KamenOH
formerly DynamaxBestMeta
Yo dawg i heard you like generational mechanics, so i put a generational mechanic inside a generational mechanicWe're now up to 4 "generational mechanics" for Gen 5
-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion, Part II [CLOSED FOR DLC]
- Thread starter Finchinator
- Start date
- Status
This doesn't even address the argument you're trying to respond to, it's just strawmanning.
There is an extrapolation of the term's meaning (Berserk Gene is gen 2 generational mechanic). It's important and should be taken in account but it in itself is one of the weakest arguments to not ban Tera.We're now up to 4 "generational mechanics" for Gen 5
Wonder Launcher: BANNED
Weather setting abilities: COMPLEX RESTRICTED
Gems: BANNED
Certain Mega Stones: BANNED
Certain Z-Crystals: BANNED
Dynamax: BANNED
Acting on the so called "Core Generational Mechanic" would not only be completely standard, but also MORE in line with precedent set by other gens than leaving it unrestricted would be. Finch has already said the mechanic won't be quickbanned and will be up to community vote. That's as much special attention as these one-off gimmicks deserve.
wonder launcher (you can turn it off in-game unlike tera and holy shit no thank you to allowing this setting obviously not meant to be serious)
weather existing (abilities/moves)
gems (items)
megas (items)
z-crytstals (items)
dmax and tera: mechanics you activate by pressing a joycon trigger that (with dmax, nearly) every pokemon can use
literally none of these are comparable to dynamax or tera since they're just banning specific items/abilities and even if they were comparable it literally doesn't matter to what to do with this specific mechanic so who cares what we did about the 400 different loosely defined "generational mechanics"
weather existing (abilities/moves)
gems (items)
megas (items)
z-crytstals (items)
dmax and tera: mechanics you activate by pressing a joycon trigger that (with dmax, nearly) every pokemon can use
literally none of these are comparable to dynamax or tera since they're just banning specific items/abilities and even if they were comparable it literally doesn't matter to what to do with this specific mechanic so who cares what we did about the 400 different loosely defined "generational mechanics"
Who the hell was calling team preview a generational mechanic. Does anyone think the generational mechanic of Gen 3 is Abilities? Are Pokémon in general the generational mechanic of Gen 1?!We're now up to 4 "generational mechanics" for Gen 5
Really? I don't recall any Z-crystal banned on OU unless you are counting stuff like Marshadow's Z crystal.
All very possible. There's no official definition of what a "generational mechanic" is, because it's not a real thing
i was semi mistaken on this; I thought Eevium Z was banned, but that's only the case in Doubles, Baton Pass was banned instead in all other formats
Can't think of any beyond the ones Vert, NJNP, blunder & co brought up and the generic "I think it's fun" (subjective.) honestly the PR thread has lots of very valuable pro Tera viewpoints that adjusted my position from preferring full ban to preferring Tera Blast ban, and developing my undecided position on Tera preview.
Last edited:
I will echo what was being discussed in the first pages and say that we should definitely restrict Tera with Tera Preview if we want to have any hope in changing the status quo this time around. Yeah, Tera Preview doesn't fix the issue completely, but there's no way a full ban will win and this is a compromise that most of us can agree on.
Personally as a low ELO player, I find the mechanic too overbearing on team building, but I will grant the Pro Tera side this: after playing a bit more with it, the mechanic DOES value skillful play. Knowledge of meta trends makes Tera less volatile and easier to maneuver. That being said, I don't think anybody can deny that surprise Tera flavor of the week can have the same impact on a match's outcome than a skillful Tera play. (I'm looking at you, surprise Tera Steel Roaring Moon that reverse sweeped me last minute.)
I personally do not like it, but I am aware OU isn't decided by my whims, and I do see some of the merits to the mechanic. So I think the compromise of Tera Preview (mechanic stays but we no longer have surprise Tera flavor of the week) would work well enough, for now.
Personally as a low ELO player, I find the mechanic too overbearing on team building, but I will grant the Pro Tera side this: after playing a bit more with it, the mechanic DOES value skillful play. Knowledge of meta trends makes Tera less volatile and easier to maneuver. That being said, I don't think anybody can deny that surprise Tera flavor of the week can have the same impact on a match's outcome than a skillful Tera play. (I'm looking at you, surprise Tera Steel Roaring Moon that reverse sweeped me last minute.)
