Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v2 [Update on Post #5186]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly, Zama C is the only offensive check to Chien-Pao aside from weather boosted pokes and booster speed paradox mons

That is unless Chien-Pao runs scarf... but that not gonna happen right?

...




Right?
 
Somewhat shocked only magearna left, was really expecting chien, and dogs to go near unanimous.

Sneasler I expected to go but wouldn't be surprised if council members were voting in mind of some bullshit to specifically target dire claw down the road instead of it.

Urshifu not getting a ban vote at all is surprising, i never expected it to go but it is a bit much for the tier. Ursaluna doesn't surprise me and volc I don't think anyone would agree should've been there over other stuff evident by how there was basically 0 acknowledgement it was even there when announced and even the transparent council members didn't say much outside the original announcement... feels like a leftover from pre-home was on the council's minds and home has knocked it down quite a bit, I rarely see it on the ladder rn as there's better more slappable sweepers.

Also we haven't heard anything regarding potential action on regi yet. 1.5 - > 1.3x is a pretty big nerf that even sent aegislash to UU from ubers. Its time to fuck around and find out now before everything changes too much and we're nearing gen 10 and finally doing a re-test.
 
The2009Zapdos said:
OH SHIT I meant Hero my bad XD
:sv/zamazenta:
This is the one i meant
Click to expand...

In that case, u just click Icicle Crash instead of Crunch on the switch tbh. Every Icicle Crash after that first one is gonna sting.


In regards to the vote, I definitely understand someone abstaining from voting on a metagame if they have not yet had a chance to familiarize themselves with it. People have lives, so yelling and clamouring how someone didn't have the chance to have a solid enough opinion on a metagame is a bit tone deaf. It may seem like obvious bans, but it's just how transparent and clear democracy should work.
However, if something like this does persist into multiple subsequent votes, it's on council to deem whether someone has enough time to dedicate to serving on the metagame council, so all I'll say is to sit back and observe.

Like alot of other people though, I too am interested in hearing the personal reasonings of the councilmen that made the votes themselves. OU Council [should] represent some of the best of the best in regards to the metagame, so their own responses and opinions on why they did what they did may offer insight to the masses that they were otherwise unclear on. It also is just solid transparency - people should at the very least hear out who ultimately makes the decisions for the tier they play in, especially for very contentious votes.
 
Dumb question Finchinator, maybe you or another person who is knowing tiering policy better than I could enlighten me but isn't "Abstain" the same as pretty much nothing for a council vote thus leading to a change of threshold for a vote ? (Basically looking a the ⅔ of 9 and not 10 for the recent votes ?)
I'm not really into the result, I'm playing OU as a casual player but I'm still wondering from a policy tiering pov. Answers will be appreciated.
 
Moutemoute said:
Dumb question Finchinator, maybe you or another person who is knowing tiering policy better than I could enlighten me but isn't "Abstain" the same as pretty much nothing for a council vote thus leading to a change of threshold for a vote ? (Basically looking a the ⅔ of 9 and not 10 for the recent votes ?)
I'm not really into the result, I'm playing OU as a casual player but I'm still wondering from a policy tiering pov. Answers will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
I think the threshold for banning something is over 2/3rds, so 6/9 is equal to 2/3rds
 
Moutemoute said:
Dumb question Finchinator, maybe you or another person who is knowing tiering policy better than I could enlighten me but isn't "Abstain" the same as pretty much nothing for a council vote thus leading to a change of threshold for a vote ? (Basically looking a the ⅔ of 9 and not 10 for the recent votes ?)
I'm not really into the result, I'm playing OU as a casual player but I'm still wondering from a policy tiering pov. Answers will be appreciated.
Click to expand...
The vote did not change the threshold though. It was over 2/3 regardless, but it just so happens that you would need 7 of 10 to get that, but also over 7 of 10.

Thankfully, we are looking forward to changing the threshold soon: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/reduce-the-quickban-threshold.3722446/ see this thread. The abstain will also not be a worry in the future with the awkward release overlap no longer being the case -- xav is a casualty of circumstance here with tournament timelines.
 
The2009Zapdos said:
Honestly, Zama C is the only offensive check to Chien-Pao aside from weather boosted pokes and booster speed paradox mons

That is unless Chien-Pao runs scarf... but that not gonna happen right?

...




Right?
Click to expand...

Hm, i'm actually quite interested in how votes are conducted. Chien-Pao got released mainly in the basis that both Magearna and Zama would reliably counter/check it, yet despite the Magearna ban some people voted to NOT BAN it. Do they consequently think it'd be good even without Magearna in the tier, cause that would be hard to believe, but i don't know.

For Sneasler i think it's a poorly designed mon but i'd like to explore the benefit in running covert cloak on certain mons instead of say boots, that item could have interesting applications vs any rng inducing move, but i see it pretty limited rn since scald isn't as omnipresent as it used to.
 
Finchinator said:
The vote did not change the threshold though. It was over 2/3 regardless, but it just so happens that you would need 7 of 10 to get that, but also over 7 of 10.

Thankfully, we are looking forward to changing the threshold soon: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/reduce-the-quickban-threshold.3722446/ see this thread
Click to expand...
So bc someone decide to abstain on each mon the rest couldn't ban to oppresive mons for the tier.
Sure each one have his one opinion but lack of transparency hurt more than anything rn.
You and part of the council are transparent but by anyone surprise the people that stop the ban isn't
 
Pabloaram said:
So bc someone decide to abstain on each mon the rest couldn't ban to oppresive mons for the tier.
Sure each one have his one opinion but lack of transparency hurt more than anything rn.
You and part of the council are transparent but by anyone surprise the people that stop the ban isn't
Click to expand...
Idk why this is addressed at me man I’m just doing all I can as an individual person. Sorry you’re not happy. I’m not really either.
 
Baxcalibur's live reaction to Chien Pao not being quickbanned.

1685906179996.png
 
I think chien pao and zamazenta-crowned go next week when the next inevitable quickban vote, as both were 1 vote short from the ban hammer.

Hero I think will probably escape again unless people find a super obscene set. (something more obscene than the sub set.)

I can understand the people who voted ban on zama-c and do not ban on zama-h because it just doesn't have the same immunities and resistances that make zamazenta crowned too fat for the tier. That extra bulk and typing go a long way.

Also FYI zamazenta-hero is definitely more flawed than zama-c despite getting an item slot, as it can be worn down with spikes and does not like future sight spam, unlike crowned who has no sort of counterplay due to the steel typing
 
Kinda frustrating when 6 votes (2/3 of the council) still isn't enough to get a ban, but it is what it is. I'm glad Finch makes posts explaining the logic of his votes, I just wish the rest of the council will do that also, it would be really good for discussion.

Also, is there gonna be a community tiering survey in the near future? I really enjoy those.
 
MrE said:
Come on people can we please stop flaming the council members just because you don't agree with them.
Click to expand...
There isn't much flaming going on here, at least not as much as when HOME meta started, most of what's being said is valid criticism over the opaqueness of most of the council barring Finch. People want to know what goes into the decisions being made. When our only spokesperson isn't even happy with the result and procedure himself, we can't exactly be blamed for having a negative outlook on the outcome. Regardless though discussion has been mostly civil thus far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top