Idk about "broken mess" but I do think there's merit to the point that Tera makes several high powered Pokémon easier to check, and their checks rely on that insane power boost from Tera to get through - Baxcalibur was a good example presented earlier, and I think Iron Valiant may present this issue as well. It may or may not be extreme enough to be a problem but I do think it's a consideration. Of course Tera also plays into what makes these Pokémon challenging to get through as well (Fairy Bax is really scary)
-
The moderators of this forum are Finchinator, Ruft, ausma, 658Greninja, kd458, FayaWizard, Srn, TPP, and viivian.
-
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
Idk about "broken mess" but I do think there's merit to the point that Tera makes several high powered Pokémon easier to check, and their checks rely on that insane power boost from Tera to get through - Baxcalibur was a good example presented earlier, and I think Iron Valiant may present this issue as well. It may or may not be extreme enough to be a problem but I do think it's a consideration. Of course Tera also plays into what makes these Pokémon challenging to get through as well (Fairy Bax is really scary)
Yeah any weird issues with mons becoming too strong is a moot point.
It would simply be a test ladder.
But mons like Bax and Val are in some ways easier to handle, easier to revenge w/o Tera.
Players will adapt, and frankly, more consistent answers to these mons will be found when tera isn't a factor.
However, once again, the suspect meta is meaningless- it would be a tool, not a meta.
I think I as much as you would like to try a Teraless meta before voting for one but removing Tera would throw the meta out of whack to a point where I have concerns about the quality of information we'd learn in the timeframe of a suspect unfortunately. If the suspect meta is meaningless what will we learn from it?
the only way I could see it work would be like, putting it up for a month, 2 weeks nobody is eligible for recs to allow the ladder to stabilize enough for useful information to be gathered from it, the next 2 weeks they can get recs and vote. Even this is kind of clunky though
Last edited:
Again, doesn't really matter how whack the meta is.
But really, it would settle within a week- this is how mons have been played for decades... I'm sure we could figure out how to use this limited of supply of mons we have in SV and have a quality meta.
But it doesn't matter how whack it is, like I said.
Just a rough feel of how some exchanges are much healthier w/o Tera
Or, inversely, to learn how much better one may like the meta with Tera.
We can move on though. The logic and rules we've made up about broken mons will be sloppily tossed on the tera situation with no nuance.
If we're not gathering tera data with every survey, and when we do it's vague af, then clearly a tool to gather more info isn't really going to be implemented. Info gathering and providing players w a tool to better educate themselves isn't in the forefront.
It's been established as fact this isn't happening, so we can move on. I just wanted to vent about how bs the arguments against a test ladder are.
Thanks for anyone who indulged this pointless argument lol
I really don't think a ladder that isn't for developing a meta but rather "getting a feel" for one which might be drastically different from what we may get later accomplishes much. We aren't really getting much data aside from players who want tera banned getting a make-shift meta without one and some obvious changes since the meta isn't really going to develop. Besides, getting reqs for a suspect test of an element on a ladder which doesn't even have the suspected element in question is pretty absurd in my opinion.
Also, I didn't really say a no-tera ladder would be a broken mess. I said many mons would be nerfed and some buffed, as should be the case when introducing such a major change to a metagame.
The meta would be TOO unstable where there is too many variables with no control. There could be a restriction where you can only use teams made before the ladder was made, but then that gets into a whole lot of issues.
The problem with removing tera is that you take away a massive element. It changes not only what's effective, but how you play the game. For example Dondozo starts seeing a raise because of how bulky he his, and this just pushes everything out of the meta because everyone is scrambling to find something that works. How do we know why Dozo is popular, is he broken from his bulk, typing, and survivability? Or is he popular because he is just a good mon on a team with other good stand alone mons. There is too much change to attempt to make sense what happened from lack of tera and what is a reaction to the shift of other rising and falling mons. Or shit might not change at all and gambit becomes a mess to handle. If these problem mons (Dondozo and Gambit) are too problematic and nothing is changing do they deserve a quickban from the suspect test? Like there are way too many scenarios where things can go off the rails that it may just be better to stick to theory.
Which is unfair because the entire point of making a teraless meta is to see how it evolves. That is only speculation because we don't know how removing tera effects the meta, so we need to run a test ......
