Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4

[Moyashi]

Who really cares about SCL Seasonal, OUPL, ABC OU, or whatever abbreviations people like to throw around?

I've been here for years and I still don't know what those abbreviations even mean. Also, what is there to discuss, other than how to properly handle some players or glazing them?

The only good thing what comes out of them are memes from ragequitters

So much good comes from tourney play, and there's a lot that people can learn from observing these games. What is there to discuss? Plenty. The games themselves, unique teams or sets that are brought, meta developments around the tourneys. That kind of discussion is so much more productive, engaging and interesting than the 100th time people want to dredge up tired old topics that go nowhere (unban X uber for example) and contribute nothing of value to discussion.

And even beyond that, high level games are wild and fascinating to watch and I encourage anyone who doesn't usually to go check out replays as they're made available.

 

[EpicGuy321]

Who really cares about SCL Seasonal, OUPL, ABC OU, or whatever abbreviations people like to throw around?

I've been here for years and I still don't know what those abbreviations even mean. Also, what is there to discuss, other than how to properly handle some players or glazing them?

The only good thing what comes out of them are memes from ragequitters

“Who cares about tournaments in a competitive game?”

They’re interesting because we get to see good players play, really cool teams (non-sun Slither Wing? awesome), etc.

I decided to sit down and watch some tournament games (OUPL I think) during the latest Kyurem suspect, and just watching them play, I felt my brain expand. I then did some laddering and climbed 400 ELO.

 

[Maxicheese]

Personally, I never understand why the majority votes was 60%, it's always seems too much for me, why not just put him in 50% which is still half of the voting? This pourcentage is as much as the 66% required to ban a Uber.

 

[RainWaiv]

tournament games are cool as hell because the players don't need to build around consistency. Ladder teams need to be consistent since you have no idea what you're facing, which is just not true for tournaments. Between your games you can build a whole new team tailored to how your opponent plays. You can put less focus on stall teams if your opponent likes playing more offensive teams and you can put less focus on offense if your opponent prefers playing more passive styles (keep in mind this still provides plenty of variety on any style of play). You can also experiment heavily with unused mons if you think it will do well into your opponent/general meta trends across a smaller sample. Stuff like iron crown saw solid usage in OUPL last year and it's now a pretty solid OU mon despite dropping to UU almost immediately. Plenty of mons that have solid niches and even rise up in tiers have done so because tournaments make people realize what they can do. Stuff like Iron Crown, Tinkaton, or Sinistcha have had their usage boosted up a pretty solid amount due to their use in tournaments.

tl;dr tournaments let people see what the best players are doing to beat the meta on a smaller scale and translating that into their own ladder teams.

 

[Cyber-DJ]

tl;dr tournaments let people see what the best players are doing to beat the meta on a smaller scale and translating that into their own ladder teams.

Couldn't agree more. Watching your own replays is already a way to learn more. By proxy, now imagine that on players who know the meta better than you or I.

I'm just saying. Once you actually find the tourney games to watch, you won't regret it. Actually peak fiction

 

[Achohermano]

I do think tournaments help you a lot not only how to play but actually build. I was kind of a OTP team fella and by watching those replays, taking their teams as reference for a while and learning, I now can pilot with multiple team styles in the 1800s. Which is something I’m proud of.

While I encourage everyone to watch tournaments and some Pokemon on the tier and a lot of sets have objectively came from specific games or players, I can also understand for a lot of people it’s not their main concern. Ladder play is different than Tournament, as people already mentioned here the Team building proccess and experience is not the same. It’s like comparing a professional soccer game aganist a local league. Therefore I can kinda get both points.

In other things, Lokix is rn quite high on the VR ranking and has quite some usage in both ladder AND tournaments. What are your thoughts on it? I quite like it and while Double STAB CB is cool I think it has a lot of potential with other new sets

 

[Cyber-DJ]

In other things, Lokix is rn quite high on the VR ranking and has quite some usage in both ladder AND tournaments. What are your thoughts on it? I quite like and while Double STAB CB is cool I think it has a lot of potential with other new sets

A bit tera hoggy at times, but a respectable enough pick. It's not that it isn't worth it, but it's a bit annoying at times. It also has uh, literally zero defensive utility, unless you count priority as defensive utility. But it hits pretty hard and can be a decent offensive poke to bypass stuff like Sucker Punch and such. As long as you can bypass stuff like Zamazenta and cope with the switch after leaving a First Impression, it can fry offensive teams.

