Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

Status
Not open for further replies.
At this point, Tera isn't even that insane anymore. People have learned how to play and build around it. Imagine the classic Breloom/RM example. Your opponent has a Booster Energy Proto Attack RM in against your Breloom. Neither side has used their Tera. There are a few things you can do here. You can predict Tera Flying into Acrobatics and switch out. You could predict Dragon Dance and Spore or Mach Punch. You could use your own Tera (presumably one that beats Flying RM) to call out the Acro. And it's not a 50/50 - there are many factors you can use to predict your opponent's move. Do they have another lategame sweeper? What HPs are their other Pokemon at?

As something as a HO expert I can tell you right now that we do whatever it takes to late game clean: sacking/sacrificing in multiple ways, either switching in on moves that kill or staying in on moves that kill...
my brother in christ youre rated 1600

...Before the game started I knew what I needed to accomplish to win: Keep hazards off for Polteageist, find room to set up with Polteageist while psychic terrain is up, and clean with my scarf Chien-Pao once/if psy terrain ran out. And I did it. I analyzed my opponent's team, found this was the best win-con and executed it perfectly...
Somehow, you failed to notice two threatening priority users on your opponent's team (sans Grimmsnarl, ofc). Playing with a Shell Smash sweeper, your first goal should have been to secure a lategame sweep for something that can deal with your opponent's main counters to your strategy. Your wincon was extremely flawed and you executed it with mediocrity at best.

...As you can see on turn 27- I even predicted Sucker Punch. I had this guy cooked, I was in his head the entire game...
This quote doesn't really matter, I just think it illustrates how low this person's expectations are for "good gameplay". Ironically, the very next turn, you failed to predict Sucker Punch; one could argue that this mistake was what lost you the game, not Tera.

...Your analysis of my gameplay is flawed, so I'm outlining the goals I had for this game so you can better understand...
Your goals don't change the fact that you lost. Yeah, Tera did have a small function in your loss, but you were kinda setting yourself up for defeat anyway. You faced a team that had actual checks to your threat, and you failed to account for them at all.

Good HO is actually very textbook. Sack X to bring in Y. I win the exact same way several games a day, sometimes in a row.
Two things. Firstly, HO needs to be versatile. If it's not, you can lose your wincons to a single mistake, and then you lose. Secondly, I would not flex the "sometimes in a row" part - or any or this quote, actually.

I literally only need 1-2 mons to win, all the rest do is support. They chip HP, cripple mons, set up certain conditions, etc.
That's HO. That's how it's played.
An entire game in Gen 8 would be my team chipping/crippling the other team for Scarf Kartana to sweep, as Chien-Pao should have done here.
Pure HO is mostly all glass cannons. You analyze which of these threats the opponent can't handle if all conditions are met such as getting certain mons in range or eliminating them. The rest of your mons are there to make that happen, even if that means doing nothing but dying.
Again, if you only have one wincon on your team, your team will suck ass. Ironically, Chrome_ (the person you were trying to refute) completely understood this point.

From all my years of playing Singles Showdown OU, I did what a HO team is supposed to do, and did it successfully, yet lost due to a terrible gimmick that lets my opponent undo all the work I did positioning my team for a win.
Look at the other options for a weak link. Maybe it's that your positioning allowed a timely Tera play to reverse the game?

LoseToRU keeps repeating the point of "my goals should have let me win, but they didn't, so Tera is ipso facto broken".


My opponent didn't play better than me, I was in control the entire game. I predicted my opponent several times. I accomplished all my goals I set out to do when building the team and only lost because my opponent had a "tech".
You're so close. If you lost, even after accomplishing your entire goal, maybe your goal sucked.

If you or anyone wants to respond, please please please focus on the 50/50 argument I'm laying out very clearly. Do not focus on the game anymore since I've fully illustrated my goals and win condition. Everything, every play that game, was all for turn 19. Any other meta, I won that game on that turn. If there was no terra, then my sweeper would not have been Fighting Terra Poltea, it would have been something else, and still swept and/or put big enough holes in their team so Pao could sweep.
I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me. Focus on the 50/50 aspect of my argument, please.
"I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me." Again, you can't really say that the "50/50" is broken when you set it up yourself and played around it horribly. Hell, why didn't you click Ice Spinner? As far as I know, very few Dragapult run Tera Steel or Tera Water. The safer play is the one that you avoided for some reason, so I don't think your argument stands.
 
