I believe the opposite; Tera is a breath of fresh air to the meta. I still do not see any uncompetitive aspects of it, the better player still wins in most cases. Tera is not based around luck at all and that is the biggest point in it's favor. I said previously that it adds another layer to team building, and as the meta is developing, standardization of tera types is starting to develop.
As for your concern about "blatantly busted mons" in the tier, is that not a problem for that specific mon and not for Tera as a whole, all banworthy pokemon still need a suspect, Tera or not. (On the radar mons)
Here's the thing though, you could say the same of other broken mechanics like Gems in generation 5 before they were banned. Automatically nuke one thing in an already offensive and unstable meta based on complex changes for other broken mechanics like infinite weather. Obviously I'm not directly comparing the two in a way that they are the exact same under the those circumstances, but I mean to point out that something can seem balanced at first but then become unstable with perspective and hindsight, or just be difficult to balance around as a necessary part of the game. Admittedly Terastalization is new and I think it could certainly use some testing yes, but the end goal doesn't change and Terastalization is not so integrated into the game that it should require we fundamentally change the way we look at tiering. Frankly, as much as Finchinator and Ruft would like to ponder the spectrum of options regarding Terastalization, it should never be looked at in a way that violates smogon tiering policy. THAT is what I am mainly getting at, that we have barriers erected regarding tiering in the Smogon structure as a way to safeguard the idea of competitive play. We should not be preserving a mechanic like Terastalization on grounds that are fundementally un-Smogon. Regardless of the many opinions and ideas we have concerning Terastalization, in the end the two options are the same: Should Terastalization be
BANNED?
OR Should Terastalization
STAY?
To dive further into this, I'd like to elaborate on why the reasons many concerns, questions, and ideas for Terastalization and its close relative Dynamax
fundamentally don't work and
did not work.
Within the realm of Smogon's official tiers, it operates on a fine line: to follow cartridge based limitations, or to forego them; the answer is surprisingly mixed and complicated. Things like Freeze and Sleep clauses never existed within recent generations, only appearing within generation 3 during battle stadium, but are implemented nonetheless. That's because those two elements required checks and balances in the subsequent generations within the Smogon tiering system, which is outside of Nintendo / Gamefreak's jurisdiction, but it still didn't step outside of the realm of possibility because it was a previously implemented feature by the designers of the game. That is one checkbox that many changes to both Terastalization and the former Dynamax simply fail to hit. Ideas of a gentlemen's agreement or visual queues which tip off which Pokemon have certain Terastalization types or which Pokemon is Dynamaxed were never a part of the game. Why does this matter? Why is it still not within Smogon's jurisdiction to do anything like this despite being a separate entity from Nintendo and Gamefreak? Because it is not something the designers of the game intended. If something occurs in the host generation, it remains a part of Smogon's mainstream tiers; those include OU, UU, Ubers, RU, NU, PU, ZU, NFE, and LC. Those tiers do not include significant modifications that are outside of the realm of possibility for the host generation, which is significant. That's also why things that item trade-offs for the ability to go ham for 3 turns or change your stab / multiply your STAB are unavailable. Now, there are deviations from standard play such as National Dex; which is a Smogon inspired tier that includes previously removed mechanics that are outside the jurisdiction of Nintendo / Gamfreak, and is a perfect example of
not following standard tiering protocol and drawing the line in the sand for what is legal and illegal in terms of tiering for the tiers based off of the mainstream games.
I've accrewed a lot of general experience for tiering through experiences like National Dex NU
shameless plug (which is an unofficial tier based off of Smogon's National Dex RU usage), and other small endeavors. Some of that experience bred these rules:
1. You cannot
subtract from an intended game mechanic.
This one is fairly self explanatory. You cannot take a part from the whole and keep the rest if it is not according to the host generation.
2. You cannot
add to an intended game mechanic.
This one is also fairly self explanatory. You cannot add to the whole product that the host generation offers.
3. You cannot
ban something without probable cause and evidences.
This one goes for all tiering, and is on a wide spectrum.
4. When considering a tiering decision, reconsider the
costs and evaluate the impact on the metagame.
