The “correct answer”, which it seems has been disregarded many times, is to either ban Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s allowed or keep Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s banned. This is the literal only option that will keep the majority of both the ban and no-ban crowds satisfied. Not doing this is a manifestly ridiculous option that will alienate half the playerbase. The “b-but it won’t last!!!” argument is fucking stupid because it only really needs to last a couple months until the shitstorm dies down.It seems like a lose-lose-lose-lose situation for the council since no matter what result ends up getting the most votes in future surveys and suspect tests, which will likely just narrowly win against the other options, a vast majority of the community will end up being unhappy with the decision, which will lead to further toxicity down the line. A "correct answer" doesn't exist, and that worries me.
I agree with this, but I'm not sure how the council feels about splitting the playerbase like that. I remember reading that they're generally opposed to the idea.The “correct answer”, which it seems has been disregarded many times, is to either ban Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s allowed or keep Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s banned. This is the literal only option that will keep the majority of both the ban and no-ban crowds satisfied.
Well, if I were a member of the Council, I would see my options as “keep Tera and risk spending the next three years patrolling suspect-test threads and sifting through tiering surveys 24/7 because of all the things it breaks”, “ban Tera and risk spending the next three years deleting spam comments from angry Poketuber fans”, and “split the playerbase, which is already so deeply divided over this topic that splitting it won’t really do much at all, since simply banning/keeping Tera will cause half of them to leave anyway”.I agree with this, but I'm not sure how the council feels about splitting the playerbase like that. I remember reading that they're generally opposed to the idea.
Personally that I'm of the mind that a new generation that brings about a variety of new changes and mechanics is the PERFECT time to re-asses site-policy regarding things instead of going 'splitting the playerbase is bad' and shutting that angle down regardless of the merits it has. I'm still pretty sure that its something declared internally from on high by site admins instead of the council though, which is debatably worse.I agree with this, but I'm not sure how the council feels about splitting the playerbase like that. I remember reading that they're generally opposed to the idea.
If the admins are really stifling progress like this, then they’re probably more concerned with site traffic than the actual reason the site was created. Perhaps a change in site leadership or an alternate platform to discuss competitive Pokémon is needed.I'm still pretty sure that its something declared internally from on high by site admins instead of the council though, which is debatably worse.
It requires a lot less work than cleaning up the mess after one half of the playerbase or the other are effectively told “go play cartridge, we don’t want you here”. That’s not the message the Council is trying to send, but it’s the message people will receive because people aren’t very rational. A second ladder is the most practical option, it just requires the most immediate work. For once in the entire history of the human race, can we please be proactive instead of reactive?This isn't nearly worth the scaremongering. Smogon is fine, a second ladder is just not a very practical idea.
I'm sorry, in what world is, at best, suspect tests and quick bans for home (and dlc. if we dont get dlc ignore my comment oooo I didn't say anything oooo) more work than managing an entire new ladder? Unless you want it to go unmodded, which is fine, but it'll just lead it to die rather quickly (even a modded one has the risk of being a bust, hi bdsp ou). The people who work here are volunteers who already do waaay too much than what is asked of them imho, why do you wanna put more labor on them so you can play without/with tera?It requires a lot less work than cleaning up the mess after one half of the playerbase or the other are effectively told “go play cartridge, we don’t want you here”. That’s not the message the Council is trying to send, but it’s the message people will receive because people aren’t very rational. A second ladder is the most practical option, it just requires the most immediate work. For once in the entire history of the human race, can we please be proactive instead of reactive?
Don't get me wrong I don't have hard proof of it, but the site as a hole seems to have undergone a big policy shift for handling things between gen 5 and 6, with the new standards implemented becoming site-wide standards. I won't say the current model is entirely bad, but I think it is also ill-equipped for the direction the series is going in with both universal gimmicks in conjunction with seemingly every new pokemon now getting some new personal move or ability that only 1 or maybe 2 other things get. I obviously cannot say with certainty how this generation would have gone if it had happened back in the time period of the 2D era, but I do feel that things would have gone differently at least. For better or worse, I leave that to personal preference.If the admins are really stifling progress like this, then they’re probably more concerned with site traffic than the actual reason the site was created. Perhaps a change in site leadership or an alternate platform to discuss competitive Pokémon is needed.