You have outlined some basic stuff here as far as team archetypes, and you know what you're talking about for the most part. However, it doesn't feel as if you play a lot of pure HO from your post.

Let me illustrate some things you seemingly are unaware of.
Apologies in advance if you are aware of some or all of these things, but it doesn't seem like you are.

As something as a HO expert I can tell you right now that we do whatever it takes to late game clean: sacking/sacrificing in multiple ways, either switching in on moves that kill or staying in on moves that kill. All we care about is the late game- we want mons chipped so they are in range, we want sashes gone, we want all threatening priority gone. All we care about is getting in our threat. Reverse sweeping is one of the reasons I enjoy HO so much- it feels cinematic.

Before the game started I knew what I needed to accomplish to win: Keep hazards off for Polteageist, find room to set up with Polteageist while psychic terrain is up, and clean with my scarf Chien-Pao once/if psy terrain ran out. And I did it. I analyzed my opponent's team, found this was the best win-con and executed it perfectly.

As you can see on turn 27- I even predicted Sucker Punch. I had this guy cooked, I was in his head the entire game.
I knew scarf Pao had the win at that point- Pult was either banded Sucker or Dance, but it didn't matter.
Unless they had Terra-Dark Pult- which even if I did know that was the case- it still forces a 50/50.
Ghost:
252 Atk Chien-Pao Crunch vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Dragapult affected by Sword of Ruin: 218-260 (132.9 - 158.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO
Dark:
252 Atk Chien-Pao Sacred Sword vs. 4 HP / 0 Def Dragapult affected by Sword of Ruin: 328-388 (200 - 236.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO

Sacking is actually a tool, because as you stated HO does not have much in the way of defensive counter measures.
In a non-Terra meta my win condition would have been much different.
I would have put more stock in Iron Hands, but since Terra exists, my best choice for a late game backbone was Pao to clean.
I say since Terra exists, because Poltea is much more useful as a sweeper with Terra-fighting.
In fact, without Terra, my entire team and strategy would change- anyway, I digress.

Your analysis of my gameplay is flawed, so I'm outlining the goals I had for this game so you can better understand.

"ChiefGreenLeaf did not account for this and their team lacked an actual chi-yu switch-in (they had to lead with something which could threaten chi-yu"
I did account for this.
My only goal, as I said, was to position myself where 1) No hazards up 2) Psy Terrain up.
I don't care what Chi-Yu does to my team, it's just another mon that dies once I set up.

I lead with Indee to get psy terrain up first- to stop parting shot/taunt.
If they lead Glim then I go Hatt.
If they lead anything else I go Iron Hands for the sack then scare out with next mon, which I did.
Good HO is actually very textbook. Sack X to bring in Y. I win the exact same way several games a day, sometimes in a row.
For example, countless times have I let something die to Band Rilla in Gen 8 to bring in Celesteela to set up and sweep.
And many times with this team I played with in the replay, the same exact scenarios occur: Get psy terrain up, healing wish on a slower Phys attacker, send in Poltea and set up.

Another flawed perspective: "Cheif's team had no real counterplay to dragapult if it had the opportunity to setup"
HO gives very little breathing room for the opponent. Pult, as you see, had no chances to set up. It doesn't matter if this team can't handle +1 Pult if Pult can't find room to do so. Also, Sucker is not rare on Pult, it's a mainstay on both Band and Dance.

Another confusing take of yours: "either re-build the team to have a better defensive options such as priority, screens or hazard stack or use a more balanced build with an unaware mon ( skeledirge (with tera) or dondozo) or use a reliable phazer like ting-lu."

My brother in Christ- I'm playing HO lol.

