Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

Status
Not open for further replies.
more than tera being a mechanic that you use to win, it is a mechanic you use to not lose

lying roaring moon, water annihilape - you aren't changing these mons types to "win", you are already using good mons in an attempt to win, you tera to avoid a bad outcome that you otherwise couldn't without tera

tera's potential comes from the ability to have what would normally be a losing situation and turn it around without needing to use a turn switching pokemon, changing the situation from a loss or at least mitigating the worst effects of such

basically you play the game without tera until you reach a turn where it looks like you would come off worse that turn (such as being walled, statused, knocked out, etc) AND have a tera type that allows you to attempt to negate predicted failure in a way you couldn't in another gen, then you use it and this comes at no immediate opportunity cost, you don't give up on anything by choosing x type for a mon unless you actually use it, unlike running 6 mons with mega stones or running 6 mons with dynamax abusive sets, you could do that with them but it wasn't a good strategy because it came at a cost of items and movesets

tera feels like you are trading 1 pokemon for another mid-battle one with the same stats/moves but with a diff typing (switching mons without switching mons?) and this is enough of a distinction to call it a different mon at that point - there are several past pokemon like this who have varied/viability tiering placement based on type changes: rotom forms, arceus, silvally, and megas - i bring them up cause they are the closest things to tera that we've had in the past

rambling
what's weird to me about these arguments is that it makes it seem like only side can tera? If both players can "tera to avoid a bad outcome", then how is it unbalanced? It's just like with Dmax, you often have to Dmax reactively to counter your opponent's Dmax, which ends up leveling the playing field. This isn't to attack your argument specifically, but it's more of a reaction to what I've been reading in this thread. Imo, if both sides have access to the broken mechanic, that means it's basically a level playing field, and it comes down to who utilizes it better.

I could be missing something here tho since I've been pretty out of the loop. Personally, Gen7 was my favorite gen bc of Mega's and Z-moves. Nothing gave me more satisfaction than clicking All-Out-Pummeling with my Thundurus-T against Heatran's and T-tars and watching them drop. It made that generation feel special and unique, and it added an extra layer of strategy and outplay potential that I really enjoyed. Would hate to see this generation gutted like Gen8 was, but I understand why it might be necessary. I'm hoping we can find a way to keep it around tho.
 
what's weird to me about these arguments is that it makes it seem like only side can tera? If both players can "tera to avoid a bad outcome", then how is it unbalanced? It's just like with Dmax, you often have to Dmax reactively to counter your opponent's Dmax, which ends up leveling the playing field. This isn't to attack your argument specifically, but it's more of a reaction to what I've been reading in this thread. Imo, if both sides have access to the broken mechanic, that means it's basically a level playing field, and it comes down to who utilizes it better.
Yes so that is an interesting point. Every argument implies that the opponent has the ideal tera type and opportunity at all times, while the other does not.
Now of course, many would argue against saying " but sometimes you just can't help these 50/50 scenarios" or " I could never have predicted X mon would have Y tera type." But the fact of the matter is, both players had to decide on what Tera types they brought prior to the game. This is still a skill that can and should be utlized in team building. Just because something like Roaring Moon can tera for double STAB Flying/Dark, doesn't mean the team you built in the back can support it. On the flip side, your opponents tera types could just as easily be steam rolled by said set because it got some set up. Inherantly, the only added "bulk" tera types can produce is my turning into a resistance. But more often than not, you will often see Neutral tera types in most match ups.

I once again can't help but point out that when new items, pokemon, and abilities get added to the game, you will see shifts in playstyles. Heavy Duty boots in gen 8 was a majorly powerful item that was added. Conversely, Terastilization utilizes a similar factor to Proteon/Libero and some mega evolutions: a type change mid battle. For items like Choice specs, scarf, and band this can instantly turn a positive match up into a poor one. These items have been staples on many teams for many generations, however I myself have been running them far less on later ( I still run scarf many times) and seeing better results, simply because locking myself into a move that an opponent can tera into that is either resisted or immune too completely stalls my momentum.
 
