Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4

Can you elaborate on this argument? Without loaded dice, Kyurem-B and Baxcalibur would probably not be banworthy but that doesn’t mean we should ban loaded dice. Magearna without Fleur cannon would probably not be banworthy. Only one mon learns fleur cannon, so we can’t ban fleur cannon, but that’s a rule, not a counterargument.
??????????????????????????????????
kyub and bax would 100% still be broken without loaded dice. the item didn't exist last gen, neither did tera, but kyub was still broken as hell. the only thing that ever held it back from ubers in previous gens was the lack of literally any spammable physical ice move, and now that it gets icicle spear (and dragon dance) it's never gonna be acceptable for ou again. bax, on the other hand, has a version of outrage with a way less terrible drawback, insane coverage with both its stabs and eq, and the easiest setup conditions of all time if you run atales veil with it (which it singlehandedly makes viable). loaded dice was never the issue
 
Can you elaborate on this argument? Without loaded dice, Kyurem-B and Baxcalibur would probably not be banworthy but that doesn’t mean we should ban loaded dice. Magearna without Fleur cannon would probably not be banworthy. Only one mon learns fleur cannon, so we can’t ban fleur cannon, but that’s a rule, not a counterargument.
Fleur cannon has literally nothing to do with it. I understand the concern of being able to apply bans to signature moves selectively in a misguided attempt to "nerf" and not being able to determine which part of a broken Mon to vote on, I even had and voiced these concerns in the past, but honestly, we should be able to look to our council to be able to take a targeted look at what makes a Pokémon banworthy and determine the right choice to launch a suspect for. I don't think anyone in good counsel could pinpoint Fleur Cannon as an issue, but I think it's reasonable to see a pattern between Stored Power on Magearna, Espathra, Latias, Polteageist, etc and I believe a consensus can be reached if a problem is identifiable
 
Last edited:
A resuspect of Kyurem where anybody who had already gotten qualifications can keep them sounds like a perfectly reasonable option to me and I would like to see it treated as a legitimate option by the council. Apologies for the oncoming wordy post, I am just trying to cover all my bases to try to ensure this is taken seriously.

There are two main issues to repeating suspects, the first is obviously that a repeat would end up wasting the time and energy a player had already put in to get their reqs and wasting people's time should be avoided. The second main issue would be that it could lead to the community's desires being undermined.
The first way the community could be undermined is that the council could force a specific outcome by repeating suspects until a specific outcome is achieved. This is theoretically an issue as there is no objective system for determining how a suspect other than by council discretion but with how Finch has been behaving as a tier leader I do not believe there is any reasonable risk of this, especially in this specific case.
The second way it is possible is that repeat suspects could end up changing an outcome from how the community may actually want it because players who have not gotten the outcome they wished for may be more willing to invest more of their time and energy getting reqs again than those who had already gotten an outcome they wished for, potentially leading to a less popular decision eventually coming out on top.

It is likely for such reason that it could inadvertantly undermine what the community actually wants (on top of having to get reqs again being a drag) that a third conventional suspect of Kyurem is not likely to be considered immediately.

Allowing reqs to be carried over from the last Kyurem suspect would avoid these issues as those with reqs would only need to invest any more of their time in the blind voting process (which is minor.) Additionally, at 59%, pro-ban is still the majority and could very well be what we say is what the community wants. Qualifications can also be carried over unlike usual as the meta is functionally the same as when everybody had gotten their reqs.

Why should a resuspect be considered to begin with? There are three main reasons.

The first is that among those banned for voter fraud are skilled players who did not need to commit fraud in order to achieve reqs and therefore did it out of convenience. Had that convenience not existed, are we certain that at least 2 of those skilled players wouldn't have gotten reqs leading to the legitimate ban of Kyurem?

The second is that now that everyone has had time to engage with a Kyurem-less meta, everybody should now be more informed about their decision. This is objectively a good thing. The only reason why doing things like this to allow for more informed votes is not done is because it requires a deal of time and effort to be invested where the returns may not necessarily be worth the investment - especially as players may not genuinely engage with a temporary meta unlike how players now have had to genuinely engage with a Kyurem-less meta. However, since that investment has already been made regardless, I think it would be a good thing to take advantage of it to allow for a more informed tiering decision to be made.

The third is in terms of tiering direction. A quick resuspect that results in a Kyurem ban would put us back on track to original plans without having to mull over what direction to take (though while writing this everyone already seems to be rallying behind a tera blast suspect) while if it results in a no ban then we could probably put the matter of Kyurem to rest permenantly, because in my opinion, at 59% pro-ban along with such a controversial voting situation, we'd probably end up looking at a 3rd Kyurem suspect in a couple of months which I think would be the worst fucking timeline. Or of course Kyurem could settle in and be completely balanced and no 3rd suspect occurs. Depends on what you think will happen.

