Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v4 [Volcarona Test Incoming]

question for everyone
obviously this meta isn't over, but i'm curious: what's your favorite "phase" of the meta thus far? aka, beginning of the generation, home without dlc, dlc 1, and dlc 2/current meta
i've been wondering this for a while, given how many i see upset and/or complaining about the current state of ou, what the "best" part of gen 9 was by general consensus.
The Shed Tail or Terapagos metas were the two best ones this gen imo.
 
Not really, it's at risk of getting crit by Cudgel, and gets preyed on by encore sd sets. I've been using banded rillaboom to check it, in my most recent team, but it needs chip to actually remove it. It's lowkey a big threat, and checking it kind of depends on just getting a lucky matchup or making sure it gets chipped for rilla to remove it without having to depend on tera for the extra power.
Yeah SD ogerpon w/c dunks on skarm lmao
 
People so in denial with powercreep we gonna start banning shit for the sake of banning and lowering the powercreep?

If we continue on this path I fully expect a full wave of bans and unhappiness.

Cheers

Pretty much this ^

The game is powercrept immensely, mostly due to:

1. Tera
———
2. Increased hazard distribution + Lack of removal distribution
3. Booster Energy
4. Stat piles

Right now Tera is “untouchable” because of all this biased reasoning like “it’s fun” or “skill expression” or whatever else is being used to justify it at this point despite it being the primary reason for the increased offensive profile and matchup fishing in the tier. Some enjoy this kind of meta but it’s clearly far from balanced from the perspective of past gens and fairly limiting to other styles of play.

Hazard and removal options are far trickier to address as these distribution changes don’t inherently break any Pokemon and the community not seeing these moves as fundamentally broken.

Booster contributes immensely as well but also doesn’t have a general consensus amongst the community on if it’s broken.

As a result we’re targeting the stat piles in an attempt to address the power creep but this feels misguided as with Tera unchanged and the rest of the options being harder to address we’re essentially stuck with this power creep and matchup fishing in a way you either just need to accept or ban a ton of stuff to get back to some subjective lower level of power within the tier that people can’t even agree on anyway.

At this point it seems like….

You either address the elephant in the room or just accept that this is the meta from now on and accept that the power creep and matchup fishing aren’t going away and just ban a ton of stuff in hopes of reducing it as much as you can.
 

KamenOH

formerly DynamaxBestMeta
Right now Tera is “untouchable” because of all this biased reasoning like “it’s fun” or “skill expression” or whatever else
Tera is "untouchable" because, as the last survey results showed, a majority of people don't even want to touch Tera.
Screenshots_2024-02-21-13-11-37.png
Then again, Archaludon only got a 2.6 at the highest, less than other mons, and yet IT got the ban in the end.
Screenshots_2024-02-21-13-11-14.png
 
Then again, Archaludon only got a 2.6 at the highest, less than other mons, and yet IT got the ban in the end.View attachment 606560
the difference is that archaludon was an up-and-coming problem that a lot more people started realizing was broken after the survey. public opinion on new mons only a little while after a dlc release can rapidly change, leading to results where something receives limited survey support but is then suspected and banned by popular demand. it happened with bloodmoon too—it received low survey scores, but was suspected very shortly after the survey as people realized "oh wait, this is one of the most bullshit things they designed all gen" and banned it by an overwhelming margin. tera, on the other hand, has been around since the beginning of the gen, so public opinion on it won't shift as quickly or really at all. just about everyone's already formulated a concrete opinion on it by this point that's not likely to change for the rest of the gen, so it doesn't really make sense to revisit the topic
 
Tera is "untouchable" because, as the last survey results showed, a majority of people don't even want to touch Tera. View attachment 606559Then again, Archaludon only got a 2.6 at the highest, less than other mons, and yet IT got the ban in the end.View attachment 606560
Could you walk me through how you got "the majority of people don't even want to touch Tera" from a 52.2% vote in favor of touching Tera?

Remember the way the latter question was asked on the survey. Over a quarter of players are certain right now that a Tera ban is necessary for the balance of the tier. This requires a much stronger opinion to vote "yes" than most swing voters, who typically decide their vote DURING the suspect, would have. I'm curious what would be "enough" support to suspect the mechanic in your eyes. Do you feel it would need the ban-standard 60% support for a full ban in the bizarre "if you were to vote in the suspect right now what would you vote" type question Tera gets on the surveys instead of normal 1-5 ratings for whatever reason for a suspect to even be considered? Why even do suspects for anything if over 60% of the playerbase needs to be certain about a full ban before a suspect is even considered?

