hey, t it uses dig on first turn and copycats (assuming it lived the atack used on it t1) , the lagging tail makes it move last when its under the ground but not when using copycat cuz dig is a two turn move this assures that you almost certainly win if get the dig off . sorry if you didnt understand a thing but tldr it assures you almost guarantee win if you like hit t1 w dig
Yeah what Arvin said, you want Dig to go off as late as possible to stay invincible for as long as possible and so Copycat gets to copy Dig instead of whatever the opponent uses. Lagging Tail on Prankster moves doesn't usually matter since it only makes Copycat go after all other +1 priority moves
Hmm, I haven't seen too much from it but I think it's more broken than not broken. It has better set up moves than Greninja, better priority, and really good moves. I see it as a nuisance but I don't believe it's necessarily broken, I would like to see more of it.
outshined by other psy: Melo & Deoxys-S, theoretically it should get broken the more we ban stuff.
Not broken
V strong and bulky, can tech darks with pirouette form. I believe this is broken
HOLYYYY GET THAT THING OUT OF THE META! It creates a hole of setguessing, it has a lot of speed so it can pp stall your scarf mon, it can run specs, and can run defensive stored power. You literally have to run specific 4-5 mons to beat it. Extremely wrapping. It beats stuff like Primarina, Sylveon, Iron Boulder w/ Stored Power sets and alongside it other sets it beat 3/4 of the meta lol. this should be the first to go...
- gets great mus regardless of set, is really annoying to account for in a builder (dark types are great tho) and it finesses some even matchups with item slot. powerful mon - in my experience of not using it i think cb gets accounted for in builder and its setup set isn't very good, sucker is a good move, counter is a good move, idk tho it's not the strongest fire and you're not running baby zardx by running this so is it really worth it - life orb is a fraud (use melo), id is fine; usually ends up as crit bait and doesn't do very well into current meta; haven't used any other sets (surely cb x scissor is fake)
- decent enough with encore custap, kind of good glue but also decently bulkable by mons it should have a good mu against
- av is probs its best set rn, knock is great; hone claws is probs usable ive just not seen it - strong, worth choicing cause val is fake, specs is a drug and you have , you can can ev to guarantee diff specific mus; melo + fairy slaps - it's decently good, not overbearing and couple of mons beat it regardless of set, prolly becomes a benchmark mon - milk take that'll get disproven eventually 
- id say use fast specs or np custap with bulk, good enough mon, one taps some mons The first thing you say gotta go is Cinderace because you got gimped by a Shuca Berry variant. I'm not one to say this a lot, but I actually think you got skill issued on bromy take on what should go. i'm of the opinion that we should try to have a really large 1st slate in which people lean towards being a bit ban happy, followed by a 2nd slate 2-3 weeks after in which more bans take place / some unbans are made. while this is a controversial way to undertake this process, it would compress likely 3-4 months of tiering into 2-3 weeks. the mons involve both unbanned/ dlc2 mons as well as some predlc2 mons which were the main talking points regarding tiering action.
the mons I would put on the slate are:
and 
. The end team was and . And while I didn't use them, I did consider both 
and 
. These were the sets I used in the process.
Hyper Beam from , outspeeds minimal speed invested base 70s like 
and , and the rest of the EVs are put into Atk. 
allows this Incineroar to beat and 
.
Earthquake from :landorus t:, and a +1 Modest Electro Shot from -- as well as a Modest Psycho Boost from . The speed allows this set to outspeed Timid . You can forgo the Def EVs to put them into SpAtk in order to nearly guarantee an OHKO against bulkless with the combination of Mud Shot -> Shadow Ball thanks to Adaptability. Psycho Boost from even after the -2 thanks to 
and Calm Mind. The remaining EVs are put into SpAtk. Yea I uum... didn't really like this pokemon. It's cool and all, but it didn't fit my playstyle.
or Electro Shot, it's downright obsurd. You could really honestly mix and match this thing to your liking. But whatever you do: DON'T USE A MODEST NATURE. This is suboptimal because you outspeed adamant things like 
and 
-- and besides, your strong enough on your own because well... you got a free +1 SpAtk against every non Volt Absorb and Ground type. I recommend this above all else unless you're a set, in which case a Modest nature is preferable. <- I'm watching you...
Im just going to voice my opinion about this course of action. First of all, there should be a community survey to determine what mons get banned to begin with, or at least a council vote based on otr. I assume that's implied, but it was notably missing from this post.
Last post, I talked about ban / unban slate, had that went through, we would have reached a fresh meta already. Unfortunately, council largely just laughed it off, however I did receive positive feedback from non-council. Despite this, I want to change my approach from ban/unban slate to something different. This post is my opinion and doesn't reflect the views of the entire council. Shoutout njnp for bringing the kokoloko method to my attention.
The Idea
Seeing the recent situation in ou regarding the kokoloko method being discussed, I see one main flaw with it which is every single mon is re-suspected. This would take a significant amount of time for results which would be mostly expected. I firmly believe that the best approach to take from here is similar to the kokoloko method, however, instead of everything being resuspected, a community feedback survey decides which mons are re-suspected (via 60% agreement from qualified voters). This would ensure a majority decision is reached not by the council, but the community, giving the wider community say on what should and shouldn't be re-suspected. This fixes many of the problems with my previous idea, as it makes bans not revolve only around the council, and it negates the speculative element of the previous method. After this process has played out, tiering would return to normal unless there was significant reason not to.
List of Mons To Ban
Scroll up for reasoning on any of these. I've removedas it was the most speculation based.
This wouldn't be a slate, these mons would be banned, without any council vote.
Why?