Additionally, now with the hindsight that the margins are razor thin, you may find more players willing to engage with the tiering process now knowing that their vote will in all likely matter a lot which I think is good because I believe increased community participation is a good thing (perhaps to the dismay of those who think the less players should be allowed to have a say.)

Some have also suggested just redoing the Kyurem votes with just those already qualified which I think is also fine, it would be less 'accurate' then a resuspect but a lot quicker and much less effort. If a resuspect were to be done I think it would be good for it to be shorter and more trimmed down than usual and be treated as an extension of the last suspect to just moves things along.

Regardless, I am not saying a resuspect should be the course of action to be taken. Whichever direction the tier should go, it'll be 1-2 weeks of waiting for everyone to collect their thoughts to figure out. I am just making this post to put the option of a resuspect on the table as I think it could very well be a legitimate course of action.

------
In regards to Tera Blast, I personally don't think we should be meddling with a generational mechanic like this and I think you either take it or leave it in it's entirety. I don't see a TB ban being so consequential for me to bend my thoughts on generational mechanics.

Unrelated to everything else but I've been trying to do an RMT and between being picky about replays, forgetting to save them or changing the team too much I'm having trouble stocking up on replays for it...
i agree with a kyurem retest but i consider it unrealistic. if it gets enough support for the council to issue arevote, it'd be awesome. however, if it happens, the DNBers will claim cheating, and they won't be at all incorrect. it could happen, but don't consider it more than a pipe dream.
 
I agree the council should consider some form of resuspect for Kyurem. Through this whole situation, the playerbase has gotten to experience a Kyurem-less meta game. I think it's silly to simply ignore that valuable experience because the rules say Kyurem was actually not banned so it has to remain unbanned. Shouldn't players get the chance to opine on which metagame they preferred? It's true that what's done is done, so Kyurem should remain unbanned. However, it's also true that the metagame has been without Kyurem for almost two weeks now. If I had my way, I would suggest Kyurem should remain banned for a while longer, and then another suspect could be done to decide whether it should rejoin the OU tier. I acknowledge this is pretty far from regular tiering practice, but I argue this is fitting for such an unprecedented situation.

At the very least, a survey soon would be helpful for the council to gauge in what direction the playerbase would like to move in. Topics could include Kyurem resuspect, Gliscor, Tera Blast, Kingambit, other mons on the radar, and even unbans. I trust the council is capable of making good decisions, but situations like this call for them to work together with the community to come to a decision that the majority agrees with.
 
The only thing of substance in this post is "buh buh buh buh but the rule," chatGPT could describe Magearna more in depth, yes Houndstone was banned and not last respects, was that really the right choice? We are better off now than then with last respects banned. Palafin was banned in a completely different meta devoid of ogerpon, devoid of Kyurem, devoid of raging bolt, we need to see if it's really egregious in today's landscape. Same goes for iron bundle, which adds a lot to the tier in a fast encore and strong fast ice stab, it very well may end up broken still but if we are in a place of rebuilding it is worth giving a fair shake, just as the roaring moon volc and gliscor were given which improved the tier (although volc sadly has been again removed).
I feel like the hostility from this was unwarranted.

I do apologize for not being very clear, though - it's late where I'm at and I'm a little tired (and I still was when writing that post, hence why it's not too extensive). I'm doing the best I can. There's really no need to get so harsh about this sort of thing, though. I wasn't trying to act in bad faith at all, and I just wanted to share where I stand on the matters you presented.
 
Last edited:
Given the nature of the situation I fully understand why Kyurem was unbanned at this point, however, I do hope we can revisit it somehow? I feel the meta was headed in a genuinely good direction and the two weeks of playing the kyuremless tier I personally enjoyed the different developments that were popping up and the diversity within different structures with various different mons stepping up offensively and defensively. I havent been the biggest gen9 fan and the kyuremless meta actually interested me. I feel we were seeing the most diversity across all archetypes we have had most of dlc2.

Hopefully we can find a way to sort this out and reach some kind of compromise? I feel waiting another handful of months for kyurem suspect part 3 would just suck in so many ways and if the community feels strongly a certain way like i do we forego certain formalities. Like the cheating is one thing but the mon wouldve still been banned but the vote went bunk because of the obvious factors. On the other hand, if nothing is done soon about kyurem and the plan is to keep it around for a longer period of time, I'd like to see a Tera Blast test. In short, removing some variance aspects and reintroducing a hopefully less obnoxious volcarona theoretically helps particularly issues I think we are experiencing. Just my opinion and I dont want to write a paper on a subject that I'm kind of exhausted of cuz its not appealing so just infer my reasonings on the tera blast topic.