In the end it all just gets into a circular logic cycle and so at what point do you just forgo the test and stick to theory? At least talking about it has changed my opinion. If you wanted a test, you could try to get people together and run a circuit/tournament on your own without tera and see what happens. (I have no idea how this would work ) You could use this testing ground to see how the meta develops to give definitive evidence that we either need to keep/ban tera.
It would be the same when any new meta drops.
Players would get a feel for what's good and then build teams.
A no-tera meta would be even more stable than when a new meta drops, because any OP mon has already been banned, and a lot of team structures are already in place.
We can agree to disagree, but I think you could definitely get a feel for how SV would look w/o tera and gather a lot of data, such as usage stats, and player feedback.
But I see your points, just like I do with Finch/Council- I just disagree with them.
If I took out Z-moves from gen 7, the meta wouldn't explode.
It would shift, and be different, but it would still be mostly gen 7.
We can say, in other words, it would still be more gen 7 than not, even w/o Z-moves.
Mons only get weaker, not stronger, without Tera...
Their checks and counters literally become more consistent...
But yeah, if nothing comes from this suspect I'll pick back up where I left off in regards to creating a non-tera community.
Last time I had 50+ ppl interested, within 2-3 days, who allowed me to put their name on a no-tera room application.
I just don't know how much I care anymore, and am holding out on council's decisions.
Anyway, I'm not going to agree that a suspect ladder would cause more harm than good, or would be a waste of time.
But like I said, pointless discussion lol
I’m not going to pretend to know what a no-tera meta would for sure look like but I disagree pretty strongly with this part of your post. Lots of Pokémon can become broken by the offensive power of a metagame decreasing. Certain cosmic power/ iron defense sweepers could become problematic and require crits to break. The most obvious ones to me off hand would be curse/iron defense dondozo, or iron defense zamazenta, while cosmic power mew and cresselia could also potentially be problems.
So while I’m not personally against a no-tera ladder I feel like it’s disingenuous to say that without tera degenerate 1 mon beats your whole team mons would be gone.
I was thinking again and the most banworthy thing of tera is the damageboost imo, be it stab tera or just another stab on top of your own one to two stabs, so... what about banning teratypes on pokemon if they have a move of this type in their moveset? So like if you want to use tera ground baxcalibur, go for it but you cant use eq if you want
That would make it so that you can still use those fun lower tier pokemon with another ype but you wouldnt see things like tera dragon glaive rush bax who destroys everything not being a fairy or the bulkiest of bulky steels or things like tera ghost shadow ball valiant, tera normal espeed dnite, ...
Teradefenders usually want tera because they say that they cant check certain threats without tera changing your type and people against tera want it banned because it is an insane powerboost to the moves a pokemon has and makes it so you can break through everything with the right tera and semiokayish stats so why not find the midground and only allow defensive teras in the way i explained? Status moves dont have to count towards these restrictions so you can use tera normal sd breloom for example because why would that be banned, but offensive tera is usually the thing breaking the game (tera blast can get the boot with that as well or we could keep it, idrk about that now, leaning towards booting it as well though but just the nerf on offensive tera is very much needed imo)
That would make it so that you can still use those fun lower tier pokemon with another ype but you wouldnt see things like tera dragon glaive rush bax who destroys everything not being a fairy or the bulkiest of bulky steels or things like tera ghost shadow ball valiant, tera normal espeed dnite, ...
Teradefenders usually want tera because they say that they cant check certain threats without tera changing your type and people against tera want it banned because it is an insane powerboost to the moves a pokemon has and makes it so you can break through everything with the right tera and semiokayish stats so why not find the midground and only allow defensive teras in the way i explained? Status moves dont have to count towards these restrictions so you can use tera normal sd breloom for example because why would that be banned, but offensive tera is usually the thing breaking the game (tera blast can get the boot with that as well or we could keep it, idrk about that now, leaning towards booting it as well though but just the nerf on offensive tera is very much needed imo)
In a way i cant disagree, however these "crit-me-not"-sweepers have never been consistent for some reasons, the first is toxic beating those down quite easily if they are not immune and cant tera to poison or steel, the second is trick and we have enough pokemon being able to trick and the third is hazing, phazing and other ways of making sure they cant set up enough like taunt and encore being still quite present in pokemon like ting lu, amoonguss, iVal and the like
I also don’t really disagree with this as I don’t really believe that a no-tera meta would have a lot of overly powerful crit me not sweepers. I just think that a no-tera meta could certainly have quite a few mons that lose solid checks.
