Metagame Views From The Council

[Welcome to mars]

10+ bans is overboard, I don’t think the tier needs this many to create a balanced tier.

The reason there is such a panic rn is because the meta is in a state where wins are determined by matchups. Of course skill still plays a big role, but the tier is polarizing with so many threats to account for that its easier to try to play a team with a better matchup than to play around it. This is why there was so much Stall and Wogre offense teams.

The same can be said for BW, especially before the Gem ban. You run Sand because it gives you the best matchup into Rain, but if you run Sand then you’re opening yourself up to HO, and if you run HO, you get blasted by Keldeo and friends. Gems were a big part of the reason for this and Archaludon rn is triggering the same effect.

Because of how polarizing it is, you pretty much run Stall, HO with SD Superpower Wogre, or your own weather because only they could consistently answer Rain without needing multiple team-slots for one archetype. Even then Arch has been running EQ or Tera Dragon to blast past it.

You could argue keeping Arch grants us a bulky steel type that can click rocks and check Gambit + Weavile. However you rarely see Arch outside of rain and most players run Heatran for that role who also has the benefit of checking the ghosts.

I also see no benefit of keeping Roaring Moon. It just adds another cheesy setup sweeper, and what? Speed control on Sun teams? As if Sun doesn’t have several options for that.

Anyone claiming that banning any of these massive threats will strengthen Stall should realize people are running Stall because of these threats.

The next step after Arch should be to suspect Roaring Moon and re-test Kyurem. Also changing the ban criteria to 55% votes would be a nice QoL change. 60% is a bit much and 50% is too low, 55% is a good sweetspot for future votes, either this gen or Gen 10.

I agree, i agree alot apart from kyurem, archaludon in rain isn’t broken or even top tier to me, but it fills enough consistency holes in rain and takes down enough rain checks and counters for rain itself to unleash its full toxic potential

roaring moon can come on a fainted pokemon and instantly win the game if the pokemon in switch into can’t stop a dragon/dark or pure flying typed roaring moon from, and it has enough power, speed and good match ups in most priority to easily end the game after a boost, kyurem is hard to deal with defensively but not even half as hard to outspeed and kill, so i get why some people don’t like it

roaring moon and buffed rain have affected the metagame alot, not all issues come from, not all however their high usage has had an extremely harsh effect on an otherwise unique, diverse and even somewhat stable tier and combined with everyone having their own opinions some of which that others can’t even remotely understand may be causing OU to feel worse to play than december or January, or maybe theres more to it that i haven’t mentioned

 

[Carl The Turtle]

I do understand that only currently playing players should be acknowledged for suspect stuff and how the meta feels though and that should not change


Maybe putting out a separate survey for people who fell out of love with and stopped engaging with the meta could work, as it could also provide insight into what drives players away and what players do not like, because thinking about it now, that kind of stuff would need its own survey for players who stopped playing sv OU and why they stopped, and what would encourage people to come back

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the amount of people who don't like the OU metagame, stopped playing the OU metagame, and actively browse the OU forum regardless enough to be aware of such a survey and fill it out... pretty low?

 

[TPP]

I think OU is in a very diverse state, especially with tera in the picture, and it's pretty enjoyable personally. I think if the tier wants to change, then I would only consider bans/tests on:

and maybe

The first 3 have something annoying in common, which is that you will want to go Dragapult/whoever to revenge kill them, which is hard to begin with because of how bulky they naturally are, but then 1 Tera Fairy is all it takes to force you to suddenly scramble and most likely sack your Dragapult/revenge killer, and then 1-2 mons just to survive that 1 threat.

Volcarona can sometimes do something similar, where 1 Tera Blast might make it extremely difficult to handle if you don't outright lose to it, but it does have more counterplay than the others because of Heatran, Clodsire, Toxic Slowking-Galar, and usually needing to Tera to sweep. They're all very strong tera users that sometimes might force you to use your own tera to handle them, but I think in some cases that's fine. Additionally, I think it's hard to find a good offensive Fairy-resist to help check Enamorus and Valiant, and I think as long as we have Kyurem as well, then Volcarona's defensive utility is very helpful atm and I would want to keep it.