The thing about NatDex though is that it was and is an 'impossible' format (I won't call it a bad one, and I'm glad it exists because dex cuts are a huge problem with the switch era) that physically cannot be played on cart. I don't understand why an impossible format can get enough support to have an OU, Ubers, AG, AND Monotype variant, but a singular tier for whichever side loses the tera suspect is impossible. I don't think it to be that impossible to at least open applications for people who would be interested in maintaining such an OM? There are people who take the various OMs seriously even if they don't have that much support, and I'm fairly certain that "balanced 6v6 singles with tera" and "balanced 6v6 singles without tera" would both have a large playerbase. Tera, unlike dynamax, is actually a mechanic that adds interactive depth to the game, there's a much stronger argument to actually keeping a tier to use it in that isn't the hellzone that is AG.The problem with separate ladders is that no matter how better it is or how it caters, most people wont play it because it's not the official ou anyways. Whatever is decided by the leaders + community is what gets tournaments and games, why waste time on an unofficial format anyways? Let alone the fact you're doubling the workload for unpaid contributors (and it gets worse if you insist that to fix the issue, both ladders should go on tournaments. at that point just give them a wage LOL)
The only one that worked was natdex due to the massive break in status quo (difference between losing a gimmick or even moves to pokémon, something unthinkable back then other than fucking, spiky ear pichu/cosplay pika or whatever), and it did cannibalize a bit of swsh and sm ou when it was launched (oras wasn't mentioned though, I wonder if it was kept intact).
This isn't nearly worth the scaremongering. Smogon is fine, a second ladder is just not a very practical idea.
I think thats why it got support, no? Dexit was a big deal, the idea of being stuck with 400-ish pokemon for an entire generation (we didn't know dlc were going to be a thing back then), losing z moves, megas AND having moves being cut all at once created a defensive reaction (understandable. I don't like natdex but I think its existence comes from completely fair motives), which led to natdex, an emulation of an ideal gen 8 gaining popularity.I don't understand why an impossible format can get enough support to have an OU, Ubers, AG, AND Monotype variant, but a singular tier for whichever side loses the tera suspect is impossible.
Splitting ladders has been and always will be a terrible idea. There are only so many people able to play competitively, and you need other people interested in playing that format at your skill level to be able to get decent games going. Splitting the ladder will always be disregarded because it is simply not a viable solution.The “correct answer”, which it seems has been disregarded many times, is to either ban Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s allowed or keep Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s banned. This is the literal only option that will keep the majority of both the ban and no-ban crowds satisfied…
I’m fairly certain that you and I both have an exactly equal amount of experience doing either of those things, so anything we argue regarding this will be hypothetical without input from the people who actually manage suspect tests and ladders.I'm sorry, in what world is, at best, suspect tests and quick bans for home (and dlc. if we dont get dlc ignore my comment oooo I didn't say anything oooo) more work than managing an entire new ladder?
Oh, and if we don’t get DLC this discussion is barely relevant because the current OU pool is so pitiful that the meta will be dead in a year without it.(and dlc. if we dont get dlc ignore my comment oooo I didn't say anything oooo)
It doesn’t need to survive for long, it just needs to stick around for a couple months to prevent a lot of the post-suspect-results whining until everyone calms down.Unless you want it to go unmodded, which is fine, but it'll just lead it to die rather quickly (even a modded one has the risk of being a bust, hi bdsp ou).
They’re volunteers. By definition, no one’s forcing them to do anything. I’m not putting any labor on anyone who doesn’t want to take on that burden. If no one wants to code and maintain a second ladder, so be it, but don’t blame me when site traffic plummets.The people who work here are volunteers who already do waaay too much than what is asked of them imho, why do you wanna put more labor on them so you can play without/with tera?
Most bans are clear-cut at some level at least. Tera is different. Multiple people are looking at the exact same replays and drawing the exact opposite conclusions. I have literally never seen such a deep divide in this community with people clinging so fiercely to their positions outside of the American Politics thread. In fact, this whole thread is almost exactly a mirror of the average climate change debate.Especially since smogon has always been "go play cartridge if you want to use naganadel ya goof" about things.
Believe it or not, your "correct answer" that "is the literal only option" which ignoring makes us "manifestly ridiculous" or "fucking stupid" is not, in fact, as easy as you indicate. We've been over this many times and are seemingly going in a circle in conversation now. Perhaps take a step back and stop being so rude.The “correct answer”, which it seems has been disregarded many times, is to either ban Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s allowed or keep Tera and create a separate ladder where it’s banned. This is the literal only option that will keep the majority of both the ban and no-ban crowds satisfied. Not doing this is a manifestly ridiculous option that will alienate half the playerbase. The “b-but it won’t last!!!” argument is fucking stupid because it only really needs to last a couple months until the shitstorm dies down.
