Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

[Alternator]

Ok ok look, I'm not a very good player so I might be a fucking talking as if I'm the stupidest person alive but...

...isn't the overdependence on priority moves to stand a chance in this metagame a bad thing? I feel like being forced to run at least one, sometimes more, priority move on every team constrains building a fair bit and makes the game less fun to play. Just my 2 cents though.

Yes, but no.

Yes, by past generation standards, "needing" to run multiple priority moves on every team (except hard stall, I assume, but I don't play hard stall) is a huge constraint on team building.

No, it's not really a problem for this generation specifically, because priority has long been the best counter to fast yet frail sweepers, and Game Freak gave us TONS of those. Dragapult's 88/75/75 bulk puts it about average for an offensive mon, while there's 26 mons in OU with an offensive stat of 110+ (plus Charizard at 109). Until Home arrives, this is simply going to be super conducive to priority.

 

[Lord Xen III]

You can also see thats VGC and an in-person tournament which allows evasion, double sleep, and a bunch of other broken shit. What goes on in VGC is irrelevant to us.

However , it does mean there is now more precedent to give this solution a try, since it seems unlikely that Terra will be outright banned without suspecting a restricted version of it at this point.

 

[Bugboy]

You can also see thats VGC and an in-person tournament which allows evasion, double sleep, and a bunch of other broken shit. What goes on in VGC is irrelevant to us.

Not an in person event and you missed the point of my comment which was the simplicity in implementing that sort of restriction on cartridge and the fact that it’s a normal practice. My comment has nothing to do with the vgc rules, open team sheets are not even the standard.

 

[RaichuBestMon]

Tera enables a lot more 50-50s and win-or-lose assumptions in a format (1v1) that is already briming with them.
1800 elo game, go turn 14:
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1730286183-kg6aq2bxxyhpz3c3nj5xt457auxrkt5pw

ROB MY PLUG switched out his Mega Weavile when the Great Tusk was pulled He was banded locked with an Ice move. Why would he do that then? Cause he predicted that Great Tusk would Tera water and punish him afterwards. Which didn't happen, and cost him the game. If it were to happen and he left Chien-Pao there, he would have lost his only way to deal with his opponent's Chien Pao.
Completely bullshit scenario, all cause of Tera.

But Pokemon always had this problem, for examples items, move coverage, etc. Sure there is a logic behind these elements (if you consider that your opponent has a balanced team ie that doesn't hyperfocus on certain threat type, assumption that might not be true), like no more than one scarfed mon, but in the end you make assumptions, that can cost you a game. For example you check that a mon is scarfed or not, you learn that he is scarfed. Another mon is thrown by your opponent, you won't expect him to also be scarfed, that wouldn't make any sense since he would get mogged by stall teams. But too bad, he was also scarfed, and you lost.
Or a classic example: Landorus leads with stealth rock. Of course he is a defensive/SD Landorus! And then right at the end of the match, you learn the hard way that he was always scarfed.

So I think the question about Tera should be:
Should we make 1v1 OU more fair?
(but 1v1 OU will never be fully intellect determined as we've seen but also thanks to accuracy moves, sleep, flinch, etc., so why push Tera outside of the "acceptable" perimeter? Seems arbitrary to me.)
Or
Should we let it have this freedom, even if it makes the format more bullshit?

 

[Qaos-System]

‖ː‖`I think that banning Tera Blast is entirely pointless 'cause the most broken abusers o' the mechanic don't run it to begin with. I also don't think that Tera Type should be shown in team-preview since that's not a feature within the game itself, so it would be an unfaithful addition to the game. I'd personally prefer an outright ban, but if not that then I think that limiting Tera Type to a type the mon has anyway is a good compromise.`‖ː‖

 

[ayevon]

Tera enables a lot more 50-50s and win-or-lose assumptions in a format (1v1) that is already briming with them.
1800 elo game, go turn 14:
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1730286183-kg6aq2bxxyhpz3c3nj5xt457auxrkt5pw

ROB MY PLUG switched out his Mega Weavile when the Great Tusk was pulled He was banded locked with an Ice move. Why would he do that then? Cause he predicted that Great Tusk would Tera water and punish him afterwards. Which didn't happen, and cost him the game. If it were to happen and he left Chien-Pao there, he would have lost his only way to deal with his opponent's Chien Pao.
Completely bullshit scenario, all cause of Tera.

But Pokemon always had this problem, for examples items, move coverage, etc. Sure there is a logic behind these elements (if you consider that your opponent has a balanced team ie that doesn't hyperfocus on certain threat type, assumption that might not be true), like no more than one scarfed mon, but in the end you make assumptions, that can cost you a game. For example you check that a mon is scarfed or not, you learn that he is scarfed. Another mon is thrown by your opponent, you won't expect him to also be scarfed, that wouldn't make any sense since he would get mogged by stall teams. But too bad, he was also scarfed, and you lost.
Or a classic example: Landorus leads with stealth rock. Of course he is a defensive/SD Landorus! And then right at the end of the match, you learn the hard way that he was always scarfed.

So I think the question about Tera should be:
Should we make 1v1 OU more fair?
(but 1v1 OU will never be fully intellect determined as we've seen but also thanks to accuracy moves, sleep, flinch, etc., so why push Tera outside of the "acceptable" perimeter? Seems arbitrary to me.)
Or
Should we let it have this freedom, even if it makes the format more bullshit?

he literally switches moves later in the battle, he wasn't banded

 

[RaichuBestMon]

he literally switches moves later in the battle, he wasn't banded

He couldn't have OHKO Great Tusk anyways then?
IF that's the case, all my analysis becomes worthless, but please try to understand the point I was trying to illustrate with that example.

 

[Goodbye & Thanks]

At the bottom of this post, Storm Zone says that he feels like "only 1-2 mons are seemingly broken with tera." To my knowledge, he never specified what mons (although it would be great to hear from him who he was referring to), but I do agree that to me at least, Tera mainly feels like a problem with abusers like Kingambit and Dragonite. I think that they feel the most egregious to me since they're able to sweep with the right Tera and it can undo any advantage that was established throughout the game. However, I come from mainly an SM background and that sounds eerily similar to how "the right Magearna set" could win almost any game. I've seen many people try to compare Z-moves and Terastallization, but I don't think it's a great comparison and I won't try to force it. Instead, I think that the way that SM was tiered can be instructive when considering Terastallization. Sure, there are many people that feel like Z-moves added too much variance or too high of a power level to SM and they still believe that they should have been banned (I think that McMeghan has said that before, for example), and that's an understandable viewpoint to have. Similarly, I can understand people who think that Tera will always add too much variance and should be banned for that reason. What I think everyone can agree upon though is ultimately, if everything else is equal, it would be ideal to keep the core mechanic of a generation in the game. If it's initially decided that there are just a few mons that abuse Tera too much, what would be the best way to handle tiering then? Do you ban those mons and see if the metagame stabilizes more without them but Tera still remaining in the tier? If even without the problematic mons, it's decided that Tera should be banned, do you go back and retest the mons that were banned during a Tera metagame? I assume that there wouldn't be a need to retest things like Flutter Mane or Iron Bundle, like how Galarian Darmanitan didn't get retested after Dynamax was banned, but what if something like Kingambit ends up being considered an unhealthy abuser of Terastallization that is otherwise a suitable OU mon? I guess it's conceivable that you could just retest different mons without Tera but it seems messier the more things get reintroduced. Even if there is a way to establish a healthy metagame with Tera in it but it comes at the cost of needing to ban certain mons that Tera pushed over the edge, how do you establish what the line is to justify banning mons and not Tera? Hypothetically, if the presence of Tera necessitates the ban of three mons, would that be worth it for Tera to remain in the tier? I don't like talking in hypotheticals and I'm trying to avoid any theorymoning, since I've found that to usually just be a waste of time, but I'm just trying to illustrate how it's a difficult and subjective question that doesn't have a perfect answer. If it becomes clear that Tera either is completely fine or doesn't belong at all in the tier, I don't think that there will be a need to worry much about the decision, but if the tier is deemed "close" to being stable with Tera, I don't envy having to make the decision about if you suspect specific mons to make the tier more hospitable to Tera or if you just go after Tera. I apologize as well if there's already been discussions and clarifications about these specific scenarios; I haven't read too many of the numerous posts in this thread.