While I'm not the best player I definitely agree Terastalization in its current state is definitely uncompetitive. As others have said, it's highly unpredictable and gives mons either a third STAB or a free Adaptability for one of their types, on top of easily subverting their typing's defensive flaws by switching to a type that resists what they're normally weak to.
I don't think an outright ban is a good idea however. Tera, while definitely crunk, is still not as bad as Dynamax was. Dynamax let its users soak up hits that would've otherwise KO'd them, and do a variety of dumb shit with their moves, from setting weather/terrain to boosting their stats. Its ban in the SwSh era was definitely understandable and warranted. However, this came at a great cost to the metagame itself. As discussed in this post from the Policy Review thread, SwSh OU had a greater drop-off in player counts compared to the previous generation, in part due to the Dynamax ban. This caused the SwSh metagame to lack any sort of unique identity and arguably a loss of interest in competitive singles.
I'm in favor of simultaneously showing Tera type at team preview and limiting the amount of Pokemon that can Terastalize to one per team. This makes preparing for the mechanic a lot more manageable and encourages players to use the mechanic more wisely. If Terastalization continues to be an issue for the metagame after that then a suspect test would definitely be in order, but for now combining restrictions #1 and #2 is the best course of action.
I could probably talk more about Game Freak's constant need to introduce a borked gimmick every generation being detrimental to Pokemon as a whole but I'll leave it at that
 
okay no seriously y'all in these posts stop bringing up roaring moon

it's literally mega salamence lite with an item slot. it's not that difficult to imagine it'd be banned without tera, or even in a meta like gen 8 ou

just look at the calcs, braindead moveset, you know: item slot (only real downside of mega salamence) and while it's not as bulky, it still gets free turns honestly

if not for tera giving defensive counterplay and donbozo it'd be gone immediately

again, natdex had it quickbanned and that is literally a tier with megas, z moves and every non-ubers pokemon ever. lmao. If you want you can try to argue that was wrong too, but frankly these roaring moon arguments are verging on literal cope
You can't invalidate their arguments just because of the pokemon used. In case people forgot, this might just be the most power crept generation in the history of pokemon so far. Before Roaring Moon, it was Iron Bundle. Without Roaring Moon, it would be Iron Valiant, Chien-Pao, Kingambit, Annihilape, etc. Don't forget all the old pokemon like Dragonite or regular Salamance that gets Moxie. If it isn't Roaring Moon, it would be something else taking its place that has similar 1 turn flip potential.

Furthermore, this deflects from the actual argument they made and the arguments everyone else made using it. You could simply replace the pokemon involved and the arguments would remain the same.
 
It's just like with Dmax, you often have to Dmax reactively to counter your opponent's Dmax, which ends up leveling the playing field
No it doesn't. It does not in the slightest.

Every D-Max turn means you've fired an attack with over 130BP AND that benefits the user in some way, most likely +1 on a stat of choice.

Reactive Dynamax was at best an attempt to weather the storm and it usually failed because the initial mon severely damaged something, if not outright KO'd it AND got a stat boost, so even if you had a D-Max vs D-Max scenario, your mon started off at a huge disadvantage.

The thing about Tera compared to D-Max is that Tera does not give any stat boosts.

Sure, you get that juicy STAB and the double-edged sword of a type change, but after that initial turn where you can get the jump on a check, the end result is a mon that might have made a different check for itself.

Even a mon that might actually be ban-worthy with or without Tera, namely Annihilape, might find itself in a pinch in a situation like this.

Ape just Terastallizes into Water because it's a solid defensive type to take hits and get that Rage Fist ball rolling. It might even get a KO off that.

That means that if you get a faster Electric-type on the field, like say, Regieleki when Home drops, Ape is immediately under pressure when it otherwise wouldn't.

Changing your type does have negative points too. Terastal is NOT a drawback-free mechanic.

Notice how I didn't mention counter-Tera in this example too.

