Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
I feel like every possible angle has been discussed multiple times at this point, is there any timeline for a decision either way on how Ubers will proceed?
As a side note, In Gen 6 and 7, AG existed for Mega Ray (as well as no clauses but that's besides the point). Mega Ray turned Ubers into a tier, with suspects and bans. With this mon gone, I think we need to discuss what this tier actually is. Banlist? Is it super OU? what would separate this tier from a hypothetical Galar Dex AG?
"Frustrating to fight against" =/= Broken. Especially within the context of the Uber metagame. Fact of the matter is, no Pokemon was broken with dynamax in Ubers pre Home. Checking the viability rankings, very little Pokémon are listed purely due to their strength when dynamaxed. Excadrill is great with or without Dynamax, and is not difficult to beat. If that were the case we would of had this argument a long time ago. I support a BST ban, and as the metagame progresses we can further explore what we shouod do. We have the ability to explore an Ubers metagame where non Uber Pokemon can go toe to toe with box legendaries. I dont think we should dispose of this possibility
In some cases, however, being frustrating to fight against DOES mean broken. Some Pokemon, such as Excadrill as you mentioned, arent as frustrating to fight against but they are still very good Dynamax abusers, such as Swift Swim users or water types such as Gyarados using Max Geyser to gain a speed boost or get increased Water type moves in rain, hence why Dynamax was a big thing even pre-home. I definitely dont agree with a BST ban, as there will still be abusive Dynamax Pokemon and that means a lot to this meta. As I said, we should either just keep the current beta as of now as Dynamax isnt as MUCH of a problem, just still a big thing in this metagame, or we should just ban it as a whole because Dynamax has been something to be looked at ever since its release.
I don't agree that banning Dynamax on Pokemon that are Uber by tiering or BST restrictions are the way to go to solve the issue of Dynamax in Ubers. They're prone to a lot of holes and considerable risk from upcoming releases such as DLC releases and therefore not very future-proof is the best term I would use to describe it. People are not thinking about the long term implications of the tiering decision(s) that are proposed and are instead looking at it short-term to ""fix"" a metagame with a short lifespan, this is simply not the optimal solution in my eyes.
Banning Dynamax on Ubers by tiering seems like the most suggested proposed solution in this thread so I will cover my thoughts on this first. This is a complex solution and potentially puts the tier at risk in the future by creating unnecessary complexity. consider the future releases for instance, what if an OU Pokemon such as Kartana / Magearna / Naganadel etc. invokes absolute havoc in Ubers with Dynamax? then what? You're faced with yet another political decision of further complexing the Dynamax clause by having to ban a selection of Pokemon on a case by case basis, which runs the risk of additional suspects tests not succeeding the threshold to ban and potential problems remaining in the metagame. This also allows OU to determine what Pokemon can and can't Dynamax in Ubers, which is a flaw in itself. What about Ditto too? what stops it from copying something such as Necrozma-Dusk-Mane, Dynamaxing; and sweeping a team. Ditto is not a Uber Pokemon and honestly one of the main abusers of Dynamax in the metagame as of right now. I understand there is place for the allowance of complex bans as highlighted in our Ubers tiering philosophy, but how far do you want to go, you just run the risk of something becoming too complex and players questioning the scrutiny of the tiering decisions made and eventually it would boil down to that we would have been better just banning the Dynamax mechanic as a whole. I simply do not believe the mechanic is worth preserving simply due to the significant implications it may impose in the future.
I'll quickly touch on BST restrictions because most of it overlaps with my points above. The biggest question of a BST restriction is that any value for the "cutoff" BST is up for debate and not something that a majority can really agree on. Lets say we settle on 600 BST and Below can use Dynamax. This doesn't even cover most main abusers, such as Marshadow, where is this arbitrary line? just for the sake of preserving a mechanic, no one can truly reach a mutual agreement where this is, and the lower it goes, its easier to convince people that the Dynamax mechanic as a whole is the element that needs to be tested. BST restrictions also have the potential of making defensive Pokemon taking sheer advantage out of Dynamax and therefore has the potential to make defensive archetypes unbalanced and thus rather difficult to break, especially after DLC releases, this also something that is probably worth considering.
For all these reasons highlighted, I don't think cherry picking what can/can't dynamax is an optimal solution to the problem, but instead a suspect test for the Dynamax mechanic as a whole first and going from there, it is the cleanest, safest and most convincing method to handle the issues of Dynamax in Ubers, and if necessary it could be possible to revisit how we handle Dynamax in the future after imposing a whole mechanic ban.
My thoughts on Dynamax in Ubers
My personal opinion is that the Dynamax mechanic leaves Ubers in a deplorable state after the additional releases from Pokemon Home rendering it close to unplayable. There are way too many good abusers of Dynamax in Ubers, Necrozma-Dusk-Mane being the one that really pushes it right off the edge, but there are noteable other abusers in the tier such as Zekrom, Mewtwo, Ditto and Marshadow, but banning Dynamax specifically on any of these would not solve the problem as it would lead to a cascading effect of players just finding new setup Pokemon to abuse. I'll quickly touch on Necrozma-Dusk-Mane because it is spotlight of the dynamax abusers, Necrozma is absolutely absurd and pretty much close to unbeatable under Dynamax.
Here's a set that I've been getting a considerable amount of success with:
The issue with Necrozma is that players simply cannot attack it, otherwise they will lose to Necrozma that decides to Dynamax and accumulate, meaning any theoretical checks boil down to Iron Defense Corviknight which is extremely situational and trapped by a common partner of Choice Specs Gothitelle or a Bulky Wisp Lunala at 100% HP which is also way too situational to be considered a check. Ditto is also close to unable to beat this set. Even after a Dynamax ban I am still unsure about Necrozma's place in the metagame, but that is another hoop will we go through once we get there, but examples like this is what makes Dynamax unmanageable and a uncompetitive element to deal with.
Outside of Necrozma there are simply way too abusers that are able to setup and win, you can Dynamax any Pokemon, it is extremely flexible when compared to Mega evolutions or Z-Moves. It becomes a guessing game of who will Dynamax with their Pokemon and bypass any potential checks the opposing team may have had and win. Ditto is literally mandated onto any good offenses to deal with Dynamax users and also imposes the problem of reverse sweeping a team under Dynamax and the choice to break the Choice Scarf lock at any given moment. The increase of bulk via doubling HP and increased base power of moves with additional effects pushes over them an acceptable power level that can be dealt with adequately wiithin Ubers gameplay.
I've left this open an extended duration to see if community brainstorming would result in any more elegant solutions, but it seems there isn't one.
