tl;dr
outright ban
If the desire to maintain Tera as an option is too strong for the council I would simply suggest simply having a separate ladder (I don't think it would be a bad thing to split the userbase, considering how large it is currently) or just keeping it to National Dex and Randoms.
Of the remaining alternate options I think limiting Tera to a single pokémon in the builder (but not shown to opponents) would be the best.
Knowing my tendency for long-winded posts, I'd really like to keep mine as short as possible and get to my position. As such I'll admit, while I'm sure many of you have made great arguments for your positions whether the same or opposite as mine, I have not read any of them aside from
Finchinator's main post. I will probably browse them sometime later, but for now I think everything I want to say is mentioned or implied in the OP. From that I think I can gauge
Finchinator's position himself but I will speak nothing to it, only mine.
Here is how the new mechanic functions:
- Any Pokemon can utilize it, but it can only be done once per battle
- Upon Terastallizing, a Pokemon will retain the effects even if they switch out, lasting until they faint
- Each Pokemon has a "Tera type" that you can strategically pick in the teambuilder
- This type becomes your sole defensive typing
- You retain initial STABs, but also gain STAB on your "Tera type" if it is a novel type
- If your "Tera type" is one of your STABs, then you get an additional boost akin to the ability Adaptability
- "Tera Blast" is a new move every Pokemon learns that is 80 BP and will take the form of your "Tera type"
- "Tera Blast" will take the form of your highest attacking stat at the time of usage
Just looking at the characteristics of Terastallization, the combination of a double-base-power Hidden Power that can be special or physical OR gaining Adaptability OR gaining STAB on an existing move all meanwhile
changing your typing, literally the most fundamental aspect of Pokémon, is inherently broken. In ways it can be seen as a combination of (permanent) Z-Moves and Dynamax (when Tera is used defensively too) with even more tacked on. The ability to permanently use Tera without an item, on any 6 pokémon, and with no drawback is something that I can not see being healthy for the metagame in any capacity whatsoever.
Even if we were to assume that GameFreak had type-changing in mind for this generation and the new pokémon they gave us, it is for certain that all the pokémon released over the past 26-going-on-27 years did not have this in mind. Ferrothorn is meant to be Grass/Steel, Heatran Fire/Steel. Pokémon are intentionally given limited movesets (whether fairly or unfairly) to limit their use. I'm not trying to suggest that GameFreak intentionally had in mind to not give Volcarona, say, a Ground-type move so it would be countered by Heatran. But rather, pokémon's and Pokémon's identities are deeply tied to typings, and the metagame up until now has been as well. Tera turns this on it's head.
I'm not saying that the metagame would be unable to adapt; we have seen the start of that already. Obviously it is
possible to familiarize oneself with and memorize the new common sets just as any other, but I don't think that means that something isn't broken. There is
always counterplay to something. Speaking just of infamous pokémon themselves: Dracovish was handled by any of the few Water Absorb mons; Spectrier was unphased by Snorlax and a few other Normal- or Dark-types; Taunt Palafin-Hero was outperformed by Dondozo spamming Body Press; and Iron Bundle was easily walled by a neutral-resisting high SpD mon like Florges, Blissey, or Sylveon. But of course that doesn't mean that none of these pokémon weren't broken in one or more ways, not to mention bannable. The discussion is whether Tera warrants bannable measures and I believe so; I don't see how someone can look at those game-changing abilities and think otherwise. (I know there is an argument that it can be used defensively or in-counter to another's but that is an extremely unpractical and unrealistic, or infrequent, case of how it would play out. Of course it's possible to plan for opponents' Tera like this
to a degree, but to what degree that edges into what is more realistically just uncompetitive I can only imply.)
I do not believe Tera is healthy for the metagame nor in-line with the fundamental nature of the game we play. We know that GameFreak could care less about making the most balanced metagames let alone good, fun, and functional video games; we are by no means obligated to prescribe to the gimmicks they now brand each new generation with. There's a reason why we all play 6v6 Smogon Singles OU instead of VGC.