Proving once again that you’re never allowed to change your pfp lmao
N E V E R. :trode:
 
No, it was egregious and unplayable. Anything that gets banned that early with such a margin is telling. I just think Tera is a very different concept
I appreciate your honesty, but I really don't agree with anyone who thinks Tera is better than Dynamax as far as being overpowered. I think it got banned that early more because people didn't like it and there wasn't as much of a call to make it work. Basically, it's about what's popular instead of what's overpowered.

If you actually look at it, Dynamax actually had a lot more restrictions than Tera while Tera can do similar things in different ways. Tera gets survivability via changing typing versus the Meat Shield HP thing of Dynamax. It gets offensive boosts with double STAB without a choice item cancellation. You can talk about the quick turn around of Dynamax or the stat boosts that Dynamax gets, but Tera actually more or less accomplishes the same thing and maybe does it better. Games turn very fast with Tera because most of the set up pokemon only need a turn to set up and get that turn through the type change.

You can argue that Tera is more nuanced and intellectual or that Dynamax is more mindless brute force. But double STAB is undeniably very brute force. And if it weren't for every team needing to run Unaware mons, which is something that I don't remember even being considered to address the Dynamax stat boosts, the set up sweepers off the Tera type change would be at least as problematic because it happens so fast with Tera in this meta.

I can't imagine how one would have been laughed off the forum if they tried to say you can solve Dynamax stat boosts by just running Unaware mons on every team. Yet here we are, in the Terastallizing meta, and everyone not running HO is running Unaware mons because they're concerned about the stat boosts. The narrative is just so incredibly biased against Dynamax and for Tera that it seems like almost no one is pointing these things out.
 
Last edited:
No, it was egregious and unplayable. Anything that gets banned that early with such a margin is telling. I just think Tera is a very different concept
I agree, but there didn't seem to be any serious consideration of limiting Dynamax ( at least consideration made available to the public) to a point where it could be playable. Admittedly, it does seem even more complicated to limit than Tera is, and we are already struggling with consensus on potential Tiering action against the tamer Tera if it comes to that, so that perhaps at least that partially may explain it, but I am curious. Baton pass chains, for example, while not on par with Dynamax, were given many chances balancing-wise before the eventual outright ban of the move itself from most tiers.
 

Finchinator

-OUTL
is a Tournament Directoris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Top Dedicated Tournament Hostis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past WCoP Championis the defending OU Circuit Championis a Two-Time Former Old Generation Tournament Circuit Champion
OU Leader
I agree, but there didn't seem to be any serious consideration of limiting Dynamax ( at least consideration made available to the public) to a point where it could be playable. Admittedly, it does seem even more complicated to limit than Tera is, and we are already struggling with consensus on potential Tiering action against the tamer Tera if it comes to that, so that perhaps at least that partially may explain it, but I am curious. Baton pass chains, for example, while not on par with Dynamax, were given many chances balancing-wise before the eventual outright ban of the move itself from most tiers.
There was plenty of internal discussion; nothing was deemed possible. We are just more transparent and public this generation now as it’s more possible and I’m a fully fledged tier leader rather than a very new interim in my first weeks.
 
what's weird to me about these arguments is that it makes it seem like only side can tera? If both players can "tera to avoid a bad outcome", then how is it unbalanced? It's just like with Dmax, you often have to Dmax reactively to counter your opponent's Dmax, which ends up leveling the playing field. This isn't to attack your argument specifically, but it's more of a reaction to what I've been reading in this thread.
both sides can tera but in any given turn 2 mons are out only one wants to tera, to gain an advantage over the other, while the other has no immediate advantage to tera because it is in a winning position already, and specifically each turn, only one side is likely to tera - this is what it means by "only one side can tera"

the only reasons I can think of both sides doing tera on the same turn are if you are anticipating the opponents tera and you need your own to beat it, or both players, having incomplete information about the opponent while knowing their own capability, tera in order to beat an opponent they otherwise think they cant
 

alephgalactus

Banned deucer.
I agree, but there didn't seem to be any serious consideration of limiting Dynamax ( at least consideration made available to the public) to a point where it could be playable.
Because there is no point where it was playable. It was banned from Ubers. Hell, there was serious talk of banning in Random Battles. Dynamax was in no way competitive or dealwithable and we recognized that from the beginning.
 
