Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

[Scrapyard_Dragon]

So, I'll admit that I MOSTLY play monotype so thats one grain of salt for what I'm about to say, and I've not had much time to play gen 9 regardless due to college reasons (so there's the second grain of salt), but because however this whole thing resolves will affect the way the game is played even after I have more time to actually play the game, I feel obligated to at least throw out my thoughts.

Firstly, I'm not really a fan of 'restricted tera' because, to me at least, it comes off as contradicting the whole 'no complex bans' thing that has been a persistent stance, and sort of feels like just kicking the can down the road because eventually someone will just find some other way to break the mechanic (if, for the sake of argument, we do presume that its broken). The only one I've seen that lets the mechanic persist that I'm sort of okay with, personally, is showing tera type at team preview. And to be entirely honest, I'm not even that much of a fan of that because that isn't information you'd get on-cart, and it would go against other bits of hidden information like moves, abilities, and items. If making tera-type become public knowledge happens, it opens up the can of worms for all the rest. And hey, maybe knowing what set the enemy has at preview could actually end up being a good thing for competitive play, I think there's an honest argument to be made there if you want rankings to truly be "who built a better team and who played said team better" and filter out people winning by running whacky sets that only succeed by taking players by surprise (oh and also everything dangerous because it can run whatever set it darn well pleases and forces you to play around that unknown becomes much easier to handle), but the point I'm getting at is that we don't CURRENTLY play that sort of meta, at least not yet, and if the final call becomes making tera known at preview then you open the floodgates for going all-in on that sort of direction. Whether thats good or not is up to you, I'm just pointing out the implications that sort of precedent sets.

Secondly, I honestly and truly do not think ANY action should be taken UNTIL the home update drops (sorry for yelling), period, if only because
A): we simply aren't playing with the full pool of pokemon present in the game's code yet, it doesn't hurt to wait a bit to be sure.
B): from what I've observed at least the ou meta is only just now starting to actually settle now that we have some actual rankings and people are figuring out 'optimal' sets and the like, so some time should be given to observe that to be certain.
C): and this one may be a controversial take but is one I want to make anyways, I legitimately think that holding off on doing anything about tera in ou, and instead seeing what it does in the lower-power environment of lower tiers could be a good way to be better able to verify if tera is the problem in 6v6 singles, or if the problem is a small pool of abusers that go from "strong" to "there is no reliable method to deal with this thing". Plus, on a smaller level that should at least be considered, if Tera ends up being perfectly balanced and enjoyable in the lower tiers, having it universally banned from all the usage tiers because of OU being unable to sustain it would be a huge disservice.

We know there are things that abuse terastal. But please forgive me if this sounds heretical, but there are also things that abuse items or specific moves to an extreme degree, and we still call the pokemon the problem and not the tool it is using. Nobody would complain about Scarf Chi-Yu if it wasn't so strong that even being choice locked didn't matter that much, but we also aren't going around saying the choice scarf should be universally banned either, just as an example.



As an aside, I still don't see why just, making a Tera-OU as an OM is so impossible if tera IS banned. There is an active playerbase for AAA and hackmons, and those are formats that are outright impossible/illegal on-cart, so from a purely playerbase angle I'm positively certain you would have an active one from all the people who like tera and want it to stay, especially if the inevitable suspect is particularly close. Tera, unlike dynamax, seems to honestly have enough people who want it to stay that outright banishing it to Anything Goes/Ubers is a massive disservice, and the argument of "just play those if you like tera" is just as bad as all the terrible arguments for people have made for keeping certain things unbanned (at least the ones that aren't stuff like "blaze-blaziken in UU", I'm talking people about people who unironically go "just run water absorb to beat dracovish"). There is a difference between people who want to use the generational mechanic in a tier with an actually reasonable power level, and people who just want a brainless win-button.
I'm aware that setting up a 'TOU' OM would take resources but I HIGHLY doubt its impossible to find enough skilled players who both wants to play it and is able to moderate and do other council duties for it. Likewise I don't really buy into the "don't split the meta" argument, at least not if the OM just remains constrained to 'only' being OU Ft. Tera, not Ft. things that take tera too far. The main OU ladder is never going to die until the day gamefreak actually tries to support 6v6 singles themselves, and I can't help but feel that, even if it ends up unpopular with most, that tera still has enough actually competitive and creative teambuilding and mid-battle aspects to justify letting it be a meta people can play if they want to, something that dynamax most certainly DID NOT have.
From what I can tell, a lot of the hardline "no alt ladder" stance (as well the controversial houndstone ban, if I'm being honest) seems to come more from administration rather than the OU council (who from what I've seen have been respectful and have been trying to be pretty evenhanded on the tera matter), and if that the case, then I think there's an issue with site administration refusing to be transparent and actually open to debate more than anything else. To the OU council, if you got this far, sorry for making you sit through my little rant at the end there everyone. I respect you guys as players, you seem to be alright people, I just had to voice the totality of my thoughts on all this, and thank you for putting up with all this.