If there was a place to have Dynamax allowed with some moderate restrictions it would be Ubers. Complex bans are a tool we have available that other tiers do not in order to better balance a metagame with the goal of having as many Pokemon as possible available to use. The Dynamax problem is that each of the complex solutions do not solve the problem completely. In my opinion a complex ban best fits when a standard solution doesn't completely address the problem, and in this circumstance... a complex solution doesn't offer a better way around it.
Tiering bans introduce a large amount of influence from a metagame that never traditionally affects Ubers and realistically never should. BST bans leave a myriad of questions about Pokemon above a select baseline that aren't problems, and don't cover those with really good distribution or have other strong traits. A ban on Pokemon classifications (Legendary/Mythical) is also a never seen tiering proposal that still doesn't address all the problems. A "Dynamax banlist using current Ubers as a baseline and testing anything else" is the closest thing to a viable solution, but it invites intense scrutiny and cherrypicking - "why should this lower tier mon be put up for debate when Solgaleo is already banned from Dynamaxing?". Once you start testing individuals like this the slope never ends, in both directions. For every possible solution, there's a glaring hole left behind that the tiering system can't feasibly work around without a real mess and that's in both in the current metagame and when looking further ahead.
That leaves us at one potential outcome - testing Dynamax itself and re-testing it after DLC 2, and then maybe we can discuss our options again. With a full mechanic test, users can evaluate if keeping the mechanic overall and trying to balance it is worth the downsides it has on the tier's development during the year. A full Dynamax suspect still aligns with our philosophy as we prioritise Pokemon over mechanics - see some of our clauses in past generations.
I'll leave this thread open for a few more days, but any future posts should ideally focus on the idea of a full Dynamax test (edit: or the proposal in my post after this).
I do not play Ubers this gen, but would you consider Pokemon with G-max formes to be distinct from Dynmaxing, or is it the same thing by another name? If they are different enough, then just ban Dmax, allow Gmax, and you keep the variety introduced by the few unique moves and Pokemon that can gmax -- Snorlax, Lapras, Gengar, Charizard, etc. (idk if these are viable or not currently).
Anything other than this that isn't a pure ban/no-ban on dynamax seems a bit arbitrary and silly.
In that case, is there any chance of considering level 0 Dynamax? Dusk Mane probably still is hard to deal due to the defenses boosts ir can get, but still, going from a 2x boost to a 1.5x one is considerable and maybe worth looking at.
In that case, is there any chance of considering level 0 Dynamax? Dusk Mane probably still is hard to deal due to the defenses boosts ir can get, but still, going from a 2x boost to a 1.5x one is considerable and maybe worth looking at.
It's been brought up to me a couple times since my post that I glossed over the merits of the "Dynamax Banlist" idea. I'm gonna go over this idea in full and hopefully shed some light on the issues I have with it.
First, we have to decide what people are actually voting on here. Is it a clause or a mass ban of certain pokemon? Well, a clause (as I understand it) is usually a simulator-side restriction to prevent players doing illegal actions in battle. Sleep Clause prevents sleeping multiple Pokemon because the player shouldn't be trusted to uphold that, nor even can they reliably do so. Dynamax Clause in lower tiers and even Mega Rayquaza Clause are the same, they prevent the player from clicking the Dynamax or Mega Evolution buttons because again, the simulator is upholding the rule over the battle instead of the player or the teambuilder. So if we were to start a Dynamax banlist, it would probably be upheld through a clause because the simulator is preventing you from clicking Dynamax when a Pokemon on the banlist is currently in play. On cart, this would be a gentleman's agreement. So let's use a clause as a basic starting point.
Next point. I've already went over why we shouldn't use "Ubers Pokemon" (defined as those banned from OU) as a hard baseline for what is complex banned in my previous posts. That leaves using the current list of Ubers as a soft baseline - we start with those currently Ubers rather than automatically banning anything that is or becomes Ubers. It would have to be those currently Ubers at the start of the test, which means...
Darmanitan-Galar
Eternatus
Kyurem-Black
Kyurem-White
Lunala
Marshadow
Melmetal
Mewtwo
Necrozma-DW
Necrozma-DM
Reshiram
Solgaleo
Zacian
Zacian-C
Zamazenta
Zamazenta-C
Zekrom
Shadow Tag Gothita
Shadow Tag Gothorita
Shadow Tag Gothitelle
Shadow Tag Wynaut
Shadow Tag Wobbuffet Any Gigantamax forme
There are a few notable things here. There's an argument to not bother adding Eternatus, Zacian, and Zamazenta. Sure, whatever, but theres no harm either way so you might as well. On another hand the Dynamax banlist has a complication by banning it on every Pokemon with Shadow Tag. What's the response, so be it? Or is banning Dynamax on Shadow Tag Wynaut and Gothita the ideal outcome?
One major hole is Gigantamax formes, which are in Ubers by technicality. Well shit, how is that gonna work out? We either admit we are cherrypicking the soft Ubers baseline by not also banning Gmax formes, or we intentionally remove every Gmax forme from the tier. If we admit to cherrypicking, we open ourselves to having to discuss each individual on here that may not be universally be regarded as a problem, which is to say, a number of these could be put up for immediate debate. The slippery slope begins. Would it be easily understood if we left Gmax out? Maybe it would be, but that doesn't make it the best idea in regards to tiering. We know Melmetal has a Gmax forme, so does that have to be added to the banlist in a complex way too? And finally, if we do intentionally remove all these formes from the tier, is that not a major problem in itself?
We also haven't covered transformations - Ditto (and even Transform Mew) can circumvent the banlist and use it to their advantage. Neither of them are Ubers, so they completely dodge the soft baseline we're using. Is it an argument that transforming into a Pokemon on the Dynamax banlist should be illegal? Well, it probably has to be or we have a massive hole in the system. This means Ditto and Mew have some weird mechanics where the Dynamax button appears and disappears based on the Pokemon they transformed into on the simulator. Or, do we just add Ditto and Mew to the banlist outright? This could be unnecessarily limiting valid options - Ditto is a common Pokemon in SS Ubers and restricting its ability to Dynamax in a limited or full way could have some messy outcomes in games without any clarity to the players.
Overall this is pretty messy to new users and not that clear without looking up our "Dynamax Banlist". How many PS bug reports do you think they would get about the transformation interactions?
For the sake of argument, let's assume the community doesn't give a damn about the semantics and wants Dynamax preserved with the ideas that "make the most sense". The starting Dynamax banlist would probably end up like this:
Ubers Dynamax Clause: Pokemon on Ubers's Dynamax Banlist or those transformed into them cannot Dynamax.