And perhaps do not drum up conspiracy along the way.If the admins are really stifling progress like this, then they’re probably more concerned with site traffic than the actual reason the site was created. Perhaps a change in site leadership or an alternate platform to discuss competitive Pokémon is needed.
As someone who is only casually a player of OU, and deeply in favor of trying to preserve Tera, I doubt you lose half the playerbase when you make the decision they don’t prefer. The reason these threads get so heated is because the people with the most investment comment on them, while those who are okay either way are most likely to just play and not put effort into discussions.It requires a lot less work than cleaning up the mess after one half of the playerbase or the other are effectively told “go play cartridge, we don’t want you here”. That’s not the message the Council is trying to send, but it’s the message people will receive because people aren’t very rational. A second ladder is the most practical option, it just requires the most immediate work. For once in the entire history of the human race, can we please be proactive instead of reactive?
Where did I say it would be easy? Nothing is ever easy. I literally said it’s the option that requires the most work in the short term. I’m also saying that it’s the option that will attract the least amount of vitriol.Believe it or not, your "correct answer" that "is the literal only option" which ignoring makes us "manifestly ridiculous" or "fucking stupid" is not, in fact, as easy as you indicate.
Why quote me instead of the person I was replying to who actually brought up the topic? Do you have something against me in particular? Because I’m beginning to feel like that might be the case.And perhaps do not drum up conspiracy along the way.
I think I might not have been clear enough here: I only think a secondary ladder should be created for OU, not any of the lower tiers. Lower-tier alternate ladders wouldn’t work for exactly the reasons you’ve described. Most of what you’ve said here is correct, except for the part where you throw out my idea as a whole.Splitting ladders has been and always will be a terrible idea. There are only so many people able to play competitively, and you need other people interested in playing that format at your skill level to be able to get decent games going. Splitting the ladder will always be disregarded because it is simply not a viable solution.
Lower tiers (UU to ZU) will be even smaller, and look to the bans in OU when informing their decisions. It is basically impossible to run an RU-tera and RU-no_tera ladder, just because there are fewer people in RU to begin with!
Yes, everyone is split on the matter, but a single core ruleset NEEDS to be endorsed as: “these are the main/default rules that we’ll play by for 90% of our metagames.” You can maybe get away with one extra side ladder (like NatDexOU having a more liberal ruleset), but you need to commit to a unified solution for main tiers.
To be honest with you I've never pushed for Tera-UU personally, I'm well aware that making two versions of every single tier level would be a silly thing. Even Nat-Dex bottoms out at UU (and nat-dex mono feels more like a nesscessity at times depending on how screwed your favorite type is in terms of available mons), I think that JUST having a Tera-OU, or no tera-OU, and leaving it at that, IN THE EVENT THAT A HARD-BAN OR ZERO RESTRCTION ends up being the final verdict, would at least keep the playerbase at large mostly placated.Splitting ladders has been and always will be a terrible idea. There are only so many people able to play competitively, and you need other people interested in playing that format at your skill level to be able to get decent games going. Splitting the ladder will always be disregarded because it is simply not a viable solution.
Lower tiers (UU to ZU) will be even smaller, and look to the bans in OU when informing their decisions. It is basically impossible to run an RU-tera and RU-no_tera ladder, just because there are fewer people in RU to begin with!
Yes, everyone is split on the matter, but a single core ruleset NEEDS to be endorsed as: “these are the main/default rules that we’ll play by for 90% of our metagames.” You can maybe get away with one extra side ladder (like NatDexOU having a more liberal ruleset), but you need to commit to a unified solution for main tiers.
I'm gonna be honest with you. No one hates you. The opposition you've been getting is because you've been pretty abrasive with a lot of your points. As well, statements like this don't help your cause:But you know what, screw it. I’m going to stop trying to convince people of things because everyone in this thread seems to instantly become opposed to any idea I propose or endorse. Not entirely sure what I did to make everyone hate me this much, but I probably deserve it. Just remember that I tried.
No one in this thread is going to want to engage with you seriously until you cool your jets, dude.You’re gravely insulting the collective intelligence of the community if you believe that even a single competent player was ever surprised to see Normal Dragonite.
*continues to drum up conspiracy*Why quote me instead of the person I was replying to who actually brought up the topic? Do you have something against me in particular? Because I’m beginning to feel like that might be the case.