In short, why aren't 45% and 52% interest in action enough for a suspect in your eyes? What is enough?

the difference is that archaludon was an up-and-coming problem that a lot more people started realizing was broken after the survey. public opinion on new mons only a little while after a dlc release can rapidly change, leading to results where something receives limited survey support but is then suspected and banned by popular demand. it happened with bloodmoon too—it received low survey scores, but was suspected very shortly after the survey as people realized "oh wait, this is one of the most bullshit things they designed all gen" and banned it by an overwhelming margin. tera, on the other hand, has been around since the beginning of the gen, so public opinion on it won't shift as quickly or really at all. just about everyone's already formulated a concrete opinion on it by this point that's not likely to change for the rest of the gen, so it doesn't really make sense to revisit the topic
The idea that opinions on the central mechanic of a generation couldn't possibly change after a year of that generation being nigh-unbalancable is laughable. You are once again incorrectly believing that everyone thinks the same thing as you.
 
Last edited:

Pluim

formerly goodra4thewin
I think a whole tera specific survey soon would be beneficial to OU for a couple reasons:

- It can discern what aspects people think are broken (like tera blast or just tera entirely) rather then if it as a whole should be looked at right away
- Would bring back some people who quit because of tera to vote so would be more fair
- If tera stays, it may help with future bans as people are more sure that its the pokemon and not tera
- If tera gets banned it will mean current potential bans such as Gouging Fire won't have to be revisited
- The vote will be independent from surveys of pokemon (if it werent, similar to how people can't decide on whether Moon/Gouging or any other pokemon should be banned first, it will be harder to make a decisive decision).
- Purely speculation but it would likely be a bigger and more popular survey as tera is a more heated topic
 
The idea that opinions on the central mechanic of a generation couldn't possibly change after a year of that generation being nigh-unbalancable is laughable. You are once again incorrectly believing that everyone thinks the same thing as you.
This kind of seems like searching for an inaccuracy. Not trying to think through not only what they wrote, but what they meant.
They were comparing new mons and Tera. Relative to Arch and Bloodmoon, opinions on Tera will almost be set in stone. Tera has been here for more than a year. It has established itself and really hasn't changed that much.
 
What do rain teams look like without Archaludon now? Are we going to see other mons take its spot?
I'm using Hoodra AV with some success in place of Archaludon on the old sample team :Pelipper::Barraskewda::Kingambit::Archaludon::Iron_Treads::Raging_Bolt:.
The difference between physical and special bulk is noticeable, so it doesn't fulfill the same function, but it makes matchups against WWave, Manaphy and Kyurem less unpleasant.
I still want to test Ting-Lu and Landorus-Therian instead of Iron Treads since it hardly uses Rapid Spin as it is used as an Eject Button sacrifice to give offensive momentum to Barraskewda.
Current::Pelipper::Barraskewda::Kingambit::Goodra_Hisui::Iron_Treads::Raging_Bolt:
Test1: :Pelipper::Barraskewda::Kingambit::Goodra_Hisui::Landorus_Therian::Raging_Bolt:
Test2: :Pelipper::Barraskewda::Kingambit::Goodra_Hisui::Ting_Lu::Raging_Bolt:
 
Last edited:
The idea that opinions on the central mechanic of a generation couldn't possibly change after a year of that generation being nigh-unbalancable is laughable. You are once again incorrectly believing that everyone thinks the same thing as you.
where did i ever say or imply that everyone thinks the same thing as me? it's about a 50/50 split on "action or no action" with a slight lean towards my side. i never disputed that. what i said was that everyone's opinions on tera have had a long time to fully solidify, so those opinions have a lot of inertia to them. changing an opinion once it's fully formed is very, very hard, especially when it's something polarizing like tera. it usually requires some sort of massive paradigm shift—for example, a dlc drop. but the latest dlc didn't seem to change many opinions on the mechanic at all, especially since stellar tera turned out to basically be a nothingburger outside of contrary and terapagos. so it's very likely that it'll stay about a 50/50 split with a slight lean towards my side for the foreseeable future. it doesn't make sense to keep revisiting tera over and over if people's opinions on it are stable. and there certainly won't be a massive opinion shift within a matter of days like there was with bloodmoon and arch, which was the actual point i was making. i know you just saw the word "tera" and it made you upset, and i apologize for that, but try to keep calm and pay attention to the rest of the post too. there's important words in there you might miss!
Remember the way the latter question was asked on the survey. Over a quarter of players are certain right now that a Tera ban is necessary for the balance of the tier.
this, though, i have to commend you on. well spun! you took a massively unfavorable statistic for you and turned it completely on its head to make it look like ban voters aren't outnumbered nearly three to one. you've got a real talent
 
