well, if we can assume those mons would be allowed, why wouldn't we make that change for no-tera tours also? it's not like we'd be forced to make this theoretical room hold "current ou minus tera" tours specifically
-
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.
Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion, Part II [CLOSED FOR DLC]
- Thread starter Finchinator
- Start date
- Status
I mean for starters, we are getting further and further away from if Tera is broken or not. This new metagame has nothing at all to do with that. As I said before — and you conveniently ignored, it’s missing the point of tiering. But let’s go deeper into your thought experiment since I think you’re also missing the mark within it.
The answer to your question is: Because there’s a lot more to it than that. After we remove the biggest part of the metagame in Tera and potentially reintroduce Pokemon, you have a totally new metagame that may need other bans or unbans. If you don’t give that a lot of time and opportunity to develop, you’re naturally going to get a flawed result. Handling Tera is important and has to be done properly, but people here are ready to apply all sorts of reckless, underdeveloped half-measures. That’s not ok whatsoever.
so your solution to this is to… prevent people from being able to give it time and opportunity to develop? because there are people willing to do that. several of them are in this thread right now. people are so willing to invest themselves into this that they're creating and running discords specifically for it. the ones who aren't allowing a non-tera meta to develop are the people who have shot down proposals for rooms, tours, ladders, and oms despite there being a visible demand for such a thing
Worth mentioning that said discord is currently just me cause I have no clue where I’m allowed to put the link
No, don’t put words in my mouth. If people want to run side experiments, they can by all means do so.
But implying you’re entitled to some sort of official backing for something that entirely ignores the premise of tiering and then playing this off as both conspiracy on the last page and then me censoring people on this page when this is not at all related to my job is just ridiculous.
You have still not once addressed the underlying logic I used and instead nibbled around the edges.You do not have a counter to the fact that a metagame without Tera has nothing to do with gauging how broken Tera itself is within our current metagame.
In reality though, it does.
Removing tera from the metagame is a fundamental change to how it is played - and a large part of this is that there is much less strain on the builder pushing building to extremes. If you remove tera as a point of comparison and run both metagames alongside eachother “Is tera broken/unhealthy/banworthy” is a much easier question to answer because there is a real point of comparison that has been developed as opposed to a single, unofficial, bo1 tour that most people probably only heard of by chance because, again, unofficial, that half of the round 1 games were decided by action as opposed to actual play.
Removing tera does give a way to tell how broken it is because it actually allows people to see what happens to the current metagame when it is removed, and not having to use ss as the point of comparison instead.
my counter is this:
if the goal of tiering is to create a more skill-based meta, would not the question of "is the meta better (i.e. more skill-based) without this" be a pertinent one to ask? in fact, wouldn't it be the most pertinent question that could possibly be asked? where is the meaningful distinction between that question and "is this banworthy"? yes, sometimes a meta is thrown into a period of instability after a ban, but it's still better than it was previously, because a banworthy element was removed. the meta was incredibly unstable during the tera suspect, but no one was going "man i sure miss flutter mane and palafin". so the question we're asking by testing out a no-tera meta is perfectly in line with tiering policy
thats not true, while some mons aliviate pressure, others would still be important glues to parts of the meta even if overall their presence was a net negative, and would result in worse conditions until the things that it glued are dealed with.
not only that, it can also just be a sidegrade, where the meta doesnt actually improve but rather changes where the issue lies on. its complicated!
(I’m out for the next 5-7 hours, but will respond as soon as I can)
have a good time doing your thing. hopefully it's less stressful than the shit we put you through here
It's not like this needs to be an absolute. You certainly can just copy-paste the tier with no Tera as well as not unban anything to make it a 1-1 comparison. The question of which current ubers might work in that metagame wouldn't be irrelevant anyway if the point would be to gather comparative data on Tera itself.
I don't think anyone is saying it should be the only variable, that would be pretty silly but not testing what a metagame looks like without Tera and then making a decision on it when it's this complicated would also be very sloppy.
You can look at it from the viewpoint that it could help narrow down the other issues as well.
This thread has gotten really out of control and off the rails - nobody is stopping anyone from playing non-tera OU or hosting side tours of non-tera OU etc, I saw someone already has a discord up and that’s cool you can build up a nice community of non-tera players and play some tours, do some matchmaking to play games for fun, etc. But you don’t have to ask OU staff for any of that, because frankly it’s not really OUs job to create additional metagames (which is effectively what this would be, an unofficial metagame).
Back to the actual topic at hand, with the new DLC coming soon I’m eager to see how this new “tera type” plays out, and how it interacts with tera blast. Regardless though I think the tera blast test should go up at least within a few weeks of the DLC.