Regarding Other Mons

I think there are other strong mons like Roaring Moon and Gouging Fire too, but I think starting from the top and then slowly working our way down is a fine course of action. Archaludon ban won't change much besides nerfing Rain, but I think banning Raging Bolt and Kyurem would be a step in the right direction as well.

A Potential Alternative and Necessary Evils

I'm gonna sound crazy for this one, but if the community ultimately cannot agree on what to ban, then freeing Chien-Pao or another Uber would be for the best. This idea is basically adding a necessary evil to the tier, much like we have Kingambit, in order to decrease diversity, and provide another offensive tool that keeps over a dozen other threats in check by itself. I joke a lot about Chi-Yu and sometimes Chien-Pao and even voted to free Baxcalibur when we did our initial quickbans, but if there's anything this gen has taught me (mainly from Toxapex in SM and Kingambit in SV), it's that when power creep gets to such an absurd level, then you need some necessary evils to help hold the tier together. Ideally those evils don't break the tier further, which there's a strong case they do, but we'll never truly know how it goes. I think Tera is also one of those necessary evils because it not only opens the gates for creativity by a long shot, but it also provides new ways to invent counterplay to anything. I can run a team with no Water-resist but have a Tera Water/Dragon mon somewhere to act as one if necessary, which is often the case in some games against Rain atm. We also managed to add Zamazenta and Darkrai to the tier, and it worked out. The future is full of unpredictable surprises and I like to stay open-minded, while also not being too crazy about it, but this one boils down to being able to evaluate the pros and cons of whatever necessary evils we choose to add or keep in the metagame.

Kingambit itself is pretty controversial, but we cannot deny that saving a bulky Kingambit with access to tera is one of the most consistent methods of having a check to any threat in the metagame. While it's annoying to play against, I ultimately view this as a positive because of its consistency and reliability, especially in a tera metagame. I would normally advocate to ban something as strong as Kingambit, but I think it has been holding the tier together for a long time, and should continue to do so until the current chaotic state of the metagame has settled down a bit. Reintroducing Chien-Pao would give us something similar to Kingambit, but I do know that it is extremely difficult to switch into, so hopefully, it does not come down to this.

Summary

I didn't wanna write a lot, but the quick summary for what I think the OU community should look into for the near future is:

1. Narrow down the list of suspect/ban targets to 4 mons or fewer like I did above. If everyone says we need 10 mons to go, then we're never gonna agree on anything, and it's better to target the biggest threats among those 10 and go one at a time. My personal targets are Archaludon, Kyurem, and Raging Bolt.

2. I tend to be a pro-ban person when it comes to tiering, but I do think being patient and making sure what gets tested is the best candidate to warrant a test at that time. The Gliscor ban in DLC1 did not accomplish much, and banning Gholdengo instead may have been better. We'll never know, but I ask for us to not make that mistake again. For example, I said Volcarona and Kingambit above can be overwhelming, but they also provide benefits and are necessary evils, and I think keeping them while they're helpful is better than banning them before other threats like Archaludon/Kyurem/Raging Bolt.

3. If we can't agree on anything, then maybe unbanning something may work to decrease diversity and keep several top threats in check more easily may be a possible route to take. This one is more of a last resort and I don't think it'd get enough support to happen, but I'd rather have a plan than no plan, so I felt like sharing it.

Have a nice day

 

[Lucky $trike]

I think OU is in a very diverse state, especially with tera in the picture, and it's pretty enjoyable personally. I think if the tier wants to change, then I would only consider bans/tests on:

and maybe

The first 3 have something annoying in common, which is that you will want to go Dragapult/whoever to revenge kill them, which is hard to begin with because of how bulky they naturally are, but then 1 Tera Fairy is all it takes to force you to suddenly scramble and most likely sack your Dragapult/revenge killer, and then 1-2 mons just to survive that 1 threat.

