be entitled to share them. This goes beyond just Pokemon and goes into how we express ourselves in other outlers of life, too. To put it bluntly, it is on you to be constructive and to accept differing perspectives rather than being destructive and fear mongering yourself in response to their perceived fear mongering.
it's important to note, though, that there's a difference between "this person has different opinions" and "this person's beliefs are fundamentally at odds with objective reality and/or actively harmful to themselves, others, or society at large". treating the second category equally to the first will always create more problems than it will solve
(obviously this is more about the "other outlets of life", this is a game and we shouldn't be taking it so damn seriously. the most "dangerous" opinion here would be, like, "evasion clause is a bad idea" or some shit)
Last edited:
That’s what social policing is there for. If someone posts something disagreeable, disagree! If someone posts something entirely incorrect, point it out! You have an account, which gives you a platform to do so. I know I use mine all the time.
Obviously if it’s something super egregious or malicious, that’s another thing, but we are discussing tiering policy here.
kinda whack thing to be mentioning facism in a discussion about tiering policy in an unnofficial forum for a childrens game but w/e
also to add to the discussion, what is the council's goal when it comes to tiering? because it seems like the two different sides of the tiering debate (the tier based on the current metagame and never speculate vs the tier based on trying to achieve a future balanced metagame) have two different goals here. is the council's goal to create the best possible metagame or is it just going to try and keep banning outliers in the tier until we have shorn away at all the potentially outstanding mons until we have created a "balanced" metagame
Goal is to reach a competitive metagame. The way that is outlined is to avoid theorymon and focus on the current metagame given the current framework. Obviously people feel differently, but I just stay in-line with the infrastructure in place personally.
Can we get a clarification on what exactly is the “tiering policy”? Every time there are suggestions to tiering the results are often “ya we cant do anything cuz tiering policy / admin.”
Some of the notable examples of how tiering policy prevented what the community wants are how BW was handled (not allowed to ban Sand Force), ADV Baton Pass, and Gen 4 DPP (Iron Head Jirachi and Froslass).
For Gen 9 SV, since there was so much power creep in this gen, there are arguments about keeping stronger mons instead of just banning everything. Banning one mon that was keeping the meta together could easily lead to a worse / more overcentralized meta. Even though there are more “broken” mons in Gen 9, I would argue most people would say this gen has been much more enjoyable than Gen 8 SS Snoozefest
GSC Snorlax, DPP Jirachi, BW Latios are without a doubt broken and overcentralized, but everyone knows banning these mons would absolutely wreck and destroy the meta. Even Landorus in many Fairy Gens are extremely overcentralized but this mon was holding the meta together and ensuring stability, sort of like Zama in SV. I think we should not be so trigger happy with banning everything that is only slightly stronger than the rest.
https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/tiering-policy-framework.3628026/
In regard to tiering policy, this is what is written on Smogon. It just say the main goal of the tiering policy is to “To create a metagame that is conducive to the more "skilled" player winning over the less "skilled" player a majority of the time.”
There is nothing about whether “keep broken to check broken” is not allowed, which is an argument often brought up. If banning a “broken” mon results in a worse and overcentralizing meta, maybe we shouldn’t have ban the mon in the first place?
The idea of “worry about the present for now and worry about the future later” also does not make sense. Also once again, I do not see this anywhere in the tiering policy post from Shiloh. The only goal is to make the meta more competitive and “better.” The reason we address the present problem is to ensure that the future meta is better. Thus, we absolutely should worry about the repercussion of every bans. There should be a limit to theorymons but some repercussion are extremely obvious (banning Zama would break like 5 mons)
Smogons / Showdown / PO / Shoddy were created because we hated playing on cartridge and GameFreaks cannot balance their games. We created a “competitive” game mode from a game mode that was not supposed to be competitive. Ensuring the meta is competitive and to a lesser extent enjoyable should be the goal, not arbitrary “tiering policy.” Many generations and aspects of the game have suffered because of this supposedly “tiering policy.”