This is ironically part of the reason we are considering Terastalization more liberally, because there are still lingering doubts about what we did with Dynamax (spoiler alert: it was the right move).
can we stop making bullshit slippery slope arguments that make no sense and are relatively demeaning
slippery slope is, by definition, a fallacy. if you want people to take the debate gloves off, here's the facts we have:
there is no evidence that terastilization is making the worse player win more than say, gen 8
there is no evidence that terastilization is a mechanic that would make many more pokemon that wouldn't be broken before, broken
there is no evidence that terastilization has centralized the meta
as stated at the beginning of all of these types of threads on Smogon, the onus is on those who want something banned/restricted in order to prove that the mechanic/pokemon/item in question should/must be banned or restricted.
there has been no real proof given by the anti-tera side of the argument besides hypotheticals (often times silly) or a fallacy, a literal fallacy.
there has been many replays, arguments and retorts by tournament/top ladder players that indicate that highly experienced players don't as a whole want a ban
there have been more of said posts with more likes than the opposite side
the argument of "uncompetitiveness" in this thread has entirely been an argument on "vibes" rather than anything tangible, while there are many examples of the opposite side.
In conclusion: from a debate perspective, if we were to take the thread as a whole?
you'd probably have at best the conclusion of restriction, nothing close to the ban argument
there's this really funny fallacy I always see all over these threads and it's the idea that "competitiveness is not subjective"
just saying that something is uncompetitive because an interaction is possible in the game is not an objective statement
it's also not indicative of any deeper meaning.
it's only indicative that that play might be arguably uncompetitive in a vacuum, nothing about an actual 6v6 game unless proven with replays, data, more deeper analysis.
I think responding to this ties in nicely. Quote, "Regardless of the many opinions and ideas we have concerning Terastalization, in the end the two options draw the same conclusion: Should Terastalization be
BANNED?
OR Should Terastalization
STAY?" The slippery slope exists and is more of a borderline "vibe check" than uncompetitiveness is in terms of being tangible or not. I still agree that framing Terastalization as being uncompetitive seems like a stretch in hindsight, but being broken is fitting. The ability to change matchups off of type alone and nuke supposed check with an increased type STAB creates more guessing games and 50/50s that decide entire games than are naturally available, and is in itself centralizing for that reason.
As for your concern about "blatantly busted mons" in the tier, is that not a problem for that specific mon and not for Tera as a whole, all banworthy pokemon still need a suspect, Tera or not. (On the radar mons)
Yes, that is a concern for more specific banworthy Pokemon than it is for Terastalization as a whole (and trust me, there are a ton of them). You are correct in assuming that, and it was an oversight on my end to place the cart before the horse. However, the reasoning I provide still stands in defiance of that fact. I do agree that Terastalization will require more testing before it can be banned, we need to remove all the broken Pokemon in the tier before we touch the generational gimmick so that the environment for testing is as sterile as possible. However, this still ties back to the idea of our options for Terastalization falling under the illusion of choice and opinion beyond polarized viewpoints, because we have to eventually settle on banning it or not. It's clearly provable that near none of the suggested changes for Terastalization will be founded in Smogon principle, and are therefore unacceptable for tiering protocol and cannot be inplemented in right conscious.
there is no evidence that terastilization is making the worse player win more than say, gen 8
there is no evidence that terastilization is a mechanic that would make many more pokemon that wouldn't be broken before, broken
1. The issue ties into broken Pokemon and Terastalization, however, when not putting the cart ahead of the horse this is undeterminable and therefore irrelevant at the moment.
2. This is highly dubious and / or debatable, since we lack a sterile environment to test Terastalization in. However, we've already seen pokemon that were already good before improve their matchups further and heighten artificially generated rock-paper-scissors matchups and increase the rate at which significant 50/50s occur that decide games.
as stated at the beginning of all of these types of threads on Smogon, the onus is on those who want something banned/restricted in order to prove that the mechanic/pokemon/item in question should/must be banned or restricted.
there has been no real proof given by the anti-tera side of the argument besides hypotheticals (often times silly) or a fallacy, a literal fallacy.
