I'm not saying that high set variety in and of itself is a bad thing. Landorus-Therian in previous generations had a long list of viable sets, none of which strained the meta since all of them had good counterplay.
Minor nitpick, and I don't want to derail the thread from it, but I don't personally agree that Lando-T was always balanced in past gens. It has been the most overcentralizing pivot. I know this is an unpopular opinion on here, but there are times a mon can do too much. Whether or not people agree with me on Lando-T being one of those cases in the past gens, I do believe there is a limit somewhere. Obviously, Lando-T is fine in gen 9.
However, every Policy Review thread on Tera Blast has basically flatlined in terms of demonstrating support for Tera Blast's ban, and tiering administration already deemed that Tera Blast doesn't meet the critera for a move ban in a Policy Review thread based on the current tiering framework, so I personally believe that keeping Tera Blast on future OU tiering surveys does a disservice to people who are unhappy with the meta since having Tera Blast on them decreases the survey score of every mon with a Tera Blast set, most notably Dragonite, which most likely had such a large score decrease since many people innately tie Dragonite being problematic to Tera Blast, which
Finchinator even said was the case when people included more thoughts in their survey responses for the October 2025 survey. Given support for acting on Tera Blast has been decreasing with each subsequent survey by the qualified demographic, it's clear Tera Blast will never have the support for a ban or even a suspect test, so I believe now is the time to stop beating a dead horse as including Tera Blast on OU Tiering Surveys will only serve as a poison pill to any further tiering action in SV OU.
The reason why enjoyment and competitive scores for SV OU are quite a ways lower than SS OU is 'cause of the volatility and swing-y nature of SV OU due to Tera and also 'cause of powercreep. This is why so many people want to ban at least one mon, yet there's no actual consensus on what to target 'cause one's opinion on what needs to go is dependent on their building patterns and style of play. To make building less of a chore and reduce the volatility of SV OU a ban on one or more of the mons that can swing matches easily the most should be the ideal tiering action(s). Moving forward I believe the best targets for tiering action are either the mons that snowball easily, stomping entire playstyles without changing their movesets or with a minimal change in moveset, or mons with so many sets that it's ridiculous to reasonably cover for most of them, and the ones I have in mind are Ceruledge, which is an extremely cheap mon when piloted right that shares much of the same traits other Gen 9 mons were banned for such as being able to boost its Speed and Attack and heal itself, only Bitter Blade heals Ceruledge while also having high Base Power off of a top attacking type, and Dragonite and Kyurem for how hard it is cover all of their sets (including Special sets for Kyurem), including Tera Blast sets for both, and the ridiculous number of Tera Types they have that can make facing them a crapshoot. These are the mons whose bans would do the most to alleviate threat saturation in my opinion and would have the most positive effect on the builder.
I respect this view. While I don't really agree with the idea that this can't change in the future just because it hasn't before, you are correct that a TB suspect hasn't gained enough steam up to this point.
Nothing has gained steam recently, but you know... Perhaps a more focused scope is required. If we took out looking at the mechanics, much to my own disappointment, maybe we could get somewhere by focusing on the mons. I somewhat even agree with the core concept.
My issue is I think it's just going to be the same song and dance. I don't think any of the current mons will be banned. But more than that, I think something else would just take their place again even if they were banned. My estimation is that this would put similar strain on the builder, which is why I lean towards more of a mechanics approach.
Having said that, I would still follow your plan if it meant actually getting to suspects again. Suspects in of themselves are helpful.
I really don’t get why people keep saying we should be more aggressive with suspect tests, as if they’ll magically pull the support necessary for a ban/unban out of a hat. In fact, the times that we have been aggressive - Walking Wake, first Gouging Fire, Zamazenta-H - they all resulted in a failed test, and that’s even with supposed community support behind them. Tera Blast scoring a 2.5 on the survey doesn’t mean that you’re going to raise 60% of the community to support a ban (hell, usually 3s can’t even get the support).
Now, some may say that since it’s the end of the generation and we have nothing better to do, might as well suspect test anyways. But this is just a waste of time for everyone involved, and leans dangerously close to trying to force a favorable suspect result through voter fatigue. And for what benefit? It’s not like we have any real questions in how a suspect test will go: it’s clear the support hasn’t been there (especially for Tera Blast), and suspect tests usually don’t change the meta in any particular way to force a new discovery that can shift the tides.
Isn't this the wrong way to look at it? The suspect itself is a valuable proccess that often drives forth developments and meta shifts. And I'm not sure why you said it doesn't. You also get more involvement from high level players, which in of itself can lead to outcomes.
Obviously, suspects are to decide whether or not to ban something. However, only focusing on results ignores the value of the journey. If you changed nothing else besides having more suspects, and the things that were banned are not remained exactly the same as otherwise, I still think that would carry more benefits than doing nothing for those extra suspects. It also might allow more focus by proccess of elimination.
Furthermore, I would assert that the current system isn't great for looking at mechanics. It's well refined for banning mons and that's it.
The reason is self-explanatory. Would you trust health advice coming from your drunk friend over 300 pounds who eats Cheetos religiously or would you trust a medical health professional with decades of experience?
Even if you disagree with their takes, even if they’re a toxic pos, their opinion stems from top level experience which is way more valuable and harder to argue against.
Somewhere there is a reasonable middle ground, where maybe your friend is instead somebody less obese who had a similar medical issue and can give you some advice based on the experience they went through. In Pokemon terms, we have a whole range of ratings from useless 1100s to universally respected 1800s. There are also different sources of knowledge besides just the professionals, such as a team builder or a game designer. Maybe someone can build great teams and isn't as great at piloting them, for example.
I understand you were making a point and I even agree with most of what you said. There should be more room for nuance. I also don't want to excuse toxic behavior, not that you or Smogon were doing this. You weren't. However, I would listen to people far less if they were toxic about it. Even the best players are human. They are not right 100% of the times because nobody is perfect.
To say more would be undermining your main point, so I'll say less. It is true that more top players being involved could drive change.