Volcarona can sometimes do something similar, where 1 Tera Blast might make it extremely difficult to handle if you don't outright lose to it, but it does have more counterplay than the others because of Heatran, Clodsire, Toxic Slowking-Galar, and usually needing to Tera to sweep. They're all very strong tera users that sometimes might force you to use your own tera to handle them, but I think in some cases that's fine. Additionally, I think it's hard to find a good offensive Fairy-resist to help check Enamorus and Valiant, and I think as long as we have Kyurem as well, then Volcarona's defensive utility is very helpful atm and I would want to keep it.

Regarding Other Mons

I think there are other strong mons like Roaring Moon and Gouging Fire too, but I think starting from the top and then slowly working our way down is a fine course of action. Archaludon ban won't change much besides nerfing Rain, but I think banning Raging Bolt and Kyurem would be a step in the right direction as well.

A Potential Alternative and Necessary Evils

I'm gonna sound crazy for this one, but if the community ultimately cannot agree on what to ban, then freeing Chien-Pao or another Uber would be for the best. This idea is basically adding a necessary evil to the tier, much like we have Kingambit, in order to decrease diversity, and provide another offensive tool that keeps over a dozen other threats in check by itself. I joke a lot about Chi-Yu and sometimes Chien-Pao and even voted to free Baxcalibur when we did our initial quickbans, but if there's anything this gen has taught me (mainly from Toxapex in SM and Kingambit in SV), it's that when power creep gets to such an absurd level, then you need some necessary evils to help hold the tier together. Ideally those evils don't break the tier further, which there's a strong case they do, but we'll never truly know how it goes. I think Tera is also one of those necessary evils because it not only opens the gates for creativity by a long shot, but it also provides new ways to invent counterplay to anything. I can run a team with no Water-resist but have a Tera Water/Dragon mon somewhere to act as one if necessary, which is often the case in some games against Rain atm. We also managed to add Zamazenta and Darkrai to the tier, and it worked out. The future is full of unpredictable surprises and I like to stay open-minded, while also not being too crazy about it, but this one boils down to being able to evaluate the pros and cons of whatever necessary evils we choose to add or keep in the metagame.

Kingambit itself is pretty controversial, but we cannot deny that saving a bulky Kingambit with access to tera is one of the most consistent methods of having a check to any threat in the metagame. While it's annoying to play against, I ultimately view this as a positive because of its consistency and reliability, especially in a tera metagame. I would normally advocate to ban something as strong as Kingambit, but I think it has been holding the tier together for a long time, and should continue to do so until the current chaotic state of the metagame has settled down a bit. Reintroducing Chien-Pao would give us something similar to Kingambit, but I do know that it is extremely difficult to switch into, so hopefully, it does not come down to this.

Summary

I didn't wanna write a lot, but the quick summary for what I think the OU community should look into for the near future is:

1. Narrow down the list of suspect/ban targets to 4 mons or fewer like I did above. If everyone says we need 10 mons to go, then we're never gonna agree on anything, and it's better to target the biggest threats among those 10 and go one at a time. My personal targets are Archaludon, Kyurem, and Raging Bolt.

2. I tend to be a pro-ban person when it comes to tiering, but I do think being patient and making sure what gets tested is the best candidate to warrant a test at that time. The Gliscor ban in DLC1 did not accomplish much, and banning Gholdengo instead may have been better. We'll never know, but I ask for us to not make that mistake again. For example, I said Volcarona and Kingambit above can be overwhelming, but they also provide benefits and are necessary evils, and I think keeping them while they're helpful is better than banning them before other threats like Archaludon/Kyurem/Raging Bolt.

3. If we can't agree on anything, then maybe unbanning something may work to decrease diversity and keep several top threats in check more easily may be a possible route to take. This one is more of a last resort and I don't think it'd get enough support to happen, but I'd rather have a plan than no plan, so I felt like sharing it.

Have a nice day

I think the meta is diverse for the playstyles it heavily favors. There’s a lot of ways to build offense right now, and I’ve seen some interesting stall teams. Balance and BO only have narrow builds available because of threat saturation.