This is how I know you don't actually play much HO or fully understand the playstyle in the actual game, and not on paper.
This team has no defensive backbone for a reason- Keep hazards off for Polteageist, find room to set up with Polteageist while psychic terrain is up, and clean with scarf Chien-Pao once psy terrain ran out.
That's it- that's literally how this team is played, and to do it successfully you need to be a good HO player, one that positions successfully.
And I did that.
If it's not clean with Scarf Pao, it's take out last mon with Iron Hands, or some small variation like take out a mon early and clean sweep with Poltea.
or Scarf Moth, or Hands, or even set up and win with Hatt. It just depends on my opponent's team. In this case, I choose the win-con I've laid out before you.
I literally only need 1-2 mons to win, all the rest do is support. They chip HP, cripple mons, set up certain conditions, etc.
That's HO. That's how it's played.
An entire game in Gen 8 would be my team chipping/crippling the other team for Scarf Kartana to sweep, as Chien-Pao should have done here.
Pure HO is mostly all glass cannons. You analyze which of these threats the opponent can't handle if all conditions are met such as getting certain mons in range or eliminating them. The rest of your mons are there to make that happen, even if that means doing nothing but dying.

In summary, Iron Hands, in this matchup, might as well have been a Magikarp. It's just there to allow positioning.

From all my years of playing Singles Showdown OU, I did what a HO team is supposed to do, and did it successfully, yet lost due to a terrible gimmick that lets my opponent undo all the work I did positioning my team for a win.

I can't speak with 100% certainty on what other playstyles Terra invalidates, but I know Hyper Offense, and I know the goals of this archetype, and when I execute them successfully and lose only due to a gimmick, then that's a huge problem.

Let me know if there's any other confusion you want me to clear up.
I ignored a lot of other hot takes because they were nonsense, but I respect your post and you as a player so I wanted to give you a fair response.

As soon as we start getting into mental gymnastics on if I should have predicted Dark Terra Pult and Sacred Sword there, then I'm gonna dismiss any counter-arguments.
Again, even if I had a feeling it was Dark, or if we implement something where I know it's Dark- it still forces a 50/50, which is unhealthy, and uncompetitive.
Late game Sucker Punch mind games can be fun once in awhile- but when it happens every game, that's a really stupid meta to play.
Why did I do all that work to position a win, and again I did so perfectly, for it to come down to a guessing game?
I want to play Pokémon, not Heads or Tails.

My opponent didn't play better than me, I was in control the entire game. I predicted my opponent several times. I accomplished all my goals I set out to do when building the team and only lost because my opponent had a "tech".

If you or anyone wants to respond, please please please focus on the 50/50 argument I'm laying out very clearly. Do not focus on the game anymore since I've fully illustrated my goals and win condition. Everything, every play that game, was all for turn 19. Any other meta, I won that game on that turn. If there was no terra, then my sweeper would not have been Fighting Terra Poltea, it would have been something else, and still swept and/or put big enough holes in their team so Pao could sweep.
I did nothing wrong in that replay, trust me. Focus on the 50/50 aspect of my argument, please.
Sometimes you lose. It's okay! The game is very, very rarely a true 50/50 and even in those situations, you had a dozen chances preceding that turn to create a different game state. Git Gud.
 
Sometimes you lose. It's okay! The game is very, very rarely a true 50/50 and even in those situations, you had a dozen chances preceding that turn to create a different game state. Git Gud.
Great argument. Git Gud isn't a meme at this point due to it being used to respond to legitimate criticism when you don't have actual rebuttals at all. LoseToRU claiming he played perfectly is dumb, but the objection to true 50/50s being in every single game is valid, and saying that 50/50s have existed sometimes doesn't invalidate that point.
 
my brother in christ youre rated 1600
Did you even read the post?
Somehow, you failed to notice two threatening priority users on your opponent's team (sans Grimmsnarl, ofc). Playing with a Shell Smash sweeper, your first goal should have been to secure a lategame sweep for something that can deal with your opponent's main counters to your strategy. Your wincon was extremely flawed and you executed it with mediocrity at best.
Somehow, you failed to notice the frequent and consistent mention of Psychic Terrain needing to be up for late game cleaning, or you just decided to shit all over this person for no reason in spite of it. You and a bunch of the other people replying to this post and other posts on the topic have been absurdly rude for absolutely no reason, and you really should be ashamed of yourselves, talking down to someone for (in your opinion!) not being as good as you at a fictional monster battle game.

This thread sucks ass. Probably gonna dip until action is taken on Tera. Peace.
 