 

[TheRealBigC]

Tera Normal Dnite and Tera Fairy Espathra are incredibly common builds on these mons. Good players will keep these threats in mind during teambuilding and especially during the match, and if it comes down to a final few Mons situation it should become more and more obvious which of your remaining opponent's pokemon are looking to Tera and what the most common Tera types they run are.

I never said they were uncommon, I picked them specifically because they're super common, extremely powerful, and braindead easy to use. "Pulled out" was the wrong expression sorry

 

[zantaRay]

Genuine question: do you have a difficult time accepting that other people's opinions can be valid? Because your use of this thread has been to trying to invalidate those that disagree with you rather than trying to boost your own argument and then making generalizations like this (that honestly make no sense, how does this even happen frequently let alone every time?). All it does is put your word in bad faith

Well there's a few reasons. But mostly it boils down to I've seen all this before, a lot. This absolutely happens very frequently. I play a lot of multiplayer games, and I see the same patterns in many ban discussions. Whether it's Pokemon, fighting games, or card games. Every time there's a community moderated environment. People don't want to ban things because they find them fun, without any consideration for how other people feel about them. People say we need to wait, then say it's too late when it comes up again. People put out contradictory arguments. And to be really frank, people who don't understand the game and don't have much investment in it steer the discussion, even though they don't play that much, just because there's more of them.

Another issue is, as I said previously, there's not really any arguments for keeping tera other than people either personally liking the mechanic, or not thinking the issues it creates are actually a problem. As such there's really not any meaningful arguments against that, other than pointing out how they're flawed. There's no point restating pro ban arguments that have been said dozens of times, and that people against banning simply say, "nah I disagree" to. Not to mention pointing out flaws in your opponent's argument is legitimately important in any debate.

I'll happily admit I've hardly been a saint in this thread, but that's born out of a frustration with people wanting to keep a mechanic which imo ruins the experience of the first generation I have really enjoyed since gen4. I will probably continue to play as long as there is some degree of action on tera, but I would absolutely stop playing if there is no action. I can absolutely be convinced of other people's viewpoints, but this debate is entirely on subjective values of fun. The competitiveness debate shouldn't be subjective, but you can see in this thread multiple people looking at the exact same replay. Some people say tera decided that game, some people say it didn't. There's a fundamental difference in understanding there. So the debate has become subjective, and neither side can convince the other. Ultimately all of this is why I have stopped posting, but I thought it was worth giving you a response.

 

[zantaRay]

You're ridiculous honestly, repeating 100 times that the only pro-Tera argument is they think it's fun will not make your statement true.

Plenty of things have been said, stop the bad faith just to push your opinion.

Everything for keeping tera is subjective. That's just how it is. There doesn't really need to be a reason to keep it. Because keeping it would be the default state of the game. People need to give reasons to ban it. The only thing that's arguably not subjective is that is technically definitionally increases options in the teambuilder. And that's fine. Subjective arguments are okay for a hobby. But it's also not something that someone can be convinced out of. If you think there's objective pro tera arguments, other than the incrased options in teambuilder, please tell me them.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Do we have a date when suspect test would be announced?

 

[BoostedArk]

Interesting thought, what if instead of tera being revealed at team preview, you can see what tera a mon has when its swapped in?

 

[Skyuchi]

Everything for keeping tera is subjective. That's just how it is. There doesn't really need to be a reason to keep it. Because keeping it would be the default state of the game. People need to give reasons to ban it. The only thing that's arguably not subjective is that is technically definitionally increases options in the teambuilder. And that's fine. Subjective arguments are okay for a hobby. But it's also not something that someone can be convinced out of. If you think there's objective pro tera arguments, other than the incrased options in teambuilder, please tell me them.

You're still pretending then that nobody has made any valid arguments then? I'll summarize. in paragraph form. I don't like writing too much at once because nobody reads it anyway but w/e.