Darmanitan-Galar
Eternatus
Kyurem-Black
Kyurem-White
Lunala
Marshadow
Melmetal (including Gmax)
Mewtwo
Necrozma-DW
Necrozma-DM
Reshiram
Solgaleo
Zacian
Zacian-C
Zamazenta
Zamazenta-C
Zekrom
Shadow Tag Gothitelle
Shadow Tag Wobbuffet
Gmax formes are left alone, unless the original forme is already here.
Alright, so we ended up with something to start a suspect test on. Enable the clause or don't... simple enough right? Folks would debate the holes like my earlier notes either in this thread or in the suspect thread.
However, I haven't even started on the future implications of doing this. We already know Zarude exists and may release before DLC 1. We know Urshifu exists in DLC 1, with two formes and Giganamax formes on top of those. We know Calyrex is in DLC 2, along with a massive amount of the old legendaries. That much is certain.
That means this current banlist has to be ready to adapt to the DLCs. The question is, how? Since we're not using "Ubers" as an automatic criteria, do we have to test individuals to see if they are worth adding to the Dynamax banlist? That MIGHT work for DLC 1 where there are only a few confirmed legendaries, but god help us if we have to individually test Dynamax on everything in DLC 2. That might lead to having to make up a whole new banlist and testing it in DLC 2, the same way some people are suggesting we do this right now. There could be a lot of new things to be ready for by that time, the arguments and things to cover are likely to be wider.
So my question to all of you now is, is all of this worth doing over a full Dynamax suspect? Those that are appealing for a Dynamax banlist over a full ban should discuss everything I've went over here and be ready to debate why this is the superior choice. I am open to being convinced by the community that this is the right way to go. A full mechanic test and a banlist are the only two methods I'm currently relatively open about.
Having select mons not being able to dynamax just seems picky and unnecessary. What harm is caused from just banning Dynamax outright? Fear of keeping integrity to cart mechanics? Most tiers have already foregone that in an attempt to make a more stabilized and healthy metagame.
Under the effort to select which pokemon can dynamax is ambiguous and messy regardless if it's based off "dynamax being banned on ubers" or mons with over a certain bst. This opens up a dangerous precedent that I feel smogon aims to avoid. To me personally, it should be banned outright or nothing should be done, no in between simple as that.
Ubers should be inclusive. Why not a nice low Dynamax BST like 500? Simple, eliminates 99% of the problematic stuff and allows people to try and build around a less OP Dynamax/Gigantimax user if they so choose.
Ubers should be inclusive. Why not a nice low Dynamax BST like 500? Simple, eliminates 99% of the problematic stuff and allows people to try and build around a less OP Dynamax/Gigantimax user if they so choose.
Because the number 500 is completely arbitrary, and would never be agreed upon, as well as there being complaints of non OP pokemon above 500. Most importantly, BST has nothing to do with dynamax viability, its a small factor among typing, movepool, abilities, and synergy
Take ditto, for example, one of the most broken abusers, under base 300 BST
Because the number 500 is completely arbitrary, and would never be agreed upon, as well as there being complaints of non OP pokemon above 500. Most importantly, BST has nothing to do with dynamax viability, its a small factor among typing, movepool, abilities, and synergy
Take ditto, for example, one of the most broken abusers, under base 300 BST
BST absolutely is a HUGE component of Dynamax viability. A 500 BST (inclusive) cap means the strongest thing you can use is Talonflame with 499. I can't emphasize enough how we should really use our brains to try and find a middle ground here. I don't buy/care for the argument that because Slaking and Regigigas are included in a BST cap we should throw up our hands and ban everything, which is obviously even more over inclusive (banning dynamax caterpie is as relevant in ubers as banning dynamax slaking smh).
I direct you towards the Uber Tiering Philosophy
Tier Policy Overview
Ubers should strive to be a competitive tier, i.e. we want luck and match-up elements to match those of any other Smogon tier. Ubers will only ban Pokémon when deemed broken by its own definition, which can be found below. This definition provides a more conservative, methodical approach to Pokémon bans than that of most tiers. Ubers strives towards playability with as few bans as possible, while still retaining competitiveness.
Proposed Ubers tier policy
The banning process will follow three main criteria: broken, uncompetitive and unhealthy.
Broken
Two important definitions first.
Diversity = the amount of Pokémon usable in a competitive setting
Playability = reduction of convergence in teams to the point where player skill matters
Now let's first revisit the case of Mega Rayquaza:
Mega Rayquaza was a terrific Pokémon due to its amazing offensive stats. In terms of damage output it was the undisputed best. Its qualities were undoubtedly best utilized on offensive teams. Using an offensively based team with Mega Rayquaza was considered superior to not using it. Hence, the only rational choice for players was to adopt it, making every viable team in the tier some sort of Mega Rayquaza offense. While both players could use it a make gradual optimizations in this pseudo mirror-match up, Ubers was deemed unenjoyable to play. Using the specified criteria for banning Pokémon from Ubers, it is clear that Mega Rayquaza was broken, thus it was ban-worthy.
What point does this make in regards to tiering? Well, Ubers will base banning things for being “too powerful” but to drawing the line of what this suggests is hard to do. The following should provide as pointers.
- Ubers should NOT ban solely because a Pokémon is "overcentralizing" i.e. close to/or 100 % usage. Instead think in terms of playstyle convergence. If every team looks like a duck, feels like a duck, and acts like a duck, then every game is a fight between two identical ducks. Essentially, games should be playable in the sense that they aren't closer to 50-50 mirror match-ups.
-Imagine a metagame where 6 Pokémon were considered viable. Deviating from these 6 will correlate perfectly with losing to any standard team. Now ponder on two distinct scenarios A and B:
A: Each of the 6 Pokémon can only play a single role (using a single set if you will) attributing to making the style of the team overall indistinguishable from any other team in the metagame.
B: Each of the 6 Pokémon can play multiple roles, attributing to permutations that allows team styles to become varied, despite the lack of diversity of Pokémon considered viable.
Ubers should be totally fine with B but must look at banning the most broken components in the A-scenario in order to allow for enough permutations to make the metagame playable. Granted these two examples are highly idealized and extreme cases, but argumentations surrounding what is broken should generally stem from this line of thought. Does a Pokémon disallow permutations to the extent the metagame is closer to the B-scenario than we would like?
From this we can derive the formal definition:
Diversity is not the goal of Ubers, playability is, and thus every type: broken ban must be argued with this in regard.
Uncompetitive
Ubers will use OUs definitions as it is essential towards our goal to be deemed competitive. This does not mean things deemed uncompetitive in other tiers will automatically get banned under this criterion, but it should provide pointers for discussion.