I appreciate your transparency during this process. Thank you for that.

I have to wonder what your thoughts on gen 8 was. Do you feel Smogon made a mistake on Dynamax, not with ultimately banning it, but with the process? When gen 10 comes and GF comes out with the next overpowered generational mechanic, will Smogon be deciding these things similarly to gen 9 or gen 8? I guess I'm just concerned that everyone is going to devolve into whether or not people like the mechanic rather than the actual merits of the mechanic.

I also want to say that I don't think STAB only Tera makes any sense when it's clearly the worst and most offensively biased part of Tera. The parts of Tera that make it good and allow for creativity involve changing to different types. The Adaptability style boost nothing more than unnecessary brute force with none of the creativity. If anything, shouldn't we be restricting that instead of changing into different Tera types?
Maybe this is just me, but I think that OU should be more hesitant to ban things. The question for terra and the hypothetical gen 10 gimmick should not be "do we like this", terra is in the game even if you hate it. The question is if it's uncompetitive.
 
Because there is no point where it was playable. It was banned from Ubers. Hell, there was serious talk of banning in Random Battles. Dynamax was in no way competitive or dealwithable and we recognized that from the beginning.
"Recognized that from the beginning" is code for confirmation bias from the beginning. There were more things the community could have tried that it didn't. I don't know what went on behind the scenes with the council, as Finchinator alludes to. But I definitely know the public discourse was no where near as open minded at the time. It's not that Dynamax was that much more broken. (Tera is honestly more OP.) It's that you were less willing to try to make it work.
 
I appreciate your honesty, but I really don't agree with anyone who thinks Tera is better than Dynamax as far as being overpowered. I think it got banned that early more because people didn't like it and there wasn't as much of a call to make it work. Basically, it's about what's popular instead of what's overpowered.

If you actually look at it, Dynamax actually had a lot more restrictions than Tera while Tera can do similar things in different ways. Tera gets survivability via changing typing versus the Meat Shield HP thing of Dynamax. It gets offensive boosts with double STAB without a choice item cancellation. You can talk about the quick turn around of Dynamax or the stat boosts that Dynamax gets, but Tera actually more or less accomplishes the same thing and maybe does it better. Games turn very fast with Tera because most of the set up pokemon only need a turn to set up and get that turn through the type change.

You can argue that Tera is more nuanced and intellectual or that Dynamax is more mindless brute force. But double STAB is undeniably very brute force. And if it weren't for every team needing to run Unaware mons, which is something that I don't remember even being considered to address the Dynamax stat boosts, the set up sweepers off the Tera type change would be at least as problematic because it happens so fast with Tera in this meta.

I can't imagine how one would have been laughed off the forum if they tried to say you can solve Dynamax stat boosts by just running Unaware mons on every team. Yet here we are, in the Terastallizing meta, and everyone not running HO is running Unaware mons because they're concerned about the stat boosts. The narrative is just so incredibly biased against Dynamax and for Tera that it seems like almost no one is pointing these things out.
Nah thing about dynamax is it not only warped the meta (every team was running ditto as the only true dyna counter with all the boost they gave) but it also broke several mons and there was no way to really nerf the mechanic and save several of them. Mechanic would be gross in lower tiers, it was gross in OU on too many things and there was too many that needed banned, and that was before we even got the DLC patch introducing even more powercreep for that generation.

Like you're saying to the council "try a nerfed version of it" without giving any suggestions yourself, and any suggestions that were given at the time were highly flawed because again, it warped the metagame itself to running shitmons to not get 6-0'd.