Terastalization provides many unique aspects to the game we haven't seen before and some of them provide interesting and new strategies and counterplays, both in game and in builder. Yes, it comes with drawbacks - the biggest and honestly most valid argument being setup sweepers (no, 'muh 50/50' is not a valid argument). Yes, tera makes Dragonite, Espathra, Kingambit, etc more powerful. That aside, it also provides other, much more balanced aspects - notably role compression and unique counters to existing strategies.

We're currently seeing a ton of role compression, both on the offensive and defensive sides. Offensively, Dragonite functions both as a late-game setup cleaner, as well as a mid-game revenge killer due to Tera Normal. Defensively, however, you end up with a lot of really interesting plays. Have you noticed how Fairy type walls have basically been entirely absent this generation? We have, uh....Scream Tail? And it kinda isn't great at all. What tera lets you do is take an existing defensive Pokemon you already have (notably Garganacl and Skeledirge) and allows them to shed their existing typing to take on one of the many, MANY insane Dragon or Dark type threats currently dominating the meta. Honestly, with Dark types being as crazy as they are, and Ghosts being basically second to that (which further enable the dark) it's crazy this generation didn't introduce more Fairy to keep the former in check.
You need Garganacl as a general counter to physical attackers and Tera Water/steel shenanigans, but also the opponent is running some sort of CB Protosynthesis Sun offense? No problem, you can switch him to Fairy, and suddenly that Roaring Moon really can't break through you. Chien-Pao threatening to OHKO you? That's fine, Fairy makes it all OK. You're able to compress both the very much so needed Fairy role into an existing Pokemon and removing the need for you to pack a native Fairy. The same can be said for other types down the line, but at the moment everything seems to more or less revolve around our disgustingly powerful Dark and Dragon threats. Most teams are looking for a bulky water as well - if you need one, any defensive Pokemon can fill that role without you actually needing to use a native water on your team. If there is a specific threat that forces you into needing to respond with a specific defensive type, an existing defensive Pokemon can fill that role with terastalization, rather than needing to limit your options into checking off existing boxes. I would argue this favors the player that's better in the teambuilder and can gauge the metagame, increasing competitive play.
It also provides a general and very unique answer to any choice-locked Pokemon. I feel like this is the single generation where choice (outside trick scarf) is at its weakest, and you can likely attribute that to the fact you don't know whether that Pokemon you just swung at for a neutral hit will even take a second neutral hit the next turn - and this is important for keeping offensive threats in check. Chi-Yu is the best example. Don't get me wrong, I believe 100% Chi-Yu should be banned regardless, but at the moment Tera is the only thing keeping it from being the biggest fish in the pond. What actually, genuinely, natively counters Chi-Yu? There's bulky Tyranitar and nothing else, and Tyranitar isn't even OU. You're probably thinking Chansey/Blissey do, right? Well, that would be wrong. Neither can stand up to repeated Dark Pulse from a specs Chi-Yu due to flinches and 8 Softboiled PP. Their only answer is actually going Tera Fairy so that they can survive. This doesn't only apply to the pink blobs though - most teams are learning that they have to use tera to counter Chi-Yu. Personally, I've been using shenanigans on Clodsire, where tera enables it to take a second hit and respond with an EQ that takes it out, where without tera there would be zero counterplay outside saccing one of my Pokemon each and every time it hits the field. You're able to properly build your team thanks to Tera to survive threats that it otherwise would not be able to handle, increasing the diversity of teams allowed.
There are also hilarious yet competitively solid niche strategies this enables. I run a Dondozo, which while bulky, is also super easy to be taken advantage of when forced on its side, due to it having to get into the cycle of Rest > Rest Talk > Rest Talk > Rest over and over. Other setup Pokemon are able to take advantage of this quite easily. But hypothetically speaking, what if you could run 5 moves on one Pokemon? Well, you kinda sorta can with tera - by going Ghost, that Curse you use allows it to fill two roles, both in being a bulky answer that threatens the opponent in return, and being a more or less hard stop to offensive threats and ensuring a KO on that last Pokemon, even if it's a +6 Kingambit where you don't know whether it's gonna tera Fairy or Fighting or Ghost or whatever else. Being able to build teams in such a way where you create interesting and unique answers to current threats increases the complexity of the metagame, rewarding proper teambuilding, and adding to the competitive aspect of the game. I know that's one niche thing, but I've seen other people run plenty of similar things - especially immunity abilities providing unique combinations never seen before, allowing you to build incredibly specific answers to certain threats - which aren't even limited to only answering those threats because they can simply choose to keep their old typing. Fire/Steel on any Water Absorb Pokemon, for example lets you answer things that were before only possible if you restricted yourself a lot more heavily. You are effectively given the ability to run 12 Pokemon on one team thanks to type switching. The better player can take advantage of that.