 

[TheDuckChris]

I think OU is in a very diverse state, especially with tera in the picture, and it's pretty enjoyable personally. I think if the tier wants to change, then I would only consider bans/tests on:

and maybe

I would be interested in hearing a discussion on whether "diversity" is a desired metagame aspect and to what degree.

Obviously every single game having a completely out of nowhere Strat that you can't cover for would be frustrating but also having a tier be so centralized every team is the same also sucks. What is the council's desired goal here?

 

[1LDK]

I'm gonna sound crazy for this one, but if the community ultimately cannot agree on what to ban, then freeing Chien-Pao or another Uber would be for the best.

This will be my only post in this tread

Okay so I did not wanna post into this tread because I was taking a break from the game and the thread is under heavy moderation which sadly goes against my derogative mentally abusing style of larping and shitposting. With that said, when I read this part, I felt that I need to Hulk Up and ask what in the actual FUCK is this
Like bro, why is everyone obsessed over this mon, okay, let's say we unban pao, now 10 OU mons become ass due to this one guy going apeshit with band or sd sets or defensive haze recover or whatever, Donzo is his only counter and that's 1 knock off or defense drop away into the trash. I fucking hate it and I swear to God almighty I never want to see this bitch roaming in OU again

Now, as far as meta goes, ban arc is getting more traction than kyurem, and we have more than enough time to suspect kyurem again if need be. Moving the super majority votes is a knee-jerk reaction and shortsighted, if people really wanted it to vote, it would have passed. Other mons that don't need to suspect but will probably anyway are Moon, Volc and Gambit even tho they can be outplayed and manageable with or without taking tera into account

As far as the tera suspect goes, I really think we should do that one once SPL expires to really really reaaaaaally put that thing to rest once and for all, we have all the DLCs and multiple data to justify both positions

It's been only a year and what, 4 months? I know I'm gonna sound like Finch here, but be patient people, we have time, we have passionate experts into the tier, we can work together to get into a brighter future

 

[Mikegengsta]

As far as the tera suspect goes, I really think we should do that one once SPL expires to really really reaaaaaally put that thing to rest once and for all, we have all the DLCs and multiple data to justify both positions

I just wanted to comment on this since you came back from a break. Nice to meet you.

Moving into necessary evils and get Chien-Pao would be the best idea yet over the thousands complaining about Tera and not the millions.

With that said, when I read that part, I felt that I need to Hulk Up and ask what in the actual FUCK is this.

:)

 

[TPP]

I would be interested in hearing a discussion on whether "diversity" is a desired metagame aspect and to what degree.

Obviously every single game having a completely out of nowhere Strat that you can't cover for would be frustrating but also having a tier be so centralized every team is the same also sucks. What is the council's desired goal here?

I think this is a really good question. I think we want a balanced and enjoyable metagame with the fewest number of bans possible. We've banned a lot of things this generation especially, and there probably will be more bans, but I do think there should be a balance between avoiding a stale repetitive metagame and having an excess number of threats that are difficult to cover.

let's say we unban pao, now 10 OU mons become ass due to this one guy going apeshit

That's quite literally the point of why I suggested unbanning something, like Chien-Pao, who historically did manage to keep some offensive threats like Roaring Moon in check while also being able to threaten bulkier playstyles. Now that being said, as I mentioned in my post, there are pros and cons to doing this, and a huge downside is having to deal with a Chien-Pao that has access to tera. It would definitely be a huge nuisance, but I mainly picked that one because some Ubers like Chi-Yu are devastating against Balance while less strong into offense, and something like Lugia doesn't accomplish anything at all. It doesn't have to be Chien-Pao either, maybe there's something else that fits the bill and gets the job done without being too broken.

Either way, we would need to carefully evaluate the pros and cons of adding whatever, before attempting to ask the community whether there's enough support to go through with it or not. I also mentioned this would be a last case resort, which I hope doesn't happen, and would theoretically only happen if we somehow got "no bans" on the next 3+ (random number) tests and if people were still very unhappy about the metagame. It would take a lot for Chien-Pao or whoever to get reintroduced to OU, so I wouldn't worry about it now. Just wanted to post this to clarify.