I feel like it's also difficult to decide when tiering action should be taken on Terastallization, if ever. Going back to the imperfect SM analogy for a second (since it's the tier I'm most experienced in), the tier has adapted to different Z-moves (and even Hidden Powers on things like Volc and Koko), and it settled into a healthy and consistent meta - I'm biased here but it's undeniable that certain top players have had extremely consistent SM results and that the tier didn't devolve into complete variance and matchup fishing. Sure, things like "the right Magearna set" that I mentioned can feel stupid, but that's more about Magearna just being arguably the best mon in the tier. Building and playing of SM has been molded by the sets that have become established due to their reliabilities. For example, if Lando goes for an SD, you can't rely on using your Tangrowth to check it since you may just get blown away by Z-Fly. That isn't something that's unpredictable - it's just team constructions in the tier adjusting to some of the trends brought about by Z-Moves. Back to Terastallization, I think that it would be harder to account for different Tera scenarios in the builder, since there are just more permutations, but I guess that having 6 Tera options yourself at your disposal can help with it. An example of this is that I've seen some Rotom-Wash run Tera Steel to beat the Tera Normal Extreme Speed Dragonites that could otherwise muscle past Rotom. If you've built your team in a way that you're relying on Rotom to answer the prominent threat of DD Dragonite, then you can account for the situation and prepare in the builder by utilizing Tera yourself. That feels like a healthy metagame development to me, but it's also just an isolated example. A team can never be built to have answers for every possible threat in a metagame, but Tera also shouldn't make it so that if you can't account for every particular Tera on the opposing team, then you'll just lose. I don't think that it's that powerful (yet, at least) where an unexpected Tera can automatically lose you a game without any course for reclamation, except with a few notable examples, like Kingambit. Even if you do lose a game to a particularly out-there and unforeseeable Tera type, that Tera strategy would have likely been unpredictable for a good reason - it wouldn't be reliably consistent over a larger sample of games. I think that sometimes people get fixated on specific examples of losing to weird sets and feel like it's unfair, and everyone, from the newest players to someone like ABR, has inevitably felt that frustration before, but when you tunnel vision in on those frustratingly random situations, you lose sight of how that random set probably doesn't perform well in the majority of games, otherwise it wouldn't be random. Pokemon is an inherently inconsistent game with randomness being introduced from things like team matchups, move accuracy, damage rolls, secondary effects, and crits. The fact that even despite all of that variance, there are so many consistent top players is a testament to how building and striving for consistent teams and play can be achieved.

So to conclude this likely overly-long post, I'll reiterate my main thoughts: it becomes very tricky to decide if Tera is the problem or if it's a handful of specific mons that abuse Tera and should be scrutinized, and if it's the latter, at what point are there too many problematic mons with Tera to justify keeping Tera in the tier? Compounding this complication is the question about how long do you allow a meta to adapt to Tera before considering testing/banning further components. If you don't give the meta enough time to even out, you'll never know if it could become manageable and healthy through players adapting with their teams and play. If you take too much time before additional tiering, then you run the risk of letting the meta devolve into chaos, stifling potential growth that could stem from playing a healthier metagame. I tend to feel like it's better to be cautious and patient with tiering decisions to see how/if the meta can adapt, but I'm also cognizant that there is something to be said about wanting to capitalize on the popularity of a new tier and trying to make it as healthy as possible quickly. Again, I'm sorry if one of the tiering leaders has already addressed these questions and I missed it. Regardless, tiering SV, and particularly everything swirling around Terastallization, seems like a headache and I hope that everyone can be reasonable and understanding about whatever tiering action is settled on.

 

[Seth Vilo]

I've been lurking for a while and starting to get a handle on the ladder and Terastalization in general. I have been playing since mid-Gen 4 and have been invested in laddering and general Smogon tiers since then, even heading up a podcast sub-show analyzing Smogon tiers and shifts each month up until recently (it was looped into the main show again). I've also been reading through this forum since its creation, watching and playing battles, and reading through the forum in other places to get a general feel on the meta and this mechanic in particular. While I'm not as experienced or articulate as some others on this thread, I think I have a couple of points to highlight as well as generally voice my opinion as a member of this community. Preface complete, here goes.

I believe that Terastalazation is one of the more interesting, unique, and potentially pervasive mechanics we have ever had to consider. The fact that every Pokemon on a team can at any point either augment its own typing or shift to a completely different one is entirely unprecedented and difficult for us all to wrap our heads around as we battle. It's something we a community have to tackle before much else is considered for QB or Suspecting too, thanks to it being the potential factor on if anything from this point needs bans or not. I also think that it - at a large-scale level - is a fairly manageable mechanic and worth maintaining. From reading this thread, one person did a magnificent job articulating what I was already feeling on my own ladder climbing; "advaita" posted about their thoughts here, which has been referenced by several other folks in this thread already. I largely agree with their opinions, and they put them into words - with replays - in a way that I couldn't have. I highly recommend giving that a read if you haven't yet.

Right now, I support either No Tiering Action or Reveal Tera-Types at Team Preview. I want to highlight specific thoughts about the latter option though. As we know, Smogon as a whole aims to implement the battles as close to on-cartridge as we can, within reason. I have seen that several times as a counter-argument for the "Reveal at Team Preview" option. That said, there are several deviations from on-cartridge that we have enjoyed for years that make our world notably different from pure on-cart. Some examples include:

• Percentage Clause: for those who remember back in 2013 and 2016, there was debate on if we should present health as percentages or as pixels as they do on cartridge. Those discussions can be seen here (original post), here (decision to report % and pixels), and here (retracting the pixels decision). The decision was made to maintain it as percentages even though this is unfaithful to on-cart.
• PP Tracking: You can hover over sprites to see the exact remaining PP on moves through the battle
• Other Hover Data: similar to above, hovering over Pokemon lets you quickly see potential abilities and possible Speed stats
• Sleep Clause: this clause actively prevents another Pokemon from being put to sleep, which cart doesn't reproduce

Those are just a few examples. My point in listing these are that we have already strayed away from on-cart mechanics with little to no complaints. One further "gentleman's agreement" clause to reveal Tera-type seems no different to me than the clause to show HP as a percentage or revealing remaining PP or stats. Being required to disclose my own Tera types and seeing theirs at the same time seems very fair as well in efforts to preserve the mechanic.

If the community comes to the decision that SOME action must be taken or tried on Terastilization, I think Reveal at Team Preview is the only viable option that doesn't introduce more complicated rules to the mechanic or gut it entirely.

• Restricting to only your STAB types is only half the issue and unfairly skews the mechanic in Offense's favor.
• Similarly, restricting to non-STAB types could skew in the opposite direction for Defense, but seems the fairer of the two given that Offense can also take advantage of it. (That non-STAB Only could be a third option for Tera, but not one I have articulate thoughts on yet so I'm not elaborating on it at this time).
• Tera Blast hasn't been too oppressive either, so banning that move won't have much of an impact on the strength of the mechanic (and therefore may not be enough if some action is taken).
• Meanwhile, Reveal at Team Preview is just more information at the start of the game. It may not help higher ladder players much since as you climb you start to predict Tera types more accurately and can plan around them. However, it removes some of the largest complaints I've seen about the mechanic as a whole, which is the cheese of randomly shifting to a completely unexpected type and being unstoppable.