 

[Magcargo]

I do think tournaments help you a lot not only how to play but actually build. I was kind of a OTP team fella and by watching those replays, taking their teams as reference for a while and learning, I now can pilot with multiple team styles in the 1800s. Which is something I’m proud of.

While I encourage everyone to watch tournaments and some Pokemon on the tier and a lot of sets have objectively came from specific games or players, I can also understand for a lot of people it’s not their main concern. Ladder play is different than Tournament, as people already mentioned here the Team building proccess and experience is not the same. It’s like comparing a professional soccer game aganist a local league. Therefore I can kinda get both points.

In other things, Lokix is rn quite high on the VR ranking and has quite some usage in both ladder AND tournaments. What are your thoughts on it? I quite like it and while Double STAB CB is cool I think it has a lot of potential with other new sets

Won't deny its effective, but IMO its a very lame, uninteractive mon that just winds invalidating a lot of offensive teams / structures. Doesn't help that its commonly paired with one of the most 0 skill, uninteractive Pokemon in the game, Mola. Makes it boring to watch, especially when you know they are going to do the same loop of sack -> first impression -> sack -> first impression, etc.

Other sets beyond band could be cool. SD was one I saw have some decent use in UU, taking advantage of the switches it forces with FImp to setup SD and sweep with Sucker. Could be decent with Kingambit perhaps.

 

[RainebowValiant]

Personally, I never understand why the majority votes was 60%, it's always seems too much for me, why not just put him in 50% which is still half of the voting? This pourcentage is as much as the 66% required to ban a Uber.

So 50% + 1 votes don't occur. If you make the system a majority, things can be banned when they're only BARELY the majority of votes. It's better to force a supermajority so it's what as much of the community actually wants

Yall stop posting bait takes I can't stop myself from replying to them :sob:

 

[EpicGuy321]

I think Lokix is possibly the cheapest mon of all time. Just click move and get a kill unless opp has like... one of 3 counters (1 of which gets out-damaged and chipped down over the game (tera bug First Impression does like 50% min...)). Not saying it's OP though. You can like... keep rocks up I guess. Also my super epic mystery Gapdos set tends to beat Lokix structures anyway.

 

[CooolTrainer]

So 50% + 1 votes don't occur. If you make the system a majority, things can be banned when they're only BARELY the majority of votes. It's better to force a supermajority so it's what as much of the community actually wants

Yall stop posting bait takes I can't stop myself from replying to them :sob:

Does any council member have a legitimate answer as to why 60% is the number we use for bans? I get that banning a pokemon should be taken seriously, but 60% isn’t actually a super-majority, it’s 66%. Technically any number besides 50+1 and 66% are arbitrary.

I imagine the suspect test requirements were recently made more difficult because the council values the opinion of high level players, and they don’t want people they view as uninformed voting. In short, they want to make sure the voices of those who truly understand the meta are heard. However, the current system in place allows for situations where the majority of those players are not listened to.

I often see an argument “well we don’t want 50 + 1, because that would be too close,” but instead we give disproportionate amount of power to the minority opinion. I would think that 50.1% of votes controlling is preferable to 41%. I won’t get political, but a supermajority rule is often used by unpopular people in power looking to maintain control of laws. Obviously there’s nothing nefarious going on with Smogon, but the system we have in place effectively works the same way.

Lastly, when people are worried about situations where one vote past 50% makes a difference, they are forgetting voting is not representative of the player base as a whole. Smogon operates as a technocracy, where only experts are allowed to vote. I could understand that if the entire player base was voting, a supermajority would be necessary to make sure there is true support for a ban, we don’t want to have newer players swaying the meta after all, but this is not an issue when we already have a literal test to make sure you can vote!

I won’t get into any theory about how results could discourage voters from participating. But on a very technical level, I don’t see the 60% rule as necessary.

I’d be curious to hear a more experienced high level player or council member’s thoughts.

 

[Seraphyde]

Does any council member have a legitimate answer as to why 60% is the number we use for bans? I get that banning a pokemon should be taken seriously, but 60% isn’t actually a super-majority, it’s 66%. Technically any number besides 50+1 and 66% are arbitrary.