Edit; I don’t understand this let the meta settle stuff, yeah for formality sake a week or two is justified but there is no settling to be done. Experienced players are just gonna revert back to the process that worked for them before the ban, it was literally two weeks ago lol.
I talked to finch abt it (to be clear, he does not agree with me) but I think it's so dumb we have such an uncompromising system where the council can consent to a suspect test, 59% of people who qualify can say shit is busted, the one deciding DNB vote can say "I was trolling", it was banned for two weeks and people enjoyed the meta more, and because we have "institutions" and "precedent" we have to choose Smogon legitimacy :nerd: over a better tier lmao

Imagine if this kind of thing happened in any actually big competitive game with money on the line, this would be a big enough scandal that the merit of any game's developers for the next millennia, but because we are in Smogon CG OU clown world it's considered Serious Business

We stubbornly hold onto this stone-cold metric where no context except the raw Ban % matters despite the fact that reality is more multi-faceted than a flat Ban % lol

Fuck your system if literally all reason/nuance goes out the window because we have to take a 1% vote difference this seriously on a game with $0 on the line, literally holding 1 meme vote > the actual integrity and quality of your game because instead of acknowledging the context we're supposed to nod along and go "yup mhm only 59% said this thing should be banned but that's not enough! let's move along folks!"

The game's quality should take precedent over the "erm ackshually well we have to draw the line on the vote percent somewhere" supermajority and "well it was only 59% out of 60%!" and "well you made a troll vote so actually go fuck yourself, you're so unserious while we are running the most unserious balancing system seen in competitive gaming history"

when is the last time you heard of this scenario in a competitive game: The people running the game decide something is problematic and ask the players to vote on the balance proposal. They vote, but some cheat. This is only discovered 2 weeks after the proposal where people enjoy what happened afterwards. Due to the cheating you revert to the old meta because "only" 59% out of 100% of the players voted for a ban, the 1 vote that makes the difference also said "I was trolling my bad". We must still continue to take this system seriously and continue formalities, revert to the worse meta. No revote allowed even though we have literally experienced the thing being gone btw.
 
Honestly I agree with these sentiments, whether Kyurem stays or goes, I do think gathering data and opinions on what players thought about the brief kyurem-less meta in terms of both enjoyability and competitive balance would be at least a useful metric in regards to further tiering actions, if nothing more than just having a data set to compare to. All we can do now is to just continue to adapt until some sort of a consensus is reached while keeping a cool head. Anyways why did we let Kyurem in OU to begin with he almost killed the b2w2 protagonist and I think that goes against Smogon terms of service /j
 
Beyond the people who were banned for the collaboration scheme, some of the other voters were banned since the end of the vote as well, meaning the pool of legitimate voters has changed.
Additionally, the principles of a blind vote are now completely lost, as we know how everyone chose to vote, and thus anyone could pressure anybody who voted a way they disagreed with to change their vote.
Asking for one single vote to be changed after seeing the outcome is also completely indefensible. Imagine someone came forward who voted Ban and said they also were trolling around and now wanted to flip the other way? Imagine a sum of money was privately offered to a confirmed voter to do exactly that?
Use your common sense for 2 seconds please. Now that the blind aspect of the vote is lost, the only action that can be taken with Kyurem is a full re-suspect or to accept the DNB and go a different direction.
 
I’m not sure why a revote isn’t on the table. We got valuable new information by seeing over a week of a Kyurem-less meta. Keeping Kyurem in the tier or not will have a big influence on the way SV OU plays out and the margins of the last vote were razor thin (a one voter difference is literally a coin flip). I personally don’t feel strongly about Kyurem staying or not, but I do think the decision should be made with as much information as possible in the hands of the voters. Using the old vote is tantamount to throwing this info away.
I think i asked finch this but smth "the kyurem place is not taking vote now it took place then very simple" so yeah... i doubt it will be happening any time soon. While i think a revote was smth that could have happened and unsure of why it didnt happen still... this is the reason

Either way I think 1. tera blast 2. kingambit 3. gliscor

I think smth should happen as kyurem is back... and idt people really liked the meta and wanted smth to happen anyway. I bet a survey is gonna happen soon and i feel its just gonna be the same, smth is gonna happen but this time its not kyurem
 
This is the kind of incident that makes me really think tiering and conduct in this Gen of OU is a lost-cause. It'd be one thing if it was just the Kyurem DNB verdict, which I don't share but can respect as due process... but that's not what we got.

The most obvious callout is the Fraudulent voters and the "troll" DNB vote, as those undermine the entire point and spirit of the suspect vote, but I need to add something: multiple suspect threads have essentially devolved into shouting matches between the participants, not simply heatedly arguing their points but actively attacking each others' character and intelligence. Pages upon pages of ZapKingLu positing, CTC putting down people who voted Ban on past or current subjects as not wanting to think, repeated calls for different suspects/unbans (Tera Blast, Volcarona, the 91% Gouging Fire Suspect), all behavior that flies in the face of having a respectful discourse around the topic to the point that the Council is contemplating separate threads so there can be distinct forums for the wider playerbase vs the High-Ranking/Reqs/Tournament level players.

To this latter point I say: to what end? Several of the offending accounts were Tour players, what is this separation going to accomplish besides having the equivalent of Splatoon X-Rank for one thread and Anarchy Players in another? The Same behavior just some are better at the game? Repeated patterns of advocating for different bans, theorymon/slippery slope defenses, attacks on character rather than arguments, all in opposition to the opening post rules of every thread?

