-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]
- Thread starter Finchinator
- Start date
- Status
I’ve mostly been enjoying the new generation, but I have to agree, this has been one of the most toxic threads I’ve ever seen on smogon, which is really disappointing to me. I’ve certainly not been at my best in here either, but the number of posts that have devolved into attacks against others is ridiculous and disappointing to say the least.
If terastallization is banned, could we petition to get an OM with it at least? I would love to experiment with the mechanic more in a tier that isn’t AG, which is consistently my least favorite tier on all of smogon
If terastallization is banned, could we petition to get an OM with it at least? I would love to experiment with the mechanic more in a tier that isn’t AG, which is consistently my least favorite tier on all of smogon
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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.
Last edited:
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.
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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”.
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.
Of course, we could also just alternate between tera and no tera every two months to make both sides unhappy simultaneously.
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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 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.
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.
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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?
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?
Especially since smogon has always been "go play cartridge if you want to use naganadel ya goof" about things.
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.
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.
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.
It had it's own issues, I think. I remember dlc made things murky and there's another thread about the identity of nat dex in policy review (really good one, love reading the policy threads). Don't want to get too offtopic, but basically my point is 1. the creation of something as successful as natdex came from a massive shift in how pokemon was played and 2. even then it still has its issues that need moderation and work
If people want to make no tera/yes tera/tera but only on thursdays an OM tho go ahead. idk how those are made tbh.
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.
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And perhaps do not drum up conspiracy along the way.
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.
Ultimately most people just want to have fun playing pokemon, and when we’re talking about a metagame that will be played for years what matters most is crafting a metagame that is as competitive and enjoyable as possible. To me keeping Tera adds depth to the gameplay, and a meta with more depth will to my mind keep players interested for longer. But if Tera is coin-flippy, or too overpowered, or has some other major issues, eventually people will just stop playing due to frustration.
Long term, attrition due to people getting bored or frustrated with the meta is going to have a much larger affect that any instant drop off caused by people angry with the choice. This is why focusing on the long term enjoyability of the meta-game matters more than worrying too much about immediate frustrations from a portion of the player base.
I was writing down a reply but finch posted first so i had to erase it 
all my hard work............ (ignore that I only took 5 minutes on it. the work was spiritual)
On topic, I've seen been kinda "whatever happens happens lol" but I've been interested in how restrictions would work a lot. I think it's a great way to suspect tera without an actual suspect by going "we are limiting x, if it works we keep tera, if old tera was fine we revert it, if it still sucks we ban it".
My favorite restriction on paper is anything that locks u with one tera mon before the game (so like z moves unless you wanna run 6 z moves ?? lol) but it's probably hell to put it to work. Also the whole vgc view tera thing but poor finch has been told about this like 60 times this week and I feel bad about it LOL.
(I think april fools should implement an open teams just like vgc tho. it'd be funny)
all my hard work............ (ignore that I only took 5 minutes on it. the work was spiritual)On topic, I've seen been kinda "whatever happens happens lol" but I've been interested in how restrictions would work a lot. I think it's a great way to suspect tera without an actual suspect by going "we are limiting x, if it works we keep tera, if old tera was fine we revert it, if it still sucks we ban it".
My favorite restriction on paper is anything that locks u with one tera mon before the game (so like z moves unless you wanna run 6 z moves ?? lol) but it's probably hell to put it to work. Also the whole vgc view tera thing but poor finch has been told about this like 60 times this week and I feel bad about it LOL.
(I think april fools should implement an open teams just like vgc tho. it'd be funny)
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
That all said, my personal hope is that things land on "See tera type at team preview" because, to me, the biggest problem with terastalizing is not knowing WHAT the opponent will tera into since thats what makes it a pain to play against. To compare it to something from the good ol' 3ds day (I can't believe modern pokemon is such a mess that the 3ds era seems good by comparison (even though I actually really like the gen 7 meta)) currently Tera sorta feels like every single pokemon is a charizard, except multiplied by nine. Sure, which set its packing MIGHT be obvious, but not always, sometimes you might just get screwed over because the other guy just felt like using the other form today. The problem, to me at least, isn't that you can press a once-per-battle button to hopefully swing things in your favor. Both sides have one, both sides are able to press it, and deciding when in the battle to press it, and on what, is very much an element of strategy. The problem is that everything has 18 flavors of button and even if their button is fixed to a single type, you cannot with certainty know what flavor of button that is. Even if 99.9% of people will always run one of two, maybe three tera types, to know which one it is with exact certainty is outright impossible, which can turn the entire game into a multiple-stage guessing game where you can only make an informed guess, and very often the answer to one set loses to the other two, to say NOTHING of the one guy clowning with a completely unorthodox set that only wins thanks to surprise factor that would crash and burn hard in any best of three scenario. Open Tera means you can with relative certainty be able to respect the threat of the opponent pressing the tera button and play around that, without things being so unpredictable that it might as well have been random. Plus, if you know what their tera type actually is, it makes being able to call when it will come out far easier. I really do implore everyone to go with the open tera solution at least as a first step to test the waters before pushing for anything stricter because I earnestly believe that removing the main unknown from the equation will go a long way to solve most of people's problem with the mechanic. If it remains a problem AFTER that, then so be it, but going for something too strict when we can instead prod for a comfortable middle ground just seems callous and almost irresponsible.
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:
No one in this thread is going to want to engage with you seriously until you cool your jets, dude.
*continues to drum up conspiracy*
also, you haven't been the most likable person in this thread so.....
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.
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.
I've got to agree with Gabraltar on this. 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. 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. Happy medium and all that, even if I do want to maintain separate metas as an option on the table as an absolute last resort.
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.
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.
alephgalactus
Banned deucer.
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.
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.
- Status