On a personal note, I'll also add that this is just about the most fun I've ever had in a generation. This mechanic and our pool of Pokemon (sans a few like a certain stupid motorcycle lizard) have sparked such a strong resurgence into playing for me. I've also had to be extremely strategic in these games, and my skillful plays and predictions are well-rewarded. Several games I've Tera'd and won, several more I've never even needed to and it was a "regular game". It's all down to the match. But this is the most fun I've had in a long time, and I'm reignited. I know it's just anecdotal from a currently mid-ladder player, but one who has been around a good while and experienced many ebbs and flows and is having a great time.

In all (and tl;dr), I support maintaining Terastilaztion in OU and No Tiering Action first, with Reveal Tera-Type at Team Preview a very close second. The latter of those would be great for a Suspect ladder to see if problems and strain are eased, which I wholeheartedly support.

Hitting post before I edit this to death.

 

[rubythebee3]

My thoughts:

Full Ban: Not a fan of this one but it might need to happen considering the unbalanced nature. Only time will tell if it'll be legal in Ubers after OU I guess, if that's what ends up happening.

Tera Preview: I like this one, but it has opportunities for heavy heavy mindgames, and I think it could end up being in a situation where people are putting random stuff on their team to make it seem like it has more options than it does. Doesn't seem uncompetitive necessarily, just something that has the potential to devolve into something bad.

Limiting Total Tera Possibilities: This is my favorite idea given one thing. You need to show which Pokemon can Terastalize in team preview for this to work. Here's my pitch. Not showing but limiting which one can Tera accomplishes nothing. Effectively no change to the meta other than giving the individual less options. The opponent would always need to keep in mind the potential for X type on X threat. Showing which one can give opportunities for good and competitive teambuilding, still keeps a little bit of the potential for unexpected situations, and removes the problem of needing to constantly consider which option is going to Terastalize.

Only STAB Types: This doesn't do anything, just remove it at this point.

Banning Tera Blast: This Wouldn't do anything either, although I think it's a different discussion entirely. We should think about banning this move after we figure out what to do with Terastalization in the first place. If we keep it legal, probably should ban this move. If not, no need I guess.

No Regulation: I don't think this can ever work. The mechanic isn't competitive. Can be fun, but not competitive, and that's what's being discussed.

 

[RaichuBestMon]

I still don't understand what justifies drawing the line at Tera's level... why is it here that we are putting the limit of what is uncompetitive but acceptable and what is uncompetitive but unacceptable?

An example: letting teams have 2 or more of the same item is not competitive as it decreases the value of "item intel" choices by players. But we still let it rock because it allows more freedom (and more fun).

Tera is exactly the same thing! Banning it would be extremely arbitrary as 1v1 pokemon is not a 100% merit based game with or without Tera, so at least let us keep that freedom...
And if you ban it, you would need to establish a clear metric that would explain why Tera is more uncompetitive than some other features.

 

[Parrot6632]

I still don't understand what justifies drawing the line at Tera's level... why is it here that we are putting the limit of what is uncompetitive but acceptable and what is uncompetitive but unacceptable?

An example: letting teams have 2 or more of the same item is not competitive as it decreases the value of "item intel" choices by players. But we still let it rock because it allows more freedom (and more fun).

Tera is exactly the same thing! Banning it would be extremely arbitrary as 1v1 pokemon is not a 100% merit based game with or without Tera, so at least let us keep that freedom...
And if you ban it, you would need to establish a clear metric that would explain why Tera is more uncompetitive than some other features.

this is my confusion as well, I would argue held items are much less competitive then tera ever could be. Compared to 17 different tera types, there’s 50+ options for held items. While tera can only be used on a single Pokémon during the match, every Pokémon on your team can hold an item and get the benefits for the entire game. While tera is limited to a single type change and a new stab boost, held items can perform any number of functions from damage to health recovery to stat boosts to nullifying certain status moves to stopping hazards etc. And absolutely nothing about held items is revealed to your opponent at the start of a match, or can only be used on one Pokémon, or are banned completely, etc.

To me, the only reason tera is such a hot topic and held items aren’t is that held items have been around since the beginning, and tera is the new kid on the block. Whenever you introduce randomness into a game, you’re directly decreasing its competitiveness, and yet there’s a reason why we don’t play with full pokepastes and ban every move with a 10% chance to freeze. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ban obvious problems like baton pass, or that you can’t strive for a competitive environment anyways, but randomness is at the core of Pokémon and at some point you have to decide whether you want to play Pokémon or chess.

 

[Nish the Great]

I still don't understand what justifies drawing the line at Tera's level... why is it here that we are putting the limit of what is uncompetitive but acceptable and what is uncompetitive but unacceptable?

An example: letting teams have 2 or more of the same item is not competitive as it decreases the value of "item intel" choices by players. But we still let it rock because it allows more freedom (and more fun).

Tera is exactly the same thing! Banning it would be extremely arbitrary as 1v1 pokemon is not a 100% merit based game with or without Tera, so at least let us keep that freedom...
And if you ban it, you would need to establish a clear metric that would explain why Tera is more uncompetitive than some other features.

Alright looks like people have once again forgotten what "uncompetitive" means. Uncompetitive means anything that takes skill/prediction out of the hands of your opponent. King's rock is uncompetitive because there is no way to avoid rolling the dice on whether you get to play the game. Baton pass is uncompetitive because it uses next to zero skill to beat anyone not running one of about 2 very specific counters.

Terastal is, for my money, not uncompetitive. It's based on prediction, and while that can be somewhat luck-based, its possible to determine from gamestate and knowledge of good tera types. Is it overpowered? Maybe, idk.

Holding multiple of the same item is not uncompetitive at all. It simply changes the way you scout for items, or rather, it doesn't change it, because item clause is not a cartridge mechanic for singles.

Items are not nearly as unpredictable as terastal, by the way. A ton of items can be scouted for by hitting the opponent (leftovers, rocky helmet), setting up hazards (boots), or checking calcs and seeing how your opponent plays (choice items), and there's never the same constant worry that they might kick into overdrive that forces you to play super cautiously or make very risky predictions.

Also are you suggesting we intentionally make the game less skill based?

 

[RaichuBestMon]

Alright looks like people have once again forgotten what "uncompetitive" means. Uncompetitive means anything that takes skill/prediction out of the hands of your opponent. King's rock is uncompetitive because there is no way to avoid rolling the dice on whether you get to play the game. Baton pass is uncompetitive because it uses next to zero skill to beat anyone not running one of about 2 very specific counters.

Terastal is, for my money, not uncompetitive. It's based on prediction, and while that can be somewhat luck-based, its possible to determine from gamestate and knowledge of good tera types. Is it overpowered? Maybe, idk.

Holding multiple of the same item is not uncompetitive at all. It simply changes the way you scout for items, or rather, it doesn't change it, because item clause is not a cartridge mechanic for singles.

Items are not nearly as unpredictable as terastal, by the way. A ton of items can be scouted for by hitting the opponent (leftovers, rocky helmet), setting up hazards (boots), or checking calcs and seeing how your opponent plays (choice items), and there's never the same constant worry that they might kick into overdrive that forces you to play super cautiously or make very risky predictions.

Also are you suggesting we intentionally make the game less skill based?

You are wrong on so many levels.

You realize "predictions" are equivalent to "mindgames", because at key turns in one game there are a non-single number of possible options. You can predict whatever you want, but at the end you never have the garantee that your opponent will play optimally, or even that he knows that you know that he knows... one great prediction, so he'll purposely set up himself in a otherwise unoptimal way.
Simple example: not switching to Gholdengo against a Great Tusk when you have 3 layers of spikes and stealth rock on the field (which cost velvet a game here):
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1729898915-p76b4u1rt2hxd74r2h9g7vza54rqnsqpw

So no, skill in Pokemon is not a matter of "prediction", mindgames are by definition uncompetitive and smogon has historically always tried to avoid them. It was the main justification with Cradovish ban during SS.