It's the same thing every time when I watch this: a few posts (sometimes from Badged users, sometimes just very elaborated posts from "regular" users) become the focal point of response, dozens of pages shouting, a few posts get deleted, CTC gets a forum ban that probably won't even last through the next tiering action thread (yes I am hanging on this particular user because they are both emblematic of my grievances and a case I had repeated interaction/encounters with), moderators say to behave, and it all resumes as soon as the next one hits. Were the Suspect threads my primary basis, I would be prepared to say Smogon is every bit as toxic and elitist as the stereotypes suggest, it gets that bad. I can appreciate that an immense amount of work goes into running the tier and having to deal with both regularity and situations like this vote, but I cannot in good conscience say that this section of the actual Forum is well-moderated in light of what I have observed in the past several Suspect threads.

At this point the Meta itself is stuck in a mess, the conversation and discourse around it is a poorly moderated shouting match, and even the voting process has to be double checked to even trust that people who can vote do (and do seriously). If I'm to be frank, I don't think anything like Kingambit or Tera is what has us in a tiering rut: it's the inability of the community that handles it to act like adults with the game they put this much time into playing and trying to influence, a problem that has existed in some degree or another for over a decade's worth of tiers at least by now and is simply accepted as the norm because those behaviors were not shamed enough to prompt some thought from bad eggs.

SV OU is down in flames for me, and it's not because of any Dragon. If its community can't respect it, how can I?
 
I would be prepared to say Smogon is every bit as toxic and elitist as the stereotypes suggest, it gets that bad
Honestly guys, why do you have to be so toxic? It's literally just a fucking game, if someone disagrees with you, they disagree with you. What does insulting someone do? Nothing beneficial.
Pages upon pages of ZapKingLu positing, CTC putting down people who voted Ban on past or current subjects as not wanting to think, repeated calls for different suspects/unbans (Tera Blast, Volcarona, the 91% Gouging Fire Suspect), all behavior that flies in the face of having a respectful discourse around the topic to the point that the Council is contemplating separate threads so there can be distinct forums for the wider playerbase vs the High-Ranking/Reqs/Tournament level players.
Yes. Can we all actually read past posts before posting? So many things which have already been answered get repeated over and over again, like:
"When are we suspecting Tera Blast?"
"Can we have different ladder for X"
"X is broken asf, can we ban it"
This makes me wonder, is it possible if we could create one big pinned post that shows up at the top of every forum page to answer such questions to make it so people don't ask them over and over again? It could be a good way to stop people from asking the same question and wasting space.
 
I'd like to add my thoughts to this even if its a bit rushed

What I think of the Kyurem suspect and the utter fiasco that occured from it is quite honestly, something that would eventually happen. Is cheating through reqs stupid? Yes absolutely, that is completely undermining the suspect. Is doing a vote out of a joke also stupid? Yeah, it is(like why even bother if you're gonna troll everyone?). But that would happen eventually in the future, so at least we can have a better way of doing reqs hopefully.

Something I don't understand with however, is the amount of insult hurling and the actual nightmare to actually have a consensis. Users like CTC either fearmongering or bashing others elo is not only a dick thing to do in general, but also give the entire commmunity a very bad look. Seriously, I want to actually enjoy Gen 9, cuz there could still be things we should do, even if its a lost cause. Doomposting and all that nonsense is not gonna help jack shit. Expermenting with new ways of suspecting, or banning tera blast(my boy heatran does not want to deal with tera blast ground) would at least make the community have an idea of what to do.
 
Last edited:
I feel the bigger surprise about the voting fraud was not that it happened, but that it was almost entirely done by well known tourney players rather than randoms. These people could have gotten the reqs if they wanted to, but resorted to cheating because they evidently couldn’t bothered. I think this speaks to the current ELO system as a whole being flawed. I hope this situation is taken into account in the current discussion on changing the reqs system.
 
I feel the bigger surprise about the voting fraud was not that it happened, but that it was almost entirely done by well known tourney players rather than randoms. Theae people could have gotten the reqs if they wanted to, but resorted to cheating because they evidently couldn’t bothered.
It really could be a sign of how chaotic the meta is at times. Match up fishing and how out of control some mons can be(kyurem included) probably push people to their limits, especially if theres a prize involved. I don't agree with fraud and cheating in the slightest, but can I see why they did it? Unfortunately, yes, i can.
 
Honestly guys, why do you have to be so toxic? It's literally just a fucking game, if someone disagrees with you, they disagree with you. What does insulting someone do? Nothing beneficial.