Unhealthy
As far as this type of ban goes, it isn’t exactly filled with any real examples. None, actually. It makes it very hard for Ubers to have a proper stance on this. Hence this section will review the four branches of this type of ban, as given in the OU tiering framework.
A.) These are elements that may not limit either team building or battling skill enough individually, but combine to cause an effect that is undesirable for the metagame.
Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is a vague criterion but it should apply to the Ubers tier as well.
B.) This can also be a state of the metagame. If the metagame has too much diversity wherein team building ability is greatly hampered and battling skill is drastically reduced, we may seek to reduce the number of good to great threats. This can also work in reverse; if the metagame is too centralized a particular set of Pokemon, none of which are broken on their own, we may seek to add Pokemon to increase diversity.
Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is something partly touched upon in Ubers definition of broken. Since Ubers has a thought out methodology on how to deal with centralization or rather, dominating strategies (see section: Broken) Ubers will not pursue bans of this type, period. Diversity is not the ultimate goal of Ubers, it is playability.
C.) This is the most controversial and subjective one, and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The OU Council will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player.
Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is valid. The community should be in charge of their tier. It is controversial, but if there is a general consensus that the integrity is compromised due to one element, which is neither broken nor uncompetitive, it must still be possible to ban it. We play this game for fun, after all.
Regarding suspecting testing methods
We believe that a public suspect testing method is the ideal way to go about our tiering decisions, just like any other Smogon tier. With a high ban % required in order to ban or unban something from Ubers, we hope that changes to the tier will only occur when the community overwhelmingly agrees with it, and this also helps to seperate us from OU.
"Ubers will only ban Pokémon when deemed broken by its own definition, which can be found below. This definition provides a more conservative, methodical approach to Pokémon bans than that of most tiers. Ubers strives towards playability with as few bans as possible, while still retaining competitiveness.
Broken - Two important definitions first.
Diversity = the amount of Pokémon usable in a competitive setting
Playability = reduction of convergence in teams to the point where player skill matters"
I don't think anyone can with a straight face tell me a blanket Dynamax ban meets this definition. You're banning hundreds of things that are not broken.
BST absolutely is a HUGE component of Dynamax viability. A 500 BST (inclusive) cap means the strongest thing you can use is Talonflame with 499. I can't emphasize enough how we should really use our brains to try and find a middle ground here. I don't buy/care for the argument that because Slaking and Regigigas are included in a BST cap we should throw up our hands and ban everything, which is obviously even more over inclusive (banning dynamax caterpie is as relevant in ubers as banning dynamax slaking smh).
I direct you towards the Uber Tiering Philosophy
Tier Policy Overview
Ubers should strive to be a competitive tier, i.e. we want luck and match-up elements to match those of any other Smogon tier. Ubers will only ban Pokémon when deemed broken by its own definition, which can be found below. This definition provides a more conservative, methodical approach to Pokémon bans than that of most tiers. Ubers strives towards playability with as few bans as possible, while still retaining competitiveness.
Proposed Ubers tier policy
The banning process will follow three main criteria: broken, uncompetitive and unhealthy.
Broken
Two important definitions first.
Diversity = the amount of Pokémon usable in a competitive setting
Playability = reduction of convergence in teams to the point where player skill matters
Now let's first revisit the case of Mega Rayquaza:
Mega Rayquaza was a terrific Pokémon due to its amazing offensive stats. In terms of damage output it was the undisputed best. Its qualities were undoubtedly best utilized on offensive teams. Using an offensively based team with Mega Rayquaza was considered superior to not using it. Hence, the only rational choice for players was to adopt it, making every viable team in the tier some sort of Mega Rayquaza offense. While both players could use it a make gradual optimizations in this pseudo mirror-match up, Ubers was deemed unenjoyable to play. Using the specified criteria for banning Pokémon from Ubers, it is clear that Mega Rayquaza was broken, thus it was ban-worthy.
What point does this make in regards to tiering? Well, Ubers will base banning things for being “too powerful” but to drawing the line of what this suggests is hard to do. The following should provide as pointers.
- Ubers should NOT ban solely because a Pokémon is "overcentralizing" i.e. close to/or 100 % usage. Instead think in terms of playstyle convergence. If every team looks like a duck, feels like a duck, and acts like a duck, then every game is a fight between two identical ducks. Essentially, games should be playable in the sense that they aren't closer to 50-50 mirror match-ups.
-Imagine a metagame where 6 Pokémon were considered viable. Deviating from these 6 will correlate perfectly with losing to any standard team. Now ponder on two distinct scenarios A and B:
A: Each of the 6 Pokémon can only play a single role (using a single set if you will) attributing to making the style of the team overall indistinguishable from any other team in the metagame.
B: Each of the 6 Pokémon can play multiple roles, attributing to permutations that allows team styles to become varied, despite the lack of diversity of Pokémon considered viable.
Ubers should be totally fine with B but must look at banning the most broken components in the A-scenario in order to allow for enough permutations to make the metagame playable. Granted these two examples are highly idealized and extreme cases, but argumentations surrounding what is broken should generally stem from this line of thought. Does a Pokémon disallow permutations to the extent the metagame is closer to the B-scenario than we would like?
From this we can derive the formal definition:
Diversity is not the goal of Ubers, playability is, and thus every type: broken ban must be argued with this in regard.
Uncompetitive
Ubers will use OUs definitions as it is essential towards our goal to be deemed competitive. This does not mean things deemed uncompetitive in other tiers will automatically get banned under this criterion, but it should provide pointers for discussion.
Unhealthy
As far as this type of ban goes, it isn’t exactly filled with any real examples. None, actually. It makes it very hard for Ubers to have a proper stance on this. Hence this section will review the four branches of this type of ban, as given in the OU tiering framework.
A.) These are elements that may not limit either team building or battling skill enough individually, but combine to cause an effect that is undesirable for the metagame.
Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is a vague criterion but it should apply to the Ubers tier as well.
B.) This can also be a state of the metagame. If the metagame has too much diversity wherein team building ability is greatly hampered and battling skill is drastically reduced, we may seek to reduce the number of good to great threats. This can also work in reverse; if the metagame is too centralized a particular set of Pokemon, none of which are broken on their own, we may seek to add Pokemon to increase diversity.
Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is something partly touched upon in Ubers definition of broken. Since Ubers has a thought out methodology on how to deal with centralization or rather, dominating strategies (see section: Broken) Ubers will not pursue bans of this type, period. Diversity is not the ultimate goal of Ubers, it is playability.