Last edited:
Did you even read the post?
Somehow, you failed to notice the frequent and consistent mention of Psychic Terrain needing to be up for late game cleaning, or you just decided to shit all over this person for no reason in spite of it. You and a bunch of the other people replying to this post and other posts on the topic have been absurdly rude for absolutely no reason, and you really should be ashamed of yourselves, making fun of someone for (in your opinion!) not being as good as you at a fictional monster battle game.

This thread sucks ass. Probably gonna dip until action is taken on Tera. Peace.
indeedee is not an answer to your entire gameplan dying to prio lmfao
 
Great argument. Git Gud isn't a meme at this point due to it being used to respond to legitimate criticism when you don't have actual rebuttals at all. LoseToRU claiming he played perfectly is dumb, but the objection to true 50/50s being in every single game is valid, and saying that 50/50s have existed sometimes doesn't invalidate that point.
I mean this unironically, I don't think you need a serious response to someone that says they played perfectly. He did not! It's very reductionist to say the entire game came down to a single binary decision when it's just not the case. The decision tree of a typical OU game is huge. To focus on a single branch of the tree is silly, in my view. Tera is not the only reason he lost. A better player would likely have a different outcome, all teams being identical.
 
Except there’s a lot more viable items than just those. When I’m on ladder, in addition to what you’ve already mentioned, I’m seeing Focus Sash, Black Sludge, Air Balloon, Booster Energy, Light Clay, Lum Berry, Eviolite, and even the occasional type-boosting item or pinch berry. I’m also starting to see a lot of Red Card on hazard-stacking teams, so I’ll throw that in there too. Leaving those out of that list—especially Booster Energy, Air Balloon and Light Clay, which all play significant parts in the current meta—seems disingenuous. Hell, I usually end up running 6 different items on a team even without Item Clause.

Focus Sash is only ever seen on Glimmora and Spidops because unless you have a dedicated hazard lead, its kinda shit as its just going no item vs hazards, which are really strong in current meta.
Air Balloon is only seen on Gholdengo atm, and honestly with how Great Tusk has adapted to using Knock on the switch, it'll probably fall out of favor very soon.
Black Sludge is basically synonymous with lefties, not sure why you brought that up.
Light Clay is only seen on Grimmsnarl. No other viable screen setters.
Eviolite is... I guess Bisharp? Which honestly I've seen very few of.
Lum Berry and Booster energy, yeah, definitely should have mentioned them, because you're right, theyre viable and strong items, if a bit more niche than the top 6 due to fewer users.
Pinch berrys are shit and outclassed by defensive tera
Type boosting items are shit and not worth it.
Red Card I havent seen, but sure, I'll give it to you.

The 6 I listed have by far more viable users than these other items combined. Good on you if you've managed to find success running 6 different items, but those items are situational and more niche than the 6 I mentioned, because the vast majority of pokemon just dont use them very well.
 
I mean this unironically, I don't think you need a serious response to someone that says they played perfectly. He did not! It's very reductionist to say the entire game came down to a single binary decision when it's just not the case. The decision tree of a typical OU game is huge. To focus on a single branch of the tree is silly, in my view. Tera is not the only reason he lost. A better player would likely have a different outcome, all teams being identical.
I mean I agree the idea anyone played a full game perfectly is ridiculous. But do you really think that tera doesn't create more of those situations that you can't play to avoid? Sometimes games do come down to 50/50s as you said. And a huge part of skill is avoiding those situations. Tera means you are in that situation almost every turn until tera is used.
 
I started out this gen really really hoping tera would stay, but after playing a bunch of games I unfortunately don't see a situation where it's balanced. Tera means it's impossible to gameplan effectively because you have no idea what any pokemon could be running, or when tera could be activated. the pro-tera arguments comparing tera to Hidden Power fall kinda flat imo because if any mon can choose exactly what counters it, it's usually banned the way Kyurem was last gen. Tera makes that possible for every single pokemon, but takes it a step further because each pokemon can change what it can or can't beat within a single game, and you have no idea how to effectively gameplan until the tera is used.
 