While I can understand why some people label generation 8 as boring, others (including myself), after the initial outrage regarding DexIt, came to appreciate the multiple metagames we saw after the releases of Home and the DLCs (and I look forward to that with gen 9). I don't think the lack of the previous generations' gimmicks of Megas and Z-Moves subtracted from the metagame. In fact, while I certainly didn't appreciate the speed creep of generation 8, I found it much more tolerable than the sheer power creep Megas and Ultra Beasts brought; in my opinion said power creep was too much that I felt both bored and annoyed by Megas in the gen 6 and 7 metas
to the point that I made a rule for myself to not use any Megas or Z-Moves (among other self-restrictions I mention
here) out of pure conviction (and I did so for the entirety of both generations; see my othe. Obviously this is all my own experience and opinion but that's what this thread is for. There is objectivity melded into what I am saying, however.
Even if we take the stance that generation 8 was boring, and even if/when Tera is banned, I still believe generation 9 will be anything but. Firstly, at 103 new pokémon, we have not seen this many introduced since Black and White. Of these, practically
all of them have either a unique ability, move, typing, or combination thereof; this alone has led to a great amount of variability in the metagame and viability of mons with niche uses. There are 14 paradox pokémon and the 4 legends all with 570 (or 590) BST as well as several other mons with BSTs above 500; and this says nothing of how good many of their distributions are. There are very few new fully-evolved pokémon that have seen little to no use. Why do I not feel there is power creep here? Probably because of the combination of the uniqueness of the lower-BST mons and the less extreme (compared to ultra beasts) stat distribution of the high BST mons. While I don't think that Booster Energy makes these mons broken (especially now that it has been Nerfed), I think it is too difficult to tell while Tera is still around. I think the same can be said about most, if not all, the pokemon we think of as broken or potentially broken as of now. Additionally, Shed Tail and Booster Energy are already huge, defining aspects of the Meta, and we haven't even experienced
Revival Blessing yet, probably the
biggest change to the meta since the physical/special split, if not
ever.
(BTW coders, if it really is a coding issue and not a policy to hold off on the implementation until after the Tera discussion/ban, I really don't see how difficult it would be to copy code from the
crazyhouse gamerule and splice it with some code from pivoting moves like parting shot. I was literally able to guess the format of
onFaint() before I even
looked it up.)
My point is that I don't think banning Tera would make the metagame less fun; for as much as situations have led to an enjoyment of Tera, just as many— if not more— have led to annoyance, frustration, or even a sense of unfairness. And that is where I think the spark of truth lies. When a sense of unfairness develops outside of simply a skill difference, that is when suspicion towards ban should begin. Naturally, anything that is broken can go both ways; it can be unfair to go against or can give you an unfair advantage when used. Just because some counterplay exists or you can return with your own measures doesn't mean that they are not an unhealthy presence overall. My Iron Bundle could Tera Ice or Water and annihilate whole teams, but then you could Tera Fighting your Palafin-Hero to live a Freeze-Dry and return with a Close Combat. But that doesn't mean in the slightest that either of these pokémon nor Tera itself are not broken. It also means that we can't say for certain that without Tera these mons themselves still wouldn't be broken, though we can say for sure they would be less powerful (though still perhaps also less counterplay-able).
On preserving Tera:
The underlying idea behind these prospects would be that it preserves the core mechanic of the generation, granting the metagame some defining characteristics while maintaining a playerbase drawing feature to some degree. It is true, however, that neither of these two pieces of reasoning have any direct correlation to competitiveness, which is the foremost focus in any tiering discussion.
As I said I don't think we have any obligation to preserve GameFreak's careless gimmicks nor should Smogon make tiering measures to draw or keep playerbase counts. I don't think that keeping Tera would even lead to a further stay of the playerbase nor eventual boredom some players feel. In fact, there are and will be many players who think of Tera as broken and stop playing because of it (I personally know of a few people already). It can certainly be argued that Tera is broken (at least by some, hence the existence of this discussion); in contrast, no-one can make the argument that a meta without Tera is inherently broken. Regardless of how many pokémon or mechanics a metagame has, player counts will ultimately fall off anyway. Thinking that keeping Tera will significantly bolster them for longer is unfounded. I am reminded of the case wherein a man who won the lottery and a man who lost his legs both scored the same in happiness/contentedness after 6 months.