Back to the actual topic at hand, with the new DLC coming soon I’m eager to see how this new “tera type” plays out, and how it interacts with tera blast. Regardless though I think the tera blast test should go up at least within a few weeks of the DLC.
is the new type in dlc1? i've only seen footage of it in dlc2
Yeah same, but I’ve read some places that mention it for DLC1, so I think we may get some info on it at the very least. Either way I think we should definitely have some sort of vote after DLC1 and not wait around for DLC2. We can always revisit anyways if something totally bonkers happens in DLC2
I find it interesting that you frame this as an experiment at all. To me, tera is as obviously banworthy as palafin. No experiment needed. That's just me tho, I digress.
I think the current tiering philosophy works great for straightforward broken mons like chien pao. There's no need to experiment with a pre-home SV meta without chien pao, it's not that hard to see that it's busted and should go. Most suspects/quickbans are like that (mega mence, chi-yu, palafin, dynamax, etc) If you can do a playerbase survey and mons like chien pao have ridiculous support to be banned, then yeah, no need to experiment, we just move ahead with tiering action.
However, Tera is, as I'm sure you'd agree, perhaps the most controversial and divisive topic that Smogon has ever tackled. So why are we holding on to the same standard as simple problems like chien pao? Tera is far more subtle in its unhealthy effects on the meta, to the point that no course of action has anything close to a majority support. No pro-tera argument is remotely convincing to me, and I'm sure that mine are ignored by them as well. So if arguments don't do much, where does that leave us? The tricky part is this in particular:
How is the ban-tera base supposed to provide this justification or evidence? Do I just keep repeating survey data on our 5.43/10 meta that's almost 2 months old now? For an issue this controversial, I feel like an extra effort should be made to examine how exactly tera is or isn't broken, and one way of examining that is by treating tera as an experimental variable and trying a meta without it. Nobody is saying you need to stop there, yes that would be sloppy, we can use some common sense and start by unbanning volcarona+regieleki+espathra and banning baxcalibur+walking wake (can use teraless tour as some evidence for the last 2)
Honestly, I wouldn't even say the pro-tera side has provided any real evidence or much justification to say that Tera is balanced and healthy. All I can remember is "tier's so fun! :D" "look at all these consistent top players (who would be consistent top players in any other dogshit meta)" "It's technically skillful and that's good enough!" If a meta without tera turns out to be a sidegrade or a downgrade, it would actually give the pro-tera side some evidence too! Not like they need it though, they can lean back and relax knowing a supermajority is needed to change the status quo. A supermajority that not even kingambit could reach lmao.
Yes, ou council is not obligated to explore any of this. You don't have to bend tiering policy to gather more data about tera. You don't even have to ask the playerbase how they feel about each tiering action up for consideration on tera through surveys. I appreciate all that is done by ou council as is.
Last edited:
You're not understanding us. I'll once again give it the ole college try.
You literally can. As you said, there is a no-tera tour going on as I type. Make that logic work for me. Is the no-tera tour making the Smogon severs overheat? Is there chaos in the community?
The only thing stopping you is being married to arbitrary policies that never had something like tera in mind when they were implemented. Tera is a novel gimmick which requires a novel approach.
Again, with all due respect, I don't know what to say to this besides: Duh.
That's the entire point bro. Literally. Where are you getting confused? This is what we want. We want to see how the meta would be different without tera. Not giving the players access to this information is sloppy. How else are we supposed to know if we want tera banned or not? The only way we can know forsure is to play the meta without tera. This is the biggest tiering discussion in the history of OU, yet the only information players have to use when making a decision is hypothetical? That's running a tight ship to you?
For mons, yes, for tera, we argue that this is not the correct approach and it's time to add a new page, a new chapter to the tiering bible called Tera.
When Pao was in the meta, just like every other broken mon, we could easily imagine the tier without it. This does not work with Tera. Tera is not a mon, it's a gimmick, and a weird one at that. We could imagine last gen's meta w/o Dmax, or to be more accurate, we didn't really care what it looked like, as long as the bullshit was gone. Tera, again dude, is its own thing and needs its own unique approach and we're asking you and the council to step up to this challenge. I don't know how much more simple I can make this point- with all due respect to you as a unpaid volunteer.
Tera isn't "broken". Maybe this is what's tripping up you and the council. We're saying it's unhealthy. We're saying we need to see how things unfold without it. By jumping into the no-tera chat room, players are able to play games and compare them side by side. No mons would be banned or unbanned. You say this wouldn't work- again, again, again- it's time for a new chapter in the tiering bible. Adhering to this dogma isn't going to make the suspect better, it makes it worse. It's failing to address the last tera survey completely. The only thing that's been done about those results is this thread, which is for ideas, and we're asking you to think about this possibility.