In any case, it would be nice to exactly know what the “tiering policy” exactly is because every conversations end up there.
People treat tiering policy as this super nebulous boogeyman that hinders our tiers when...
It's literally right there guys.
Just read the Tiering Policy Framework.
I do not understand why anyone can claim "tiering policy is so inconsistent" because there is not one, but two threads detailing what, exactly is tiering policy, right for everyone to see.
Just scroll down in the Smogon Metagames forum, it's not that hard.
Edit to address some points by Darkk:
"If banning a “broken” mon results in a worse and overcentralizing meta, maybe we shouldn’t have ban the mon in the first place?"
But... when has banning a broken mon this gen resulted in a worse meta? If you're going to point to Volcarona, enjoyment of the tier jumped by .7 on the recent survey, so it's certainly not Volcarona. I don't think anyone particularly missed Chien Pao, or Gliscor in DLC 1?
"Ensuring the meta is competitive and to a lesser extent enjoyable should be the goal, not arbitrary “tiering policy.” "
When has tiering policy hindered this in current generation? We can have debates back and forth about its effects on the older generations of OU and below (but I think that was a topic better saved for the Policy Review threads which already exist about them), but in the scope of this generation (as we are in SV OU Metagame Discussion), I don't think anyone can really argue that tiering policy has lead to a "worse" metagame. Was banning Houndstone before Last Respects a bit silly? Sure, but OU wasn't worse because you couldn't use a trash Sand Rush abuser. Was banning Cyclizar before Shed Tail unhealthy? Not really, since the metagame still did improve after Cyclizar's ban. Orthworm was objectively a worse abuser, and thus brought HO down a peg, but it simply wasn't enough, so Shed Tail was removed entirely later. Simple as that. Besides that, I can't really think of any example of "tiering policy" holding the tier back in any way, but you're certainly free to list some examples from this gen.
It's literally right there guys.
Just read the Tiering Policy Framework.
I do not understand why anyone can claim "tiering policy is so inconsistent" because there is not one, but two threads detailing what, exactly is tiering policy, right for everyone to see.
Just scroll down in the Smogon Metagames forum, it's not that hard.
Edit to address some points by Darkk:
"If banning a “broken” mon results in a worse and overcentralizing meta, maybe we shouldn’t have ban the mon in the first place?"
But... when has banning a broken mon this gen resulted in a worse meta? If you're going to point to Volcarona, enjoyment of the tier jumped by .7 on the recent survey, so it's certainly not Volcarona. I don't think anyone particularly missed Chien Pao, or Gliscor in DLC 1?
"Ensuring the meta is competitive and to a lesser extent enjoyable should be the goal, not arbitrary “tiering policy.” "
When has tiering policy hindered this in current generation? We can have debates back and forth about its effects on the older generations of OU and below (but I think that was a topic better saved for the Policy Review threads which already exist about them), but in the scope of this generation (as we are in SV OU Metagame Discussion), I don't think anyone can really argue that tiering policy has lead to a "worse" metagame. Was banning Houndstone before Last Respects a bit silly? Sure, but OU wasn't worse because you couldn't use a trash Sand Rush abuser. Was banning Cyclizar before Shed Tail unhealthy? Not really, since the metagame still did improve after Cyclizar's ban. Orthworm was objectively a worse abuser, and thus brought HO down a peg, but it simply wasn't enough, so Shed Tail was removed entirely later. Simple as that. Besides that, I can't really think of any example of "tiering policy" holding the tier back in any way, but you're certainly free to list some examples from this gen.
Last edited:
Can people STOP projecting their personal dislike over gen8 onto others please? It was generally accepted to be a slower paced tier, but overall a good and well balanced metagame with various viable teams and strategies. You also can't say "most people would say this" without some kind of actual data to pull from. There's no basis for this belief just your own bias.