The debate about tera isn't "I think this is fun, so I want it to be kept!" vs "This has literally no competitive value whatsoever". Only someone arguing in bad faith would make that case. The debate is about whether or not the positive aspects of terastalization outweigh the negative from a competitive point of view. Pretending that there are no positive aspects only wastes time.

 

[alephgalactus]

We know there are things that abuse terastal. But please forgive me if this sounds heretical, but there are also things that abuse items or specific moves to an extreme degree, and we still call the pokemon the problem and not the tool it is using.

Except there are cases where the item has been banned instead of the Pokémon. Remember Soul Dew?

 

[kosecant]

Except there are cases where the item has been banned instead of the Pokémon. Remember Soul Dew?

I get your point, but pre-nerf soul dew was a combo of choice specs and assault vest with no drawback. It was so ridiculous that it’s one of the only items to ever get changed by game freak, so I feel it’s a poor comparison

 

[zantaRay]

Thanks for posting actual arguments.

Terastalization provides many unique aspects to the game we haven't seen before and some of them provide interesting and new strategies and counterplays, both in game and in builder.

Novelty is not a reason to keep something. It can be nice but it's not a reason to not ban it.

Yes, it comes with drawbacks - the biggest and honestly most valid argument being setup sweepers (no, 'muh 50/50' is not a valid argument). Yes, tera makes Dragonite, Espathra, Kingambit, etc more powerful.

This is a very short statement dedicated to the biggest issues with the mechanic. But fair enough that's not your point to make, but I do want to highlight how glossed over this is. I like that you had to get the jab about 50/50s in there. You might not agree but increasing the number of forced 50/50s absolutely is an issue for many people who are pro ban.

That aside, it also provides other, much more balanced aspects - notably role compression and unique counters to existing strategies.We're currently seeing a ton of role compression, both on the offensive and defensive sides. Offensively, Dragonite functions both as a late-game setup cleaner, as well as a mid-game revenge killer due to Tera Normal. Defensively, however, you end up with a lot of really interesting plays. Have you noticed how Fairy type walls have basically been entirely absent this generation? We have, uh....Scream Tail? And it kinda isn't great at all. What tera lets you do is take an existing defensive Pokemon you already have (notably Garganacl and Skeledirge) and allows them to shed their existing typing to take on one of the many, MANY insane Dragon or Dark type threats currently dominating the meta. Honestly, with Dark types being as crazy as they are, and Ghosts being basically second to that (which further enable the dark) it's crazy this generation didn't introduce more Fairy to keep the former in check.

You need Garganacl as a general counter to physical attackers and Tera Water/steel shenanigans, but also the opponent is running some sort of CB Protosynthesis Sun offense? No problem, you can switch him to Fairy, and suddenly that Roaring Moon really can't break through you. Chien-Pao threatening to OHKO you? That's fine, Fairy makes it all OK. You're able to compress both the very much so needed Fairy role into an existing Pokemon and removing the need for you to pack a native Fairy. The same can be said for other types down the line, but at the moment everything seems to More or Less revolve around our disgustingly powerful Dark and Dragon threats. Most teams are looking for a bulky water as well - if you need one, any defensive Pokemon can fill that role without you actually needing to use a native water on your team. If there is a specific threat that forces you into needing to respond with a specific defensive type, an existing defensive Pokemon can fill that role with terastalization, rather than needing to limit your options into checking off existing boxes. I would argue this favors the player that's better in the teambuilder and can gauge the metagame, increasing competitive play.

I really like this kind of usage of tera. If that was it's primary usage, I'd be all for it. The issue with using tera defensively like this is the pokemon wanting to tera has to get in safely. This is really bad for defensive teams, and something that has been absent from your discussion of defensive tera checks is that you need them to be able to come in on what they want to tera on, and they often risk dying by doing so, as they're using tera to switch their defensive profile. The alteranative is to sac something else to get it in, but that's generally a poor proposition for a defensive team. Defensive usage of tera is great on paper, but in practice the mechanic favours the aggressor to a huge degree. On top of that, defensive utility tera often ends up just being tera creating another overbearing win condition. I've run Garganacl in a few teams, and it's not uncommon for me to look at team preview and just say okay if I kill this one pokemon literally nothing can break water/fairy Garganacl after an iron defence. Even on defensive pokemon, tera can create situations without much recourse for your opponent. This also feels a bit of a cyclical argument. If tera is required to stop these novel threats, empowered by tera, why not just remove it entirely.