You realize that the more time we have our hands on a no-tera meta the more information we have, right? Is Gambit broken w/o tera? How good is Gold without tera? etc. So many questions could have been answered by now. How is answering these questions "incorrect and insufficient"? It's not a separate ladder. It would be utterly meaningless besides a place to educate voters. A no-tera room would let players to decide if they like SV with or without tera, not if tera is broken or not. What is the strange aversion to this? Honestly?
To make it crystal clear:
- A no-tera room would not disrupt the ladder
- A no-tera room would be the same mons, no more, no fewer
- A no-tera room is the only way players can decide if they enjoy the meta more with or without tera
- Tera isn't broken, but it could be making the game less fun/competitive/balanced, and that's what players need to know
- It would take almost no resources, and we already have OU room staff that have shown interest in moderating
- The only thing stopping this room is tiering policies that do not apply to tera, no matter how you try to spin it
-
EDIT: Let me sweeten the pot a bit. Let’s say you and the council’s worst fear comes true and Tera is banned (just kidding). The info we could already have would save months and months of testing and work. Suspect threads could be basically pre-written for mons that are possibly broken in the no-Tera meta. If Tera is banned, this puts us all ahead on the timeline for the best meta SV could be.
Last edited:
my take is that this discussion is a bit or a waste of time just because its being fowarded to the wrong people. It doesnt really matter if you convince finch if its just gonna get veto'ed by the tiering admins again.
However, I think itd be worth to talk about it in the PR forums as new pokemon features become more and more complex and their more "optimal" tiering is not allowed by smogon rules. Tera, the way new moves work etc. Id even say kingambit failure to reach supermajority probably reflect cracks on the current tiering system (saying this as a very "i do not give a shit if gambit gets banned" person).
The pokemon design philosophy is changing, to rethink how tiering is done is natural and shouldnt be seen as pointless. I think its too late to get that ball rolling for tera unless this suspect drags a lot longer than it should
However, I think itd be worth to talk about it in the PR forums as new pokemon features become more and more complex and their more "optimal" tiering is not allowed by smogon rules. Tera, the way new moves work etc. Id even say kingambit failure to reach supermajority probably reflect cracks on the current tiering system (saying this as a very "i do not give a shit if gambit gets banned" person).
The pokemon design philosophy is changing, to rethink how tiering is done is natural and shouldnt be seen as pointless. I think its too late to get that ball rolling for tera unless this suspect drags a lot longer than it should
The last thing I want to do is give the man a hard time. There have been times where I took things in bad faith and have had some exchanges where I was ignorant and dead wrong about something and he politely corrected me.
I don’t think it would get vetoed, but if I’m barking up the wrong tree and need to be pestering the policy side of this site just point me in the right direction.
I’m just asking we rethink some things and modernize the process. New problems require new solutions. This tier would be worse without Finch. If this was the gen 7 council we’d probably still have Pao and Espa- and forsure Volc, which was a problem. The level of care and effort he puts in is top notch. I’m critical sometimes because I feel confused about why this gimmick isn’t being dissected and torn apart so we can see what really makes it tick. Maybe some tours with team preview, then some with TB banned, etc.
Apologies in advance if something like this is out of council’s control and there’s no way they could toss up a separate chat room to gather ammo for the upcoming civil war.
Why are we having arguments about obvious things...? I'm one to be hardheaded and at times too passionate about certain subjects but some of this is ridiculous. Finchinator and the council are running things just fine. Terastalization is a point of contention for just about everyone including me; clearly different groups of people have opposite opinions, but I think we can respect the natural progression of OU even if we don't like it. Sometimes you need to take baby steps to get from point A to point B, and right now, we're taking baby steps. You don't have to be involved in OU if you don't like its current condition. Take a few months off, enjoy yourself and see where things are when you return. Side projects aren't even a bad idea, I work with a few of those already.
Even though my interest in this tier has been minimal and I dislike the current metagame, I hate peering in and seeing these conversations being had for the thousandth time that have obvious solutions. I understand having disagreements with the council believe me, but sometimes the less favorable decision is the one that makes sense in hindsight. Respectful and healthy debate is good, but don't go shooting the messenger expecting a different answer.
Even though my interest in this tier has been minimal and I dislike the current metagame, I hate peering in and seeing these conversations being had for the thousandth time that have obvious solutions. I understand having disagreements with the council believe me, but sometimes the less favorable decision is the one that makes sense in hindsight. Respectful and healthy debate is good, but don't go shooting the messenger expecting a different answer.