Landorus-T in earlier gens is NOTHING like Zama is this gen and making that comparison is just not understand what Landorus-T does or what it was like in previous gens. Yes it was common, yes it was "centralizing" in a way because it was so common you had to account for it, but it was never overwhelming in any way. It was not at all difficult to cover, it was never overbearing in threat level as it had flaws that held it back.
Worrying about a future you can't predict is a fruitless waste of time that only needlessly roadblocks development of the tier. You focus on what you can change now, rather than worry about some hypothetical thing that MIGHT or might NOT happen down the road as a result of your change. And if something ends up coming along that somehow is also bad? You change that too.
There IS data... Although it does not support their claim.
SS:
7.16/10 Enjoyment (Qualified)
7.65/10 Competitiveness (Qualified)
SV:
6.8 / 10 Enjoyment (Qualified)
Qualified: 6.3 / 10 Competitiveness (Qualified)
Enjoyment is comparable but lower for SV, competitiveness is substantially lower.
To the above posters: Darkk made a good faith post with honest questions and his opinions -- let's be nice and give him serious, kind responses. No need for any other tone!
First, I do want to note that whenever "we cant do anything cuz tiering policy / admin" (per your verbage) is brought up by me, it is not a no so much as a "this is not just SV OU policy, but universal tiering policy". We are ofte subject to the same rules as UU, RU, NU, etc. and a decision about Smogon tiering policy or philosophy changing that impacts them should not just be made through the context of SV OU, but rather it should be done universally. For example, if we wanted to change the definition of broken or banworthy, then it would necessitate a widespread conversation, not just a subset of an OU discussion in Policy Review.
In my opinion, tiering should not always be firm and we should have more room for flexibility or "common sense clause" rulings, which would permit for the rare change in priority from focusing on Pokemon to focusing on an ability or a move if it means preserving a whole Pokemon like DPP Froslass or SV Sandshrew-Alola in lower tiers due to ability bans.
With this in mind, the "order of operations" with regards to tiering action is always Pokemon first. The event when an ability, item, or move is banned is only if it leads to multiple Pokemon being banned, not as a way to circumvent banning a singular Pokemon. This has many years of precedent in modern tiering. We can use Last Respects as an example as it was only allowed to be targeted by tiering admins after other users surfaced, effectively banning Houndstone for a few months until the new wave of released Pokemon. This is unfortunate, but is a worthwhile sacrifice when you consider how choppy tiering fragments would be when there is no way to draw a line in the sand without being entirely arbitrary otherwise.
With this in mind, calls for a different approach this generation are refreshing and plenty understandable. The issue is that things like this do not happen overnight and, as alluded to before, do not impact just OU or just this stage of the metagame. So when you have people complaining that we are not making the exact changes to site wide tiering policy that they want on the fly, it is a tough spot to be in as there is a lot that goes into this and there are obviously contrasting opinions. For every person who wants Volcarona looked back into, there are plenty who want it looked up for a long, long time, which makes sense given the support we saw it get. Obviously that is only one timely example, but it goes without saying that it can be embodied in other examples, too.
I also struggle with the thesis of this bit of your post. GSC Snorlax or BW Latios are nowhere near comparable to ORAS or SS Landorus-T. Landorus-T is not even a top 10 Pokemon in ORAS (and it was not close at various points) and SS Landorus-T is just a very common utility Pokemon (would argue a better comparison to it would be ADV Swampert, which saw 48% usage in SPL ADV while SS Landorus-T saw 43% usage in WCoP R1 SS). Bans in general have nothing to do with sheer usage, but rather the actual impact Pokemon have anyway. I do not think anything in SV is quite comparable to this either I mean nothing was above 32% usage in WCoP R1 -- the metagame has been and still is varied than most other generations.
The framework, Smogon's history, and the philosophy many leaders use/allude to in practice reflects tiering to determine what is broken, but never in current generation tiering reflects hesitance due to future consequences -- there is knowledge that any future problems can be fixed by the next suspect or new trends responding to whatever it may be given the lively nature of current generation metagames. This is why the focus in the framework is on defining broken, uncompetitive, and unhealthy -- these are strictly what we look at.