C.) This is the most controversial and subjective one, and will therefore be used the most sparingly. The OU Council will only use this amidst drastic community outcry and a conviction that the move will noticeably result in the better player winning over the lesser player.
Comments from an Ubers perspective: This is valid. The community should be in charge of their tier. It is controversial, but if there is a general consensus that the integrity is compromised due to one element, which is neither broken nor uncompetitive, it must still be possible to ban it. We play this game for fun, after all.
Regarding suspecting testing methods
We believe that a public suspect testing method is the ideal way to go about our tiering decisions, just like any other Smogon tier. With a high ban % required in order to ban or unban something from Ubers, we hope that changes to the tier will only occur when the community overwhelmingly agrees with it, and this also helps to seperate us from OU.
I don't think anyone can with a straight face tell me a blanket Dynamax ban meets this definition. You're banning hundreds of things that are not broken.
Right, I just think it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity, deciding on the cap, because theres no real reason why it would be 500, not 527, 493, or 501. "Its a nice round number" Is not a good way to decide.
Obviously a blanket dynamax ban bans non broken pokemon, but that doesnt mean that a specific number should be found in each tier as to what is "broken" just so a ferrothorn can dynamax in OU. I think a blanket ban is superior to a BST cap because I very much doubt the ability of tier to settle on a number.
Right, I just think it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity, deciding on the cap, because theres no real reason why it would be 500, not 527, 493, or 501. "Its a nice round number" Is not a good way to decide.
Obviously a blanket dynamax ban bans non broken pokemon, but that doesnt mean that a specific number should be found in each tier as to what is "broken" just so a ferrothorn can dynamax in OU. I think a blanket ban is superior to a BST cap because I very much doubt the ability of tier to settle on a number.
It's been brought up to me a couple times since my post that I glossed over the merits of the "Dynamax Banlist" idea. I'm gonna go over this idea in full and hopefully shed some light on the issues I have with it.
First, we have to decide what people are actually voting on here. Is it a clause or a mass ban of certain pokemon? Well, a clause (as I understand it) is usually a simulator-side restriction to prevent players doing illegal actions in battle. Sleep Clause prevents sleeping multiple Pokemon because the player shouldn't be trusted to uphold that, nor even can they reliably do so. Dynamax Clause in lower tiers and even Mega Rayquaza Clause are the same, they prevent the player from clicking the Dynamax or Mega Evolution buttons because again, the simulator is upholding the rule over the battle instead of the player or the teambuilder. So if we were to start a Dynamax banlist, it would probably be upheld through a clause because the simulator is preventing you from clicking Dynamax when a Pokemon on the banlist is currently in play. On cart, this would be a gentleman's agreement. So let's use a clause as a basic starting point.
Next point. I've already went over why we shouldn't use "Ubers Pokemon" (defined as those banned from OU) as a hard baseline for what is complex banned in my previous posts. That leaves using the current list of Ubers as a soft baseline - we start with those currently Ubers rather than automatically banning anything that is or becomes Ubers. It would have to be those currently Ubers at the start of the test, which means...
Darmanitan-Galar
Eternatus
Kyurem-Black
Kyurem-White
Lunala
Marshadow
Melmetal
Mewtwo
Necrozma-DW
Necrozma-DM
Reshiram
Solgaleo
Zacian
Zacian-C
Zamazenta
Zamazenta-C
Zekrom
Shadow Tag Gothita
Shadow Tag Gothorita
Shadow Tag Gothitelle
Shadow Tag Wynaut
Shadow Tag Wobbuffet Any Gigantamax forme
There are a few notable things here. There's an argument to not bother adding Eternatus, Zacian, and Zamazenta. Sure, whatever, but theres no harm either way so you might as well. On another hand the Dynamax banlist has a complication by banning it on every Pokemon with Shadow Tag. What's the response, so be it? Or is banning Dynamax on Shadow Tag Wynaut and Gothita the ideal outcome?
One major hole is Gigantamax formes, which are in Ubers by technicality. Well shit, how is that gonna work out? We either admit we are cherrypicking the soft Ubers baseline by not also banning Gmax formes, or we intentionally remove every Gmax forme from the tier. If we admit to cherrypicking, we open ourselves to having to discuss each individual on here that may not be universally be regarded as a problem, which is to say, a number of these could be put up for immediate debate. The slippery slope begins. Would it be easily understood if we left Gmax out? Maybe it would be, but that doesn't make it the best idea in regards to tiering. We know Melmetal has a Gmax forme, so does that have to be added to the banlist in a complex way too? And finally, if we do intentionally remove all these formes from the tier, is that not a major problem in itself?
We also haven't covered transformations - Ditto (and even Transform Mew) can circumvent the banlist and use it to their advantage. Neither of them are Ubers, so they completely dodge the soft baseline we're using. Is it an argument that transforming into a Pokemon on the Dynamax banlist should be illegal? Well, it probably has to be or we have a massive hole in the system. This means Ditto and Mew have some weird mechanics where the Dynamax button appears and disappears based on the Pokemon they transformed into on the simulator. Or, do we just add Ditto and Mew to the banlist outright? This could be unnecessarily limiting valid options - Ditto is a common Pokemon in SS Ubers and restricting its ability to Dynamax in a limited or full way could have some messy outcomes in games without any clarity to the players.
Overall this is pretty messy to new users and not that clear without looking up our "Dynamax Banlist". How many PS bug reports do you think they would get about the transformation interactions?
For the sake of argument, let's assume the community doesn't give a damn about the semantics and wants Dynamax preserved with the ideas that "make the most sense". The starting Dynamax banlist would probably end up like this:
Ubers Dynamax Clause: Pokemon on Ubers's Dynamax Banlist or those transformed into them cannot Dynamax.
Darmanitan-Galar
Eternatus
Kyurem-Black
Kyurem-White
Lunala
Marshadow
Melmetal (including Gmax)
Mewtwo
Necrozma-DW
Necrozma-DM
Reshiram
Solgaleo
Zacian
Zacian-C
Zamazenta
Zamazenta-C
Zekrom
Shadow Tag Gothitelle
Shadow Tag Wobbuffet
Gmax formes are left alone, unless the original forme is already here.
Alright, so we ended up with something to start a suspect test on. Enable the clause or don't... simple enough right? Folks would debate the holes like my earlier notes either in this thread or in the suspect thread.
However, I haven't even started on the future implications of doing this. We already know Zarude exists and may release before DLC 1. We know Urshifu exists in DLC 1, with two formes and Giganamax formes on top of those. We know Calyrex is in DLC 2, along with a massive amount of the old legendaries. That much is certain.