Barring dozo, which is slow, has no reliable recovery, and has to sacrifice Leftovers to run HDB nowadays, all of these sweepers mentioned have poor defensive typings without Tera. Obviously these "1-mon-beats-your-whole-team" mons would still exist in SV but there is no way the defensive power afforded by tera is greater than or equal to the ridiculous offensive power that turns would-be checks into setup fodder and knocks them out.
Half of these are tough to handle BECAUSE tera allows them to flip bad match ups and continue boosting, awkwardly shifting counterplay. Curse Don even in a Tera meta has available counterplay that doesn't depend on tera to beat it as it's immensely passive and quite exploitable by any decently built team. While Iron Defense Zama can be managed with unaware walls, or ghosts or fliers who can stomach its boosted hits and ko it back. Cosmic Power Mew and Cresselia are only even relevant because of tera allowing them easy set up by shedding their bad defensive typing, not unlike Espathra.
tera is the same as dynamax
>game mechanic that can make a losing matchup a clean sweep with 1 good play
>super annoying to deal with if you didn't prepare for it
>no way to work around it unless you bring a super specific moveset
dynamax had no real moderation, so why should tera
yes tera has some aspects that dynamax doesn't but at the core they are really similar
>game mechanic that can make a losing matchup a clean sweep with 1 good play
>super annoying to deal with if you didn't prepare for it
>no way to work around it unless you bring a super specific moveset
dynamax had no real moderation, so why should tera
I don’t really disagree that these mons would likely be manageable in a non tera meta. I just disagreed with stating that Tera’s removal mons checks always get more consistent without tera. I just don’t believe we can know for sure that a non tera meta cant lead to new very difficult to check mons.
I mean sure, in a non tera meta some Pokemon would potentially rise up and become difficult to check. But that happens in any metagame, and without tera counterplay DOES become more streamlined and generally identifiable, consistent. If you bring Great Tusk to check Kingambit in a non tera meta, GT will check it in any circumstance (barring silly situations like grass knot Gambit). That's what it means.
Removing tera increases the threshold mons would need to muscle past checks. So instead of +1, they'd need 2 or 3 depending. It would also make revenge kills more consistent since they wouldn't be able to pull out a sudden immunity or resistance. If anything no tera would mean more all around checks most likely.
I feel like the main problem with Tera comes down to particular users that facilitate the abuse of it.
I don't think Tera as a mechanic itself is broken.
Tera Blast is useless for almost all Pokemon and often ends up being a wasted move slot inmost matches. while a handful can make good use of it, and another very tiny percent become busted. Pokemon like
and 
are perfect Tera Blast abusers because it allows them to overcome their limitations. Volc can set up to the sky and still wouldn't be able to touch Pokemon like Heatran or Skeledirge. Regieleki has monstrous speed and offenses but can't do much with it's limited coverage, however Tera Blast allows Pokemon like these to bypass their flaws and step beyond their natural boundaries.
Defensive Tera for most Pokemon is only good for living one hit and get that rapid spin, set rocks or get a single KO. However for Pokemon like
or 
defensive Tera allows them to check out their weaknesses and set up on their limited checks and can proceed to brute force their way out.
STAB Tera provides a valuable tool for many Pokemon, yet for most of them is not broken because they will almost always fall short in power, speed or coverage, however for Pokemon like
and 
their STAB coverage and offensive output is so overwhelming it becomes unmanageable.
Coverage Tera is another aspect that can be troublesome, Pokemon with broad hitting dual STAB like
and 
can become near unwallable with a Third STAB, Bax with STAB earthquake, Valiant with Shadow Ball/knock-off and Sneasler Shadow Claw/Acrobatics with can hit for neutral or super effective damage complex dual type Pokemon that resist or take neutral damage from their both STABs. However for most Pokemon with lesser offensive stats and worse type coverage are better off defensive Tera over coverage.
I think the issues with Tera are way more layered than expected. When people complain about Tera blast, do people really complain about Tera Blast itself being broken or rather is it because a selection of sweeper and wincon Pokemon can use it to get rid of it's dedicated counters? Is defensive Tera broken or is it just a selection that can use it to set up and proceed to snowball? Is offensive tera busted considering most Pokemon aren't min-maxed offensive speedsters? Is defensive Tera busted considering most Pokemon can't effectively set up or have recovery moves?