I personally do not like it, but I am aware OU isn't decided by my whims, and I do see some of the merits to the mechanic. So I think the compromise of Tera Preview (mechanic stays but we no longer have surprise Tera flavor of the week) would work well enough, for now.
This test for tera should definitely contain only voting for 3 possible outcomes: full ban/no ban/preview. While there is value in discussing tera blast, this would be better as its own test and obviously hinges on the fate of tera as a whole.
This whole tera issue seems to be the worst in OU compared to the lower tiers. What is certain is that there is no real standard for how to approach tera in terms of where the line is drawn between whether a mon itself is the issue or when tera is the actual issue for something. What constitutes a broken tera user? Is it something's ability to utilize multiple teras? is it something's ability to use one tera very well? Is it something's ability to force opposing teras? The tera conversation seems to always revolve around OU, but that's not the reality of it. This is part of why inclusion of the lower tiers matters so that players can gain more perspective from them especially when a vote for tera holds so much weight.
Getting reqs for tera isn't just voting on behalf of OU, it's making a decision for EVERY main tier. This is something that anybody who gets reqs should consider too. Despite the tera decision being one that affects all the main tiers, the decision to conduct the suspect only in OU is whack. Why should players from the other tiers be forced to get reqs in a tier that they maybe have never played just to be able to vote on it? it makes no real sense. Due process for such an important decision should be one of the goals for such an important decision like this, one of voting on the generational mechanic no less. Representation for the lower tiers does matter for something like this and if anything, a simultaneous suspect should be unanimously held across every main tier and allow people to get reqs on behalf of their main tiers.
I can understand that there's players that do not like tera, but to outright ban it seems a bit extreme. The playerbase is impossible to please no matter the state of the tiers. People complain about generations with bulkier stuff and dragged out games. People also complain when metas are highly offensive and fast paced with multiple threats around. Maybe it's just the expectations that people have for what makes a "good" metagame, but people also have to understand that a metagame where everything has a perfect counter just simply doesn't exist and is not possible. This isn't unique to SV either, a mon having perfect counters is a pretty rare thing to see especially with most mons only getting better as we get new generations are released. Tera of course really pushes this boundary, but to say tera is an uncompetitive mechanic is simply incorrect; there are skillful characteristics in a tera meta and I'm of the belief that tera should be preserved if possible in some way. Regardless of the outcome, i think there should be the option to play SV with and without tera even if it ends up being a custom battle option. At the tour level, perhaps there should be tours with and without tera just so that there is variety among the different beliefs on tera. Maybe team tours can have dedicated slots without tera so that we all can compare both metas. I always think about what will happen once SV becomes an old gen. I genuinely believe that if tera were to get banned, most would end up regretting it and actually miss having it around when SV finally is an old gen. I for one think it's good to have variety among different generations.
Tera Preview
I think this solution wouldn't be as positive as many believe it to be. Tera preview would change the status quo of how games are played and an atmosphere that involves this knowledge requires a totally different skillset than the ones currently used in the unrestricted format. Think of those scenario matches where you and your opponent are familiar with each other's teams, where maybe you've faced each other previously or perhaps a recognized team from somewhere (sample teams, tour teams, youtube, etc.) is being used. If you go into a match knowing the opponent's movesets, items, maybe even EV spreads too completely changes how the match is approached "from preview" as opposed to entering a match against a team you've never faced before and instead acquire knowledge as you progress in the match. If players could see opposing teras from preview, the same effect would be present. While it could be argued that making a gameplan would be easier with preview, this isn't a foolproof solution that will always grant you sudden counterplay to something; just because you know the tera of a mon doesn't mean you have the counterplay for it anyways. Ultimately, people can vote for what they believe, but they shouldn't expect tera preview to have all these magical answers that they might assume it will. For a game that fundamentally involves one's ability to adapt to the game state and gaining knowledge throughout the match rather than from the get-go, this solution doesn't seem like the move to me. Random teras truly aren't all that random, in fact, many offensive teras revolve around the defensive mons of a given tier. Not all teras are built the same and some are simply better than others for every mon.Tera metas reward good prep, general game knowledge, and staying up to date with metagame trends. Some may get salty about losing to an unexpected tera without actually questioning the practicality of the tera choice in question, or if the tera turn was what actually lost them the match. Most mons don't become "broken" with tera. Usually, it's only a select few users of tera that push the limits in this way. A general observation I've seen is that OU players, compared to other playerbases for different tiers, are always the most anti-change of the bunch for some reason. Maybe they just hate change or enjoy chaos, but the volatility of a tier does