Tera I will admit doesn't seem as 'meta' warping but thats mainly because you need 2-3 scouts for to check/bait out a tera type and then need a solid answer still alive. Its hard to run the same 3 mons and tera as a mechanic enables randomness and shifts in terms of what 'standard' typings people use. Adaptability is strong too, but dynamax was sometimes adaptability damage + a free stat boost/terrain/weather + double your HP so you can't even punish and revenge kill, and even if you match their dyna with yours, theirs already has stat boost to win the 1v1 and if you can't outspeed it there's no hope.

Both mechanics are stupid, tera isn't as stupid, but its still stupid for different reasons. Dynamax was just a win button if you weren't against ditto and got one of your max air stream users in.
 
Last edited:
My own two cents: Tera is stupid and needs to be banned. There is nothing more than that, thank you.

In all seriousness, I very strongly dislike the effect this generational gimmick has on the meta. I know Finchinator mentioned that his job is becoming more muddied and that lines of tiering are being somewhat obscured, but the consistent force that Smogon is based in is the idea of competitiveness. The idea that the better player often wins based on skill, and Tera just isn't based on skill as it currently is, especially with all these blatantly busted mons running around. One could argue that you could nerf it and maybe it could be somewhat balanced, but It think fundamentally changing a generational gimmick that isn't even that centrally tied to the game aside from acting as Hidden Power on steroids is a little bit of a stretch. The idea that we'd throw away decades of conventional wisdom for the idea of "fun" over a competitive nature is also highly asinine. Smogon garnered early attention because of the idea of competitiveness, not necessarily because of fun purely. When you are willing to not only toss around the thought that "fun" should be a strict inclusion in tiering, let alone install it, you've unleashed an idea that is fundamentally un-Smogon. Therefore, if you allow for those ideas you tear down important fundamentals and just use Smogon as a husk to install unstable methods of tiering into. The discussion is there to be had, certainly, but never to be acted on.

That's part of the reason I understand that Tera will, regardless of nerfs or limits, still be banned. It's just that: stupid and broken.
citations needed
 

Shaymin Sky

Unban me from Ubers UU : (
is a Pre-Contributor
With Finchinator saying "get creative", how about this. It's asking for a lot but I am proposing a combination of 3/4 restrictions together.

I think having each Pokémon's individual tera typing's having their own ban list (example: chi yu is unable to tera dark, or tera fire) IN ADDITION to the restriction of tera's shown on team preview, AND AFTER TEAM PREVIEW BEFORE THE MATCH STARTS you pick which Pokémon you will tera, is the best possible outcome.

This can help manage the balancing aspect of it or the "swingyness" or "power" of the mechanic many people complain about by getting rid of the ones that pressure teams too heavily like chi-yu tera fire.

The predictability element of tera on team preview can help alleviate the guesswork which is very helpful for newer players trying the tier since it'll feel less overwhelming allowing for a thriving player base.

And finally, being able to pick the tera typing after you see the opponents tera typing's off team preview, limits the potential for 50/50's while allowing for the ability to micro manage bad MU'S still, while also having a skill element that rewards better players for predicting which of the opponents Pokémon they will decide to tera, allowing for a more in depth meta.

If anything, tera typing's when chosen after team preview can automatically be said, if the unpredictability element remains too strong even with the 3 former restrictions. What I mean by this is, after team preview lets say there is 40 seconds to choose tera typing. In the chat it would say "opponent is using tera X on X" and then the game starts. This could alleviate the problem of tera being too "unpredictable" if it proves too much the restriction of team preview tera types and picking tera on 1 Pokémon after team preview. At that point it becomes a battle of "ok when are they gonna use their tera water on clodsire" instead of trying to figure out which tera the opponent chose to begin with.

Obviously having a sub ban list for a mons tera typing is asking a lot from the OU council, and these 3/4 restrictions together doesn't solve everyone's qualms but I believe this can limit 50/50's, still allow for a similar scale of depth in comparison of how the mechanic is in base game, MU fishing is still largely diminished, and much more.

we could also go without sub bans as well, and just ban the broken mons with tera which are like 2 (ape/chi yu) but even without tera they are dumb anyway so, but I propose sub bans as a "last resort" to the haters.
 