It also provides a general and very unique answer to any choice-locked Pokemon. I feel like this is the single generation where choice (outside trick scarf) is at its weakest, and you can likely attribute that to the fact you don't know whether that Pokemon you just swung at for a neutral hit will even take a second neutral hit the next turn - and this is important for keeping offensive threats in check. Chi-Yu is the best example. Don't get me wrong, I believe 100% Chi-Yu should be banned regardless, but at the moment Tera is the only thing keeping it from being the biggest fish in the pond. What actually, genuinely, natively counters Chi-Yu? There's bulky Tyranitar and nothing else, and Tyranitar isn't even OU. You're probably thinking Chansey/Blissey do, right? Well, that would be wrong. Neither can stand up to repeated Dark Pulse from a specs Chi-Yu due to flinches and 8 Softboiled PP. Their only answer is actually going Tera Fairy so that they can survive. This doesn't only apply to the pink blobs though - most teams are learning that they have to use tera to counter Chi-Yu. Personally, I've been using shenanigans on Clodsire, where tera enables it to take a second hit and respond with an EQ that takes it out, where without tera there would be zero counterplay outside saccing one of my Pokemon each and every time it hits the field. You're able to properly build your team thanks to Tera to survive threats that it otherwise would not be able to handle, increasing the diversity of teams allowed.

In my experience the best switch in to Chi-Yu is Roaring Moon. It's faster than it, easily ohkos it, and isn't 2hko'd by any move off scarf, even in sun. It's also a pokemon that's not an embarassment to have on your team in other matchups. But that's not exactly super important. What I want to focus on is that last statement. "You're able to properly build your team thanks to Tera to survive threats that it otherwise would not be able to handle, increasing the diversity of teams allowed.". What about pokemon that are unviable due to the pokemon they would normally stop being able to tera past them? That absolutely reduces the number of viable pokemon or at the very least the roles they can fulfill. I would argue it reduces the pool of viable pokemon and builds overall. In general any powerful mechanic will further centralise a metagame around it's strongest abusers. In my view tera neutrally impacts the number of viable pokemon, at best. I'm also not sure choice locked pokemon needed to be weakened. Choice items have always been a powerful option with downsides. I don't mind them being weaker, but it's not exactly an argument to keep tera for me.

There are also hilarious yet competitively solid niche strategies this enables. I run a Dondozo, which while bulky, is also super easy to be taken advantage of when forced on its side, due to it having to get into the cycle of Rest > Rest Talk > Rest Talk > Rest over and over. Other setup Pokemon are able to take advantage of this quite easily. But hypothetically speaking, what if you could run 5 moves on one Pokemon? Well, you kinda sorta can with tera - by going Ghost, that Curse you use allows it to fill two roles, both in being a bulky answer that threatens the opponent in return, and being a More or Less hard stop to offensive threats and ensuring a KO on that last Pokemon, even if it's a +6 Kingambit where you don't know whether it's gonna tera Fairy or Fighting or Ghost or whatever else. Being able to build teams in such a way where you create interesting and unique answers to current threats increases the complexity of the metagame, rewarding proper teambuilding, and adding to the competitive aspect of the game. I know that's one niche thing, but I've seen other people run plenty of similar things - especially immunity abilities providing unique combinations never seen before, allowing you to build incredibly specific answers to certain threats - which aren't even limited to only answering those threats because they can simply choose to keep their old typing. Fire/Steel on any Water Absorb Pokemon, for example lets you answer things that were before only possible if you restricted yourself a lot more heavily.

Neat strategies are great. But Smogon doesn't tier to enable neat strategies.

You are effectively given the ability to run 12 Pokemon on one team thanks to type switching. The better player can take advantage of that.

The better player might be able to leverage tera to their advatage in a matchup that would otherwise be even, but in my experience, tera amplifies any advtantage that already existed, and often just shuts the door on a game as soon as it's used.