Every issue with Tera is likely in part, tied to users with tools that can make the most of it. Tera on most Pokemon isn't busted. that's why some users don't think the mechanic should be even be touched.
Also with Tera you don't just gain advantages, Tera always opens some backdoor for opposing counter play. For example: did your Ting-Lu Tera Ghost to spin block or avoid a Close Combat? Now it lost it's ability to counter Gholdengo, did Heatran Tera Grass to survive that Earthquake? Now it loses to the flying types Hurricanes it used to counter. Enamorous became Fairy Tera to deal more damage? Now it can't switch back on Tusk's Headlong Rush without the ground immunity. Losing a type or changing type can lead to losing a front on some type match up, this is why Tera doesn't feel like a brainless easy win mechanic. Tera in some situations doesn't offer anything, Tera water Garg still loses to Grass Knot, Tera Fairy Garg still loses to Make it Rain, defensive Tera being limited to being monotype might still be useless against neutral hits from opponents dual types not resisted by a single type, specially at lower HP.
To further add to the complexity, it seems Tera affects ladder and tournaments differently, while important matches can be defined by unconventional Teras, laddering prefers long term consistency through continuous matches. In important matches, something like a gimmick Tera Electric Cinderace to get rid of a Dondozo or that SD Tera water Liquidation Iron Valiant that was used on a Volcarona team, can take important wins but aren't useful in constant laddering.
The issue with targeting Tera abusers, is that players might get upset over more bans, because OU is an ecosystem that surrounds about 5 to 7 really strong Pokemon that threaten each other. Volcarona was an example of this, Volc threatened Tusk and Gambit with burns, resisted Valiant dual STABs and threatened Gholdengo with Fire moves. Many players were upset over Voc's ban because it was their anti-meta answer for all these Pokemon despite Volc being very oppressive against almost everything else, and the departure of Volc only made Iron Valiant and the rest raise in viability... Tusk keeps Gambit in check, Gambit keeps Dengo in check, Dengo keeps Valiant in check, Valiant keeps Tusk in check... Removing elements might upset the order and this is why people aren't asking for suspects or don't take some bans well. Despite we are all well aware Pokemon like Volcarona or Kingambit aren't very fair and balanced.
Would banning Tera Blast really fix things up? Personally, as a ladder player I very rarely encounter Tera Blast, I find myself in more trouble with stuff like Stored Power or playing 50/50s with 5-fainted-allies Gambit's sucker punches, these feel more oppressive and more frequent than any Tera Blast user I ever encountered.
Will Tera on team preview fix things up? Probably, Probably not, even without Tera on preview we all know Dragonite likes to Tera normal, Gambit likes to Tera Flying, Garg likes to Tera water/fairy, Roaring Moon likes tera Flying. Tera on preview might even give off your sets: Tera Dark Valiant? Then must be physical with Knock off, Tera Ghost Valiant? Then it's Special with Shadow Ball. And the 50/50s are still there. I used to be very pro-tera preview until giving second thoughts to these points.
Complete Tera ban? Will the player base go along with this? Will they reject an offensive tool and all the possible strategies to align with the interests of the big stall mafia? Probably an unlikely scenario.
If the solution for Tera was simple then the debate wouldn't have lasted this long. Tera is a complex mechanic and likely will need complex measures to be fully balanced. I don't think simple measures will be satisfactory. But how much could the policy against complex ban be allowed to bend?
I don't think Tera as a mechanic itself is broken.