Last edited:
Nah thing about dynamax is it not only warped the meta (every team was running ditto as the only true dyna counter with all the boost they gave) but it also broke several mons and there was no way to really nerf the mechanic and save several of them. Mechanic would be gross in lower tiers, it was gross in OU on too many things and there was too many that needed banned, and that was before we even got the DLC patch introducing even more powercreep for that generation.
The Unaware mons we are seeing now are the new Ditto. I already pointed this out. And the reason why Ditto doesn't work against Tera is because of a number of factors like how Tera doesn't restrict Choice Scarf, unlike Dynamax, and the double STAB priority from Tera that Dynamax didn't have isn't replicated from Imposter as far as I know. Also, there are a lot more Unaware mons to invalidate Ditto's imposter stat boosts.

Anyways, it's a more offensive meta now. It's just that it is a less favorable one for Ditto.

Like you're saying to the council "try a nerfed version of it" without giving any suggestions yourself, and any suggestions that were given at the time were highly flawed because again, it warped the metagame itself to running shitmons to not get 6-0'd.
I've given examples both now and in the past, but that's besides the point because this isn't a Dynamax thread. So this isn't really practical to say a gen later. However, I have also pointed out how logic that was laughed off the forum in the Dynamax days is being taken more seriously now with Tera, which is a huge double standard. All the suggestions we've seen here to make Tera work are flawed, too.

Both mechanics are stupid, tera isn't as stupid, but its still stupid for different reasons.
Well, that's progress I guess.
 

Shaymin Sky

Unban me from Ubers UU : (
is a Pre-Contributor
With Finchinator saying "get creative", how about this. It's asking for a lot but I am proposing a combination of 3/4 restrictions together.

I think having each Pokémon's individual tera typing's having their own ban list (example: chi yu is unable to tera dark, or tera fire) IN ADDITION to the restriction of tera's shown on team preview, AND AFTER TEAM PREVIEW BEFORE THE MATCH STARTS you pick which Pokémon you will tera, is the best possible outcome.

This can help manage the balancing aspect of it or the "swingyness" or "power" of the mechanic many people complain about by getting rid of the ones that pressure teams too heavily like chi-yu tera fire.

The predictability element of tera on team preview can help alleviate the guesswork which is very helpful for newer players trying the tier since it'll feel less overwhelming allowing for a thriving player base.

And finally, being able to pick the tera typing after you see the opponents tera typing's off team preview, limits the potential for 50/50's while allowing for the ability to micro manage bad MU'S still, while also having a skill element that rewards better players for predicting which of the opponents Pokémon they will decide to tera, allowing for a more in depth meta.

If anything, tera typing's when chosen after team preview can automatically be said, if the unpredictability element remains too strong even with the 3 former restrictions. What I mean by this is, after team preview lets say there is 40 seconds to choose tera typing. In the chat it would say "opponent is using tera X on X" and then the game starts. This could alleviate the problem of tera being too "unpredictable" if it proves too much the restriction of team preview tera types and picking tera on 1 Pokémon after team preview. At that point it becomes a battle of "ok when are they gonna use their tera water on clodsire" instead of trying to figure out which tera the opponent chose to begin with.

Obviously having a sub ban list for a mons tera typing is asking a lot from the OU council, and these 3/4 restrictions together doesn't solve everyone's qualms but I believe this can limit 50/50's, still allow for a similar scale of depth in comparison of how the mechanic is in base game, MU fishing is still largely diminished, and much more.

we could also go without sub bans as well, and just ban the broken mons with tera which are like 2 (ape/chi yu) but even without tera they are dumb anyway so, but I propose sub bans as a "last resort" to the haters.
visual aid here.
team preview.png
final preview.png


I'm certain the combination of tera shown at team preview, having to pick tera on a singular pokemon, and tera being announced...is the best possible way of tiering the mechanic while appeasing to as many as possible.
 