As I understand it, the whole point of the first vote being open tera vs restricted, with the exact method of restriction being ranked choice (with full ban as one of the options) is to PREVENT the restriction camp from fracturing. With the way ranked choice works, if your personal most preferred outcome doesn't win the 50% majority, recounts are hosted using your second and then third choice if its impossible for your first choice to get a majority. The whole point is to find the outcome that the most people are at least 'okay' with instead of forcing them to allign with one and only one option. If anything its the full-ban crowd who will have the hardest time seeing their preference win, but honestly I think thats okay. In my personal opinion at least, I think a full ban should be reserved for if the restrictions simply do not work for solving the problem, so, y'know, give the lighter restrictions a chance first to test those waters and all that.Right now, the issue is that everyone is split very hard. Just going by the OU tiering survey, if we were to make a vote of Free-Ban-Restrict, it would be an extremely even vote. I know that we usually go by super majority for ban, but any vote on Tera as of right now will definitely draw ire for being so close. Banning Dynamax drew a lot of attention, but it was obviously necessary, and there was a gigantic concensus to ban it (87% ban).
Any vote right now on Tera will likely split the vote so close between ban/no-ban/restrict that the result will leave the maximum number of people dissatisfied. Additionally, since we technically have three main camps with very similar support, the way any vote is held will have a massive impact on the final outcome. Basically, the OU council right now has a lot of power over the result, but that power also puts them in an extremely precarious position.
While I have no power over this, my recommendation to the council is to first consolidate the "Restrict" vote. Right now, the restriction camp is split between many different options. This needs to be condensed to one option to make any progress. Otherwise, any decisions between ban/no_ban/restrict will be malinformed because you don't actually know where the compromise is on the table. This won't be easy, but is a necessary first step, and will buy time to figure out how to resolve everything in the end.
A lot of this makes sense; however, ranked choice will likely be a resounding victory for the restriction camp (despite the fact that they constitute ~1/3 of people who would qualify for suspect vote, extrapolating from the survey!). Knowing this in advance, the choice to run a ranked choice vote could be interpretted as the OU council saying "We want this to be restricted." for whatever reason. Whether or not this is the best outcome or not is subjective. However, having the result decided by the way the OU council chose to conduct the voting will lead to the people in the pure ban/no-ban camps pointing at the finger at the OU council for effectively choosing which horse they want to win the race.As I understand it, the whole point of the first vote being open tera vs restricted, with the exact method of restriction being ranked choice (with full ban as one of the options) is to PREVENT the restriction camp from fracturing. With the way ranked choice works, if your personal most preferred outcome doesn't win the 50% majority, recounts are hosted using your second and then third choice if its impossible for your first choice to get a majority. The whole point is to find the outcome that the most people are at least 'okay' with instead of forcing them to allign with one and only one option. If anything its the full-ban crowd who will have the hardest time seeing their preference win, but honestly I think thats okay. In my personal opinion at least, I think a full ban should be reserved for if the restrictions simply do not work for solving the problem, so, y'know, give the lighter restrictions a chance first to test those waters and all that.
I'm gonna be honest with you. No one hates you. The opposition you've been getting is because you've been pretty abrasive with a lot of your points.
No one in this thread is going to want to engage with you seriously until you cool your jets, dude.
also, you haven't been the most likable person in this thread so.....
I’ve never really had much success at convincing people of things by being nice, but then I’m not exactly a nice person in general. Might as well give it a shot.Even if I actually agree with alephgalactus on a lot of things, its impossible to convince someone with hostility, if anything that only makes it harder.
My problem with this is that I believe Tera tilts the balance of the game too far in the direction of offense to ever not be troublesome. I don’t think the team preview suggestion really works because the surprise factor of Tera isn’t what makes Tera’s best abusers so strong—reasonably, if you see Dragonite at team preview and assume it’s running Tera Normal, you’ll be right most of the time, but even with that knowledge, it’s unreasonably difficult to prevent it from setting up and sweeping your team. That’s partially the fault of Cyclizar and Grimmsnarl, two entirely separate problems that I believe have needed to go even before Tera was looked at, but I believe that having STAB on Extreme Speed and being able to change to a typing that’s really hard to offensively exploit makes Dragonite way too strong even in the absence of its enablers, and that’s only a single example among many. The other suggestions I’ve seen besides “outright ban” don’t seem like they’d solve the whole problem either—banning only STAB Tera or only non-STAB Tera would only solve part of the problem since some of its best abusers (Dragapult, Chi-Yu) use STAB but some of the other best abusers (Espathra, Annihilape, Dragonite) don’t use STAB; banning Tera Blast is something that I don’t believe should even be considered; and most other solutions are just too complex and arbitrary for my tastes.I just want a future where Tera remains in the game mostly intact while still ensuring the people against it don't find the mechanic too troublesome.