alephgalactus

Banned deucer.
Focus Sash is only ever seen on Glimmora and Spidops because unless you have a dedicated hazard lead, its kinda shit as its just going no item vs hazards, which are really strong in current meta.
Glimmora sees a lot of usage, though. If you’re at high ladder, you see Sash more often than you don’t.
Air Balloon is only seen on Gholdengo atm, and honestly with how Great Tusk has adapted to using Knock on the switch, it'll probably fall out of favor very soon.
Gholdengo’s on basically every good team and Air Balloon’s on basically every Gholdengo. It won’t fall out of favor because Tusk can’t beat Air Balloon Gholdengo and Dragonite at the same time unless you make a really risky Ice Spinner prediction.
Black Sludge is basically synonymous with lefties, not sure why you brought that up.
Because it’s a different item than Leftovers that’s also viable. That’s the point of the post.
Light Clay is only seen on Grimmsnarl. No other viable screen setters.
In case you haven’t noticed, Grimmsnarl is currently ruling the meta in large part because of Light Clay. At what point do you consider an item “viable” if it’s not that? Are you going to call, say, pre-nerf Soul Dew unviable because only 2 Pokémon used it?
Eviolite is... I guess Bisharp? Which honestly I've seen very few of.
Chansey, dude. One of the literal two reliable Chi-Yu switch-ins.
Lum Berry and Booster energy, yeah, definitely should have mentioned them, because you're right, theyre viable and strong items, if a bit more niche than the top 6 due to fewer users.
Out of all the things I mentioned, you concede on Lum Berry? I haven’t even seen it on ladder, I just tossed it in there because some randbats sets used it last gen.
Pinch berrys are shit and outclassed by defensive tera
Type boosting items are shit and not worth it.
Current meta, sure, I can give you this. Future meta after the bullshit is gone, we’ll see.
Red Card I havent seen, but sure, I'll give it to you.
It’s a really valuable item when hazards are basically always up.
The 6 I listed have by far more viable users than these other items combined. Good on you if you've managed to find success running 6 different items, but those items are situational and more niche than the 6 I mentioned, because the vast majority of pokemon just dont use them very well.
You listed eight. Choice items are three different items, not one. And you seem to believe that quantity, not quality, is the determiner of what is and isn’t viable.
 
And you seem to believe that quantity, not quality, is the determiner of what is and isn’t viable.
I believe that forcing people to run one of very few niche users of niche items to fulfill a completely avoidable Item Clause isnt competitive. Thats what this whole debate is about. Do you think every team should be running Sash Glimmora, Light Clay Grimmsnarl and Pex just to round out the item quota? Fact of the matter is, most items are outclassed by other items on most pokemon, and forcing niche pokemon into teams just to have usable items is bad.

Also, Chansey's kinda outclassed by Blissey with HDB, and both are UU rn, so idk what ladder play you've been seeing of Chansey.
 
If your team doesn’t have at least one of these right now you’re throwing.
I dont know how to explain to you that stall still exists in the meta, and there are other forms of viable HO apart from those two. In any case, at this point you're disagreeing with me just to disagree, and have not refuted the actual point of my first post, which was addressing that held items have a drawback that Tera doesnt.
 
I dont know how to explain to you that stall still exists in the meta, and there are other forms of viable HO apart from those two. In any case, at this point you're disagreeing with me just to disagree, and have not refuted the actual point of my first post, which was addressing that held items have a drawback that Tera doesnt.
Tera does have a downside though, when you change your type matchups chart you don't just get the strengths of whatever you transformed into, you also get all the weaknesses. If you don't think tera has any drawbacks, I encourage you to go tera fairy in front of scizor and see how that goes.
 
Tera does have a downside though, when you change your type matchups chart you don't just get the strengths of whatever you transformed into, you also get all the weaknesses. If you don't think tera has any drawbacks, I encourage you to go tera fairy in front of scizor and see how that goes.
Now why the fuck would I do that? Your argument against Tera is akin to saying "if you play badly you'll lose." How about instead of Tera Fairying when theres a Bullet Puncher on the loose, I Tera Water my annihilape and win the game on the spot instead, because what are you gonna do? Tera Grass Tera Blast to beat it? Any player with a modicum of game sense is going to Tera the pokemon that gets the most value out of it, because, once again you have six(6) mons that can tera. Please tell me what the drawback is to having that?
 
After reading the last couple pages on this thread, I think that there are mainly three points to consider, one being fairly balanced, another one broken, and the last uncompetitive.

