Like was previously posted the large majority of players from the last full survey done on tera want tera to remain in OU to some extent at least. That number may have changed, but if the majority of players do want tera banned, then we should just go for the ban/no ban vote. We have not seen data that supports that yet, and we won't properly do a vote on it until DLC2 it seems. I agree we should do some form of restriction, but it seems like this tera blast thing is being pushed moreso because its *A* restriction that was proposed, not that its necessarily a good restriction. If you all truly believe banning tera blast is the best possible thing we can do for tera, than i rescind my outrage and apologize. But it doesn't seem like that is the case. If we are sitting with tera and proposing ideas for restrictions, which we are, the only thing that properly takes into account both sides of the argument (the people that want tera gone, the people that want it restricted, and the people that love tera) is the middle ground in restricting tera. And if we are discussing restricting tera you should be trying to restrict it in the way that is best that would make it the most balance. To do so otherwise, IS ignoring everyone who wants tera to stay as is as well as the people that want it restricted.
This hinges on people who are anti-tera wanting to push through any restriction whether or not its a good idea. If we get a restriction and its not well thought out, then the next course of action is for the community to ban it rather than find a more fitting restriction. Anti-tera people know that and its ultimately why any restriction, maybe even the worst restriction possible, would have backing from that group since its the closest path to a total ban. This ignores the entire half of the community that want to keep tera. The fact that we're looking at restrictions at all should appease the anti-tera crowd. If council is not doing their best to find the best possible restriction to keep tera balanced and in OU, they are ignoring the pro-tera side of the debate simply because of their own opinions on tera. If anybody believes tera is truly broken, then it shouldnt matter what restriction we go with it will all result in unbalance either way. So if you really think there is no way to "fix" tera nor do you want to find a way, you shouldn't have a say in deciding what restriction we go with. The people who want to keep tera (or elements of it) should be the ones deciding what restriction we go with. Any restriction is already a compromise, the pro-side just needs to decide what is the one that keeps the elements of tera in a way that is more balanced with ou (if possible)
While this discussion is 3-4 months old at this point, I would recommend you read through the discussion thread on tera in policy review
here, in case you already haven't, to see what good to top players think about the options for restricting tera. You will see that tera captain is hardly discussed, for good reason, because it totally cuts out the defensive value that tera can bring (you aren't going to make tera water glowking your captain even though you need it to cover the occasional Walking Wake Sun you run into). Tera preview has its fair amount of detractors, and tera blast appears to be the most popular option here. No clear consensus is reached though, and I don't think the camp of people who want to ban tera blast but keep tera would cross the 60% threshold.
With that aside, let me address some specific lines
This hinges on people who are anti-tera wanting to push through any restriction whether or not its a good idea.
Yes, people who are anti-tera would believe that all restrictions are not a good idea...because they're anti-tera and want it fully banned...
If we get a restriction and its not well thought out, then the next course of action is for the community to ban it rather than find a more fitting restriction. Anti-tera people know that and its ultimately why any restriction, maybe even the worst restriction possible, would have backing from that group since its the closest path to a total ban.
This is BS. You are making quite a few assumptions here.
1) A poorly thought out restriction would get over 60% support (only 20~% of which might be the anti-tera camp). This would never happen.
2) In this hypothetical tera suspect test, we are only testing yes/no on a restriction, rather than the yes/no on action+ranked choice vote previously used. The anti-tera camp would vote for full ban, not a restriction, if we went with ranked choice, so there's no gaurantee restriction even gets the anti-tera camp's support.
3) The next course of action would be a ban. If the anti-tera camp really is just a puny 20% that has not and will never grow (like some of yall are hoping) then why would a ban be the next thing to happen? All you need is 60% willing to try some other, better restriction, and you'd have it! Good luck finding that restriction though lol.
4) Anti-tera people are ok with any restriction. This isn't the case, I've ranked which restrictions I like in the past and explained why. Tera captain, ban STAB tera, and ban no STAB tera are all awful ideas, and tera preview or ban tera blast are better. I don't believe any of them will work, but please stop pretending that I don't care which restriction gets pushed through.
The fact that we're looking at restrictions at all should appease the anti-tera crowd.
Lmao sure.
If anybody believes tera is truly broken, then it shouldnt matter what restriction we go with it will all result in unbalance either way. So if you really think there is no way to "fix" tera nor do you want to find a way, you shouldn't have a say in deciding what restriction we go with.
So once again, you are telling me what I believe. According to you, all restrictions are the same to me, despite posting several times indicating my preferences and explaining why. But that's not good enough, you also want to cut out my input entirely, based on what you think I believe!?
So I can be good enough at the game to get reqs and vote, but my vote on a restriction should be ignored because of my opinions on tera??
Please do explain.
The people who want to keep tera (or elements of it) should be the ones deciding what restriction we go with. Any restriction is already a compromise, the pro-side just needs to decide what is the one that keeps the elements of tera in a way that is more balanced with ou (if possible)
No, the people who are good enough at gen9 to qualify for suspect reqs are the ones deciding which restriction we go with. I sure am glad that my vote isn't going to be cut out just bc they disagree with my opinions.
Both the pro-tera camp (people who want tera unrestricted) and anti-tera camp are both compromising if any restriction gets over 60% support. Idk why you act like only one camp will get to decide what happens.