1. The responsibility does fall onto everyone who wants tiering action against Terastalization, that is true. But it falls equally on everyone who doesn't want action as well, since their reasoning is just as important when finally deciding whether Terastalization should be banned or not.
2. All reasoning, discarding extreme hypotheticals and misnomers, for the banning of Terastalization that I am aware of has been fair reasoning. Setting that aside for a moment, I'd like to ask what those evidences are as proof of concept here since this entire post you made has been very he-said-she-said.
there has been many replays, arguments and retorts by tournament/top ladder players that indicate that highly experienced players don't as a whole want a ban
there have been more of said posts with more likes than the opposite side
1. I would like to know who posted these replays, arguments, and retorts (which includes significant tournament / top players), where I can find them, and whether it comes down to Terastalization itself needing more testing, because that itself is what I think draws a large portion of attention for anti-ban sentiments.
2. This is entirely irrelevant and childish, and only based on meager social factors that disregard evidence for attention.
In conclusion: from a debate perspective, if we were to take the thread as a whole?
you'd probably have at best the conclusion of restriction, nothing close to the ban argument
there's this really funny fallacy I always see all over these threads and it's the idea that "competitiveness is not subjective"
just saying that something is uncompetitive because an interaction is possible in the game is not an objective statement
it's also not indicative of any deeper meaning.
it's only indicative that that play might be arguably uncompetitive in a vacuum, nothing about an actual 6v6 game unless proven with replays, data, more deeper analysis.
1. If I'm responding to this, I'm going to assume this was worded as "In conclusion: from a debate perspective, what if we were to take the thread as a whole?" for sanity's sake. If so, I've already drawn a conclusion for you-- you can't take this thread as a whole because not all arguments / ideas / concerns are valid under the tiering policies and structure of Smogon.
2. This is extremely inconclusive. Quote, "Regardless of the many opinions and ideas we have concerning Terastalization, in the end the two options draw the same conclusion: Should Terastalization be
BANNED?
OR Should Terastalization
STAY?" Little-to-none of the proposed solutions to simply restricting Terastalization have been consistent enough with Smogon tiering policies and cartridge restrictions to be viable options. Therefore, if none of the those changes logically make sense for that reason, restriction is an exclusive and niche argument and will not be the result of this discussion.
3. In the sense of the idea that Smogon is founded on,
no, competitiveness is
not subjective. You cannot exchange fundamental ideas that built Smogon from the ground up for cheap installments like the considered "fun," which is a naturally subjective thing that relies on feeling over decades long policy.
4. You would be correct, uncompetitiveness is slightly more subjective than a handful of interactions possible in-game. However, that would still be more indicative of something being broken. Uncompetitiveness as a whole violates the competitive spirit through factors like surface level rng, whereas brokenness is more to the core than a woven layer of integrated luck-related elements.
5. You would also be correct to assume that uncompetitiveness itself is incapable of deeper meaning without real definition. However, brokenness is, because it is a more multi-faceted definition and tangible concept. Because it is more tangible, it also includes more of the general data and deep analysis uncompetitiveness lacks.
That's all my thoughts regarding Terastalization plastered onto a large post at the moment. If anyone has any questions, comments, or concerns regarding that reasoning, please let me know.
[EDIT]
Just wanted to add onto the fact that Terastalization not only causes mass RPS and unhealthy 50/50s, but also naturally forces teams to prepare multiple pokemon just to check one threat and overlap coverage that can make teams even more matchup dependent (sound familiar? i.e. Kyurem in SSOU). That alone places it under the definition for being broken, albeit uniquely.
Terastalization is unhealthy for this metagame and needs to go when the time is right. If I have the option to, I want to remove it as early as possible and sift through the broken Pokemon, but I'm willing to wait if the general consensus is that we need time.
seemed to be an interesting bulky setup breaker with that typing but it was not in the SS Camomons metagame. Mainly because
was S-tier and mon such a
or
were around. It's the case of something good on paper but not great in practise due to the metagame.
. It's impossible to lure it with such a set because the Camomons concept partially reveal your moveset. You can therefore adapt your playstyle thanks to this information.