Yes. Can we all actually read past posts before posting? So many things which have already been answered get repeated over and over again, like:
"When are we suspecting Tera Blast?"
"Can we have different ladder for X"
"X is broken asf, can we ban it"
This makes me wonder, is it possible if we could create one big pinned post that shows up at the top of every forum page to answer such questions to make it so people don't ask them over and over again? It could be a good way to stop people from asking the same question and wasting space.
Assuming that the three arguments you post are equal is disingenuous.
While I agree that alternative ladders are not an option and the amount it gets brought up is concerning, Tera Blast is a legitimate point of contention that has been on surveys and scored fairly well in qualified playerbases and should absolutely be discussed further. Similarly, making arguments about brokens in the tier is a normal part of OU discussion. It is reasonable to discuss the state of a pokemon in OU, whether that be its unfairness, underpoweredness, or anything in between.
 
Assuming that the three arguments you post are equal is disingenuous.
While I agree that alternative ladders are not an option and the amount it gets brought up is concerning, Tera Blast is a legitimate point of contention that has been on surveys and scored fairly well in qualified playerbases and should absolutely be discussed further. Similarly, making arguments about brokens in the tier is a normal part of OU discussion. It is reasonable to discuss the state of a pokemon in OU, whether that be its unfairness, underpoweredness, or anything in between.
That's just stuff I came up with off the top of my head, I did not mean to imply that they are equal, just stuff that comes up a lot that has been answered already.
 
True, but that still doesn't change my point that lower tiers shouldn't have to conform by OU bans.
What you're describing (if OU hypothetically banned Tera Blast but UU-PU kept it unbanned) would violate transitivity of tiers. Tiers are based on hierarchical usage, so the ruleset of (let's say for example) RU needs to be inherited from OU, then UU, then further rules can be applied. If not, what you're conceptually dealing with are different formats rather than a system of usage based tiers.

Or put in more simple words:
To use an example, let's say that UU decides that Arena Trap would not be broken in our tier. After all, Arena Trap Dugtrio was allowed in UU for most of Gen 6, right? So we decide to break transitivity and unban Arena Trap, so that we can start using trap Dug again. But here's the problem: even assuming we can make a compelling case that Arena Trap isn't broken outside of OU, unbanning Arena Trap like this completely bypasses the usage-based tiering process. Dugtrio with Arena Trap allowed was solidly OU by usage. The fact that it has now dropped down to PU is solely because Arena Trap isn't allowed. By breaking the inheritance of bans, we are essentially ignoring the usage-based tiering metric to use an OU Pokemon in UU. Doing this would be no different from UU deciding to unban Pheremosa or Genesect. Even if we manage to prove that those two Pokemon are not broken in our tier, we still shouldn't be allowed to use them, because doing so is a major violation of our tiering system.
from previous tiering admin Hogg.

How much you care about the conceptual purity of Smogon dot com's hierarchical tiering structure is up to you, but this is the reasoning for it under the tiering framework.
 
This is the kind of incident that makes me really think tiering and conduct in this Gen of OU is a lost-cause. It'd be one thing if it was just the Kyurem DNB verdict, which I don't share but can respect as due process... but that's not what we got.

The most obvious callout is the Fraudulent voters and the "troll" DNB vote, as those undermine the entire point and spirit of the suspect vote, but I need to add something: multiple suspect threads have essentially devolved into shouting matches between the participants, not simply heatedly arguing their points but actively attacking each others' character and intelligence. Pages upon pages of ZapKingLu positing, CTC putting down people who voted Ban on past or current subjects as not wanting to think, repeated calls for different suspects/unbans (Tera Blast, Volcarona, the 91% Gouging Fire Suspect), all behavior that flies in the face of having a respectful discourse around the topic to the point that the Council is contemplating separate threads so there can be distinct forums for the wider playerbase vs the High-Ranking/Reqs/Tournament level players.

To this latter point I say: to what end? Several of the offending accounts were Tour players, what is this separation going to accomplish besides having the equivalent of Splatoon X-Rank for one thread and Anarchy Players in another? The Same behavior just some are better at the game? Repeated patterns of advocating for different bans, theorymon/slippery slope defenses, attacks on character rather than arguments, all in opposition to the opening post rules of every thread?

It's the same thing every time when I watch this: a few posts (sometimes from Badged users, sometimes just very elaborated posts from "regular" users) become the focal point of response, dozens of pages shouting, a few posts get deleted, CTC gets a forum ban that probably won't even last through the next tiering action thread (yes I am hanging on this particular user because they are both emblematic of my grievances and a case I had repeated interaction/encounters with), moderators say to behave, and it all resumes as soon as the next one hits. Were the Suspect threads my primary basis, I would be prepared to say Smogon is every bit as toxic and elitist as the stereotypes suggest, it gets that bad. I can appreciate that an immense amount of work goes into running the tier and having to deal with both regularity and situations like this vote, but I cannot in good conscience say that this section of the actual Forum is well-moderated in light of what I have observed in the past several Suspect threads.