Skill in Pokemon is one of risk management. Knowing all the possible good options by your opponent, after having figured out some key intel points and having a sense of their gameplan, how can you stay in the green (or get greener) the next turn?

 

[Ardy]

this is my confusion as well, I would argue held items are much less competitive then tera ever could be. Compared to 17 different tera types, there’s 50+ options for held items. While tera can only be used on a single Pokémon during the match, every Pokémon on your team can hold an item and get the benefits for the entire game. While tera is limited to a single type change and a new stab boost, held items can perform any number of functions from damage to health recovery to stat boosts to nullifying certain status moves to stopping hazards etc. And absolutely nothing about held items is revealed to your opponent at the start of a match, or can only be used on one Pokémon, or are banned completely, etc.

To me, the only reason tera is such a hot topic and held items aren’t is that held items have been around since the beginning, and tera is the new kid on the block. Whenever you introduce randomness into a game, you’re directly decreasing its competitiveness, and yet there’s a reason why we don’t play with full pokepastes and ban every move with a 10% chance to freeze. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t ban obvious problems like baton pass, or that you can’t strive for a competitive environment anyways, but randomness is at the core of Pokémon and at some point you have to decide whether you want to play Pokémon or chess.

This is such a weird take to me. Why is everyone jumping on this arguement? Items are in no way uncompetitive, and that is largely because offensive items have a drawback. If the Choice Band was just a flat 1.5x boost to attack with no drawback, it would be banned, and rightfully so, because it would be ridiculously powerful for very little cost. You could argue that defensive items like Leftovers or HDB are drawback free, but lefties is a very manageable 6% recover per turn and the competitiveness of HDB has been questioned before, but largely only due to how powerful it is with Regen.

I think Tera had the potential to be balanced, but GF fucked up big time by letting you keep your STAB bonus even after the type change. This makes it wayyy more offensively potent than it should have been, and makes it a drawback free type change, either in a way that removes your weaknesses on offensive mons or gives your offensive mons three STABs. Wheres the drawback in that?

Also, this wasnt you, but the asinine take that no item clause is uncompetitive in singles just aint it. We had item clause in Pokemon Online for a time if I remember correctly, and it was miserable teambuilding because the pool of viable items is just not that big.

You have:
Lefties
Life Orb (very situational)
Heavy Duty Boots
Choice items
Rocky Helmet
Assault Vest (pretty situational and not an automatic fit on most teams)

Forcing only 1 per item on a team is uncompetitive, because at the end of the day it would hurt pokemon diversity. Youd have to play very specific teamcomps in order to take full advantage of every item, and thats just not competitive at all. Idk where the idea that "theres 50+ items you can run" comes from, because theres not. Most items are solidly outclassed by better options.

 

[Smashburn]

I'd just like to take a moment and add to my previous thinking. Terastalization causes the use of multiple Pokemon just to check a singular threat that can have multiple variations (sound familiar? I.E. Kyurem in SSOU) and causes huge 50/50s as well as artificially increased RPS matchups. That in itself is already obviously broken, and no amount of makeup could ever fix that. Not to mention the huge amount of pokemon that are problematic BECAUSE of Terastalization, not the other way around. If you removed Terastalization those pokemon would be nowhere near as problematic, including some of these Unaware mons like Clodsire, Dondozo, and Skeledirge that have recieved some attention, and those offense members like Dragonite, Iron Valiant, etc. Among other issues that we are currently dealing with.

Quite frankly, I think it would be the single biggest tiering mistake ever made in Smogon tiering history if Terastalization gets overlooked because Smogon leadership opts for out-of-rulebook options to fit it into an unnatural position for the sake of preserving it (gentleman's agreement clause). It is not within cartridge limitations from Nintendo / Gamefreak who have already explicitly stated that there are no limitations on Terastalization, including in VGC, or traditional Smogon tiering policy. Not to mention the long term implications on how tiering is done from now on if this isn't immediately corrected or publicly reasoned with. Realistically, the two options we have that aren't violations of longstanding and clearly defined / implied tiering policy are the two we started with: Should Terastalization be BANNED? OR Should Terastalization STAY? I doubt that the council has entirely foregone what built Smogon from the ground up, but I and a large portion of this tier are rightfully concerned, and I myself am going to be both disappointed and disgusted if this is treated as a long-term solution as part of the host generation's mainstream tiers for the remainder of our time here. This solution is not within the intended mechanics of Terastalization, nor has it ever been.

Teralstalization causes more problems than it's worth, and this restriction is just a temporary band aid offered as a substitution for the sterile environment we would need to truly test it. The gentlemen's agreement is just chaotic and all around unnecessary, and I feel that needs publicly addressed with the council for at least some sort of answer.

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.

 

[Parrot6632]

Also, this wasnt you, but the asinine take that no item clause is uncompetitive in singles just aint it. We had item clause in Pokemon Online for a time if I remember correctly, and it was miserable teambuilding because the pool of viable items is just not that big.

You have:
Lefties
Life Orb (very situational)
Heavy Duty Boots
Choice items
Rocky Helmet
Assault Vest (pretty situational and not an automatic fit on most teams)

Forcing only 1 per item on a team is uncompetitive, because at the end of the day it would hurt pokemon diversity. Youd have to play very specific teamcomps in order to take full advantage of every item, and thats just not competitive at all. Idk where the idea that "theres 50+ items you can run" comes from, because theres not. Most items are solidly outclassed by better options.

Fun Fact, this also applies to tera types. For instance, Howling moon is most likely not going to tera into bug. I simply mentioned every possible item because people like to say a pokemon could be any type, even if realistically its only one of a few options.

 

[Ardy]

Fun Fact, this also applies to tera types. For instance, Howling moon is most likely not going to tera into bug for instance. I simply mentioned every possible item because people like to say a pokemon could be any type, even if realistically its only one of a few options.

Fun fact, very few people are saying that every pokemon is able to run every tera type.

 

[alephgalactus]

the pool of viable items is just not that big.

You have:
Lefties
Life Orb (very situational)
Heavy Duty Boots
Choice items
Rocky Helmet
Assault Vest (pretty situational and not an automatic fit on most teams)

Except there’s a lot more viable items than just those. When I’m on ladder, in addition to what you’ve already mentioned, I’m seeing Focus Sash, Black Sludge, Air Balloon, Booster Energy, Light Clay, Lum Berry, Eviolite, and even the occasional type-boosting item or pinch berry. I’m also starting to see a lot of Red Card on hazard-stacking teams, so I’ll throw that in there too. Leaving those out of that list—especially Booster Energy, Air Balloon and Light Clay, which all play significant parts in the current meta—seems disingenuous. Hell, I usually end up running 6 different items on a team even without Item Clause.