- Balanced: "Fixing" the defensive type of a pokemon (eg: giving Garganacl a good typing like pure water). This is by far what I like the most about Tera. It gives some genuinely cool mons that were screwed by the type chart a place in OU, promoting diversity and fair strategies. It also reduces matchup problems, by allowing you to fix your core if you run into the specific threat that you otherwise could not prepare for. I would very much like to keep this element of Terastallization in the meta.

- Broken: Pushing some mons over the edge. There's a couple already good mons that Tera makes very hard to stop by giving them better typings AND boosting their offense. Espathra can smack Dark types with Fairy STAB, Dragonite becomes E-killer, Chi-Yu gets free Adaptability, etc. However, I think this represents a minority of mons, that would deserve specific tiering actions. Yes, Home may bring a new bunch of those (but not necessarily that many either - people always bring up the same example of the Regis), but let's tackle that in due time. I don't think this point warrants tiering action on Tera as a whole, because the specific reasons that make the above examples ban-worthy actually vary from case to case.

- Uncompetitive: The timing issue. 50/50s have always been a part of competitive pokemon, but Tera makes nearly every competent sweeper impossible to check safely (at least offensively), invalidating a very important of gameplay. I believe that if Tera gets restricted, it should specifically target this. Problem is: Tera being visible at Team Preview or restricting it to one mon per team isn't gonna fix this. The only solution would be to ban Tera altogether, or to find another form of specific restriction based on gentleman agreement ("a pokemon can Tera only on the first turn it selects a move" - you could also consider something harsher like "you can only Tera on turn 1", although I wouldn't support it)
 

quziel

I am the Scientist now
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a member of the Battle Simulator Staff
Moderator
Tera, by allowing you to change type, will make certain mons broken. Iron Moon is probably the most obvious of these. This does not make Tera broken by existing, its just a consequence. Z-Moves (by most people's definition) were not necessarily broken, but as a consequence of their existence Pokemon such as Blaziken had to be banned from OU. We should not confuse Pokemon being broken by a mechanic with the mechanic itself being broken.

The most compelling, and also arguably the most banworthy, part of Tera is doing so to gain tempo on a specific turn. Whether this is turning a Corviknight into a Dragon-type to tank and then B-press a Chi-Yu, or turning a Roaring Moon into a Flying-type to surprise OHKO a Great Tusk, being able to get a KO when your opponent doesn't expect it is very strong. That said, this adds a lot of depth to the turn-to-turn game-play, main issue being that its heavily weighted towards the Tera player, as they only have to play aggressive once.

Showing Tera-typing at preview seems acceptable from a policy point to me; if VGC is using open team sheets, we can use open Tera sheets. This removes small bit of the unpredictability that people complain about, and I think narrowing down the potential plays an opponent has (switch, attacks 1-4, tera into typings 1-17 to switch, attacks 1-4, tera into typings 1) could definitely help make the mechanic more manageable. However, this is unlikely to be enough, because Tera still has the power to basically claim a free KO. This is very close to just not banning the mechanic, and would require substantial tiering afterwards, but that's fine with me.

Limiting Tera to only the first mon on the team (in the builder ofc) likely is enough to make the mechanic manageable. This turns Tera into a de-facto Z-move or Mega, and by removing the surprise factor from being played on every (high Tera potential) turn to only some turns would definitely help us balance it. That said, we'd still have to ban some mons because they're broken with Tera. I almost wish we could designate one mon to be Tera'd at preview, but I also understand that's likely impossible from a programming point of view. If it is possible, I think designating your Tera-mon at preview is perhaps my favorite solution.

Limiting to STAB types limits the amount of tempo that can be gained through defensive type switching (on offensive mons). That said, it also removes a lot of the depth of the mechanic. You can no longer use a well-chosen Tera-typing to turn a bad matchup into a playable matchup. This is a solution that likely fixes Tera as a problem, but I think it removes a lot of the magic of the mechanic. I jokingly suggested limiting Tera to only typings that don't match any of your attacks, and I'm coming around to that more seriously now.
 
Last edited:
I just like how we're pretending there is a small pool of broken mons when we see new ones constantly pop up with tera breaking them.

Espathra literally dropped to fucking UU... and now its an S tier ban worthy threat because tera fairy exist. Espathra needs banned with tera.