Tera Blast is useless for almost all Pokemon and often ends up being a wasted move slot inmost matches. while a handful can make good use of it, and another very tiny percent become busted. Pokemon like
and are perfect Tera Blast abusers because it allows them to overcome their limitations. Volc can set up to the sky and still wouldn't be able to touch Pokemon like Heatran or Skeledirge. Regieleki has monstrous speed and offenses but can't do much with it's limited coverage, however Tera Blast allows Pokemon like these to bypass their flaws and step beyond their natural boundaries.Defensive Tera for most Pokemon is only good for living one hit and get that rapid spin, set rocks or get a single KO. However for Pokemon like
or defensive Tera allows them to check out their weaknesses and set up on their limited checks and can proceed to brute force their way out.STAB Tera provides a valuable tool for many Pokemon, yet for most of them is not broken because they will almost always fall short in power, speed or coverage, however for Pokemon like
and their STAB coverage and offensive output is so overwhelming it becomes unmanageable.Coverage Tera is another aspect that can be troublesome, Pokemon with broad hitting dual STAB like
and can become near unwallable with a Third STAB, Bax with STAB earthquake, Valiant with Shadow Ball/knock-off and Sneasler Shadow Claw/Acrobatics with can hit for neutral or super effective damage complex dual type Pokemon that resist or take neutral damage from their both STABs. However for most Pokemon with lesser offensive stats and worse type coverage are better off defensive Tera over coverage.I think the issues with Tera are way more layered than expected. When people complain about Tera blast, do people really complain about Tera Blast itself being broken or rather is it because a selection of sweeper and wincon Pokemon can use it to get rid of it's dedicated counters? Is defensive Tera broken or is it just a selection that can use it to set up and proceed to snowball? Is offensive tera busted considering most Pokemon aren't min-maxed offensive speedsters? Is defensive Tera busted considering most Pokemon can't effectively set up or have recovery moves?
Every issue with Tera is likely in part, tied to users with tools that can make the most of it. Tera on most Pokemon isn't busted. that's why some users don't think the mechanic should be even be touched.
Also with Tera you don't just gain advantages, Tera always opens some backdoor for opposing counter play. For example: did your Ting-Lu Tera Ghost to spin block or avoid a Close Combat? Now it lost it's ability to counter Gholdengo, did Heatran Tera Grass to survive that Earthquake? Now it loses to the flying types Hurricanes it used to counter. Enamorous became Fairy Tera to deal more damage? Now it can't switch back on Tusk's Headlong Rush without the ground immunity. Losing a type or changing type can lead to losing a front on some type match up, this is why Tera doesn't feel like a brainless easy win mechanic. Tera in some situations doesn't offer anything, Tera water Garg still loses to Grass Knot, Tera Fairy Garg still loses to Make it Rain, defensive Tera being limited to being monotype might still be useless against neutral hits from opponents dual types not resisted by a single type, specially at lower HP.
To further add to the complexity, it seems Tera affects ladder and tournaments differently, while important matches can be defined by unconventional Teras, laddering prefers long term consistency through continuous matches. In important matches, something like a gimmick Tera Electric Cinderace to get rid of a Dondozo or that SD Tera water Liquidation Iron Valiant that was used on a Volcarona team, can take important wins but aren't useful in constant laddering.
The issue with targeting Tera abusers, is that players might get upset over more bans, because OU is an ecosystem that surrounds about 5 to 7 really strong Pokemon that threaten each other. Volcarona was an example of this, Volc threatened Tusk and Gambit with burns, resisted Valiant dual STABs and threatened Gholdengo with Fire moves. Many players were upset over Voc's ban because it was their anti-meta answer for all these Pokemon despite Volc being very oppressive against almost everything else, and the departure of Volc only made Iron Valiant and the rest raise in viability... Tusk keeps Gambit in check, Gambit keeps Dengo in check, Dengo keeps Valiant in check, Valiant keeps Tusk in check... Removing elements might upset the order and this is why people aren't asking for suspects or don't take some bans well. Despite we are all well aware Pokemon like Volcarona or Kingambit aren't very fair and balanced.
Would banning Tera Blast really fix things up? Personally, as a ladder player I very rarely encounter Tera Blast, I find myself in more trouble with stuff like Stored Power or playing 50/50s with 5-fainted-allies Gambit's sucker punches, these feel more oppressive and more frequent than any Tera Blast user I ever encountered.
Will Tera on team preview fix things up? Probably, Probably not, even without Tera on preview we all know Dragonite likes to Tera normal, Gambit likes to Tera Flying, Garg likes to Tera water/fairy, Roaring Moon likes tera Flying. Tera on preview might even give off your sets: Tera Dark Valiant? Then must be physical with Knock off, Tera Ghost Valiant? Then it's Special with Shadow Ball. And the 50/50s are still there. I used to be very pro-tera preview until giving second thoughts to these points.
Complete Tera ban? Will the player base go along with this? Will they reject an offensive tool and all the possible strategies to align with the interests of the big stall mafia? Probably an unlikely scenario.