depend a lot on the willingness of the playerbase to enact change. I know that most were shocked at Volcarona getting banned, but as a UU player (an outsider perspective) i think Volcarona could have been banned way sooner than the home meta, but as the OU surveys have showed despite how often I've come across a complaint about like Garganacl, Gholdengo, Iron Valiant, etc. the playerbase seems to be opposed to actually addressing these things, which is surprising as someone that doesn't main OU. Not to say this has been observed only in SV, but one could say similar to that of OU playerbases in SS and USUM. In more recent gens, there has been a push for more community feedback in addressing topics of a tier, which is a positive, but i also think it'd be good to talk about how suspects are looked at now. A main defense for whether something gets a suspect now is if it reached a certain threshold on a survey. In past gens, i feel like the times were more inclined to give mons a suspect even if it may not end up actually being broken, but rather as something that is explored in some way. Nowadays, even mons that constantly get mentioned on a survey have rarely gotten a suspect test. Does the community think that upholding a survey threshold for whether something gets a test or not has been practical? Should councils be more inclined to conduct and hold suspects for mons regardless of survey thresholds? In bringing these questions up, I'm not saying that surveys are of no value (community imput is important), but should surveys be the deciding factor in whether or not something is given a test? Anyways, if tera preview does end up winning the vote, i think teras should be revealed once a mon hits the field rather than from team preview.
Tera Blast
This is a unique move that is definitely worth discussing in this conversation. It's no doubt that this move allows for some mons to have godly coverage combinations and with an extra kick on top of that. Granting any mon the ability to possess a particular coverage type that they normally don't have access to can be a powerful thing. In some conversations about tera's issues, "tera" gets talked about very ambiguously despite there being times when people are indirectly referring to this move. Every dexit generation we have had so far consequently makes it more difficult to answer certain mons when a very limited pool of defensive counterplay is all thats available despite mons getting better for the most part each generation. On paper, tera blast only gets better the further you go down the tier ladder because ideally the "better" defensive stuff end up in the higher tiers. Acting on tera blast does have merit in that movesets for any given mon wouldn't be out of the ordinary and you'd at least be facing a mon with everything it already comes with. Agreed that this would be better as its own suspect depending on what the outcome of tera alone ends up being.
Additional proposal
A big part of the issue that many seem to have with tera is the lack of predictability. Previous gimmicks in gen 6 and 7 did have predictability on some level. In gen 6, you could obviously know which mons can Mega evolve. In gen 7, there was a little less predictability but it did exist in players being able to make educated guesses on what might be the user depending on if a pokemon's item was revealed or not. For argument's sake im not defending dmax but in gen 8 there was gmax and you could also guess what might dmax depending on if it had access to the more broken dmax moves (flying/fighting/etc.) or if set up moves came into play. Tera in gen 9 doesn't really have predictability for what might tera the same way previous generations have had. Since the start of SV and up until now I've only ever reached one possible solution to address having some sort of predictability for tera, but it's something i think many would be opposed to. An additional proposed solution that most likely wouldn't get approved but could potentially work would be this other method of a tera restriction is: a base stat total restriction. Essentially, mons above a certain bst limit would not be able to tera and anything below the restriction would. The main idea here is that in theory, mons with higher bst don't exactly need a "boost" since on paper they would simply be better than mons with a lower bst and ideally a tera "boost" would allow these lower bst mons to even the playing field with the higher bst mons. There is exceptions to the rule obviously, but i think most can understand the root of the premise. In a match right from preview, if a player sees any mons above the bst limit they would know that those can't be the tera users; predictability for tera would exist. In bringing this up, of course there would be some complexities to figure out how this would be applied. Some of the issues involve:
>how would the bst limit be established?
>would it only apply to OU or every main tier?
>would lower tiers establish their own limit depending on the bst ranges of the tier?
For any outcome of tera, the odds of everyone being satisfied is nearly impossible, but discussing other possibilities doesn't hurt. I recall most not being fans of the potential outcomes of the first tera vote, so if possible we should try narrowing down tera outcomes to things that the playerbase actually supports.
Thanks for reading.
This whole tera issue seems to be the worst in OU compared to the lower tiers. What is certain is that there is no real standard for how to approach tera in terms of where the line is drawn between whether a mon itself is the issue or when tera is the actual issue for something. What constitutes a broken tera user? Is it something's ability to utilize multiple teras? is it something's ability to use one tera very well? Is it something's ability to force opposing teras? The tera conversation seems to always revolve around OU, but that's not the reality of it. This is part of why inclusion of the lower tiers matters so that players can gain more perspective from them especially when a vote for tera holds so much weight.