The debate about tera isn't "I think this is fun, so I want it to be kept!" vs "This has literally no competitive value whatsoever". Only someone arguing in bad faith would make that case. The debate is about whether or not the positive aspects of terastalization outweigh the negative from a competitive point of view. Pretending that there are no positive aspects only wastes time.

I mean I'd say only someone arguing in bad faith would tell someone they're wrong and their argument is invalid because their team is bad but I wouldn't know. I haven't done that. And yes obviously there's more to the debate that people who want to keep tera like it and people who want to ban it don't. But I spent far more time writing this out than I wanted to, and it's far faster to say that the arguments are the result of a fundamental subjective disagreement, which they are, than to write up something comprehensive. You made a good post though. It lays out the arguments well. I just think the arguments for banning are far stronger.

I'm also going to actually dip and ban myself opening the thread again, because I'll absolutely get baited back in if I do. But I'm just not interested in talking about it more. Take that as a W if you want. Or don't. I don't care.

 

[King Alicane]

Everything for keeping tera is subjective. That's just how it is. There doesn't really need to be a reason to keep it. Because keeping it would be the default state of the game. People need to give reasons to ban it. The only thing that's arguably not subjective is that is technically definitionally increases options in the teambuilder. And that's fine. Subjective arguments are okay for a hobby. But it's also not something that someone can be convinced out of. If you think there's objective pro tera arguments, other than the incrased options in teambuilder, please tell me them.

I have never posted before because I only enjoy reading so I can learn about the different metas for all the different gens I've participated in but this argument is genuinely frustrating. Barely anyone on this thread has advocated for "keep tera bc i think its fun" and you are constantly dismissing very valid points in the pro-tera arguments. The entire point of this thread is to discuss the merits of keeping, banning or restricting tera which involves people to use their own opinions so obviously all of these arguments are subjective, including your own. Reducing everyone else's arguments to the state in which you have is probably one of the worst bad faith arguments I've seen in awhile.

Now to make my post something that isn't just talking about the quality of someone's argument, I currently believe there should be no action taken at this time. The way I see it, and to remind everyone that I am indeed an inexperienced Gen 9 OU player, is that tera pushes a selective group of mons over the edge. But even in these cases (especially Espathra), there are a lot of very noticeable other factors that contribute to the power of these mons, namely the support in the tier, such as shed tail and screens. I genuinely believe that we as a community do not know enough about the current metagame in order to make an educated decision that can possibly alter the rest of the generation. One of the biggest factors that we will not see until next year is the introduction of Home. What are we going to do then? If we ban Tera now are we going to suspect it again? Tera is not an unstoppable force that makes half of OU broken. It is simply another factor that will steepen the learning curve for this generation because despite certain opinions, people tend to only use things that are good and even if you lose to a tera type that is uncommon (a previous user mentioned this, can't find who), that will still only be a small percentage of games.

 

[Finchinator]

While there is nothing set-in-stone, preliminary discussions on a Terastallization suspect test are well underway internally. The OU council has discussed matters within their chat extensively while I have also personally reached out to other prominent tiering figures during this important time as well.

Many points from this thread and the ongoing tiering survey will help guide us in the decision making process. We have been taking this very seriously given the monumental, generation defining nature of the subject matter. We also appreciate all of the communal feedback we have received along the way.

As it stands, it is likely (not confirmed) that we have a suspect test on Terastallization next week. This suspect will likely last a bit longer than a standard suspect to give voters even more time to decide. In addition, it could include a unique voting structure tailored towards the complex nature of the topic of Terastallization. It is possible voters will get to elect if they believe action is necessary or not followed by an election as to which action is most appropriate out of a select group of outcomes, for example. It is also possible we have a suspect now and then another months after the fact to reassess the verdict of the initial in light of metagame developments and evolving communal sentiment. However, we are not married to any singular structure and this post is mostly an attempt at transparency in a time of great uncertainty and peaking interest.

 

[Reviews2D]

I genuinely believe that we as a community do not know enough about the current metagame in order to make an educated decision that can possibly alter the rest of the generation. One of the biggest factors that we will not see until next year is the introduction of Home. What are we going to do then?

Yes, a retest it's likely a retest could be on the table when home comes out.

 

[Dubbidub]

AIn addition, it could include a unique voting structure tailored towards the complex nature of the topic of Terastallization. It is possible voters will get to elect if they believe action is necessary or not followed by an election as to which action is most appropriate out of a select group of outcomes, for example.