Last edited:
this, though, i have to commend you on. well spun! you took a massively unfavorable statistic for you and turned it completely on its head to make it look like ban voters aren't outnumbered nearly three to one
To be fair, isn't this also just spin? For the sake of oversimplifying the math, we'll just say that half the people are pro Tera, a quarter of the people are anti-Tera, and then another quarter think some action should be taken.

A pro Tera person can say, "See, 3 quarters of the people don't want a Tera ban. Anti-Tera people are outnumbered 3 to 1." And the the Anti-Tera person can say, "See, roughly half the people want some action on Tera. We are close to being able to take action on this." Both will claim to be right. Who actually is right, though, is undeterminable because people vote for different reasons. You can't just fit an entire base of voters into whatever convenient box you want all their votes to mean.

Furthermore, the problem with the framing of the survey itself is it breaks up the category of those who want action on Tera into two. Meanwhile, all the people who don't want action on Tera are kept in a single category. You might claim that the categories of complete ban and some action make sense, but it's actually over simplistic and unequally applied. Even within those who want some action on Tera, it is often disagreed with exactly what should be done and how far we should go. I could also argue that the pro-Tera people should be broken up in some way. And then you could maybe have two groups of roughly 25% of pro Tera folks and more stupid spin arguments on what the groupings mean. It's not that deep.

What if I were to phrase the survey like this:
  • People who want action on Tera
  • People who are open minded to some action but want to ban the most problematic pokemon first
  • People who want no action on Tera period
Would the results not feel completely different based solely on that different framing?

In general, survey are oversimplistic by their nature and should be taken with a grain of salt. They are merely supposed to get a rough idea of consensus, but even this is often inaccurate. The connotation that implies the survey represents some end all be all for support or lack of support on Tera is silly. Furthermore, circumstances change. What was thought a month ago might be completely different now, a month from now, and so on.
 
Agree with the sentiment that the meta is still fairly shitty unless you play HO. Not a lot of diversity in what you can use except if you’re leaning into Tera gimmicks, the weathers are still pretty cracked even with Archaludon gone. If you play balance you really have to search for hax/luck to work around a lot of offensive styles. I have hope but I think it’s 2-3 potential bans away from being enjoyable unless you’re a top tier play. Mid-ladder is quite the grind/repeat of the same three archetypes.
I don’t think Tera is worth suspecting because no one will want to ban it, but imo it’s removal would make the meta a lot more enjoyable and high ladder more accessible.
 
I could also argue that the pro-Tera people should be broken up in some way. And then you could maybe have two groups of roughly 25% of pro Tera folks and more stupid spin arguments on what the groupings mean. It's not that deep.
are you seriously proposing we gerrymander the survey to make the pro-ban side look less unpopular than it is? any split of the no-action camp is arbitrary because they all want the same thing. splitting the pro-action camp is not arbitrary because it's divided along ideological lines—not all of them want the same thing, so they can be grouped into "people who want action that isn't a full ban" and "people who want action that is a full ban". those are two separate groups of people whose only common goal is "do something". there are plenty of people who would vote "no action" before "tera ban" if it were a binary choice but voted for action because they want tera blast banned. the pro-action side is not a monolith, but the no-action side is
 
Last edited:
We can make the pro-action side a monolith, calling all tera restrict but no ban voters, explain why you think the mech you recognize is broke deserves a kneecap and not an execution?
good! this is exactly what you need to be doing. rally your base behind a single option so we can have a fair fight. i don't want a win by default because of infighting on the other side
 
Last edited:
are you seriously proposing we gerrymander the survey to make the pro-ban side look less unpopular than it is
First of all, I was making a point about the unreliability of your rather convenient interpretation of the survey. It clearly flew over your head.

Second, the actual current framing of the survey is poorly constructed for the point you are trying to use it for. It only split up one of the sides into two. This is uneven. Hence my example, which was purely to illustrate the point.