Tiering to forcefully preserve banworthy things that have defensive merit or glue potential is a dangerous dance. Everything has some defensive value or teambuilding weight, so you can apply this to withhold any ban, even on things that can warp the tier. There is no way to draw a line here, so we aim to avoid this altogether when possible. You say there are limits to theory, but how do you define this? Where do you draw the line? Maybe it can be done, but no such definition exists, so as I said before: this would take a clear shift from current policy. I am fine with that shift happening, but I hope you see where I am coming from at least given current policy.
Finally, worry about the present for now and worry about the future later makes perfect sense. Not sure what to say here: you cannot worry about the future when you do not know what the future is yet -- that is just how it is.
Sure, I will go through your post and respond.
First, I do want to note that whenever "we cant do anything cuz tiering policy / admin" (per your verbage) is brought up by me, it is not a no so much as a "this is not just SV OU policy, but universal tiering policy". We are ofte subject to the same rules as UU, RU, NU, etc. and a decision about Smogon tiering policy or philosophy changing that impacts them should not just be made through the context of SV OU, but rather it should be done universally. For example, if we wanted to change the definition of broken or banworthy, then it would necessitate a widespread conversation, not just a subset of an OU discussion in Policy Review.
First off, saying this is what the community wants is an enormous stretch for some of these. BW Sand Force was never close to a majority and only a quarter of the playerbase even wants action on Excadrill at all per the survey, meaning even fewer than that believe Sand Force is actionable right now. The same goes for DPP Iron Head. Obviously DPP Froslass is a bit of an exceptional situation though and I understand why feathers are ruffled there.
In my opinion, tiering should not always be firm and we should have more room for flexibility or "common sense clause" rulings, which would permit for the rare change in priority from focusing on Pokemon to focusing on an ability or a move if it means preserving a whole Pokemon like DPP Froslass or SV Sandshrew-Alola in lower tiers due to ability bans.
With this in mind, the "order of operations" with regards to tiering action is always Pokemon first. The event when an ability, item, or move is banned is only if it leads to multiple Pokemon being banned, not as a way to circumvent banning a singular Pokemon. This has many years of precedent in modern tiering. We can use Last Respects as an example as it was only allowed to be targeted by tiering admins after other users surfaced, effectively banning Houndstone for a few months until the new wave of released Pokemon. This is unfortunate, but is a worthwhile sacrifice when you consider how choppy tiering fragments would be when there is no way to draw a line in the sand without being entirely arbitrary otherwise.
As an aside: "Overcentralized" is a commonly misused and misassociated term. A centralized tier is not necessarily a bad one; some of the best generations of OU are centralized around a focal Pokemon or a focal group of threats. There is also a case for too much centralization being a problem though, making the metagame unable to evolve and decided by the same things to an excessive degree. The same give-and-take goes for versatility, where it can be good in healthy doses or bad when stretched too thin. See this blurb from the tiering policy framework you alluded to:
Pivoting away from this, I do not think a metagame being enjoyable or a snoozefest has everything to do with shifting tiering behaviors. SS is one of the most balanced generations, something that a lot of people will admit even if they do not like it. There was only call for one suspect down the stretch and it (Melmetal) was nowhere close to a ban while enjoyment/competitivenss scores were quite high from players at the time. While this is not the most fun answer, we can only do the best with the hand we are dealt each generation and we were at least close to this point in SS. Not every generation, especially one without an identifying mechanic/concept legal, is bound to be flashy.