The way discussion is leading, the mons that are currently otr will not all be banned. Going off the latest suspect which took 2 weeks to complete, assuming a 2 week intermission to allow the ban to be implemented and meta to settle, the suspect process takes 4 weeks to complete. From collecting opinions from the otr thread and meta discussion, cinderace and likely one of meloetta and necrozma will be quickbanned and hoopa and necro/melo will be left to suspect. These 2 suspects would take 8 weeks together. Assuming regidrago, custap* and iron valiant are suspected at a later date, these suspects would take 20 weeks, or about 5 months altogether, given a generous 2 weeks between each of them. By following the method I proposed, only the things the community finds worthy of re-suspect would be suspected, greatly shortening the time needed to reach an ideal metagame.
*Custap will not be involved in this as a suspect is basically required for this sort of thing, but it will be happening.
Why the bans being speculative doesn't matter
One of the main arguments against this system is that banning mons that are only slightly unhealthy at the time on bans, but have shown they could be broken as the meta progresses is solely based on speculation, mainly
Why this Method is More Reliable than Traditional Tiering (In this specific case)
This methods reliability is based off the fact that the one mon would be isolated, instead of other broken mons co-existing, making it seem more healthy. I'll use random mons so people don't misinterpret what I say. For example, sayis being suspected before anything else. In this scenario it is clearly unhealthy, however during the suspect,
proves to be the bigger problem. This demographic continues and
How this method grants the wider community more say
Despite this method involving the council removing more mons, it's no different to just quick-banning things, except for the fact it gives the community more input, as they can vote on which mons should stay banned/be taken to suspect. The recent survey showed that people largely thought the council was out of touch with the actual community and I see this as the perfect solution. While some believe the community just want suspects, I believe giving the community a fresh, more healthy meta fast is what the community deserve. As for suspect enthusiasts, there would be no lack of suspects, they would just be more meaningful.
Pros:
- Reaching an ideal meta faster
- Giving the community more influence and say
- Reducing impact of council so that everyone's opinion matters
- Isolated suspects increase reliability
- Less heavy-lifting for TLs in terms of suspects
- Less stress on room staff from people complaining about certain mons
- Very easy to revert decisions if shown to be wrong, unlike traditional tiering
Cons:
- Untraditional
- Speculative in nature, although this is fully remedied by a community vote for re-suspects, and the re-suspects themselves
As always, lmk what you think, I'd appreciate lots of feedback / discussion both here and on the on the radar thread. Contrary to popular belief, the most important thing behind many council decisions is community input and discussion, so if many of you agree, this could realistically happen. My discord is rtm24, hmu if u have any questions.
If we decide to use a community survey to determine what mons are banned initially, I doubt people will change their mind later on. Confirmation bias is going to come into play here, and resuspects will not go through.good post
1st off, a community survey would be the best method to decide the mons banned.
As for the meta not supporting the return of mons, I definitely see your point, however, people would be able to contrast their experiences with building/playing and opinions from before it was banned. To add to your example, people might be changing their teams from before the ban and realise, oh wait, my teams beat meowscarada without really trying. Or they might see, huh, I don't have to run av urshifu on every team (random example) to beat porygon-z reliably anymore. The experience building and playing in absence of these threats is what would help form peoples opinion of whether they should be banned or not and I believe you underestimate players in thinking they won't be able to see it from this perspective.
To give a relevant example, say regidrago is banned. After its banned, people realise that they still find themselves running a fairy and a steel type which beat drago on every team so they deem it fine to return for a suspect. So while I definitely understand your point, the opposite would also happen and it would lead to mons that require very specific counters or necessitate usually unviable counters staying banned, as players realise how far they had to go out of their way to counter those mons.
As for the standard method, you've acknowledged it'd take significantly longer, and also stated that it has the advantage of seeing the meta with the suspected mon as players adapt. One problem with this is as I stated:This methods reliability is based off the fact that the one mon would be isolated, instead of other broken mons co-existing, making it seem more healthy. I'll use random mons so people don't misinterpret what I say. For example, say
Its easy to act like there are no risks to tiering the standard way, however, the risks are more wasting time, and damaging trust with the community.
While it certainly does benefit from having the meta already somewhat adapt to the threat, making it focal point, being a re-suspect would also achieve the same thing. By having a community vote and counting voters for what is re-suspected, we can't go wrong, as a community consensus is the only real way to gauge the opinion of the community as a whole. Rather than tiering for just what council wants, we should respect everyone's opinion, so if the 1v1 community as a whole agrees on something by majority, it should be final, regardless of if some individuals disagree.
YES DUDE. If 1v1 had a tiering survey to give our opinions on what should and should not be banned, this tier would be soooo much better off. Maybe the bans wouldn't come directly from the survey but AT LEAST things get acknowledged more. Just think about it: no Iron Valiant. No Regidrago. No Necrozma. Maybe also no Cinderace while your at it. The bans so far were expected and not controversial at all...
.
1) Protect. This is a very concrete solution to beating Custap Berry. Usually they're slower than you and they click Endure the turn you knock them down into Custap range. But would you use it for something else, or is it natively a Custap Berry answer?
2) Priority. Priority is also pretty easy as a method to beat Custap Berry. It is technically higher than 0 priority whilst being lower than +1 priority -- so that's pretty good. There's many pokemon with priority that have/use priority moves for Custap esque situations. If you can fit it on your team, you should. IF you can fit it on your team...
3) Knock Off. Remove the Custap Berry altogether. Awesome. Now what would happen if they used an actual damaging move? You need to think about the advantage you gain from doing this -- as either it's an amazing payoff, or a wasted move as you are in OHKO range the following turn.
4) Unnerve. Same concept as Knock Off -- negate the threat of Custap Berry as a whole. Your options for this though are kinda... well, not wanting to use Unnerve.