At this point the Meta itself is stuck in a mess, the conversation and discourse around it is a poorly moderated shouting match, and even the voting process has to be double checked to even trust that people who can vote do (and do seriously). If I'm to be frank, I don't think anything like Kingambit or Tera is what has us in a tiering rut: it's the inability of the community that handles it to act like adults with the game they put this much time into playing and trying to influence, a problem that has existed in some degree or another for over a decade's worth of tiers at least by now and is simply accepted as the norm because those behaviors were not shamed enough to prompt some thought from bad eggs.

SV OU is down in flames for me, and it's not because of any Dragon. If its community can't respect it, how can I?
This is a funny premise. While there's plenty of toxicity to go around in this gen, it's not as though past gens had calm and peaceful tiering. They were in many cases much more toxic times, and the only arguably worse cultural aspect to this gen's tiering is the constant doom-posting.
The community is also more involved than gen 7/8, due to controversial mons actually being tested, unlike 7, and heavily polled on, unlike 8. And we could talk for quite a while about the tiering system's improvements since the early days.
If there seems to be more fervor for tiering actions to be taken, it's largely because the community has actual regular access to the council's opinions, and knows that their own are being heard through polling.
If this gen hasn't turned out as competitive as past gens, it has little to with the tiering approach and much to do with the drastic level of in-game changes.
 
The most obvious callout is the Fraudulent voters and the "troll" DNB vote, as those undermine the entire point and spirit of the suspect vote, but I need to add something: multiple suspect threads have essentially devolved into shouting matches between the participants, not simply heatedly arguing their points but actively attacking each others' character and intelligence. Pages upon pages of ZapKingLu positing, CTC putting down people who voted Ban on past or current subjects as not wanting to think, repeated calls for different suspects/unbans (Tera Blast, Volcarona, the 91% Gouging Fire Suspect), all behavior that flies in the face of having a respectful discourse around the topic to the point that the Council is contemplating separate threads so there can be distinct forums for the wider playerbase vs the High-Ranking/Reqs/Tournament level players.

To this latter point I say: to what end? Several of the offending accounts were Tour players, what is this separation going to accomplish besides having the equivalent of Splatoon X-Rank for one thread and Anarchy Players in another? The Same behavior just some are better at the game? Repeated patterns of advocating for different bans, theorymon/slippery slope defenses, attacks on character rather than arguments, all in opposition to the opening post rules of every thread?
I think this is a little disingenuous. If you look at the previous suspect threads, most of the bad faith arguments and off-topic discussions do not come from top players. CTC is an exception. The qualified thread will not replace the normal one, and at the end of the day everyone's vote still holds the same amount of weight. What the thread would do is provide a resource for less experienced players to use to decide how they will vote, because top players tend to have more knowledgable and well-articulated posts.
 
I guess in a sense, it's all because SV OU is an extremely polarizing metagame.
I have seen "tournament players" posting about how much they enjoy this metagame, about how certain threats that average ladder people find vexing to deal with in a long run aren't "that broken" because "here, look at these replays from the tournaments". Hell, it even happens in the opposite way with Gouging Fire, since most lower ladder people don't even find it good, while tournament players keep screaming about "look at how broken tera Dragon Outrage 2HKO Dondozo it is".
Couple with this fiasco of vote cheating and people "voting for fun", I don't think there is much to say about this gen anymore.
I'm pretty sure there is a reason why people value the opinions of tournament players, but have you considered the fact that the majority of people play this game through laddering? Most tiering actions aren't done because of just tournaments, but rather, the laddering experience and the surveys y'all conduct on the playerbase about the enjoyability of the metagame. The name calling parts of the entire suspect process isn't something to praise about, but it just reflects how the more "elite" playerbase and the more "common" playerbase are harder and harder to reach a mutual consensus.
The fact that mons like Zamazenta and Darkrai can feel like a "totally fair and balance" mon in this gen is just a good enough example of there's nothing so save in this gen. Either you ban all of the problematic mons to keep the metagame fair, or just... leave it as it is now, forget about it and pray that gen 10 isn't a massive fes of powercreep like this gen. But ofc, Game Freak doesn't care about Single 6v6 despite being the format that you actually play the main game most of the times.
 
Last edited:
A resuspect of Kyurem where anybody who had already gotten qualifications can keep them sounds like a perfectly reasonable option to me and I would like to see it treated as a legitimate option by the council. Apologies for the oncoming wordy post, I am just trying to cover all my bases to try to ensure this is taken seriously.

There are two main issues to repeating suspects, the first is obviously that a repeat would end up wasting the time and energy a player had already put in to get their reqs and wasting people's time should be avoided. The second main issue would be that it could lead to the community's desires being undermined.
The first way the community could be undermined is that the council could force a specific outcome by repeating suspects until a specific outcome is achieved. This is theoretically an issue as there is no objective system for determining how a suspect other than by council discretion but with how Finch has been behaving as a tier leader I do not believe there is any reasonable risk of this, especially in this specific case.
The second way it is possible is that repeat suspects could end up changing an outcome from how the community may actually want it because players who have not gotten the outcome they wished for may be more willing to invest more of their time and energy getting reqs again than those who had already gotten an outcome they wished for, potentially leading to a less popular decision eventually coming out on top.