Moving into necessary evils and get Chien-Pao would be the best idea yet over the thousands complaining about Tera and not the millions.

If there's thousands complaining about tera, then there are probably millions defending tera as well. A tera test would effectively restart the generation because it has a huge impact in how the generation has been played, and it also adds a lot to the experience as a spectator as well. Generation 9 has been very stressful to play with tera, but also very exciting because there are an unlimited number of ways to be creative, and it's always entertaining to me personally to see what people come up with. I don't think there will be enough support for tera to get banned anymore, so I'm personally just looking into other options while keeping it. Regarding Chien-Pao, I talked about it above this quote and hope that answer suffices.

I'd prefer for the rest of my post to get looked at instead with the idea of narrowing down a list of threats so that the community can unite in deciding on what to take action on next. I think everyone has a lot of threats on their mind for what they might want gone, and at this stage, we're gonna get nowhere unless we all take some time to shorten down those lists and see how we collectively feel. Whatever happens, we'll do our best to live with the results and work from there like we always have.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

A Potential Alternative and Necessary Evils

I'm gonna sound crazy for this one, but if the community ultimately cannot agree on what to ban, then freeing Chien-Pao or another Uber would be for the best. This idea is basically adding a necessary evil to the tier, much like we have Kingambit, in order to decrease diversity, and provide another offensive tool that keeps over a dozen other threats in check by itself. I joke a lot about Chi-Yu and sometimes Chien-Pao and even voted to free Baxcalibur when we did our initial quickbans, but if there's anything this gen has taught me (mainly from Toxapex in SM and Kingambit in SV), it's that when power creep gets to such an absurd level, then you need some necessary evils to help hold the tier together. Ideally those evils don't break the tier further, which there's a strong case they do, but we'll never truly know how it goes. I think Tera is also one of those necessary evils because it not only opens the gates for creativity by a long shot, but it also provides new ways to invent counterplay to anything. I can run a team with no Water-resist but have a Tera Water/Dragon mon somewhere to act as one if necessary, which is often the case in some games against Rain atm. We also managed to add Zamazenta and Darkrai to the tier, and it worked out. The future is full of unpredictable surprises and I like to stay open-minded, while also not being too crazy about it, but this one boils down to being able to evaluate the pros and cons of whatever necessary evils we choose to add or keep in the metagame.

Kingambit itself is pretty controversial, but we cannot deny that saving a bulky Kingambit with access to tera is one of the most consistent methods of having a check to any threat in the metagame. While it's annoying to play against, I ultimately view this as a positive because of its consistency and reliability, especially in a tera metagame. I would normally advocate to ban something as strong as Kingambit, but I think it has been holding the tier together for a long time, and should continue to do so until the current chaotic state of the metagame has settled down a bit. Reintroducing Chien-Pao would give us something similar to Kingambit, but I do know that it is extremely difficult to switch into, so hopefully, it does not come down to this.

i agree with the rest of your post, but freeing an uber in an attempt to balance an already-unstable meta is a terrible idea, especially when it's something as clearly broken as chien-pao of all things. consider how many stupid, uninformed arguments have been flung around in the meta discussion thread in favor of unbanning box legendaries and other "bad-in-ubers" mons. even at their dumbest, not a single one seriously argued for chien-pao to drop. i'm extremely dismayed that anyone in a position of authority would float the possibility of chien-pao being anywhere near ou ever again. also, speaking of those arguments, you posting this has just opened the door for idiots to spam their lugia/solgaleo/whatever bullshit again, so it honestly would've been better to just leave this part out of your post. that shouldn't be a last-resort plan. it shouldn't even be a concept people hold in their minds. if we're going for a nuclear last-resort option, i'd rather it be something like a tera ban than dropping ubers (and i'm extremely against a tera ban)

 

[Stads]

If we're discussing freeing ubers, I think we should start with Zamazenta-Crowned. Zamazenta-Hero has fallen off a bit as of late, with many great checks like Gliscor and Volcarona returning, Wisp Dragapult still crushing it, Glowking and Clodsire reaching their peak popularity, and new additions like Archaludon and Raging Bolt to bother it. The IronPress sets have thus fallen off very hard, and the boots + 4 attacks have also tumbled out of favour a bit as well since about a month ago. It's still a good mon to be sure, and the Roar sets were a fun innovation, but at the moment, Zama-H seems consigned to a bit of a matchup fish against certain BO archetypes.