If the solution for Tera was simple then the debate wouldn't have lasted this long. Tera is a complex mechanic and likely will need complex measures to be fully balanced. I don't think simple measures will be satisfactory. But how much could the policy against complex ban be allowed to bend?
Community dissatisfaction can have a lot of symptoms and culpability must be dissected carefully as it is multifaceted. You connected Tera's high score with the low competitive score without any semblance of analysis. I find that if you dig deeper, the strong correlation you imply is more façade than fact.
Some people may be dissatisfied with Tera as a whole, some people may be dissatisfied with Tera in specifics contexts or on specific Pokemon, and some people may be dissatisfied with just Pokemon or strategies regardless of Tera. You can even split these groups further down by taking the group "dissatisfied with Tera as a whole" to those wanting an outright ban and those wanting a mechanical restriction or by taking the group "dissatisfied with Tera in specific contexts or on specific Pokemon" to those wanting us to ban at an expedited pace versus those who also want some type of mechanical restriction. Suddenly a linear cross-section becomes a three-pronged fork in the road. Suddenly the three-pronged fork in the road becomes a pie chart with a half dozen demographics. Suddenly the pie chart has blurred lines with overlap and partial agreements. And so on.
With the status quo being to keep Terastallization legal due to general tiering principals (same reason why suspects mandate strong majorities), its status as a core mechanic, and its survival of the initial suspect, the onus is on the people who oppose it being legal to prove its worthiness of a suspect and eventual ban. However, there is also an onus of those in favor of it to oppose this whenever there is a strong push for a suspect. The thing is that in this case there are also a lot of other onuses on those who want middleground approaches pertaining to Pokemon tiering or Tera tiering to get their foot wedged in the door and keep it open until people see their perspective. Given this: do you see how complicated it gets? Do you see how much evidence would truly be needed for an outright ban of Terastallization? Do you see where the bar is and the hurdles that must be cleared for any individual slice of that pie chart aside from the status quo on Terastallization to become the new status quo?
It is not something we take lightly and it never will be. Jumping right into another suspect would be premature regardless of the tone of the threads. However, the threads have not exactly been kind to you either. For example, over 60% of the posts in the Policy Review thread have opposed an outright ban and over 50% have opposed action on the mechanic altogether for the time.
Given this, there are other ways to tackle the low competitive scores and the dissatisfaction with parts of the Tera dynamic than rushing into a Tera suspect immediately. What is most important is that we do our due diligence on something this important -- the worst thing we could do would be to ban a generational mechanic without sufficient evidence. It is very possible to remedy a lot of the core issues and many of the concerns people expressed through simple Pokemon suspects so long as we keep an open mind to Tera as a potential future suspect in the contingency that metagame issues persevere forward to the next stages of the metagame.
It seems that the thesis of many of your posts is that you believe the council is trying to give off the perception that community feedback is important through surveys, posts, and so on. However, you believe we simultaneously are ignoring things or spinning them in a certain way to fit our narrative and perception rather than that of the community. TL;DR: You think our transparency is a façade and we are manipulating data to fit our narrative.
To be clear: this is categorically false. There has been a clear, unquestionable correlation between survey responses and tiering action. Let's do some trend analysis with some surveys and suspects since I took over as OUTL:
- Kyurem received 69% support from the qualified playerbase, so it was suspected in late 2021
- Weavile received 38% support from the qualified playerbase, so it was not suspected in early 2022
- Melmetal received 34.8% support from the qualified playerbase, so it was not suspected in mid 2022
- Melmetal received 58% support from the qualified playerbase, so it was suspected in late 2022
- Chien-Pao received 79% support from the qualified playerbase, so it was suspected (actually very close to a QB) in early 2023
- Kingambit received 65% support from the qualified playerbase in mid 2023...
Tera was left with a purposefully vague question on the survey and threads to discuss it were opened as it is a matter more complicated than any individual Pokemon. To handle Tera like an ordinary Pokemon from a suspecting point-of-view would be negligence, so making the comparisons you make feel quite irresponsible to me. The survey data means we should pop open the hood and engage in deeper discussions with the potential to suspect -- not immediately suspect based off of those stats like it is an individual Pokemon. This is not inconsistency so much as it is due process given the gravity of the situation. And seeing as you say things like the following:
You seem to agree we should be changing our approach for Tera relative to normal Pokemon tiering, so why do you have a gripe to begin with? In a philosophical sense, we are mirroring your expectations.