This would neglect to address any of the above points about the burdens of type changing on counterplay or the potential issues with the additional strength provided to Pokemon through boosted STAB or a novel STAB type as well.
…It is important to us that many players see Terastallization as a draw to participating in our metagames; while it is the first and foremost priority to maintain competitive integrity and balance, it is also a factor to have generations motivate players to participate and have an identity. This premise is a large driver behind the potential for no tiering action or limited restrictions, and additionally add a potentially higher burden of proof to the outright ban side as well.
Neglecting to address the problems of Tera just to entertain the playerbase, however good-intentioned it may be, is frankly upsetting; blitheness in spite of the health of the metagame isn't something that should have even been considered in the first place. It's only been a week so all things considered it's not too bad, but I feel this discussion could not have come soon enough.
My remaining thoughts can be summed-up by excerpts from the OP.
In terms of practical outlook, a lot can be said as to having the ability to change defensive typing making finding consistent counterplay to Pokemon an impossibility. Terrstalization fundamentally alters how we approach handling the wide array of threats our metagame presents us, occasionally forcing the metagame to resort to extremes with a surplus of revenge killers to minimize prospects or a surplus of extreme walls to outright blank Terastallization options on more dynamic offensive presences. It is possible to argue that this concept as a whole does not belong in a competitive metagame due to how much it warps how we play and how even with the closest attention to detail, it can be seen as an unreasonable ask to handle both Pokemon in their original state and these Pokemon with altered types.
On Tera preview clause:
Cons include the fact that it is still not a perfect solution to the guesswork required to play around Terastallization and it would require potential display modifications that are seen as undesirable in many circles.
…it is still inherently challenging to line-up your counterplay with the timing of the opponent and their use of the mechanic. When a Pokemon's defensive profile can do a flip-flop on command, changing the entire type chart on whim, it makes counterplay as a whole unreliable. Surefire revenge killing methods can be dwarfed by sudden resistances and immunizations while an additional STAB typing or boost to previously existing STAB can tear through counterplay even with prior knowledge of the possibility just because all game will be played in fear of the prospect and it adds a premium offensive bonus that is not seen through other means regardless of what information is disclosed.
This restriction may cut closest to the core of the problem, but it still does not assure the balancing of Terastallization and implementation is controversial.
On STAB-only Tera:
However, adopting a Tera type within your STABs for a Pokemon with two types can still drastically shift a Pokemon's profile as you can shed weaknesses if timed properly. In addition, granting every Pokemon boosted STAB to the point that it is like they have Adaptability can be seen as problematic in it if itself.
…it also leaves a lot there that can prove troublesome for the playerbase, especially when this is considered to be present on top of one of the least forgiving power creeps we have ever seen.
As should have been clear from my ramblings, my stance is to
outright ban Terastallization from OU (and similar tiers like UU/RU/NU/etc.).
Given Smogon's desires to keep player interest high, especially among casual players, I think adding a separate ladder/format/tier where Tera is allowed (with or without restrictions) would be the best option. I can't imagine many players care that much to play with Tera in a restricted dex over National Dex, so I think just allowing it there and in Random Battles (and Ubers/AG) should be enough (though perhaps my appraisal of public opinion is unfounded).
Not that I support ranked-choice voting but if I had to pick from the alternative options for keeping Tera I think that
restricting the teambuilder to only allow a single pokémon the choice of choosing Tera would be the best way to go. It would still allow the once-a-game use of Tera with full in-game functionality, while maintaining the "competitive" degree of unpredictability and unfair revealing of sets. The advantage this has over allowing all 6 pokémon to consider Tera in the teambuilder is that it forces a decision
before valuable information such as team preview and actual reveals during battle. No longer would any pokémon be able to turn the tide of the battle in a single turn. It would lead to specific teambuilding strategies akin to sweeper-centred building or in generations 6 and 7 with Megas. I think the akin-to-Megas analogy plays well; some may still build offensively and plan their Tera for Chien-Pao like they did Megas with Charizard-Mega-X or Loppuny-Mega; others may play defensively and save it for Quagsire like they might have done with Slowbro-Mega or Sableye-Mega.