I won't act like I know everything about smogon but while finch and the council do have certain administrative powers over the ou tier, they do not dictate tiering rules and tiering rules changes that would allow for a no tera tier/chatroom/ladder etc, even if they were into the idea. Usually, youd get permission from admins (which are "higher up". smogon doesnt really have a direct administrative scale because theres a lot of cogs around and a lot of community input but hopefully it makes sense LOL) to do things outside of basic tiering protocol, especially if they're more out there/conflict with the smogon philosophy. As the idea was veto'ed by someone higher up, there's not a lot the council could do other than maybe push it again, but at that point idk the specific conducts that tier leaders have to follow irt requests.
you can make a policy review thread about it and start a discussion, because while tiering admins have veto power for changes and proposal like these (hence finch mentioning the veto he cant overule), there's still the opinions of the users (esp qualified users) which are always taken in consideration. Its just that this is a separate issue that you'd need to bring up over there instead of arguing it on the tera suspect discussion, as the council needs to follow the rules and permissions/limitations given by them.
tl;dr: there's only so much the council can do, even if you convinced them. your best bet is to create a separate space for discussion and bring it up in policy review. If i got anything wrong here feel free to correct me and also explode me into a million pieces
Here’s my logic- there’s a “Pro Wrestling” and “Pets and Animals” room, along with several other rooms with about 30 users in them, and far from an active chat. That’s where I’m coming from. Here is the breakdown of the prerequisites for a PS! chatroom: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...-contacting-upper-staff.3538721/#post-6227636
Our formal application was back in March, and we only had one global driver (bless their heart) and about 50 players on the official petition. In the PS staff response they said “no need…for now”. It’s hard for me to imagine it being denied again with the support of the OU council- or at least they would have to give a better reason than the one we got. I can post the official response if we feel like that would clear things up. But yeah, to disagree with you on one point, I do feel like this is the place to bring it up again because I don’t see another way to solve the Tera question. Trying to resolve the issue of the results of the Tera survey showing a supermajority of players think something (with wildly varying meanings) needs to be done. No one is excited for restrictions- pro-tera or not. I’m not trying to be a pain in the ass but I don’t see any other valid suggestions. The official plan to address the survey, as far as I’ve gathered, is “wait and see”. Okay, well while we wait, can we mess around in a no-tera space? What is the actual bad thing about that? What damage does that do? We were asked for feedback and a supermajority said do something, so let’s do something.
This is not something the OU Council can do or even influence - it seems you understand the procedure on how to get an official room, so you have to convince those people making those decisions, or work on getting more people on your petition. This thread is not the venue to ask for that really but you can try to gauge interests and have people PM you if you want to submit it again. But for now we should probably get this thread back on track on what it's supposed to do, discuss how to restrict tera for when DLC comes out, and what the best options are.
Are you saying OU staff couldn’t submit a request like anyone else? Remember, this isn’t just me who put forth a formal request. I’m advocating for those who signed the petition back in March, and those who expressed a need for action when asked about Tera.
This thread is for Tera discussion, and we’re trying to find out a way to properly address the voices of the supermajority. Restrictions are DOA. This thread was already off track. Keep an open mind when it comes to the best way to address this idiosyncratic issue at hand.
Anyone can submit a request, but if you expect OU Staff to do it through this thread that's just not the proper venue - if that's what you want then you should be sending DMs to OU Staff asking if they can do it or talk to them elsewhere, or ask if you can start a PR thread.
This is incorrect.
For starters, nobody should ever be using SS OU as a comparison to SV OU as they are vastly different, but also because you do not need a comparison point between metagames. All you need is the current metagame to determine if something is broken or not. This is why every suspect -- including non-Pokemon like Dynamax, Terastallization, etc. -- is based on the current metagame and not one without the element.
How broken something may or may not be -- its brokenness -- is a measure of something in the current metagame after all. You cannot determine if something is broken by seeing a metagame void of it. You can simply determine if you prefer a metagame with or without it, but this is not the question suspects are asking and this will only generate a short-term desired result as opposed to the actual goal of metagaming and tiering.
To put it bluntly, "removing X gives a way to tell how broken X is because it allows people to see what happens with X removed" is your sentiment and this shows a lack of understanding of what brokenness is or how tiering is conducted. I feel you are either suggesting a larger paradigm shift that goes beyond the reach of this thread/the OU council or you are neglecting current tiering conventions that this conversation uses as a baseline.
- Status