I imagine the suspect test requirements were recently made more difficult because the council values the opinion of high level players, and they don’t want people they view as uninformed voting. In short, they want to make sure the voices of those who truly understand the meta are heard. However, the current system in place allows for situations where the majority of those players are not listened to.

I often see an argument “well we don’t want 50 + 1, because that would be too close,” but instead we give disproportionate amount of power to the minority opinion. I would think that 50.1% of votes controlling is preferable to 41%. I won’t get political, but a supermajority rule is often used by unpopular people in power looking to maintain control of laws. Obviously there’s nothing nefarious going on with Smogon, but the system we have in place effectively works the same way.

Lastly, when people are worried about situations where one vote past 50% makes a difference, they are forgetting voting is not representative of the player base as a whole. Smogon operates as a technocracy, where only experts are allowed to vote. I could understand that if the entire player base was voting, a supermajority would be necessary to make sure there is true support for a ban, we don’t want to have newer players swaying the meta after all, but this is not an issue when we already have a literal test to make sure you can vote!

I won’t get into any theory about how results could discourage voters from participating. But on a very technical level, I don’t see the 60% rule as necessary.

I’d be curious to hear a more experienced high level player or council member’s thoughts.

Not a council member or (really) a high level player but I’m pretty sure that the mods did say something along the lines of “yes we do want to make voting harder”. I haven’t been around long enough to know the exact reason but I’m pretty sure 60% was chosen arbitrarily as a sort of compromise between 1/2 and 2/3.

In addition, I do think that Gliscor survived almost solely because of the stricter voting requirements, in addition to certain Ban players (not going to name them) not participating in the suspect test for reasons of their own.

 

[CooolTrainer]

Not a council member or (really) a high level player but I’m pretty sure that the mods did say something along the lines of “yes we do want to make voting harder”. I haven’t been around long enough to know the exact reason but I’m pretty sure 60% was chosen arbitrarily as a sort of compromise between 1/2 and 2/3.

In addition, I do think that Gliscor survived almost solely because of the stricter voting requirements, in addition to certain Ban players (not going to name them) not participating in the suspect test for reasons of their own.

Interesting. I would like to hear reasoning for not 50+1 besides “it’s important”.

I’m not so much concerned about the results of the Gliscor suspect or really any other suspect besides the fact that the minority of qualified players voted ban.

 

[Dreadfury]

I would like to hear reasoning for not 50+1

I'm not an OU Council member, nor to I claim to be representative of the Council in any way, but generally the higher tiers have a higher threshold for bans because they have a higher standard for which something should be considered banworthy, and in OU a suspect test needs a supermajority to ensure that a large majority of players qualified to vote are in agreement that a questionable element should go since all usage-based Smogon tiers follow OU's ruleset the vast majority of the time, since it is the highest usage-based tier. In terms of policy-related issues this is also relevant because this affects the lower tiers (sans Ubers, which is subject to different rules since it isn't usage-based).

A 60% supermajority ensures that something is considered banworthy beyond any reasonable doubt by a qualified representative of the tier's playerbase. If it's a simple 50%+1 majority it just cannot be considered representative of the playerbase since that's an extremely narrow margin. Like, if a narrow majority of the qualified playerbase votes in favor of something that happens then that's realistically the majority of the wider playerbase affected by an outcome they aren't aligned with.

If there's a 60% supermajority qualified vote to remove something, it maintains the competitive integrity of the tier (i.e. the wider playerbase may dislike Kingambit but the qualified playerbase may acknowledge why it's an important mon, adding that much-needed element of nuance to the mon) while maintaining a largely democratic voting process. A 60% supermajority among qualified players is high enough that it's reasonable to assume it reflects close to a simple majority of the playerbase's viewpoints while maintaining a sense of objectivity about the tier when played at a high level.

 

[RainWaiv]

I do think tournaments help you a lot not only how to play but actually build. I was kind of a OTP team fella and by watching those replays, taking their teams as reference for a while and learning, I now can pilot with multiple team styles in the 1800s. Which is something I’m proud of.