It is likely for such reason that it could inadvertantly undermine what the community actually wants (on top of having to get reqs again being a drag) that a third conventional suspect of Kyurem is not likely to be considered immediately.

Allowing reqs to be carried over from the last Kyurem suspect would avoid these issues as those with reqs would only need to invest any more of their time in the blind voting process (which is minor.) Additionally, at 59%, pro-ban is still the majority and could very well be what we say is what the community wants. Qualifications can also be carried over unlike usual as the meta is functionally the same as when everybody had gotten their reqs.

Why should a resuspect be considered to begin with? There are three main reasons.

The first is that among those banned for voter fraud are skilled players who did not need to commit fraud in order to achieve reqs and therefore did it out of convenience. Had that convenience not existed, are we certain that at least 2 of those skilled players wouldn't have gotten reqs leading to the legitimate ban of Kyurem?

The second is that now that everyone has had time to engage with a Kyurem-less meta, everybody should now be more informed about their decision. This is objectively a good thing. The only reason why doing things like this to allow for more informed votes is not done is because it requires a deal of time and effort to be invested where the returns may not necessarily be worth the investment - especially as players may not genuinely engage with a temporary meta unlike how players now have had to genuinely engage with a Kyurem-less meta. However, since that investment has already been made regardless, I think it would be a good thing to take advantage of it to allow for a more informed tiering decision to be made.

The third is in terms of tiering direction. A quick resuspect that results in a Kyurem ban would put us back on track to original plans without having to mull over what direction to take (though while writing this everyone already seems to be rallying behind a tera blast suspect) while if it results in a no ban then we could probably put the matter of Kyurem to rest permenantly, because in my opinion, at 59% pro-ban along with such a controversial voting situation, we'd probably end up looking at a 3rd Kyurem suspect in a couple of months which I think would be the worst fucking timeline. Or of course Kyurem could settle in and be completely balanced and no 3rd suspect occurs. Depends on what you think will happen.

Additionally, now with the hindsight that the margins are razor thin, you may find more players willing to engage with the tiering process now knowing that their vote will in all likely matter a lot which I think is good because I believe increased community participation is a good thing (perhaps to the dismay of those who think the less players should be allowed to have a say.)

Some have also suggested just redoing the Kyurem votes with just those already qualified which I think is also fine, it would be less 'accurate' then a resuspect but a lot quicker and much less effort. If a resuspect were to be done I think it would be good for it to be shorter and more trimmed down than usual and be treated as an extension of the last suspect to just moves things along.

Regardless, I am not saying a resuspect should be the course of action to be taken. Whichever direction the tier should go, it'll be 1-2 weeks of waiting for everyone to collect their thoughts to figure out. I am just making this post to put the option of a resuspect on the table as I think it could very well be a legitimate course of action.

------
In regards to Tera Blast, I personally don't think we should be meddling with a generational mechanic like this and I think you either take it or leave it in it's entirety. I don't see a TB ban being so consequential for me to bend my thoughts on generational mechanics.

Unrelated to everything else but I've been trying to do an RMT and between being picky about replays, forgetting to save them or changing the team too much I'm having trouble stocking up on replays for it...

We need to end this sentiment ASAP. A recount has never happened before (for SVOU at least) and cannot start now for the Kyurem suspect. To do so would realistically be a misuse of power from the council. Ultimately, while many of us are disappointed in the results of the legitimate votes, I know that we would be livid if there were calls for a recount if Kyurem was still banned.


I would have loved nothing more than for Kyurem to have been banned. The short period of time without Kyurem has been the most I've enjoyed the metagame in a while. But the reality was that this was Kyurem's second suspect in 12 months. If it didn't get banned now, it will likely remain in the tier indefinitely. To those that didn't understand the severity of the vote, I urge you to think a bit more critically next time. Kyurem is here to stay, end of discussion.

Moving forward, I urge voters dissatisfied with a Kyurem meta to support a Tera Blast ban so we can reintroduce Volc and naturally curb Kyurem.
 
S/O Akali, and LosetoRU for carrying the DNB agenda. I’m really happy kyurem is freed. The tier pre kyurem ban was pretty bad but after was worse. Sd Scor ran more free on teams, mons like wogre were even more insane and stuff like gambit/bolt had one less soft check in sub kyurem. Kyurem adds a lot of healthiness to the tier and imo creates a much healthier meta than the post kyurem ban meta
 
process isn't something to praise about, but it just reflects how the more "elite" playerbase and the more "common" playerbase are harder and harder to reach a mutual consensus.
The thing is it doesn't matter if there is a mutual consensus. It is no excuse for toxicity, and us also not required for a healthy meta game. Toxicity has been regularly addressed by the moderators and council and they ban people or lock the thread when things get out if hand.


Kyurem is here to stay, end of discussion.
This also isn't completely true. Finch has stated that on a case by case scenario things will get tested. The meta might shift enough through other action to retest something in the future.