That means this current banlist has to be ready to adapt to the DLCs. The question is, how? Since we're not using "Ubers" as an automatic criteria, do we have to test individuals to see if they are worth adding to the Dynamax banlist? That MIGHT work for DLC 1 where there are only a few confirmed legendaries, but god help us if we have to individually test Dynamax on everything in DLC 2. That might lead to having to make up a whole new banlist and testing it in DLC 2, the same way some people are suggesting we do this right now. There could be a lot of new things to be ready for by that time, the arguments and things to cover are likely to be wider.
So my question to all of you now is, is all of this worth doing over a full Dynamax suspect? Those that are appealing for a Dynamax banlist over a full ban should discuss everything I've went over here and be ready to debate why this is the superior choice. I am open to being convinced by the community that this is the right way to go. A full mechanic test and a banlist are the only two methods I'm currently relatively open about.
I'm on mobile rn, so it won't have a nice formating, but I'll try to make bullet points so that it's easier to follow each point in order (considering that it's a clause that we are making as an already solved issue if that decision does come true):
Starting with the current Ubers as baseline is good, and I don't think that not following 100% is that bad: on OU, in theory, stuff only start in Ubers if they're around 680 mascot legendaries, but of course we won't drop Deoxys-Attack at the start of the generation even if it fits that criteria, and the inverse goes for Kyurem-Black on previous generations where it didn't have DD or Icicle Spear. On the Shadow Tag case: Shadow Tag is Uber, not Shadow Tag Gothitelle; considering that the clause only mentions Pokémon, I think adding the Wynaut and Gothita lines is unnecessary, and if they become a problem, then simply adding Gothitelle is better (adding that to the list opens the precedent to just add "every Pokémon that has Baton Pass").
For the future DLCs: the initial banlist would just be updated again; we won't test Rayquaza on OU even if it's a new Pokémon on the second DLC, just like it should start on the initial Ubers Dynamax banlist. If a new 680 legendary comes out, then it probably should start on the banlist, but if not, then it should probably be tested first. If running the soft baseline solution: just Pokémon that are insta-banned from OU, but not those that are quick banned on the future.
Preserving Dynamax on weaker Pokémon, like many people mentioned pre-Home, can bring good effects to the meta. The trouble won't be nearly as high if the baseline are those that are insta-banned as they tend to be the only Pokémon that bring a real problem, and that covers the DLCs too. The possible exceptions, like Naganadel, would probably need a suspect test, yeah, but I don't think the real issue is even close to the same extent as some people think it'll be, as even very strong stuff in theory, like Excadrill pre-Home proved to be more manageable than we thought, and by bringing a whole new dimension to the meta, yes, I think it's worth it.
Well, your opponent not setting up their NecrozmaDM when your Ditto is still alive, your opponent having used Sub, or you having a teammate like Corviknight that tanks all of Ditto’s hits.
I mean, it’s pretty stupid to start setting up when you know Ditto is on your opponent’s team, unless you use Sub.
Yeah, I think making AG the "Dynamax tier" sounds like the best solution for now.
The problem with a ban based on BST is that BST is not a reliable metric of how good a Pokemon is. Not even in the slightest. You can have (last gen) a 700 BST mon in OU with no Ubers viability in the slightest, while the 495 BST Toxapex bosses the game. Heck, the 489 BST Ferrothorn made it to A- last gen. While Kyurem with 660 BST was RUBL. BST is not a measure of how good a Pokemon is, and using it as a cutoff is a terrible idea.
Keeping Gmax around is a bad idea IMO. If none of the Gmax mons are decent, then it's a waste of time. If one is, then every team will end up using an otherwise pretty bad mon to not miss out on it. (Tell me with a straight face you would even consider Lapras for any reason but the Gmax). And at the end of the day, it will boil down to who can click Airstream and who can't. And most of the Gmax moves suck.
I'm getting serious deja vu from the pre-Dynamax ban discussion in OU about allowing Gigantamax or doing "y" other ludicrous thing(s) to keep the mechanic around when it was clear as crystal it was the core of the problems with the format at the time. I ain't no Ubers expert but it's pretty obvious to me that all these measures proposed to keep the mechanic in the format such as BST bans, tiering-based bans and so forth are not rooted in any kind of competitive thinking, but rather are just trying to keep it because its "fun" or to "adhere to cartridge mechanics" or w/e. It hasn't been explicitly said, but I bet my left nut that's what many people who support these measures are thinking.
If Dynamax is causing all these issues with the format it's time to ban it. If AG has to be left as "The Dynamax Format" with few other alternatives then so be it
I truly do not think that dynamax is broken mechanic. It has been empirically demonstrated to be healthy for metagame. At this point, the only justification for banning dynamax in whole is laziness and closed minded mentality.
If the ubers council is concerned about the amount of time and effort to get a ban list of dynamax pokemon, then discuss about this rather than handwaving it away as "oh no, it's going to be so much work with dlc!!1". Lower tiers have no problem with sifting through tons of pokemon to get a decent ban list. There's no reason that ubers isn't capable of this. Expand the ubers council. Make a new team for tiering, so ubers leadership only need to assemble the team, monitor them, and approve whatever they do.
This is a rare opportunity for ubers to take a more active role in tiering our tier and produce much more content and interest in our community. This is an opportunity that we shouldn't pass up on.
GF clearly didn’t realize how broken Dynamax was. However, the mechanic in its entirety isn’t broken, but rather 4 key aspects of it: the HP increase, Max Knuckle/Max Ooze, Max Airstream, and the fact that practically ANY Pokémon can Dynamax at any time. I’ll delve into each one at a time.
Point 1: The HP Increase
The HP increase from Dynamax is arguably the lesser of the evils, but still notable. Depending on the Pokémon being Dynamaxed, it can either a) take a hit it could never wish to take before without fainting, b) tank even more hits than before in order to remove a big threat, or c) take less overall damage in order to snowball more effectively.
On a separate note, the highest post-Dynamax HP currently is 1,168 for Wobbuffet. Once the Isle of Armor hits, Blissey is going to shred that number to bits with 1,428 HP post-Dynamax. God help us all.
Points 2 & 3: Max Knuckle/Max Ooze + Max Airstream
The combination of these two Max Moves basically acts like a delayed setup move, but with many possible options for boosts. Oh, and it deals damage. Here’s the options depending on what Max Moves are used, alongside their equivalent status moves or secondary effects.