Getting reqs for tera isn't just voting on behalf of OU, it's making a decision for EVERY main tier. This is something that anybody who gets reqs should consider too. Despite the tera decision being one that affects all the main tiers, the decision to conduct the suspect only in OU is whack. Why should players from the other tiers be forced to get reqs in a tier that they maybe have never played just to be able to vote on it? it makes no real sense. Due process for such an important decision should be one of the goals for such an important decision like this, one of voting on the generational mechanic no less. Representation for the lower tiers does matter for something like this and if anything, a simultaneous suspect should be unanimously held across every main tier and allow people to get reqs on behalf of their main tiers.
I can understand that there's players that do not like tera, but to outright ban it seems a bit extreme. The playerbase is impossible to please no matter the state of the tiers. People complain about generations with bulkier stuff and dragged out games. People also complain when metas are highly offensive and fast paced with multiple threats around. Maybe it's just the expectations that people have for what makes a "good" metagame, but people also have to understand that a metagame where everything has a perfect counter just simply doesn't exist and is not possible. This isn't unique to SV either, a mon having perfect counters is a pretty rare thing to see especially with most mons only getting better as we get new generations are released. Tera of course really pushes this boundary, but to say tera is an uncompetitive mechanic is simply incorrect; there are skillful characteristics in a tera meta and I'm of the belief that tera should be preserved if possible in some way. Regardless of the outcome, i think there should be the option to play SV with and without tera even if it ends up being a custom battle option. At the tour level, perhaps there should be tours with and without tera just so that there is variety among the different beliefs on tera. Maybe team tours can have dedicated slots without tera so that we all can compare both metas. I always think about what will happen once SV becomes an old gen. I genuinely believe that if tera were to get banned, most would end up regretting it and actually miss having it around when SV finally is an old gen. I for one think it's good to have variety among different generations.
Tera Preview
I think this solution wouldn't be as positive as many believe it to be. Tera preview would change the status quo of how games are played and an atmosphere that involves this knowledge requires a totally different skillset than the ones currently used in the unrestricted format. Think of those scenario matches where you and your opponent are familiar with each other's teams, where maybe you've faced each other previously or perhaps a recognized team from somewhere (sample teams, tour teams, youtube, etc.) is being used. If you go into a match knowing the opponent's movesets, items, maybe even EV spreads too completely changes how the match is approached "from preview" as opposed to entering a match against a team you've never faced before and instead acquire knowledge as you progress in the match. If players could see opposing teras from preview, the same effect would be present. While it could be argued that making a gameplan would be easier with preview, this isn't a foolproof solution that will always grant you sudden counterplay to something; just because you know the tera of a mon doesn't mean you have the counterplay for it anyways. Ultimately, people can vote for what they believe, but they shouldn't expect tera preview to have all these magical answers that they might assume it will. For a game that fundamentally involves one's ability to adapt to the game state and gaining knowledge throughout the match rather than from the get-go, this solution doesn't seem like the move to me. Random teras truly aren't all that random, in fact, many offensive teras revolve around the defensive mons of a given tier. Not all teras are built the same and some are simply better than others for every mon.Tera metas reward good prep, general game knowledge, and staying up to date with metagame trends. Some may get salty about losing to an unexpected tera without actually questioning the practicality of the tera choice in question, or if the tera turn was what actually lost them the match. Most mons don't become "broken" with tera. Usually, it's only a select few users of tera that push the limits in this way. A general observation I've seen is that OU players, compared to other playerbases for different tiers, are always the most anti-change of the bunch for some reason. Maybe they just hate change or enjoy chaos, but the volatility of a tier does depend a lot on the willingness of the playerbase to enact change. I know that most were shocked at Volcarona getting banned, but as a UU player (an outsider perspective) i think Volcarona could have been banned way sooner than the home meta, but as the OU surveys have showed despite how often I've come across a complaint about like Garganacl, Gholdengo, Iron Valiant, etc. the playerbase seems to be opposed to actually addressing these things, which is surprising as someone that doesn't main OU. Not to say this has been observed only in SV, but one could say similar to that of OU playerbases in SS and USUM. In more recent gens, there has been a push for more community feedback in addressing topics of a tier, which is a positive, but i also think it'd be good to talk about how suspects are looked at now. A main defense for whether something gets a suspect now is if it reached a certain threshold on a survey. In past gens, i feel like the times were more inclined to give mons a suspect even if it may not end up actually being broken, but rather as something that is explored in some way. Nowadays, even mons that constantly get mentioned on a survey have rarely gotten a suspect test. Does the community think that upholding a survey threshold for whether something gets a test or not has been practical? Should councils be more inclined to conduct and hold suspects for mons regardless of survey thresholds? In bringing these questions up, I'm not saying that surveys are of no value (community imput is important), but should surveys be the deciding factor in whether or not something is given a test? Anyways, if tera preview does end up winning the vote, i think teras should be revealed once a mon hits the field rather than from team preview.