With this in mind, calls for a different approach this generation are refreshing and plenty understandable. The issue is that things like this do not happen overnight and, as alluded to before, do not impact just OU or just this stage of the metagame. So when you have people complaining that we are not making the exact changes to site wide tiering policy that they want on the fly, it is a tough spot to be in as there is a lot that goes into this and there are obviously contrasting opinions. For every person who wants Volcarona looked back into, there are plenty who want it looked up for a long, long time, which makes sense given the support we saw it get. Obviously that is only one timely example, but it goes without saying that it can be embodied in other examples, too.
Past generation tiering is a hard comparison point as modern tiering did not exist in GSC, barely existed in DPP, and existed in a drastically different form in BW. Then, you look at tiering them as past generations and a different set of rules are applied altogether: you want to maintain some semblance of identity and core values within age-old metagames since they take so long to adapt and have so much attached to them historically as is. For current generation tiering like what was done in SS that we discussed or ongoing SV tiering, this is not a factor. So many games and tournaments are played that identity changes and bans can be responded to and new trends can form within days/weeks, especially if you follow the ladder like many of us do.
I also struggle with the thesis of this bit of your post. GSC Snorlax or BW Latios are nowhere near comparable to ORAS or SS Landorus-T. Landorus-T is not even a top 10 Pokemon in ORAS (and it was not close at various points) and SS Landorus-T is just a very common utility Pokemon (would argue a better comparison to it would be ADV Swampert, which saw 48% usage in SPL ADV while SS Landorus-T saw 43% usage in WCoP R1 SS). Bans in general have nothing to do with sheer usage, but rather the actual impact Pokemon have anyway. I do not think anything in SV is quite comparable to this either I mean nothing was above 32% usage in WCoP R1 -- the metagame has been and still is varied than most other generations.
Notice how the framework touches on the defintion of broken, but does nothing to recognize theory or accounting for potential future metagames. This is done by design and with intent.
The framework, Smogon's history, and the philosophy many leaders use/allude to in practice reflects tiering to determine what is broken, but never in current generation tiering reflects hesitance due to future consequences -- there is knowledge that any future problems can be fixed by the next suspect or new trends responding to whatever it may be given the lively nature of current generation metagames. This is why the focus in the framework is on defining broken, uncompetitive, and unhealthy -- these are strictly what we look at.
Tiering to forcefully preserve banworthy things that have defensive merit or glue potential is a dangerous dance. Everything has some defensive value or teambuilding weight, so you can apply this to withhold any ban, even on things that can warp the tier. There is no way to draw a line here, so we aim to avoid this altogether when possible. You say there are limits to theory, but how do you define this? Where do you draw the line? Maybe it can be done, but no such definition exists, so as I said before: this would take a clear shift from current policy. I am fine with that shift happening, but I hope you see where I am coming from at least given current policy.
Finally, worry about the present for now and worry about the future later makes perfect sense. Not sure what to say here: you cannot worry about the future when you do not know what the future is yet -- that is just how it is.
LMK here or in PMs if you have future questions -- happy to discuss.
Every single generation that is the newest old generation (I.e: SS now, SM 3 years ago, etc.) always falls out of favor for a bit.
It’s not yet known or established as an old generation, but it’s not as exciting or appealing as the current generation. SS was always going to get bad press just like SM and ORAS went through a cycle of. It doesn’t actually reflect much on the quality of the tier.
SS is among the most balanced and competitive generations. Active players know that and the statistics we have going back to that time reflect that. There are still innovations and trends changing, too, which is cool. But it’s not SV and it hardly had an identity as a true old generation yet, so it is very much caught in the middle.
People are entitled to whatever opinion and to dunk on it if they so please — that’s just the nature of the beast. Doesn’t reflect the reality of the metagame, which was clearly regarded well during its last months.
Of the policy discussion, i will say I most agree with the sentiment to start looking a bit more critically at thing like signature moves at the very least. Blood Moon was discussed as a worse Boomburst, so there is some level of muddiness to it all for sure, but discussed moves like Fishous Rend, Electro Shot, and Ivy Cudgel are certainly becoming more common, enough to where it's a solid handful, if not more, of Pokemon a generation.