While I encourage everyone to watch tournaments and some Pokemon on the tier and a lot of sets have objectively came from specific games or players, I can also understand for a lot of people it’s not their main concern. Ladder play is different than Tournament, as people already mentioned here the Team building proccess and experience is not the same. It’s like comparing a professional soccer game aganist a local league. Therefore I can kinda get both points.

In other things, Lokix is rn quite high on the VR ranking and has quite some usage in both ladder AND tournaments. What are your thoughts on it? I quite like it and while Double STAB CB is cool I think it has a lot of potential with other new sets

I've experimented somewhat with lokix on balance teams to assist in chipping down threats. Pairs great with cleaners like dnite especially if you have a super consistent defensive backbone to fall back on. The problem with lokix is that its gameplan is like really obvious, you can generally guess whether it's band or boots based on whether or not it likes clicking u-turn when it comes out (might just be a skill i picked up from my time maining UU though) but being more or less unresisted in the current meta outside of the metal birds is a fantastic trait to have and it's great for speed control as well. Also for what i've been using lokix for there's probably better options.

 

[CooolTrainer]

I'm not an OU Council member, nor to I claim to be representative of the Council in any way, but generally the higher tiers have a higher threshold for bans because they have a higher standard for which something should be considered banworthy, and in OU a suspect test needs a supermajority to ensure that a large majority of players qualified to vote are in agreement that a questionable element should go since all usage-based Smogon tiers follow OU's ruleset the vast majority of the time, since it is the highest usage-based tier. In terms of policy-related issues this is also relevant because this affects the lower tiers (sans Ubers, which is subject to different rules since it isn't usage-based).

A 60% supermajority ensures that something is considered banworthy beyond any reasonable doubt by a qualified representative of the tier's playerbase. If it's a simple 50%+1 majority it just cannot be considered representative of the playerbase since that's an extremely narrow margin. Like, if a narrow majority of the qualified playerbase votes in favor of something that happens then that's realistically the majority of the wider playerbase affected by an outcome they aren't aligned with.

If there's a 60% supermajority qualified vote to remove something, it maintains the competitive integrity of the tier (i.e. the wider playerbase may dislike Kingambit but the qualified playerbase may acknowledge why it's an important mon, adding that much-needed element of nuance to the mon) while maintaining a largely democratic voting process. A 60% supermajority among qualified players is high enough that it's reasonable to assume it reflects close to a simply majority of the playerbase's viewpoints while maintaining a sense of objectivity about the tier when played at a high level.

“Like, if a narrow majority of the qualified playerbase votes in favor of something that happens then that's realistically the majority of the wider playerbase affected by an outcome they aren't aligned with.”

Can you clarify what you mean here? Are you saying if the majority less than 60% of the qualified players vote for something then that means the majority of the player base doesn’t agree?

Even if this was true, my argument is “if 59% of the qualified playerbase votes for something, then the majority is not aligned with the outcome of the vote”

There’s no 1:1 algorithm for the amount of qualified players that’s reflect the rest of the player base. And the council has already said the meta is designed for high level players, not the majority of the player base.

 

[Bold School]

but being more or less unresisted in the current meta outside of the metal birds is a fantastic trait to have and it's great for speed control as well.

I dispute this part. The thing about Bug moves is they have a lot of resistances. If you have something that double resists Bug type, you can take the First Impression or U-turn easier even with the Tinted Lens. By this token, it isn't just the metal birds. There are other staples and a decent amount of niche mons from lower tiers that double resist Bug.

Enamorus, Iron Valiant, Tinkaton, Fezendipiti, Geezing, Blaziken, Okidogi, Hawlucha, Iron Moth, Moltres, Heatran, Talonflame all double resist bug without a Dark weakness. Though some aren't defensive enough so survive a Dark attack. On the other hand, Iron Valiant also double resists Dark.

Ceruledge, Skeledirge, Gholdengo, Pecharunt double resist Bug with a Dark weakness, but can be used to at least eat a predicted Bug move or two. That can be the difference.

Landorus-T and Zama at +1 can also be good switch ins. Though more niche, Garchomp can also be used with Rocky Helmet for extra chip.

While some of these mons are more niche, all are at least usable in OU, and mons like Valiant, Zama, Lando-T, Moth, Moltres, and Tinkaton are really quite common. You aren't just blocked by the metal birds.