Seems like a bad idea to me. If numerous actions can be voted for, it's very unlikely that a majority of voters will decide on one action for smogon to implement. It does not seem ideal that a likely result of this vote is that a major change would be implemented without the expressed support of the majority of participants (in fact, it's likely that only a fairly small minority would endorse the implemented change). Better to keep it simple and ask if terastallization changed. If the majority of voters say yes, later votes can determine community support for specific changes.

 

[Gyrret]

At first I didn't know what the fuss was about about Tera, it didn't seem that big of a deal being able to change types but I just read this:

You retain initial STABs, but also gain STAB on your "Tera type" if it is a novel type

Now THIS is I didn't know. I thought you lose your original STAB with the type change unless Tera-ing into the same type. So you get up to 3 STABs with the type weaknesses of only 1? It doesn't make any sense. Most of the problems discussed here would not exist if you did not keep your STAB.

Many offensive threats would have to think twice before Tera-ing least they lose the power to keep their checks under control. Some might prefer to not use it at all. Defensively speaking it would also see more use since the loss of STAB may not be as big as a problem for, say, Toxapex. But it would still require skill to play as they might not want to trade their specific resistances like immunity to Toxic.

Would it be possible to balance Terastalyzation this way or is it too big of a change? Right now I have no idea what's the best course of action, but being able to see Tera types in Team preview might solve some of the issues we have right now. The other options are either not pragmatic or too severe.

 

[Wolf-X]

While there is nothing set-in-stone, preliminary discussions on a Terastallization suspect test are well underway internally. The OU council has discussed matters within their chat extensively while I have also personally reached out to other prominent tiering figures during this important time as well.

Many points from this thread and the ongoing tiering survey will help guide us in the decision making process. We have been taking this very seriously given the monumental, generation defining nature of the subject matter. We also appreciate all of the communal feedback we have received along the way.

As it stands, it is likely (not confirmed) that we have a suspect test on Terastallization next week. This suspect will likely last a bit longer than a standard suspect to give voters even more time to decide. In addition, it could include a unique voting structure tailored towards the complex nature of the topic of Terastallization. It is possible voters will get to elect if they believe action is necessary or not followed by an election as to which action is most appropriate out of a select group of outcomes, for example. It is also possible we have a suspect now and then another months after the fact to reassess the verdict of the initial in light of metagame developments and evolving communal sentiment. However, we are not married to any singular structure and this post is mostly an attempt at transparency in a time of great uncertainty and peaking interest.

Seems there is an interest from some people to rush it instead of letting dust settle...

 

[Scrapyard_Dragon]

since finch dropped his post while I was typing the second half of this I may as well say that additional retests not just for when home drops, but also after any and all dlc drops would very likely be the best, although I doubt any of them would even cause a change from whatever the initial suspect results in, if only because people will become settled into however things result after the first time. Maybe just regularly re-testing tera every few months, or at least when home drops as well as any dlc drops, is the only way to go; each represents a big shake to the meta regardless. Heck, maybe take a page out of VGC's book and just have on and off seasons of tera for a while, with tournaments being able to decide whether they're using it or not when formed. It keeps things on a single ladder for the site staff adamant about that, but also allows being able to observe how the same format exists with and without tera. Plus, seeing things that are only banworthy WITH tera being able to vacation in OU during non-tera seasons would be fairly novel.

Except there are cases where the item has been banned instead of the Pokémon. Remember Soul Dew?

I mean, if you want to bring up 2d-era soul dew, an item only usable by two specific, largely interchangeable pokemon, of which the only time that both were in OU was gen 5, then I could VERY EASILY turn around and use that logic to start saying 'unban hound because, just like how in gen 4 latias was only a problem if it held soul dew and thus the item was banned, so too should we should just ban last respects', to relate that to modern rulings in order to point out the flaw in that logic. I compared tera to the choice scarf because the its a more apt comparison as a tool any pokemon could use to great effect with the right gameplan, with the things that take it and become overbearing when they apply it right being outliers. You'd have been better of citing the kings rock ban, but that thing is a problem because it turns the game into an actual rng-fishing-fest in the same way that evasion does.

 

[zantaRay]

Back briefly one more time to appologise for general conduct after cooling down a bit. I also want to restate a bit what I mean when I say arguments to keep it are subjective. I'm not saying there are no real arguments for keeping tera. I am saying that I do not believe I can convince people who do not want tera banned that it should be banned, because we have fundamental disagreements about aspects of the game. Sorry if I offended or implied people didn't have real reasons for wanting to keep it.