Why would I argue then for an outright ban over this? I already stated how I felt even Megas were too power-creepy and presented a sort of if-you-can't-beat-them-join-them mentality, and I have no doubts that this would carry over even if Tera were to be Nerfed in the way I describe. So long as Tera exists, as
Finchinator points out,
Finally, banning the most broken abusers of Terastallization is a concept that we should be avoiding at all costs as an alternative to any of the above options as a long-term best practice. This is not an actual solution as we would just end up de-creeping the metagame to the point that the new top abusers would assume similarly troublesome roles potentially. If we are approaching a suggestion of this, then it is best to shift focus onto considering an outright ban or restriction!
we will just continue banning the top abusers. He says that they've been avoiding banning this at all costs, and while the pokémon that have been banned so far can certainly hold their own without Tera, they utilized it just as much and it was certainly considered when they were banned (just read the posts). That's another thing: the existence of Tera obscures the "real" meta. I can certainly posit that pokémon like Garganacl or Annihilape would be much less troublesome if they couldn't remove their resistances on a whim, or pokémon like Flutter Mane or Houndstone could be much more reliably revenge-killed if they couldn't change their typing to resist a priority Sucker Punch or the like.
Lastly, just as a note I don't think Tera Blast itself or a restriction thereof would have much of an effect at all. Of course there are some pokémon that utilize the move such as Choice Band Dragapult or Espathra notably, but most uses for Tera are either defensive in nature and/or offensively to boost an existing attack in a pokémon's movepool. I find the defensive uses of Tera to be the most fun but also the most egregiously broken (as I mentioned, Garganacl and Annihilape), though it is important to note the non-Tera-Blast offensive boosts it provides have also contributed heavily to the pokémon who have been banned or are seen by some as bannable (i.e. Tera Ice/Water Iron Bundle, Tera Dark Chien-Pao / Roaring Moon, Tera Fire/Dark Chi-Yu, etc.).
In all of the alternatives to an outright ban there are still cons or concern of potential cons for the health of the metagame. The only "con" of fully banning Tera is its effect on the playerbase counts. Obviously while the ban of Tera would lead to controversy and flight of some users, any of the outcomes will do so as well. Choosing the option with least controversy and/or effect on playerbase numbers isn't the proper course of action with the metagame in mind; they are three separate things. Of course a good metagame should include fun elements but also must not overwelcome broken ones. Historically I have often been very much against most bans; however, in retrospect I can recognize what may not have presented a challenge for me (i.e. Spectrier, Kyurem, Palafin-Hero) were objectively more banworthy than not. Even pokémon like Pheromosa or DarkShifu who presented considerable challenge to me I did not support the ban for, but I admit now very much overstayed their welcome in the meta. The reason these mons get banned is obviously because they are overpowered. Were these mons overpowered? Yes. Is Tera overpowered? Very clearly yes. Did counterplay exist around these mons? Of course (I already named some and you should be familiar with others), albeit sometimes few in number. Does counterplay exist around Tera? Sure, if you play right; but in no way does it always (given even grounds). There is always similar controversy over bans of pokémon; always people who disagree, sentiment of less fun, or people who don't play now that they can't use a mon they like or that's (too) easy to use. The case will be the same with Tera (albeit to a larger degree, sure), but in this case I think it is more warranted than any pokémon ban. Variety is one of the most important things for a metagame and while by nature Tera leads to variety it also has led / will lead to further bans of each newest abuser; each time we'll end up going down the list and banning the next pokémon. I would rather see Tera banned before a
single pokémon.
Pokémon are the core of this game, not Tera, not Z-Moves, not Megas. When Home comes we will have many many more pokémon and many changes to the meta; there will be many more abusers and many more mons that fall of because of them. And the culling of threats and counters and abusers will continue ever still. Tera presents too great a change for the metagame, not that we
can't adapt to but that we
shouldn't have to.
I just hope that after the banning of Tera and the release of Home we see the recently-banned mons brought back to OU (not slowly or never suspected but immediately released). (Some of the other Ubers I think should be given a chance as well, though probably with a suspect.)
This ended up a bit longer than I had originally intended (as is my signature, I guess). There may be some typos or parts that could warrant elaboration. Please let me know and feel free to respond!