 

[Fusion Flare]

Good topics to discuss: DD kyurem has been rising in popularity, and sets like tb fire/elec have been tearing teams up. I've seen tera elec kyurem dd twice in front of araquanid and 6-0, on 3 separate occasions, involving the same 2 players

Honestly? Regarding Kyurem, I never really understood the terror behind SubTect. Or for that matter, most special variants of the mon. While strong, they still felt managable to outmaneuver and out-offense. It still had the rocks weakness, and the Subtect cycle could screw you over if the opponent caught you lacking with Encore.

In my opinion, DD is far and away the most egregious Kyu set, almost entirely off the strength Tera Blast grants it, turning it from a previously decent surprise option kept in check by its weaker Earth Powers vs Steels, into arguably the best user of the move in the tier (and no, just because Moth uses it 90% of the time doesnt mean its the best user). I've seen Fire, Electric, and Ground before, but I think i've even seen Ghost one time in a tournament match (it was mostly for the immunity against Zamazenta, though I imagine it nukes Gholdengo all the same).

The last Kyurem test couldn’t have been any closer, but now that it’s basically guaranteed to stay for the rest of the tier’s duration, anyone hoping to reudce the variance that comes with playing against it would probably have to hedge their bets on a Tera Blast ban.

 

[Bold School]

Honestly? Regarding Kyurem, I never really understood the terror behind SubTect. Or for that matter, most special variants of the mon. While strong, they still felt managable to outmaneuver and out-offense. It still had the rocks weakness, and the Subtect cycle could screw you over if the opponent caught you lacking with Encore.

In my opinion, DD is far and away the most egregious Kyu set, almost entirely off the strength Tera Blast grants it, turning it from a previously decent surprise option kept in check by its weaker Earth Powers vs Steels, into arguably the best user of the move in the tier (and no, just because Moth uses it 90% of the time doesnt mean its the best user). I've seen Fire, Electric, and Ground before, but I think i've even seen Ghost one time in a tournament match (it was mostly for the immunity against Zamazenta, though I imagine it nukes Gholdengo all the same).

The last Kyurem test couldn’t have been any closer, but now that it’s basically guaranteed to stay for the rest of the tier’s duration, anyone hoping to reudce the variance that comes with playing against it would probably have to hedge their bets on a Tera Blast ban.

Well, it's not just Tera Blast with Kyurem. Ice/Ground is already nearly perfect coverage, especially with the possibility of Freeze Dry threatening Water types. Mons with speed boosting setup moves like Volc, Gouging, and Moon would still do most of what they already do with abusing Tera even without the extra variance of TB.

The variance problem with Kyurem comes partially from the fact that you kind of need to assume it is a special attacker first due to the immediate threat level those sets tend to have. If it was only the DD sets, then this analyses of TB being the only problem would likely be true. But you also have further set variance on top of that. And this is given that the DD sets themselves already can be a wide variety of things from physical, to mixed, to even PP stalling. Even without TB, there is a ton of variance.

There are some reads you can make as to the team comp and if it is boots or not, but it's not necesarrily binding. Pinkacross made a video where he took the same team on high ladder and just kept swapping the Kyurem sets. No one was able to guess the sets in time.

 

[Talpr0ne]

Does any council member have a legitimate answer as to why 60% is the number we use for bans? I get that banning a pokemon should be taken seriously, but 60% isn’t actually a super-majority, it’s 66%. Technically any number besides 50+1 and 66% are arbitrary.

I imagine the suspect test requirements were recently made more difficult because the council values the opinion of high level players, and they don’t want people they view as uninformed voting. In short, they want to make sure the voices of those who truly understand the meta are heard. However, the current system in place allows for situations where the majority of those players are not listened to.

I often see an argument “well we don’t want 50 + 1, because that would be too close,” but instead we give disproportionate amount of power to the minority opinion. I would think that 50.1% of votes controlling is preferable to 41%. I won’t get political, but a supermajority rule is often used by unpopular people in power looking to maintain control of laws. Obviously there’s nothing nefarious going on with Smogon, but the system we have in place effectively works the same way.

Lastly, when people are worried about situations where one vote past 50% makes a difference, they are forgetting voting is not representative of the player base as a whole. Smogon operates as a technocracy, where only experts are allowed to vote. I could understand that if the entire player base was voting, a supermajority would be necessary to make sure there is true support for a ban, we don’t want to have newer players swaying the meta after all, but this is not an issue when we already have a literal test to make sure you can vote!