Zama-C can't hold an item, so it might really, really be annoyed by all the spikes around these days. While quite a bit tankier than its brother, it doesn't have more attack, and so probably struggles to break common defensive cores all the same. That aside, the extra defensive stats and steel typing seems quite value to this metagame right now. It would actually resist Dragon and Steel versus Archaludon, handle Boots + SD Weavile well, avoid getting poisoned by Gliscor or Pex, and even sort of switch into Specs Kyurem when predicting no Earth Power (takes 20-30% from Ice Beam). While DLC2 brought us a few more steel types in Skarmory and Archaludon, I do think Zama-C would be another solid entry to help blanket check a lot of threats without completely stifling the meta due to its ability to get worn down.

 

[TCTphantom]

Gonna build on the unbanning as a band aid train for a sec.

Before I begin, I would say this would not be my ideal course of action. Its incredibly risky to pursue for one and risks not "fixing" any of our current issues. I would look to how Kyurem Black was unbanned its first time. Now, should it have been looked at for a retest? Yeah, its objectively fine in BW and if you made a list of the ten most problematic things in BW OU, it wouldnt even sniff the bottom end of the list. The issue is the timing. Dropping a reasonably viable threat into a volatile metagame didn't "fix" much. At most, you added a soft check to rain that wasn't even really a good check to rain. I think that most of the time, we should not evaluate dropping something to "fix" our problems. Most of this is due to how I veiw our banist, but its also a nuclear option to any problem. Would unbanning GIratina Origin form objectively make the hazards meta better? Sure, but you add a centralizing mon that would be on over half of teams. I think if something is going to drop, we should be able to say that it isn't that far removed from the current power level of the tier. It would be preferable to unban something that is arguably not broken than drop something nuts as a band aid to our current problems.

Here is the list of ubers I would even entertain a discussion on dropping right now.



Yep, just Zama C. I think it is the only thing currently banned that has any business being discussed for OU. I do think to TPP's credit, it would be an effective band aid to some issues the tier has. It would be an effective check into offensive builds and slow them down. It's flaws of not being able to hold an item are gonna be even more apparent now, since Spikes are better than ever. IDBP on Zama H has fallen out of favor, and while it would be better on crowned it would still have some of the same issues of being a MU fishy set. It gives you a soft Kyurem check if you dodge the Earth Power switch in and offers some valuable speed control.

Now, I still think testing Zamazenta Crowned *right now* would be a fools errand. It would be a bad idea to do any test like that without widespread support from the OU playerbase. But if we are in a state where we can't get enough decisive support for your Roaring Moons or Raging Bolts, maybe it is worth discussing down the line? And by down the line, I mean if we see more tests like Kyurem's result in a DNB.

TLDR: Don't do this rn, but if we had to, look at ZamC and decide if its the best course of action at the time.

 

[Adamant Nature]

"Bulky sweeper" is how I would characterize all the problematic stuff over the generation (aside from some of the really early button-clickers). It's kinda stupid when something can click tera, not die to a revenge attempt, and then 6-0 through all but the most beefy of teams . Due the the crazy powercreep, there's a LOT of that currently in OU. Adding something like would just add yet another one of these pokemon to the tier. I'll also be clear that I don't think OU is "getting worse". To the contrary, I find it much more enjoyable now than any of the past bargain bin gameplay that revolved around landing status from static or whatever.

If the community seems resistant to removing all these chubby sweepers, then I would rather push things to an even more offensively-inclined state. I think TPP's suggestion of dropping something from ubers does have merit -- a meta centralized around a god would provide stability.