Dragonite is a major problem as well because you're not preparing a team for just a flying/dragon type but also a mono normal type with +2 priority STAB, not to mention even if dragonite could still do E-speed shit in past gens, it required additional setup to make up for lack of STAB bonus, you might not even need setup at all now with band+tera normal being a really good late game cleaner. Dragonite needs banned with tera.

Volcarona is infamous for being the matchup moth, and it can basically swap its matchups on the fly eliminating that weakness, I don't think it needs banned, but as the other shit goes volc definitely stands out as a power house once roaring moon and dragonite go.

Roaring Moon is really strong with tera flying, muscling past its would be checks with a strong now STAB move as a mega-salamance wannabe.

Now notice two common denominators;

1) tera pushes all of them over the edge and these are just some of the current ones not implying others won't follow after.

2) Besides volc, I specifically listed what tera they use... there is no guess work, that's what they'll use 90% of the time and the other 10% types they go with they'll lose more than win even if it cheesed me specifically. Showing tera types is irrelevant to addressing any of these and if I was to team build for any of them, I'd have to run two checks, one for dealing with their normal form, and one for their tera form. Limiting tera in any way or showing typing does nothing for pre-planning.

Keeping the mechanic in any capacity has a negative influence to the game, and it just gets worse over time as more gets introduced and when we finally realize that we'll be wasting the whole gen away reverting some of the bad decisions we made until the next gimmick gets introduced.

If for some reason we're stoned enough to keep it and offer a nerfed solution, the magic of the mechanic kinda fizzles out then as the only cool thing is the versatility, and that you can do some theoretically fun shit like tera fire tera blast frosmoth, but fun =/= healthy and when you limit it you take away the fun without making it healthier which defeats the purpose of even keeping it at all.
 
I've made a few longposts on Tera already, but here's a shorter aside that I became motivated to write when I saw the options for Tera restrictions that the survey presented. I've given my feedback in my response to the survey but it's also worth making a post here on it.

I think a lot of people are arguing for restrictions that honestly make no sense. Indeed, I believe that the three restrictions proposed in the tiering survey are all poor options.

To explain my point, let me ask something of a Socratic question: WHY are we restricting Tera in the first place? If the mechanic is busted/unhealthy/whatever, why are we preserving it at all? What's the reasoning? There IS a good reason to consider restrictions, but I think by asking these questions, we can rule out a lot of "bad" proposals immediately.

To be frank, I do not think Smogon should care about how many games are played on the OU ladder or what random Poketubers will say about our decision or whatever. I do not think those are things that Smogon should be concerned about, and this is consistent with Smogon's stated goals and philosophy. IMO, if we're to restrict Tera, we should do it only on the following grounds:
  • Tera has negative effects on the metagame (otherwise we should go with No Action*), AND...
  • Tera has positive effects on the metagame (otherwise we should go with Tera Ban).
Thereby, if we are to go with a restriction on Tera, it should seek to:
  • Minimize the negative aspects of Tera, AND...
  • have minimal collateral damage on the positive aspects of Tera.
So when you're considering a restriction, I think it should be evaluated on whether it meets these criteria to a satisfactory degree.

As an example, let's address the three proposals offered in the survey:
  1. STAB-only Tera: Does reduce the negative aspects of Tera, but has very high collateral damage on the positive aspects of Tera. Indeed, it completely eliminates the most healthy part of Tera (adding skill expression to the teambuilder and being able to use reactive Tera to adjust to bad matchups). An outright ban would be preferable.
  2. Non-STAB-only Tera: Has minimal effect on positive uses of Tera, but also almost certainly insufficient at reducing the negative aspects, like its heavily swingy nature or being able to use it on setup sweepers to dodge revenge kills or get free setups (assuming you believe those aspects exist, of course; otherwise you ought to argue for No Action). No Action or an alternative restriction would be preferable.
  3. Limit 1 mon Tera: Totally ineffective unless that mon is revealed to both players, so I'll assume it is. This has some collateral damage on the positive aspects of Tera, but it's dubious whether it's enough to invalidate the proposal or not. It also reduces the negative aspects of Tera, but I doubt it does so to a sufficient extent (very high-impact predictions still exist, for example, and while not EVERY game element that forces predictions does so to a problematic or banworthy extent, I think Tera is too high-impact and extreme on this regard, and this proposed solution wouldn't bring it in line). That is to say, it's very sketchy at best whether it meets either of the goals I outlined above, which makes me very hesitant to commit to this policy. An alternative, more targeted restriction would be preferable.
It is on these grounds that I continue to support a ban on Tera + most forms of setup. I confess that it is more complex than the restrictions proposed above, but for reasons stated in my earlier post, it is hyper-targeted at the worst negative consequences of Tera while only having small impact on the positive aspects. Admittedly, its impact on the healthy side of Tera isn't ZERO — it'd ban things like Torch Song Tera Fairy Skeledirge which I think most people are cool with — but it's far less than most proposals. That said, if this is deemed too complex or otherwise not ideal for some reason or another, I would prefer either a full Tera Ban or No Action/Tera Team Preview (see below) over any other currently-proposed restriction, since I believe that all other restrictions proposed fail the above objectives.