No, it was egregious and unplayable. Anything that gets banned that early with such a margin is telling. I just think Tera is a very different concept
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Gen8 Random Battles the most played format? I remember researching this for Showdex to see what formats we should focus on supporting first, and Random Battles had a really high # of monthly battles. If that's true, then the most popular format allowed Dmax and in my humble opinion, I thought it was pretty playable. However, I would say that's probably because people can't build a team that utilize the biggest abusers of dmax like Gyarados, so that's why it wasn't as broken in randoms. I will say tho, it didn't help that the dex was super limited when Dmax got banned, before the DLC added in the really powerful mon that might have kept it in check, but I'm pretty doubtful of that.
Reactive Dynamax was at best an attempt to weather the storm and it usually failed because the initial mon severely damaged something, if not outright KO'd it AND got a stat boost, so even if you had a D-Max vs D-Max scenario, your mon started off at a huge disadvantage.

The thing about Tera compared to D-Max is that Tera does not give any stat boosts.
Changing your type does have negative points too. Terastal is NOT a drawback-free mechanic.
I wasn't super clear, but I wasn't saying the mechanics were similar at all, just that you can reactively use your own Dmax/tera to counter the opponent's use of it, thus allowing for counterplay. I absolutely agree that Dmax gave way too many advantages along with more survivability, which is too much. Ditto was on almost every team, and that's never a good sign.

I disagree that reactive dynamax "usually failed" tho. Often they'd Dmax, KO your mon, and maybe get a +1 boost, but then the next turn you Max Guard, stall another of their turns, and then KO them in the next turn or two since you can handle +1 boosted attacks with your doubled HP. You essentially trade dmaxes with each other, or sometimes the person who Dmaxed second came out ahead even. Again not to say that dmax is entirely balanced or even close to it, I'm just saying there was counterplay since BOTH SIDES got access to the "broken" mechanic.
 
I think part of the question (a part I really want to hear from Finchinator on) is how much we value maintaining a unique identity for a generation vs. creating the best metagame for the median player/greatest number of players.

I guess the question would be, do you consider the community better served by a scenario in which the current-gen meta is one that appeals to the broadest set of players, or by a scenario in which the generational metas are as distinct as possible so that every player can find a gen they personally enjoy?

On the one hand, most players play current-gen and most new players come in playing current gen, so it having broad appeal is really good for the community. On the other, players who dislike specific mechanics always have the option to play other gens, but if a player wants to play with a gen-specific mechanic and it gets banned in that gen, they're kinda screwed.
 
ve given examples both now and in the past, but that's besides the point because this isn't a Dynamax thread. So this isn't really practical to say a gen later. However, I have also pointed out how logic that was laughed off the forum in the Dynamax days is being taken more seriously now with Tera, which is a huge double standard. All the suggestions we've seen here to make Tera work are flawed, too.
The council at the time gave it more thought than I had originally assumed, but even still, there wasn't a suspect with proposed nerfs or anything and as such potential ideas for complex bans that the council didn't necessarily think of were never given any light. But hindsight is 20/20, the council has improved transparency this time around and opened up more discussion, and I think since Dynamax, people have recognized a need for greater consideration for the generational mechanic in general (not saying this sentiment is right ), and it's been made more clear that people are generally of the opinion that Tera might be salvageable whereas for Dynamax it would have been way harder (if not impossible) arguably. And still important to note that people are still disagreeing with complex solutions for Tera as well, not just here but in the policy review thread as well. So far from consensus on the matter.
 

alephgalactus

Banned deucer.
I'm certain the combination of tera shown at team preview, having to pick tera on a singular pokemon, and tera being announced...is the best possible way of tiering the mechanic while appeasing to as many as possible.
If I had to pick an option without regard to how difficult it would be to implement, this would be it. The coding is the only real sticking point here, given that it could all fit within tiering policy if you twist the words around cleverly enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top