 

[Srn]

Alright time to take a stab at this

I'd like to preface this post by saying I don't find Tera as restricting as many people say in this thread. People act like this is the second coming of Dynamax when it's not even close. Dynamax was literally a free Power Construct Zygarde with multiple Contrary Draco Meteors... It was absolutely braindead compared to Terastallization and I'm glad it got banned. Mind games are not uncompetitive. They are perfectly fine within reasonable limit. I see Turn 5 in this game the same way I play around something like Z-Freeze Shock Kyurem-B in SM. I can either a) scout / mid-ground around Tera or b) go for the immediate prediction in this case. The fact he brought Kingambit in so recklessly also screams the potential swap to either Ghost- or Flying-type. Here is another high ladder game that demonstrates how you can scout Tera instead of going for an immediate prediction (Turn 25). Overall, the mechanic does have a bit of guessing involved but it's not anything overly egregious like a lot of the "every turn is a 50/50!!!" arguments in this thread are making it out to be. I will demonstrate more of these scenarios in the replay section, but in short I do not think Terastallization is worth taking tiering action on yet because its applications are mostly balanced offensively and defensively:

Most of what you said is correct here but I want to emphasize that scouting is not some get out of jail free card. Just as you want to scout, your opponent can also choose to hide and fire out free attacks while you are messing around. In fact, let's break down all the options that could have happened at turn 25:

1. Chien pao clicks ice spinner as dnite remains dragon/flying and dies
2. Chien pao clicks Ice spinner as dnite tera's normal and clicks fire punch, then wins by clicking espeed
3. Chien pao clicks sacred sword as dnite remains dragon/flying and clicks fire punch, then wins with espeed
4. Chien pao clicks sacred sword as dnite tera's normal and dies
5. Swap into rotom-w and dnite remains dragon/flying and clicks fire punch, leading you back to scenarios 1-4
6. Swap into rotom-w and dnite tera's normal and clicks fire punch, allowing chien pao to safely revenge kill with sacred sword (real outcome)
7. Swap into rotom-w as dnite either remains dragon/flying or teras normal and clicks dd, killing rotom-w and killing chien pao with tera normal+fire punch, tanking potential ice shard.

So yeah, it would be nice if it was just a 50/50. To me, this is more than just "a bit of guessing." Unfortunately it's a lot more complicated, and this could be worse if tera was preserved on both sides. Notice how scouting in this situation does not solve your problem, and in many cases you can lose BECAUSE you decided to scout. You're creating far too much variance and guesswork in an endgame that chien pao should just straight up win. Situations like these are imo the biggest reason why tera should be banned.

Offensive Applications - Adding STAB

Adding STAB is one of the most common ways Terastallization is abused-- Volcarona's Giga Drain, Dragonite's Extreme Speed, Roaring Moon's Acrobatics... and a lot of users of this application tend to be predictable! When someone sends out one of the aforementioned Pokemon, any competent player knows what Tera most of these Pokemon settle with. Roaring Moon is the most versatile of all the Tera users in this category, but I would rather see a Suspect Test for it vs banning Tera in order to limit it. Second of all, not every Pokemon has the versatility of a Roaring Moon. I have experimented with unique sets such as Tera-Psychic Volcarona to get past Unaware Clodsire, but overall the set is an inconsistent matchup fish. While one can argue there are "too many possibilities", the reality of the situation is that most people on the higher end of competitive play are not going to pull up with Tera-Bug X-Scissor Iron Valiant, then proceed to sweep you 6-0.

This is definitely a bit extreme so I'd like to display a more realistic example. Here is my Round 2 tournament replay of the No Johns SV Release Tournament. Turn 17 reveals that my opponent's Volcarona has a tech in Tera Blast-Ice. It is clear that the intention of this set is to snipe Dragonite and defensive Garchomp. However, I did not have either of these Pokemon. Thus, all the set really accomplished was get phazed out then die to Sacred Sword later due to how awful Ice is defensively. If my opponent was the standard Giga Drain or Bug Buzz, my opponent could have preserved his Tera for something else and not be forced to burn it off to chip my Ting-Lu. Matchup fishes have existed for generations at this point, and using unique Tera sets still have an opportunity cost (albeit less compared to Z-Moves due to having no item lock). Overall, I find this aspect of Terastallization to be balanced.

As I've stated many times in this thread, pokemon settling into certain tera types is expected, but this does not make them predictable. As I illustrated in the previous breakdown, despite dragonite's predictable tera normal, you are forced to navigate a maze of guesswork purely from the TIMING of when dragonite will tera normal. I find this aspect of tera to be unbalanced.

Not much to say about your replay, as you say some tera applications are just matchup fishes. Yes these are unpredictable, but this isn't really the focus of my problem with tera, and like you show, when the matchup fish fails, it's less useful than standard sets.

Defensive Applications - Switching To Superior Defensive Typings

Another common way Terastallization is abused is by switching to "S-Tier" defensive typings such as Fairy, Water, and Steel. Skeledirge prefers Fairy as it allows it to function as Unaware Clefable did in previous generations, while still abusing what makes the base form great in Torch Song, Slack Off, and Will-O-Wisp. Even on more niche Pokemon, competent players can predict what typings are most likely to come out. Turn 50 of this high ladder match I played today is a great example. I was testing Arcanine and my opponent made a great play of clicking Ice Spinner, which covers both the possibility of me Terastallizing into a Fairy-type and also the potential Ting-Lu sack. There are only so many consistent typings that defensive Pokemon like to use. The final thing I would like to say is that defensive Tera will not cost entire games. For example, even if Clodsire surprises your Espathra by Tera'ing into a Dark-type, the most it will be doing is dropping a Toxic or 40% with Earthquake. I find this application of Terastallization to be balanced. I actually think it's healthy because of the breathing room it can provide teams not only in the builder, but also in practice.

I generally agree with your analysis here and I don't have as much of an issue here because defensive pokemon tend to be more passive and thus don't force the kind of guesswork I laid out earlier. In order to switch to a better typing on your walls, you are definitely sacrificing the offensive power and unpredictability that tera could otherwise provide for you. I also find this aspect of tera to be pretty balanced.

Offensive Applications - Compounding STAB

The fact that you can basically give any of your Pokemon an Adaptability boost can feel unfair at times. Chien-Pao goes from a great Pokemon to a Suspect Test worthy candidate by Tera'ing into an existing stab such as Ice or Dark. Chi-Yu is another Pokemon that goes from balanced to unmanageable defensively because Tera'ing into a Dark-type drops your weakness to Stealth Rock and allows you to cleanly 2HKO would be counters such as Clodsire. Dragapult is another offender as Choice Specs Dragapult has historically been held back by its low power, but by compounding your Ghost-type stab, it becomes stupid to deal with considering its 142 base speed tier. The only opportunity cost with the latter is you have to drop your Dragon-type defensively, but the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks.

While I do find this aspect of Tera to be unbalanced, I don't think it's unmanageable. A lot of Pokemon do lose their ability to consistently counter threats, but this does not effect many checks. Iron Valiant is still revenge killing a Chien-Pao, even if it's a +2 Tera-Dark Adamant Life Orb Sucker Punch. Tera can even be used reactively to deal with these proactive strategies such as Tera'ing Gholdengo into a Fighting-type. More defensive playstyles are effected the worse by this but this isn't anything new. Every generation has playstyles that are more dominant than the others, and despite this, defensive playstyles are still thriving in current SV OU. I have seen many players on the higher end of the ladder using stall, and, as we saw in the SV Release Tournament, balance and BO are very much viable! This is most likely due to us getting 3 new great Unaware users (all of which use Tera amazingly btw); the recent bans of Palafin and Iron Bundle have also allowed for more flexibility in the teambuilder of all archetypes as we can see in z0mog's series.

Again mostly agree with your analysis here, but I don't think it's manageable long term. Offensively, tera will enable new powerhouses like regieleki and regidrago, and I don't think that defensive teamstyles will be able to keep up in the end. I also find this aspect of tera to be unbalanced.