I won’t get into any theory about how results could discourage voters from participating. But on a very technical level, I don’t see the 60% rule as necessary.

I’d be curious to hear a more experienced high level player or council member’s thoughts.

A "supermajority" is a arbitrary concept in the first place and nothing says that two thirds is more valid than three fifths except that it's more commonplace in real elections across the world.

 

[RaikouLover]

A "supermajority" is an arbitrary concept in the first place and nothing says that two thirds is more valid than three fifths except that it's more commonplace in real elections across the world.

And across the world democracy is viciously backsliding because it is inadequately responding to the desires of the populace. Supermajority thresholds in most cases are anti-democratic and effectively minority rule.

The majority of voters have wanted Kingambit, Gliscor, and Kyurem banned through multiple suspect tests… yet they are still here. It is no surprise the playerbase survey results this Gen have been mediocre at best.

 

[fluff!!]

Does any council member have a legitimate answer as to why 60% is the number we use for bans? I get that banning a pokemon should be taken seriously, but 60% isn’t actually a super-majority, it’s 66%. Technically any number besides 50+1 and 66% are arbitrary.

I imagine the suspect test requirements were recently made more difficult because the council values the opinion of high level players, and they don’t want people they view as uninformed voting. In short, they want to make sure the voices of those who truly understand the meta are heard. However, the current system in place allows for situations where the majority of those players are not listened to.

I often see an argument “well we don’t want 50 + 1, because that would be too close,” but instead we give disproportionate amount of power to the minority opinion. I would think that 50.1% of votes controlling is preferable to 41%. I won’t get political, but a supermajority rule is often used by unpopular people in power looking to maintain control of laws. Obviously there’s nothing nefarious going on with Smogon, but the system we have in place effectively works the same way.

Lastly, when people are worried about situations where one vote past 50% makes a difference, they are forgetting voting is not representative of the player base as a whole. Smogon operates as a technocracy, where only experts are allowed to vote. I could understand that if the entire player base was voting, a supermajority would be necessary to make sure there is true support for a ban, we don’t want to have newer players swaying the meta after all, but this is not an issue when we already have a literal test to make sure you can vote!

I won’t get into any theory about how results could discourage voters from participating. But on a very technical level, I don’t see the 60% rule as necessary.

I’d be curious to hear a more experienced high level player or council member’s thoughts.

not a council member nor do I have anything to prove my level, but I also feel negative towards supermajorities.

Unrelated politics aside, the pro-ban side already always has the burden of the status-quo when arguing for a ban. It is very easy to dismiss arguments just because "why completely change the meta if it's not that bad" when the suspected element isn't blatantly overpowered (see all Kyurem suspects). Moreover, requiring a 60% supermajority implies that the pro-ban side is inherently in the wrong and have to argue significanly more than the no ban side. I really don't like that dynamic.

 

[CooolTrainer]

not a council member nor do I have anything to prove my level, but I also feel negative towards supermajorities.

Unrelated politics aside, the pro-ban side already always has the burden of the status-quo when arguing for a ban. It is very easy to dismiss arguments just because "why completely change the meta if it's not that bad" when the suspected element isn't blatantly overpowered (see all Kyurem suspects). Moreover, requiring a 60% supermajority implies that the pro-ban side is inherently in the wrong and have to argue significanly more than the no ban side. I really don't like that dynamic.

I even don’t necessarily feel negatively towards it, I didn’t vote but I wouldn’t have voted Han on Gliscor. I could be swayed the other way with more explanation. I just think on its face, the policy sort of contradicts the intention of suspect reqs.

 

[AerionT]

Supermajorities ensure that there is ample consensus and you don't make controversial changes. If the tier is goodish, you need to convince more than just half of the people to make changes

 

[CooolTrainer]

Supermajorities ensure that there is ample consensus and you don't make controversial changes. If the tier is goodish, you need to convince more than just half of the people to make changes

This doesn’t answer my question. 60% also is not a supermajority. It’s not half of the playerbase voting it’s half of highly knowledgeable people, who we want to listen to. Is 59% not more than just half?