 

[Finchinator]

Seems like a bad idea to me. If numerous actions can be voted for, it's very unlikely that a majority of voters will decide on one action for smogon to implement. It does not seem ideal that a likely result of this vote is that a major change would be implemented without the expressed support of the majority of participants (in fact, it's likely that only a fairly small minority would endorse the implemented change). Better to keep it simple and ask if terastallization changed. If the majority of voters say yes, later votes can determine community support for specific changes.

you literally just described what i proposed dude...

first vote: should we act on tera, yes or no
second vote: ranked choice on the options ( https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ )

i think you missed the point of my post.

 

[Finchinator]

Seems there is an interest from some people to rush it instead of letting dust settle...

Seems there is people who like to ignore the fact that we surveyed the entire community and spent weeks discussing and instead focus on their self-serving narratives.

Even if this is rushed (it is not -- the community largely is on-board), then we're very open for a second test down the road.

 

[BigFatMantis]

you literally just described what i proposed dude...

first vote: should we act on tera, yes or no
second vote: ranked choice on the options ( https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ )

i think you missed the point of my post.

It would seem to make sense to, if after the first vote the community says "yes" to act on tera, then we should automatically implement the least restrictive option (like revealing tera types) on the ladder while we do the second test since at that point the community already decided something should be done, so it would make sense to restrict it right away in whatever the least restrictive option is (still do rank voting obviously no need for a million tests). I know nothing is decided but is that something in the works?

 

[Vrin]

A bunch of community outreach, 53 pages of discussion in this thread alone (not to mention a ton of talk in the Metagame Discussion thread before this thread was posted), an open survey, multiple weeks in a meta that is, by now, in a reasonably stable state, plans for a longer-than-usual suspect test...

At this point, I'm not sure what standards people are expecting the council to reach before making a decision? Like, this is genuinely the most open and careful council process that OU has had in generations, if not ever. What more could possibly be done? Waiting some months because, despite the meta being fairly solidified and common Pokemon, sets, and archetypes being relatively concrete (more concrete than they were during a lot of bans in previous generations, for sure), the meta is still somehow too "young" through some arbitrary aesthetic considerations? I genuinely don't even understand if I'm playing the same tier as these critics — gen 9 OU has reached a playable and reasonable state far faster than any other Fairygen, honestly.

Obviously new sets are arising and some Pokemon are still in uncertain places with their viability (Rotom-W has been trending upward recently, for example, and SpDef Roaring Moon has popped up on ladder seemingly overnight), but on the whole, the metagame is remarkably well-established at the moment considering its age. There's also the logistical consideration that SPL is coming up soon, of course. I think we're well justified in taking action on Tera right now.

 

[Scrapyard_Dragon]

It would seem to make sense to, if after the first vote the community says "yes" to act on tera, then we should automatically implement the least restrictive option (like revealing tera types) on the ladder while we do the second test since at that point the community already decided something should be done, so it would make sense to restrict it right away in whatever the least restrictive option is (still do rank voting obviously no need for a million tests). I know nothing is decided but is that something in the works?

I would presume at least that the least-restrictive option would just be showing tera types at team preview? I do grow increasingly interested in that method given how we know that irl vgc tournaments are also starting to do that, and it doesn't actually prevent anything you could DO with tera on your end, it just means you aren't playing a guessing game.

 

[BigFatMantis]

I would presume at least that the least-restrictive option would just be showing tera types at team preview? I do grow increasingly interested in that method given how we know that irl vgc tournaments are also starting to do that, and it doesn't actually prevent anything you could DO with tera on your end, it just means you aren't playing a guessing game.

Yeah irl VGC tours are doing that now - which means PS is going to have to implement it anyways (if they haven't already) for VGC tours.

 

[Finchinator]

It would seem to make sense to, if after the first vote the community says "yes" to act on tera, then we should automatically implement the least restrictive option (like revealing tera types) on the ladder while we do the second test since at that point the community already decided something should be done, so it would make sense to restrict it right away in whatever the least restrictive option is (still do rank voting obviously no need for a million tests). I know nothing is decided but is that something in the works?

It’s all going to be one test with two questions, so if a restriction is picked, it’ll simply be whatever that restriction is implemented on-the-spot. Of course, we will need over a majority (likely >60%) support to even trigger the second question’s results.

Having an option for a second suspect in weeks/months after allows the community to see how the initial choice went and always vote for another down the line. We feel this gives everyone the best range of options