Defensive Applications - The Best Offense Is A Good Defense

I could not find a simpler way to phrase this so I'm going to start off with an example. Kingambit has been using Tera-Flying recently, even though none of its stabs benefit from it. Why? Because it allows you 1v1 Great Tusk. Annihilape is another good example as changing to the Water- or Normal-type limits the amount of the options to revenge kill it, where the Ghost / Fighting typing would otherwise fall short with its common weaknesses to Moonblast and Shadow Ball. Similar to Roaring Moon, I'd rather see tiering action on Annihilape instead of axe'ing Tera. Finally, we have the aforementioned Gholdengo turning into a Fighting-type to check Sucker Punch users such as Chien-Pao in a pinch. While this form of Tera is very powerful, it's not outright winning games as we can see in the replays below. In the case of Flying-type Kingambit, Great Tusk can still get meaningful chip with Knock Off, while Ice Spinner is a very viable option on its own. This form of Tera is very balanced because the metagame can adapt to it and I'd actually argue it promotes more creativity in the teambuilder.

I find this form of tera to be extremely unbalanced and it is the main application that I have a problem with. You can axe annihilape for rage fist reasons, but pokemon like kingambit and dragonite consistently force dangerous amounts of tera guesswork in the lategame, as I've already shown. I also disagree that the metagame can adapt to it because this is assuming you can account for everything in your builder. Covering tera ghost/tera flying kingambit that might also stay dark/steel can be a challenge by itself, and accounting for common tera types of every offensive and defensive threat simply isn't possible. You can use your own tera types to help, but I don't think it's enough.

In the following section I'll just comment on replays where I disagree with your analysis.

velvet vs Lusa
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724584897-gwtwmf5e845732jo952tq5srtsiefl1pw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724604689-udm3pf6jc7lt6e62pn1w0s6390rwfobpw

Game 1: Iron Valiant's Tera here allows Lusa to avoid a potential speed tie kill from velvet's Iron Valiant. Tera is a major factor here but it doesn't outright win Lusa the game as the counter play still would have existed via Extreme Speed had velvet won the tie. Tera's inclusion here doesn't make this game any less competitive than it could have been without the mechanic.
Game 2: Tera-Ghost Ting-Lu is phenomenal teambuilding from velvet's side to force chip damage on Annihilape. I absolutely loved that interaction. Lusa's use of Tera will probably be more controversial, but I stand by this opinion that Shadow Ball was never the play. If Lusa ended up being the Tera-Water or Tera-Fairy set, Shadow Ball would not have killed and you'd still lose another Pokemon in this exchange. Tera-Normal was a very real possibility as well (ends up being the case). My suggestion? Trick could have avoided all of this, allowing you to keep Corviknight late-game for Dragonite. The reality of the situation is that Annihilape is the main culprit for the uncompetitive aspect of this game, not Tera itself.

If trick was the out, why tera ghost with ting-lu at all? I feel like getting the trick off+having helmet corv might have been a better game plan as rage fist's power would not have gone up this way. Either way, tera was used pretty suboptimally in this game and I can't disagree with the overall bolded portion of your blurb here.

bdov vs jay
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724725212-a7rvd199j439cmbysgz5i8cc2z2it38pw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724729269-vqg762sqqhbg6obsjskj1pcijmr31tqpw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724739495-m9sinajqne96ha17c0mgon9wlvohx47pw

Game 1: Game was done at the point Kingambit swapped to Tera-Flying, but I can see why someone would find that interaction as uncompetitive, despite myself touching on it in the intro and in "Defensive Applications - The Best Offense Is A Good Defense."
Game 2: Fairy Skeledirge is to be expected at this point, and jay was prepared on how to manuever around it.
Game 3: No significant uses of Tera.

Yeah game 1 actually isn't the kind of thing I'm complaining about. Tera flying was defensively the best move there all of the time to avoid eq+drain punch killing you, so there wasn't much guesswork involved at that point. The game was lost when ting-lu did 10x more work than it should have, and yeah it's a silly showcase of tera but not my main problem.

So Noisy vs Z Strats
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724864509-apwokgtmavy17p0h5he1qjr9vwke02kpw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724867338-c4exe0jbihgo8ev6ttrcly2xrliy18rpw
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1724872048-2kd2jwkawef9vrsnep569ipmkvsz0ggpw

Game 1: Sucker Punch would not have killed even without Tera and Tera-Fairy Espathra is to be expected at this point.
Game 2: Pretty lame game tbh, but once again, I'd rather see tiering action on Annihilape instead of banning the mechanic. Annihilape is one of the most broken Pokemon in the tier right now and Tera simply just enhances these already insane capabilities.
Game 3: Amazing interaction here. So Noisy goes for the mono-Dark typing to get the safe Swords Dance on even the potential Tera-Fighting Gholdengo. However, he reveals to be Normal- here in fact. Really cool dynamic and I love the layers it adds here. Even with So Noisy's great play, Tera alone does not win him the game as Z Strats Dragonite is able to clutch up both the game and the series.

Yeah game 1 tera fairy was always the play and Z-strats couldn't do anything about it, this is just an espathra sweep. This is a pokemon that I think is totally fair and balanced without tera but insanely good with it. Between tera fairy and tera fight, espathra is unironically one of the best sweepers in the tier, and tera is the main reason why.
Game 2 is an interesting showcase of why tera team preview might help, but ultimately I think that tera types will settle and timing is the main issue. Yes, ape needs to go eventually.
Game 3 feels like the amount of variance which is way too high. However, it was early enough in the game that both players may have been able to recover from any of the mess here with better play, so it wouldn't prove my point too much. I don't think I need to do the scenario breakdown again to prove anything here.

MZ vs Toustar
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1725067991
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1725073563
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9ou-1725079503

Game 1: Great interaction right here. Tera-Normal is the norm when it comes to Dragonite sets and Toustar shows his skill in the teambuilder by tech'ing Tera-Ghost on Chien-Pao. However, MZ scouts for that possibility by sacking Cyclizar, easily the most useless member on the team. Very complex layers added to the game due to Tera and I found this game to be very competitive, and one of the best examples on the list.
Game 2: No significant uses of Tera.
Game 3: Ghost Tera on Chien-Pao allows it to cheese past Corviknight in theory, but it wasn't revealed whether that attacking move was Body Press or Brave Bird. The final interaction is 100% uncompetitive though as Gholdengo would have forced a potential 50/50 but because of Iron Valiant's Tera-Steel, Toustar was automatically placed into the checkmate position.

I really don't think the tera interaction in game 1 is as complex as you make it out to be. In fact, since intimidate brought dnite back down to +0, chien pao did not even need to tera ghost to survive, and a standard tera dark to survive +0 fire punch would've been enough. On top of not knowing what tera to expect, you also don't know when it will come out, and simply the bluff of tera dark is enough to force dnite to switch out, because either way a +0 tera normal espeed is not killing chien pao at 75%. If dnite had remained dragon/flying, it would still have to worry about ice shard, tera or no. Swapping out dnite to try and sweep later when espeed can kill chien pao is 100% the correct play and not much of a possibility was scouted for here.

In game 3, I think the final tera interaction was just a favorable matchup fish, and isn't more uncompetitive than mechanics and metas that we already deal with.

There is still skill involved in Tera-based SV games.
I actually think there is more skill when it comes to building this generation.
Tera is just as good when used reactively, vs being used proactively.
Tera adds more layers to the game, and not in an extremely unhealthy way Dynamax did.

Based on this sample size, most of the games are either a) improved or b) not effected by Terastallization's inclusion. The amount of games in the red will decrease as the metagame continues to develop, especially if you ban Pokemon such as Annihilape which is the main culprit of most of the "uncompetitive" games highlighted above. Thus, I support no tiering action. Thank you for reading.

So yes, to sum up: Yes there is still skill involved in using tera in SV, and yes the better player still usually wins. Yes, tera types are not always unpredictable, and we've come to expect certain mons to use certain types. We're not screaming like headless chickens about 50/50s every turn every game.
The guesswork that tera forces throughout the game is difficult to illustrate without limiting options for the sake of simplicity or looking strictly at the endgame, but it's always there until tera is used up on both sides. This guesswork isn't always high stakes, especially when a defensive mon is just changing their typing, which is something that you should be ready to break anyway. But as I showed at the very beginning of this post, even predictable teras can lead to unpredictable turns. These turns do not always happen, but they happen far too often.