Third, 3 to 1 is outrageous slant. An unbiased view would paint it as it actually is: Roughly, 2 to 1 to 1. There are 3 groups different mentioned here in the survey. Not 2 for whatever side wants to claim the middle one. But if you did have to give the middle one to a "side" of sorts, for some reason, it certainly wouldn't be to the one "side" that wasn't split up.

Fourth, I even agree with you at least that Tera is more popular. I truly believe more people are pro-Tera than not. Relying on only the survey to paint that picture would be foolish. As I said, surveys should be taken with a grain of salt.

Finally, I have to clarify before some wise guy tries to say it that I am not anti-survey. They are a useful tool as long as they aren't taken out of context. Just like stats in sports and a whole lot of other things many people like to warp from time to time to fit a narrative or argument.
 
Wanna talk about :breloom:

Breloom @ Toxic Orb
Ability: Poison Heal
Shiny: Yes
Tera Type: Ghost / Fighting / Water
EVs: 12 HP / 252 Atk / 36 Def / 208 Spe
Adamant Nature
- Substitute
- Focus Punch / Drain Punch
- Seed Bomb
- Bulk Up / Swords Dance

EV Spread maximizes recovery from PH, while also outspeeding 0 Speed Gliscor and 227 Speed Raging Bolt. The rest dumped in defense to make it a bit more tankier.

After the loss of Spore, this dude has been almost non-existant in the tier, so, I decided to try the PH set from Gen VI, and I think it is quite good, and have good qualities in this meta.

1.- Sub-FP is a fucking nuke, and it can be set up in front of many mons that are found in balance and stall, like Gliscor, Ting-Lu, Alomomola, even it can set up in front of Skarmory and Corviknight thanks to Bulk Up and/or Tera Ghost.
Tera Fighting has a 70% to 2HKO Dondozo from full HP with FP, guaranteed with SR.
2.- After Toxic Orb has been activated, this mon can be a Knock Off absorber from weak users like non-SD Gliscor, defensive Tusk and many other mons, while avoiding WoW and T-Wave from checks like Torkoal and Clef.
3.- This mon provides another answer to Kingambit, especially when opposing team has burned Tera. You can bait Sucker Punch with Bulk Up and Sub, and you will end KOing it given the chance. Even against Tera Fairy or Tera Flying without Tera Blast, you win.
4.- It can be a nuisance against rain, as it can set up Sub against a scaring Iron Treads. Then you just press FP, and deal massive damage to whatever dares to switch in. Tera Water can flip that MU in your favor, and you can bait Raging Bolt's Thunderclap with Sub or BU, as you outspeed its common EV spread. Also, Tera Water mess up with an unsuspecting Meow.

Of course there are more strong Fighting and Grass types like Tusk and Rilla, but this mon has some good shit under its sleeve. GIve it a try.
Ive given this set a chance, mainly on low ladder to get the feel for it. Agaisnt stall its an auto win, farms alomomola. agaisnt rain it puts in heavy work especially if you get a bulk up you have a winning matchup into skewda/ floatzel. agaisnt standard offensive teams with kyurem/roaring moon/ gouging fire/valiant/dragapult it really struggles to have any impact at all. I like the set it has merit i just think its heavily matchup reliant. I think pairing it with toxic spikes to at least get some progress with substiture spam would potentially help.
 
Second, the actual current framing of the survey is poorly constructed for the point you are trying to use it for. It only split up one of the sides into two. This is uneven. Hence my example, which was purely to illustrate the point.
because only one side can be split up! "no action" can't be split up any further. there's no ifs, ands, or buts about what the no-action side wants. no further specification can be made because they want nothing to happen to tera. at all. there's no "oh except for this one thing" that we can separate people by because anyone who wants anything to happen to tera in any capacity is on the other side. that's the difference. it's not "poorly constructed", your "side" just happens to be about four or five different sides in a trench coat and it's still not enough to win. any possible split that can be made anywhere would split the pro-action base and your chances of winning would drastic go down. the numbers don't lie and they spell disaster for you in a tera suspect
 
Last edited:
Both of yall are trying to draw conclusions from a simple survey, that asks about something complicated. If anything, it's still in swing territory, some people could want certain mons suspected before, or they want action on tera blast. 46% qualified wanted action, current rulings favor a supermajority which both sides miss out on. All this means is that there probably needs to be another survey about it later down the line.
 
Top