In general I think the meta us continuing to progress. We shouldn't forget that during the suspect many people were no longer concerned by SubTect Kyurem (debatably the set that got Kyurem the retest) but more concerned with mixed DD sets. The metagame is still evolving quickly and even with the Kyurem vote overturned there will be more tiering action if/when needed. The meta will continue to improve. Most likely the forum environment will also continue to improve as the council tries out different suspect processes.
 
We need to end this sentiment ASAP. A recount has never happened before (for SVOU at least) and cannot start now for the Kyurem suspect. To do so would realistically be a misuse of power from the council. Ultimately, while many of us are disappointed in the results of the legitimate votes, I know that we would be livid if there were calls for a recount if Kyurem was still banned.


I would have loved nothing more than for Kyurem to have been banned. The short period of time without Kyurem has been the most I've enjoyed the metagame in a while. But the reality was that this was Kyurem's second suspect in 12 months. If it didn't get banned now, it will likely remain in the tier indefinitely. To those that didn't understand the severity of the vote, I urge you to think a bit more critically next time. Kyurem is here to stay, end of discussion.

Moving forward, I urge voters dissatisfied with a Kyurem meta to support a Tera Blast ban so we can reintroduce Volc and naturally curb Kyurem.
This was always a faulty premise because Quiver Dance is a broken move on anything good enough to actually abuse it. Even without Tera Blast, Volc can still abuse Tera to set up an extra QD and/or get extra STAB on one of its coverage moves like Giga Drain or Psychic. Then there was also stuff like the Swarm Bug Buzz sets, which you can just go double STAB on because Tera. Reintroducing Volc this will just add more strain on the tier that doesn't need it.

Kyurem has a similar issue with its DD sets, which already have near perfect Ice/Ground coverage. They don't even have to be the pure physical DD sets. They could be mixed or even PP stall. Banning Tera Blast would not change this. It only takes away one of the many table flip options the possibility of its DD sets represent.

As long as Tera itself exists, all these borderline setup sweepers are always going to be at least somewhat controversial. Defensive Tera, which is sadly the only part of Tera related to defense, still allows you to brute force setup turns. The rest of Tera is just pure offense. Tera Blast, extra STAB, and double STAB serve no function but to force your way past an opposing team. All these valid complaints we see from time to time about the tier being matchup fishy, fundamentally, aren't just because of TB. Tera itself is a matchup flip mechanic. Like it or hate it, that's what it does.

And to be clear, I'm not arguing to get rid of Tera now. I had thought the community had largely made the decision to go for more bans rather than scrap the Tera mechanic itself. For the record, I am still pro-ban on Tera Blast. But certainly not because I believe it is somehow going to stop all these accelerated setup sweepers from countering their checks. It will solve different issues.
 
Last edited:
S/O Akali, and LosetoRU for carrying the DNB agenda. I’m really happy kyurem is freed. The tier pre kyurem ban was pretty bad but after was worse. Sd Scor ran more free on teams, mons like wogre were even more insane and stuff like gambit/bolt had one less soft check in sub kyurem. Kyurem adds a lot of healthiness to the tier and imo creates a much healthier meta than the post kyurem ban meta
SD scor runs free Kyurem or not, but it's stupidity is gonna be diluted by the dumb shit Kyurem does it's literally matter of competition between 2 broken mons. Reality is both are broken, it's same thing effect like in SS when mag and ace were both in the tier after dlc 2 initial ban waves. If you have 2 broken mons that do diff things it can become to look like they both aren't broken cus competition exist among broken slots (kyu/glisc/gambit). Also woger was easier to manage and same for bolt gambit because a lack of Kyurem literally gives u extra slots on every playstyle barring HO. You can see in high ladder and tour, that bulky grasses (hydrapple, sinistcha, amoong, and even offensive grasses like meow/ogerpon) became way more affordable to use because kyurem isn't forcing those multi slot defensive cores to not autolose (still do if freeze). This idea that less builder strain = more variable comps / more room for answering other mons leads to others like bolt too. Ting-Lu is a great example of this in fact for bolt, and after starting up Team Tour Bazaar thread I can confidently say that the lack od kyurem in mind gives way to managing so SO MUCH more.

It's actually sad seeing this albeit rare sentiment that Kyurem adds diversity / lessens builder strain because as someone who runs resources dedicated around strong conistent top level teams, I know this stuff just isn't true and borders on misinformation. Kyurem is going to / did make samples especially so much more difficult for me lmao and it kind of annoys me people say this misinfo atp. If this 'kyurem actually helps' were true my role would be easier, last samples set kyurem was the main culprit for issues regarding team quality concerns for 5 teams. these are top level teams mind you. BTW THAT NUMBER IS NOT INCLUDING THE MULTIPLE TEAMS WE REJECTED FOR THEIR BAD MU VS KYUREM LOL
 
Last edited:
Back
Top