-2.5x Atk/Sp. Atk (Tail Glow/Fell Stinger secondary effect)
-2.5x Spe
-2x Atk/Sp. Atk, 1.5x Spe
-2x Spe, 1.5x Atk/Sp. Atk (Shift Gear)
-2x Atk/Sp. Atk (Swords Dance/Nasty Plot)
-2x Spe (Agility)
-1.5x Atk/Sp. Atk & Spe (Dragon Dance)
-1.5x Atk/Sp. Atk (Power-Up Punch/Charge Beam secondary effect)
-1.5 Spe (Flame Charge)
Do you see the potential to snowball here?
Point 4: Availability
This is the main reason as to why Dynamax is broken. With Mega Evolution, a select few Pokémon had it, you had to sacrifice your item slot to use it, it could only be used once per battle, and it was predictable to call when and what would do so. Z-Moves are similar but, while anyone could use them, it was a one-use super attack with no secondary effects (unless the base move was a status move or a Pokémon-specific Z-Crystal.) Dynamax, on the other hand, lasts for 3 turns, upgrades all moves into better versions with secondary effects depending on the original move, makes the Pokémon immune to many secondary effects of other moves, has practically no restrictions as to who can use it,Is very unpredictable, has very little counterplay options aside from the opponent Dynamaxing themselves to counter your Dynamax, and can win a game BY ITSELF.
Conclusion: I’d rather have Wonder Launchers back than have Dynamax be THIS BUSTED.
Quick clarification on my earlier post; I was just suggesting a custom dynamax banlist. Starting with current Ubers was a suggestion based on the assumption that they were the widely agreed problem mons. (blind guess based on the initial proposal) There’s no need to include SS legends in the list as they are mechanically incapable of dynamaxing. If darminitan, wynaut, etc. aren’t obvious issues then there’s no need to include them. If dynamax Ditto is an obvious problem, it makes sense to me to put it on the initial list.
The idea is that, amongst those who want to preserve dynamax, there is an overlap between where each individual draws the line on acceptable. My suggestion, if preserving dynamax is what the community wants, is that the Ubers council decides on an initial list and then presents it to the community for confirmation. (cause it’s easier to manage a handful of opinions and the council is supposed to have the qualifications to be representative of the wider community) Afterwards, you adapt the list by adding or removing following your suspect testing system of choice. I’m assuming that the years of experience of tiering documented for the lower tiers should cover most of the groundwork for how Ubers would do the same.
To me, as Admiraal posted, the most important thing to establish is if the Ubers community truly wants to have dynamax as part of the metagame. It also needs to be understood that doing so will result in a long period of instability completely unprecedented for Ubers and an end-result that is very different from any prior conceptions of Ubers on a Smogon-philosophical level.
My opinion (as somebody who has not touched or watched a single game of SS anything) is that I’d rather ban dynamax as a whole than bring the full Smogon tiering machine to Ubers. I say this as somebody who personally prefers a stable metagame that evolves purely through player innovation and the occasional event/game release. Whenever I do play Pokemon, I also prefer that the metagame that I play is relatively centralized to where I don’t have to worry as much about team preview silver bullets. (read, idgaf about the variety dynamax would bring personally) That said, I also like every generation being distinct from the others and love seeing the Ubers metagame and the Ubers community evolve. So, as an outsider, I would like to see this complex dynamax ban get a fair shot seeing as there seems to be some degree of community push behind it.
Regarding the inherent complexity of a Custom Dynamax Ban; I understand the desire for having clean simulator text describing the rule. That said, I feel like the technically complexity of this sort of rule should be the least of our concerns if implementing this instead of a blanket ban is favored by the community and gives us a metagame with depth (for pokemon lol) that people enjoy. In practice, I don’t think the suggested clause is very complex at all. The idea of certain Pokemon being excluded from dynamaxing is already familiar and understood thanks to the SS dogs. (if they could dynamax, I suspect dynamax would have been banned pre-home like with every other Smogon metagame and this thread would never have even existed) Which Pokemon is or isn’t on this list and the justification behind those decisions isn’t any different to me than the tiering Smogon has been doing for lower tiers since DPP. Mewtwo and Dusk-Mane are not allowed be used in OU is just as easily understood and implemented as Dynamax Mewtwo and Dynamax Dusk-Mane are not allowed to be used in Ubers. (Transform being the only real caveat) Dynamax Mewtwo being a seperate Pokemon from Mewtwo is a semantics distinction that I think Smogon could have easily made if OU tiering needed it. (see mega evolution)
I can’t comment on dynamax in Ubers with regards to its specific impact on the metagame (again, I’ve completely ignored SS) but here are a few other questions I think the community should consider.
-Does the community want frequent suspect tests and discussion threads with the metagame being completely unstable until months after the final Ubers relevant DLC? Does it want to deal with a far more notable likely-hood for a suspect test following the release of every single new event Pokemon?
Ironically, the staggered DLC releases is arguably ideal for suspect testing. Even with a full dynamax ban, the Ubers metagame is going to be turbulent for the next half a year or so as GF continues to integrate past gens. It will be a while before we get the « real » SS Ubers metagame regardless of the path chosen and there doesn’t doesn’t seem to be any potential Ultra SS release that would force a redo on all the work. What does a couple extra months of instability really cost?
A big part of this question also lies in an individual’s personal preference. Not having to wait for the tiering machine to progressively clean a metagame or losing a metagame you liked to a popular vote are both valid reasons to me to prefer just banning dynamax and having Ubers stay as stable as possible, like it was in every gen prior.
-Does the community make this decision now or wait until at least DLC2 drops?
There is potential that a dynamax mon banned (or non-ban) nowish needs to be reviewed after future DLC drops changing the context. However, lower tiers have handled this sort of thing fairly well in the past and it’s easier to adjust an established banlist than to start a whole new one. I also suspect that if the community isn’t open to the idea of a custom dynamax banlist now, then it will be even less so later when the Ubers metagame has already spent a few months operating under the assumption of no dynamax. To me, this is a now or never choice.
-What impact will introducing this kind of frequent suspect testing to SS Ubers have on future generations?
From what I understand, dynamax is a one and done mechanic and DLC is GF’s approach to not drop a SS2. However, the precedent set in SS, and the new players that grow up in it as their first Ubers metagame, will undoubtably have an impact on how following generations are viewed and what the community will want as a response to any problems those metagames may have. I feel like this evolution is inevitable and that there’s no point in trying to stifle the changing vision of Ubers. That said, I’m also the least likely to be impacted by the repercussions of any decision made. Outright banning dynamax is the safest play. It’s unlikely to directly impact the next gen in that dynamax won’t be around anymore, anyways, and the conservative approach is consistent with Ubers policy to date. Every other metagame has made this ban, so it’s not much different from banning moody in gen 5 in a sense.
