I think it's pretty much widely agreed that BW2 OU is the worst OU metagame we have had yet and would receive a lot less attention if it wasn't the standard one. (Don't worry too much if you disagree or if I'm making a false assumption, the point of this thread isn't to complain.) There's been a lot of suspect tests to try to fix this and even more that people are asking for, many of which would involve quite drastic changes. I feel a lot of this recent BAN ALL philosophy stems from the desperation in trying to transform this perverted metagame to match standards many have grown accustomed to from previous generations and other tiers. This becomes even more evident in threads discussing past metagames where Pokemon that would receive a near unanimous ban in BW2 OU are actually defended in their respective metagame by some of the most vocal of the current pro-ban members.
This leads me to beg the question, what is it about current BW2 OU metagame that upsets players today? Now here is the important twist, I don't want any specific names used at all. That means no mentions of Landorus, Rain or, heck, even weather. I want us to approach this question from a purely fundamental approach. This is to avoid the thread turning into another hate bandwagon as it is a lot easier to carry biases and generate public dislike when specific names like John Proctor are used. I'd rather see arguments advancing ideas like a disproportionate amount of offensive threats to defensive ones or a bloated metagame that exceeds the 6 teamslot limit. It would also be nice if you could explain your own personal suspect testing philosophy and how you decide whether something gets the boot to put the previous perceived issues into your perspective. (If you feel the metagame is a good one feel free to justify it in the same manner.)
This leads me to beg the question, what is it about current BW2 OU metagame that upsets players today? Now here is the important twist, I don't want any specific names used at all. That means no mentions of Landorus, Rain or, heck, even weather. I want us to approach this question from a purely fundamental approach. This is to avoid the thread turning into another hate bandwagon as it is a lot easier to carry biases and generate public dislike when specific names like John Proctor are used. I'd rather see arguments advancing ideas like a disproportionate amount of offensive threats to defensive ones or a bloated metagame that exceeds the 6 teamslot limit. It would also be nice if you could explain your own personal suspect testing philosophy and how you decide whether something gets the boot to put the previous perceived issues into your perspective. (If you feel the metagame is a good one feel free to justify it in the same manner.)