To answer your final statement, I think that we will find plenty of pokemon to be over the edge with tera, even as we ban more and more mons. It's clear that tera is the root cause in some cases, for example taunt ape cannot 1v1 wave crash dondozo without tera water. I believe we should be banning tera first and foremost and then move to address other broken elements of the meta. Thanks for reading. inb4 skill issue

 

[LoseToRU?]

No, HO teams inherently have limited defensive options in exchange for greater versatility in offensive win-cons and pressure. HO teams will often rely on fragile defensive options such as priority, screens and items like sash/choice scarf to respond to offensive pressure. Otherwise, HO teams will rely on predictions and good positioning of their offensive pieces to establish their own offensive pressure first and force the opponent to play defensively. Due to this, HO teams (especially versus other HO or frail offense teams) can easily lose games due to the loss of key offensive/defensive pieces which can result from anything from an incorrect lead to a misprediction on tera. Let's take the HO vs HO replay mentioned above. In this game at turn 1 "ATKerrr" positioned their chi-yu to take offensive pressure early, ChiefGreenLeaf did not account for this and their team lacked an actual chi-yu switch-in (they had to lead with something which could threaten chi-yu) and was immediately forced to sacrifice a potential offensive/defensive option (Iron hands). Losing iron hands may not seem like a big deal here, but as we can see from the end game (turns 29-31), iron hands would have been perfectly able to tank any +1 hit from dragapult ( +1 252+ Atk Dragon Fang Dragapult Dragon Darts (2 hits) vs. 252 HP / 4 Def Iron Hands: 288-338 (56.2 - 66%) -- approx. 2HKO ) and revenge kill it. Aside from a healthy iron hands, Cheif's team had no real counterplay to dragapult if it had the opportunity to setup even if it was a more standard tera type such as ghost. Iron hands also had great offensive pressure, forcing mons like corviknight and chi-yu to switch if it caught them on a free switch/ double switch.

I want to stress that HO teams will naturally have poor matchups or be unable to respond to set-up pressure (e.g. sticky web vs a trick room team or a DD dragapult). Poor positioning/failure to keep your useful offensive/defensive options healthy will cause an early loss, this is not new. Teams which lack reliable defensive options for set-up pressure (e.g. most HO teams) will naturally be forced to rely on preventing the enemy setting up in the first place, or relying saving health on potential defensive wincons in order to prevent suckerpunch 50/50s or tera 50/50s. If HO teams where the only defensive option is indeedee psychic terrain fail reliably cover the rare sucker punch DD dragapult if it has tera available, then so be it, either re-build the team to have a better defensive options such as priority, screens or hazard stack or use a more balanced build with an unaware mon ( skeledirge (with tera) or dondozo) or use a reliable phazer like ting-lu.

You have outlined some basic stuff here as far as team archetypes, and you know what you're talking about for the most part. However, it doesn't feel as if you play a lot of pure HO from your post.

Let me illustrate some things you seemingly are unaware of.
Apologies in advance if you are aware of some or all of these things, but it doesn't seem like you are.

As something as a HO expert I can tell you right now that we do whatever it takes to late game clean: sacking/sacrificing in multiple ways, either switching in on moves that kill or staying in on moves that kill. All we care about is the late game- we want mons chipped so they are in range, we want sashes gone, we want all threatening priority gone. All we care about is getting in our threat. Reverse sweeping is one of the reasons I enjoy HO so much- it feels cinematic.

Before the game started I knew what I needed to accomplish to win: Keep hazards off for Polteageist, find room to set up with Polteageist while psychic terrain is up, and clean with my scarf Chien-Pao once/if psy terrain ran out. And I did it. I analyzed my opponent's team, found this was the best win-con and executed it perfectly.

As you can see on turn 27- I even predicted Sucker Punch. I had this guy cooked, I was in his head the entire game.
I knew scarf Pao had the win at that point- Pult was either banded Sucker or Dance, but it didn't matter.
Unless they had Terra-Dark Pult- which even if I did know that was the case- it still forces a 50/50.
Ghost:
252 Atk Chien-Pao Crunch vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Dragapult affected by Sword of Ruin: 218-260 (132.9 - 158.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO
Dark:
252 Atk Chien-Pao Sacred Sword vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Dragapult affected by Sword of Ruin: 328-388 (200 - 236.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO

Sacking is actually a tool, because as you stated HO does not have much in the way of defensive counter measures.
In a non-Terra meta my win condition would have been much different.
I would have put more stock in Iron Hands, but since Terra exists, my best choice for a late game backbone was Pao to clean.
I say since Terra exists, because Poltea is much more useful as a sweeper with Terra-fighting.
In fact, without Terra, my entire team and strategy would change- anyway, I digress.

Your analysis of my gameplay is flawed, so I'm outlining the goals I had for this game so you can better understand.

"ChiefGreenLeaf did not account for this and their team lacked an actual chi-yu switch-in (they had to lead with something which could threaten chi-yu"
I did account for this. My only goal, as I said, was to position myself where 1) No hazards up 2) Psy Terrain up.
I don't care what Chi-Yu does to my team, it's just another mon that dies once I set up.

I lead with Indee to get psy terrain up first- to stop parting shot/taunt.
If they lead Glim then I go Hatt.
If they lead anything else I go Iron Hands for the sack then scare out with next mon, which I did.
Good HO is actually very textbook. Sack X to bring in Y. I win the exact same way several games a day, sometimes in a row.
For example, countless times have I let something die to Band Rilla in Gen 8 to bring in Celesteela to set up and sweep.
And many times with this team I played with in the replay, the same exact scenarios occur: Get psy terrain up, healing wish on a slower Phys attacker, send in Poltea and set up.

Another flawed perspective: "Cheif's team had no real counterplay to dragapult if it had the opportunity to setup"
HO gives very little breathing room for the opponent. Pult, as you see, had no chances to set up. It doesn't matter if this team can't handle +1 Pult if Pult can't find room to do so. Also, Sucker is not rare on Pult, it's a mainstay on both Band and Dance.

Another confusing take of yours: "either re-build the team to have a better defensive options such as priority, screens or hazard stack or use a more balanced build with an unaware mon ( skeledirge (with tera) or dondozo) or use a reliable phazer like ting-lu."

My brother in Christ- I'm playing HO lol.

This is how I know you don't actually play much HO or fully understand the playstyle in the actual game, and not on paper.
This team has no defensive backbone for a reason- Keep hazards off for Polteageist, find room to set up with Polteageist while psychic terrain is up, and clean with scarf Chien-Pao once psy terrain ran out.
That's it- that's literally how this team is played, and to do it successfully you need to be a good HO player, one that positions successfully.
And I did that.
If it's not clean with Scarf Pao, it's take out last mon with Iron Hands, or some small variation like take out a mon early and clean sweep with Poltea.
or Scarf Moth, or Hands, or even set up and win with Hatt. It just depends on my opponent's team. In this case, I choose the win-con I've laid out before you.
I literally only need 1-2 mons to win, all the rest do is support. They chip HP, cripple mons, set up certain conditions, etc.
That's HO. That's how it's played.
An entire game in Gen 8 would be my team chipping/crippling the other team for Scarf Kartana to sweep, as Chien-Pao should have done here.
Pure HO is mostly all glass cannons. You analyze which of these threats the opponent can't handle if all conditions are met such as getting certain mons in range or eliminating them. The rest of your mons are there to make that happen, even if that means doing nothing but dying.

In summary, Iron Hands, in this matchup, might as well have been a Magikarp. It's just there to allow positioning.