There’s probably more to talk about but that’s all I can think of at the moment and care to type out on a phone. One other concern I have is if Ubers is currently « staffed » enough to take on this sort of endeavor. Nayrz does enough carrying for this community as it is, lol. If you guys care about keeping dynamax in Ubers, then you should voice your support. (not just on discord)
Back before Home, Dynamax wasn’t too broken.
Having Zacian and Eternatus use 100 BP moves that did double damage against Dynamax users, while neither Pokemon having the ability to Dynamax themselves made the mechanic alright.
But Dynamax didn’t become an issue until other Box Legendaries started showing up.
Yeah, Home and the lack of foresight GameFreak had is the problem, but there isn’t any reason for people to want keep Dynamax outside of the Identity excuse.
Dynamax is just inherently a broken mechanic, and really the only reason why it was balanced before home is the fact that Zacian-C and Eternatus effectively ignored the entire mechanic due to their signature moves, their natural offensive capabilities, and their speed tiers.
Like before Home, you would see
-Excadrill in Sand using it for some extra bulk, extending Sand, and 100% accurate Stone Edge
-Pokemon tricked a Choice Scarf by Gothitelle, trying to escape
-Something like Gigantamax Lapras
If a mechanic is only balanced when it’s ignored by Fast Mega Mawile and Fat Mewtwo in essentially OU+, then it becomes broken again when OU+ is looking more like regular Ubers, you have to ask if it’s really a good mechanic?
If Dynamax ends up being banned, you can say it was ignored in Pre-Home and Post-Home, although through 2 different perspectives.
Edit: Can we also remove this cancerous mechanic in Random Battles, along with Moody?
I'll divide this post into three segments:
1. Why is Dynamax worth keeping?
2. Addressing concerns
3. My proposed solution (custom banlist)
1. I have seen a lack of understanding for the merits of Dynamax d in a number of posts in this thread. Why even bother keeping Dynamax?
Well, isn't it worth it to preserve the mechanic that is the very fabric of SS?
Ubers is the only singles tier capable of handling Dynamax while remaining competitive. Ubers is, among other things, the tier where the strongest moves, Pokémon and mechanics are legal. This is exiting and draws in new players (I started playing Ubers because Mega-Blaziken and Lucario were legal and I've been playing it ever since). It's also been proven to increase diversity by giving niche Mons like Gmax-Lapras, Gyarados, and Hatterene-Gmax a raison d'être pre-home.
Some have argued that Dynamax is a fundamentally broken mechanic. This applies to lower tier but it's different for Ubers. It's been shown pre-home that Ubers with Dynamax can be competitive and fun.
Teams were able to adapt to Dynamax threats. And if the current Dynamax abusers were prevented from using it, teams would be able to take on weaker Dynamax users (except Rotom-wash of course).
The other point is a bit more controversial, but Ubers should be as inclusive as possible. Outright banning a mechanic on every single Pokémon when it's only problematic on a handful of Pokémon isn't in accordance with the philosophy of Ubers.
2. Addressing concerns
Nayrz raised some good points in regards to details of the proposed custom banlist solution. A lot of this has been addressed in the amazing posts by Orch, melee mewtwo and ropalme1914 so I'll keep it short.
Gmax-formes: These are listed as "Ubers by technicality" in the teambuilder and for good reason- they're only "Ubers" due to being banned in every lower tier. They shouldn't be included in the ban.
Shadow Tag: Same thing imo, only "Ubers with a certain ability" (besides, Gothitelle and Wobbuffet are probably the worst Dynamax users in existence so a ban doesn't mean anything)
Imposter: In my opinion, Imposter Pokémon such as Ditto and... Transform Mew (I still can't believe you put that in your post, Nayrz) should be prevented from Dynamaxing. I believe that contrary to what Nayrz stated, this is highly intuitive because it's the precedent set by the Sword and Shield legendaries. It's the logical continuation of Gamefreak's balancing measures.
Adapting the Banlist: The greatest strength of the custom banlist is its adaptability. This may prove crucial when the DLCs drop or if Pokémon outside of the list prove to be too strong of a threat or to retest Pokémon (e.g Melmetal). Orch and Melee Mewtwo talked about this but overworking the current council is a very valid concern. The solution is rather simple. Make a Dynamax council. They'll make a quickban list based on Ubers Mons now and when the DLCs come out. They can handle suspect tests to get Pokémon banned or retest them.
3. The proposed solution
Ubers Dynamax Clause: Pokemon on Ubers's Dynamax Banlist (it'd be neat to have this link to the list) or those transformed into them cannot Dynamax.
Create a Dynamax council and have them handle the Dynamax Banlist with Ubers tiering as a baseline.
As bad as I feel about it, I have to agree with most of what ballfire says. keeping the mechanic is as bad as it is good, since the inherent abilities of dynamax are in and of itself broken. the only reason it was fine pre-home was that no quote on quote strong mon could dynamax, which changed with home and will also change with both dlc 1 and dlc 2. regularly I would be for a complete dynamax ban, as it is the cleanest solution without any convolution. considering that the community is all for a custom banlist, potentially managed by the council, it might actually be the way to move forward. this would give ubers an actual tiering status as opposed to just being called one and not really doing anything or be able to do anything.
if anything, now is the time to change ubers philosophies of old and move forward as a tier and with a balanced metagame
Hello everyone. I'm new on the forum, so yeah, nice to meet you !
I've read this thread since the begining. Someone talked about limiting the max hp during dynamax to a 50% boost instead of 100%, and CadmusRhodium said that :
While this is perfectly true, this is actualy an issue only for Gmax pokemon, as, in the cartridge, you can only encounter and capture Gmax mon via max raid, so their dynamax lvl is very unlikely to be at 0. However, concerning the dynamax mon, well, lets be honest, most of them (if not all) come from breeding, or at least can be hatched form egg, which means that their dynamax level is quite easy to keep at 0.
So this leads me to an idea : why not, in the first time, limiting the hp boost to all dynamax mon to 50%, and leaving the Gmax mon only with a 100%hp boost ? So that, we no more have the problem of the cartridge compatibility.
I said "in the first time", because their would probably still be broken shit among the dynamax mon even with an only 50%hp boost (I see you Necrozma DM), and the council could proceed to ban whatever is still too much for the ubers metagame, but the list would be shorter and the ubers as inclusive as possible.
This solution could give the opportunity of using dyna et gmax as much as possible, without having to ban an huge portion of the metagame (or maybe ubers monsters will still be way too strong and this wont change anything), but I think this could be a good compromise to keep as much dynamax mon as possible.