Perhaps you are the one that has a strict agenda...and since that agenda does not quite have the consensus right now, you are projecting upon the community to compensate? Or maybe you just did not realize this contradiction? I do not know. And, quite frankly, I do not care because I am here to explain my actions as leader of the council, not your actions as a poster in the OU subforum, so I digress.
Speaking personally aside for a moment: no, they do not. I think things could be much worse and I think there is a clear correlation between tiering action and an improvement in response patterns in the following survey.
My job is to have our actions as a council improve the overall enjoyment and competitiveness of the metagame after we are dealt a certain hand at the start of every generation, HOME, or DLC. These recurring "resets" or releases naturally go against the progression of tiering, but we are becoming more aggressive, consistent, and methodical in our approach while integrating the community more-and-more.
I look more at our process and progression as well as our relative improvement when we act rather than the barebones score right after a release. I believe the low competitive scores are a reflection of HOME's timing and impact on the early metagame more than they are our approach.
So when you include things in your post trying to relate to me because you know I care, you know I am doing my best, and you know I genuinely do listen to criticism, sure -- I read and I take these things seriously, but I also very much know when to stand up to myself and send a message to the community about what is important to us, what the future direction is going to be, and so on. Communication is huge and I will always excel with that, but results are key. And while the surface level results are low, the correlation between council responsiveness and relative result improvement across surveys is nearly perfect. That is no coincidence.
Finally, I disagree with this.
We are trying to develop the current metagame. A complete overhaul right now with DLC on the horizon and approval rates gradually increasing would be silly.
There is very rarely a time when a complete overhaul in a metagame is needed and we are not currently at that point. Contrary to the tone of your posts, a lot of people like the metagame or at very least enjoy it. And more will with more time, development, and tiering action.
Obviously there is a point when enough-is-enough, but we have not reached this point based on both the survey and community input throughout these threads.
These are a group of your key or recurring points, LoseToRU?.
Yes, I picked out bits because going into a piece-by-piece forum argument is more likely to cause a splintered, unproductive discussion. Yes, I left out bits on my opinion on the suspect ladder and the brokenness of Tera as I already discussed those in prior posts within the last 2 days. For those who missed, see: Overall thoughts and why a no Tera ladder would be bad thoughts in the hyperlinks. Yes, there are probably more things to discuss as time elapses.
These threads are going to remain open, Tera is going to be continuously assessed, and there is no rush to either suspect or agree it should never be suspected. We are going to do this right and trust our community to continue to formulate opinions as the metagame evolves while we trust our tiering process that is fueled by the community.
On Monday or Tuesday, I will be posting a suspect on something that is not Terastallization. Tera disucssion threads will remain open through then and potentially longer as we continue to mull through it all. Until then, I will be on a weekend trip without any computer access (even most of this was typed on phone, so pardon any typos in this group of posts).
Yes, I picked out bits because going into a piece-by-piece forum argument is more likely to cause a splintered, unproductive discussion. Yes, I left out bits on my opinion on the suspect ladder and the brokenness of Tera as I already discussed those in prior posts within the last 2 days. For those who missed, see: Overall thoughts and why a no Tera ladder would be bad thoughts in the hyperlinks. Yes, there are probably more things to discuss as time elapses.
These threads are going to remain open, Tera is going to be continuously assessed, and there is no rush to either suspect or agree it should never be suspected. We are going to do this right and trust our community to continue to formulate opinions as the metagame evolves while we trust our tiering process that is fueled by the community.
On Monday or Tuesday, I will be posting a suspect on something that is not Terastallization. Tera disucssion threads will remain open through then and potentially longer as we continue to mull through it all. Until then, I will be on a weekend trip without any computer access (even most of this was typed on phone, so pardon any typos in this group of posts).
anyway, yeah, i'm going to second this opinion and even go a little bit further and say that holding a tera suspect before the dlc at all is probably not a good idea because whatever the result is, it'll only stick for a couple months before the meta gets shaken up again (possibly even more than it was when home dropped) and we're forced to retest it
Eh... i wondered why noone even talked about that since i feel like it would be a really nice compromise but I believe that there must be a flaw i cant see with it because otherwise it probably wouldve been done already
- Status