Tera Blast
This is a unique move that is definitely worth discussing in this conversation. It's no doubt that this move allows for some mons to have godly coverage combinations and with an extra kick on top of that. Granting any mon the ability to possess a particular coverage type that they normally don't have access to can be a powerful thing. In some conversations about tera's issues, "tera" gets talked about very ambiguously despite there being times when people are indirectly referring to this move. Every dexit generation we have had so far consequently makes it more difficult to answer certain mons when a very limited pool of defensive counterplay is all thats available despite mons getting better for the most part each generation. On paper, tera blast only gets better the further you go down the tier ladder because ideally the "better" defensive stuff end up in the higher tiers. Acting on tera blast does have merit in that movesets for any given mon wouldn't be out of the ordinary and you'd at least be facing a mon with everything it already comes with. Agreed that this would be better as its own suspect depending on what the outcome of tera alone ends up being.
Additional proposal
A big part of the issue that many seem to have with tera is the lack of predictability. Previous gimmicks in gen 6 and 7 did have predictability on some level. In gen 6, you could obviously know which mons can Mega evolve. In gen 7, there was a little less predictability but it did exist in players being able to make educated guesses on what might be the user depending on if a pokemon's item was revealed or not. For argument's sake im not defending dmax but in gen 8 there was gmax and you could also guess what might dmax depending on if it had access to the more broken dmax moves (flying/fighting/etc.) or if set up moves came into play. Tera in gen 9 doesn't really have predictability for what might tera the same way previous generations have had. Since the start of SV and up until now I've only ever reached one possible solution to address having some sort of predictability for tera, but it's something i think many would be opposed to. An additional proposed solution that most likely wouldn't get approved but could potentially work would be this other method of a tera restriction is: a base stat total restriction. Essentially, mons above a certain bst limit would not be able to tera and anything below the restriction would. The main idea here is that in theory, mons with higher bst don't exactly need a "boost" since on paper they would simply be better than mons with a lower bst and ideally a tera "boost" would allow these lower bst mons to even the playing field with the higher bst mons. There is exceptions to the rule obviously, but i think most can understand the root of the premise. In a match right from preview, if a player sees any mons above the bst limit they would know that those can't be the tera users; predictability for tera would exist. In bringing this up, of course there would be some complexities to figure out how this would be applied. Some of the issues involve:
>how would the bst limit be established?
>would it only apply to OU or every main tier?
>would lower tiers establish their own limit depending on the bst ranges of the tier?
For any outcome of tera, the odds of everyone being satisfied is nearly impossible, but discussing other possibilities doesn't hurt. I recall most not being fans of the potential outcomes of the first tera vote, so if possible we should try narrowing down tera outcomes to things that the playerbase actually supports.
Thanks for reading.
Tera is never getting banned, when tera preview gets implemented there will be negligible change that will be enough to make tera "balanced" in the eyes of avid pro-tera's, plus the council loves tera and would absolutely drag their feet when it comes to a third post teraview
this is actually the gentlemen's agreement that i use with friends when we play randbats, but it would absolutely not work in ou for the reasons that other people have laid out—effectively deletes the concept of tera on defensive mons (which it still does in randbats but i'd rather have a hyper-offensive meta than have to deal with that fucking tropius as a steel-type), doesn't actually affect counterplay at all because it doesn't give any additional info, and a lot of the problematic mons run tera blast anyway. the reason it works in randbats is because the number of sets and tera types each mon can run is limited
its been less than a week and a half of these pages are complaining about another tiers tera tiering (guilty of starting the discussion lol), semantics on "generational gimmick" and shitposts.