From all my years of playing Singles Showdown OU, I did what a HO team is supposed to do, and did it successfully, yet lost due to a terrible gimmick that lets my opponent undo all the work I did positioning my team for a win.

I can't speak with 100% certainty on what other playstyles Terra invalidates, but I know Hyper Offense, and I know the goals of this archetype, and when I execute them successfully and lose only due to a gimmick, then that's a huge problem.

Let me know if there's any other confusion you want me to clear up.
I ignored a lot of other hot takes because they were nonsense, but I respect your post and you as a player so I wanted to give you a fair response.

As soon as we start getting into mental gymnastics on if I should have predicted Dark Terra Pult and Sacred Sword there, then I'm gonna dismiss any counter-arguments.
Again, even if I had a feeling it was Dark, or if we implement something where I know it's Dark- it still forces a 50/50, which is unhealthy, and uncompetitive.
Late game Sucker Punch mind games can be fun once in awhile- but when it happens every game, that's a really stupid meta to play.
Why did I do all that work to position a win, and again I did so perfectly, for it to come down to a guessing game?
I want to play Pokémon, not Heads or Tails.

My opponent didn't play better than me, I was in control the entire game. I predicted my opponent several times. I accomplished all my goals I set out to do when building the team and only lost because my opponent had a "tech".

If you or anyone wants to respond, please please please focus on the 50/50 argument I'm laying out very clearly. Do not focus on the game anymore since I've fully illustrated my goals and win condition. Everything, every play that game, was all for turn 19. Any other meta, I won that game on that turn. If there was no terra, then my sweeper would not have been Fighting Terra Poltea, it would have been something else, and still swept and/or put big enough holes in their team so Pao could sweep.
I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me. Focus on the 50/50 aspect of my argument, please.

 

[zantaRay]

Late game Sucker Punch Mind Games can be fun once in awhile- but when it happens every game, that's a really stupid meta to play.
Why did I do all that work to position a win, and again I did so perfectly, for it to come down to a guessing game?
I want to play Pokémon, not Heads or Tails.

I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me. Focus on the 50/50 aspect of my argument, please.

I agree with your 50/50 argument and I said it myself a few pages ago, but saying it turns every game into a sucker punch mind game is a really good way of putting it. It really feels like that. That being said claimng you didn't make any mistakes in a game with as many decisions is pokemon is a bit much. Your argument would be stronger if you didn't argue you're playing perfectly.

 

[Karxrida]

mindgames are by definition uncompetitive

lol wut

Have you played literally any other competitive game ever? If we go by this logic, then chess -- one of the classic competitive games -- is full of shit. It is literally nothing but mind games. You know what doesn't have mind game? Fucking checkers, which is infamous for being a solved game with no competitive merit because you only have objectively right answers on how to act. Also tic tac toe, where you can consistently force a tie if you know the plays to make.

The goal of any competitive game is to outmaneuver your opponent so you can achieve your victory condition. You cannot control what they do, but you can try to get into their head and figure out how they make decisions and do their plays. Maybe influence how they act with your own actions. But your opponent is also capable of the same thing, and you have to consider how their actions might be trying to influence or take advantage of you. That conflict of the minds and wits is what makes many games competitive.

If you unironically think mind games destroy competitive merit, then go back to playing checkers.

 

[sims796]

I...I like checkers...

Is it that much more work to set up a system where we can see the tera types beforehand? I don't mind a broken mechanic gone, but I'd love to see who even that change will affect the meta.

 

[charlieX7]

At this point, Tera isn't even that insane anymore. People have learned how to play and build around it. Imagine the classic Breloom/RM example. Your opponent has a Booster Energy Proto Attack RM in against your Breloom. Neither side has used their Tera. There are a few things you can do here. You can predict Tera Flying into Acrobatics and switch out. You could predict Dragon Dance and Spore or Mach Punch. You could use your own Tera (presumably one that beats Flying RM) to call out the Acro. And it's not a 50/50 - there are many factors you can use to predict your opponent's move. Do they have another lategame sweeper? What HPs are their other Pokemon at?

As something as a HO expert I can tell you right now that we do whatever it takes to late game clean: sacking/sacrificing in multiple ways, either switching in on moves that kill or staying in on moves that kill...

my brother in christ youre rated 1600

...Before the game started I knew what I needed to accomplish to win: Keep hazards off for Polteageist, find room to set up with Polteageist while psychic terrain is up, and clean with my scarf Chien-Pao once/if psy terrain ran out. And I did it. I analyzed my opponent's team, found this was the best win-con and executed it perfectly...

Somehow, you failed to notice two threatening priority users on your opponent's team (sans Grimmsnarl, ofc). Playing with a Shell Smash sweeper, your first goal should have been to secure a lategame sweep for something that can deal with your opponent's main counters to your strategy. Your wincon was extremely flawed and you executed it with mediocrity at best.

...As you can see on turn 27- I even predicted Sucker Punch. I had this guy cooked, I was in his head the entire game...

This quote doesn't really matter, I just think it illustrates how low this person's expectations are for "good gameplay". Ironically, the very next turn, you failed to predict Sucker Punch; one could argue that this mistake was what lost you the game, not Tera.

...Your analysis of my gameplay is flawed, so I'm outlining the goals I had for this game so you can better understand...

Your goals don't change the fact that you lost. Yeah, Tera did have a small function in your loss, but you were kinda setting yourself up for defeat anyway. You faced a team that had actual checks to your threat, and you failed to account for them at all.

Good HO is actually very textbook. Sack X to bring in Y. I win the exact same way several games a day, sometimes in a row.

Two things. Firstly, HO needs to be versatile. If it's not, you can lose your wincons to a single mistake, and then you lose. Secondly, I would not flex the "sometimes in a row" part - or any or this quote, actually.

I literally only need 1-2 mons to win, all the rest do is support. They chip HP, cripple mons, set up certain conditions, etc.
That's HO. That's how it's played.
An entire game in Gen 8 would be my team chipping/crippling the other team for Scarf Kartana to sweep, as Chien-Pao should have done here.
Pure HO is mostly all glass cannons. You analyze which of these threats the opponent can't handle if all conditions are met such as getting certain mons in range or eliminating them. The rest of your mons are there to make that happen, even if that means doing nothing but dying.

Again, if you only have one wincon on your team, your team will suck ass. Ironically, Chrome_ (the person you were trying to refute) completely understood this point.

From all my years of playing Singles Showdown OU, I did what a HO team is supposed to do, and did it successfully, yet lost due to a terrible gimmick that lets my opponent undo all the work I did positioning my team for a win.

Look at the other options for a weak link. Maybe it's that your positioning allowed a timely Tera play to reverse the game?

LoseToRU keeps repeating the point of "my goals should have let me win, but they didn't, so Tera is ipso facto broken".

My opponent didn't play better than me, I was in control the entire game. I predicted my opponent several times. I accomplished all my goals I set out to do when building the team and only lost because my opponent had a "tech".

You're so close. If you lost, even after accomplishing your entire goal, maybe your goal sucked.

If you or anyone wants to respond, please please please focus on the 50/50 argument I'm laying out very clearly. Do not focus on the game anymore since I've fully illustrated my goals and win condition. Everything, every play that game, was all for turn 19. Any other meta, I won that game on that turn. If there was no terra, then my sweeper would not have been Fighting Terra Poltea, it would have been something else, and still swept and/or put big enough holes in their team so Pao could sweep.
I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me. Focus on the 50/50 aspect of my argument, please.

"I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me." Again, you can't really say that the "50/50" is broken when you set it up yourself and played around it horribly. Hell, why didn't you click Ice Spinner? As far as I know, very few Dragapult run Tera Steel or Tera Water. The safer play is the one that you avoided for some reason, so I don't think your argument stands.