———

* OR we should go with Tera Team Preview, which I find preferable to No Action entirely because it has "official" precedent with it being de facto implemented in VGC tournaments due to teamsheets. In other words, it's a "neutral" option of sorts since Smogon isn't stepping outside of the bounds of established competitive precedent (though it's not the status quo that presently exists in simulator play or in Smogon policy, of course) while still potentially reducing the unhealthiness of the mechanic. To be clear, I don't think it does enough — I think it falls short of the "Minimize the negative aspects of Tera" goal I suggested above — but I don't think it's as inconsistent to argue for this policy as it is to argue for, say, 1-Tera-abuser or non-STAB-Tera-only. It at least has a reason to be considered, which other proposals that fall short of the above design goals do not. I stress that this is an exceptional case, and if you don't think that VGC precedent ought to have any legitimacy in Smogon tiering (which is a fine stance to take), then feel free to disregard this footnote and just evaluate Tera Team Preview on its own merits — in which case I think it falls short of the goals I outline in this post.
 
I don't really see the point in trying to push really specific complex bans. I'm with the council when it comes to wanting to avoid complex bans, because really anything can be legal if we put enough goofy restrictions on it. Let marshadow back into ou but it can't use spectral thief and has to be holding an iron ball or toxic orb! Let kyogre in but it can't use any move above 60bp. Mod DPP to let garchomp have no ability, etc etc. You get the idea. While it's less exaggerated, I find that banning tera to non stab types or only stab types falls under the same umbrella. Not to mention that neither of these solutions would stop some pokemon (espathra would sleep so well not being able to tera into a psychic type, chi-yu couldn't give less of a shit about not being able to tera outside of stab, etc).
The only idea I can really "get behind" (in a relative sense at least) is tera types at team preview, but now it's like cool, now I know that the tera water annihlape or tera fairy espathra is gonna run me over, knowledge is power! I really feel like tera is just an issue no matter how you slice it.
 
Tera is one of those mechanics that only gets better the more you look at it. Ill keep it short and sweet, tera should 100% be banned in singles. Ive played through Z moves and while I didnt exactly like them, they had an actual drawback of losing a held item and the attack being only used once.
Tera it just a button that gives you insane damage for the rest of the game and almost removes most defensive counterplay. It forces so many true instant loss 50/50s, sometimes right at game start, thats its inherently uncompetitive. While yes its cool mechanic but right now tera is, "Once per game you can cover 1 of your pokemons type weaknesses completely, get access to a completely new 80 base power coverage move of choice, have up to 3 stabs, have one of those stabs be a super STAB, and the buff lasts even if you get phased or switch out, oh and you can still hold an item"
Mechanic is absurd and mirrors most of the issues that previously banned mechanics had. Also no, just because both players have access to a mechanic doesnt make it fair/competitive.
 
Last edited:
Tera is a cool mechanic to play around or use in a tight spot to clutch out some situations for sure but the more I engage with the mechanic the more I think I'm not a fan. It isn't as bad as older mechanics for sure but the defensive boost and wild offensive boosts you can get with held items + Protosynthesis kind of has me wanting to dial it back a little lol.

But my 'real' opinion is I dont find it offensive (yet) and enjoy the extra level of mindgames you get to play with your opponent. I also wouldn't be upset if there was type display before matches attached to each mon or if it was outright banned completely.

I will say Fairy Tera Wo-Chien has been a favorite of mine recently. Feels like it can wall almost anything :totodiLUL:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top