Also if people want to discuss I highly recommend checking the PR thread, reading some opinions, and bringing in your own takes on it. Be respectful though for the love of god. Personally I found the pro tera point views a breath of fresh air and put things more in perspective for me. If i do try to get reqs, i'll probably abstain still (i just like excuses to try and grind and get better at mons) but I think anti tera players who think pro tera arguments are stupid would benefit a lot from reading those and trying to counter them
I understand the pro tera arguements and how it makes the meta more exciting, and it does. But it gets frustrating to deal with the same busted tera mons over and over again. I'd rather get rid of tera now instead of having to ban a bunch of mons because of it. We already have 3 tera caused bans (Espathra, Volc, Eleki), and personally i'd rather not deal with more, because if tera goes we basically have a stable meta at that point possibly.
They actually all don't, i'm pretty sure ausma's pro ban or pro restrict from the vibes I get from her statements
At this point I really do not see any reason as to why we cannot just leave tera as is. The mechanic has no clear cut, community approved method of restriction (Considering we cannot even come to the basis of how we structure the suspect test) I have been a very strong supporter of Banning Tera and after reading the PR thread and this one neither side but the keep as is side has made any genuine compelling arguments.
Yeah the arguments for keeping tera to me aren't super compelling other than: "metagame would be boring without it and skillful play is good."
But considering how hard tera is to restrict and how much of a headache its been as far as the mind games it causes in games, as well as the amount of pokemon it likely breaks, I am even more firmly pro ban than I already was.
I would be on board with any sort of restriction, don't get me wrong, but none of them seem feasible really, so I genuinely think the meta is better off without tera.
I like tera is much as the next person, but a singles environment likely cannot sustain it in a healthy way, as all of the options aren't all that great for restricting it in a healthy way as it would ruin the fun of tera in some way as well, in which case it should probably go.
I hope action is taken either way.
Last edited:
I think it'd make a lot more sense to not have preview (or other restrictions) as an option. There's more weight to adding rules around a mechanic than just getting rid of it entirely and is more pure than adding rules to it. I don't think it's a good a idea for the main tier of Smogon to be influenced heavily by a gentleman's agreement to give up information about your team. It's a lot more sensible of a rule to agree on "Don't use tera" than "Tell me what tera types you are using"
We never looked to VGC for our own ruleset and I don't think there's much reason to start now. The merits of tera preview should be independent of what ruleset The Pokemon Company created and I think once you take that away, it's pretty clear we shouldn't go with a gentleman's agreement to tell your opponent info about your team. "Will tera preview fix tera" is not the only thing to consider when deciding if this is viable, but also if enforcing this is even a good idea.
edit: banning tera blast is whatever since it's a move ban but should be based off "is tera blast broken" rather than trying to balance tera by banning a move heavily intertwined with it.
We never looked to VGC for our own ruleset and I don't think there's much reason to start now. The merits of tera preview should be independent of what ruleset The Pokemon Company created and I think once you take that away, it's pretty clear we shouldn't go with a gentleman's agreement to tell your opponent info about your team. "Will tera preview fix tera" is not the only thing to consider when deciding if this is viable, but also if enforcing this is even a good idea.
edit: banning tera blast is whatever since it's a move ban but should be based off "is tera blast broken" rather than trying to balance tera by banning a move heavily intertwined with it.
Last edited:
Here is a thought. What if Tera had a built in alert system? Like, if the opponent clicks to terastallize, you will get an alert (including what type they chose), and if you have already selected a move then you will be ejected and be able to rechoose. The same goes for if they change their mind and don’t want to Tera, and unclick Terastallize. That way the surprise element is removed, the biggest issue with Tera.
This could probably get abused, does anyone have ideas to improve it? For the record I am not listening to people telling that this is shit, even if it is.
This could probably get abused, does anyone have ideas to improve it? For the record I am not listening to people telling that this is shit, even if it is.
We really should not just be giving people Get out of jail free cards
what do you mean by this? If what you mean is being able to rechoose your move of the opponent chooses to Tera, than I see it as a fair method of avoiding stalling on the button waiting for an answer to if your opponent will Tera or not.
Okay so i reread your post and now im actually onboard with it I assumed that you wanted a system where Tusk clicks eq into gambit and if the gambit tera flying'd on that you would just reset and it would now just be flying gambit versus tusk
Lmao games would have taken a whole hour if that was the case
Maybe I should have been more specific. After all the feedback comes in I will be sure to make an updated post!
- Status