Adding stuff like or might lead to "balance", but I don't think a stall-centric meta would be fun. (That's not to say stall itself isn't fun.) If you go that route, then you have to entertain bringing back all the insane breakers too, otherwise OU isn't getting through the pure stats of those pokemon. That would just be a messy reset button and a big mistake to me.

It seems weird to say, but I think adding an uber-level offensive threat may help to steer things to more momentum-inclined gameplay. Unfortunately, most of ubers is ruled-out because they get crazy set-up moves (which is why I wouldn't be onboard with specifically). Is the medicine we need?

I hope for and encourage the reconsideration and exploration of Tera's impact on the tier, so that this wild west approach of dropping ubers doesn't need to be given so much thought. Then again, if this meta is indeed the vision for the tier, then please, OU Council, state as much and work to refine. I appreciate the respect for community input, but due to all the voices, I think it is leading to a tier with an identity crisis. You have the privilege, trust, and responsibility to do so!

 

[Mikegengsta]

I hope for and encourage the reconsideration and exploration of Tera's impact on the tier, so that this wild west approach of dropping ubers doesn't need to be given so much thought. Then again, if this meta is indeed the vision for the tier, then please, OU Council, state as much and work to refine. I appreciate the respect for community input, but due to all the voices, I think it is leading to a tier with an identity-crisis. You have the privilege, trust, and responsibility to do so!

I don’t think the tier is under identity crisis but more of an anti-Tera movement politics. Most of it can be put on ignore and carry on with your business type of problem imo.

 

[Adamant Nature]

I don’t think the tier is under identity crisis but more of an anti-Tera movement politics. Most of it can be put on ignore and carry on with your business type of problem imo.

I think that is just the problem, though -- why is Tera being made a "political" issue? I would like to push back against the seemingly entrenched idea that tera is beyond further consideration, because I feel doing so is only narrowing our perspective. It is the defining characteristic of the generation and clearly has an enormous impact on how the game is played. We seem afraid to choose a path on whether the problem is tera on the big stat piles, or the big stat piles that get to click the tera button. This is the identity crisis I refer to.

It feels like enormous idealogical dissonance to me to suggest that rain is a problem, as the archaludon suspect promotes, when Freeze-Dry Kyruem throttles rain, is in the tier, and was kept in the tier in the immediately preceding suspect! Something has to give there. I guess we can continue poking on all the stat piles until the community finds one to banish, but that has been the trend since early gen 9 and there is a common thread behind most all of the now-uber pokemon.

And to be clear, I like Tera. I think it has very interesting and skillful implications for team-building and play, but that doesn't mean I'm going to cover my eyes when there's a recurrent theme

 

[TheDuckChris]

I think this is a really good question. I think we want a balanced and enjoyable metagame with the fewest number of bans possible. We've banned a lot of things this generation especially, and there probably will be more bans, but I do think there should be a balance between avoiding a stale repetitive metagame and having an excess number of threats that are difficult to cover.

Starting from this baseline let's examine the current meta.

Balanced - meaning a variety of styles and pokemon can compete with each other with no single team style or pokemon being unreasonably overwhelming compared to the others. Is this true right now? Certainly we have a lot of threats that seem overwhelming compared to what we might think of as a traditional OU, but it's important to compare it to other things currently in the tier. While archaludon is strong, it may be argued that it is on a similar power level to some other suspect candidates. How many things have to be around the same high power level before it becomes "balanced" with respect to each other? As for styles, I think it's arguable but posts like CTC's have argued that a variety of styles are viable right now with HO, balance, and stall all checking each other to some degree.

Enjoyable - meaning a metagame where players enjoy exercising their skill and creativity to win, leading to a feeling of satisfaction and a desire to continue playing. Obviously extremely subjective and hard to agree on, but usually has some correlation to balance and the often discussed "competitiveness" which alludes to minimizing the effect of random chance on our experience in battle (this is where being able to cover a majority of the meta while team building comes in). I think it's important to note that we measure enjoyability directly on the surveys, and while we don't have a hard definition for what seems like a good number, following trends probably helps identify direction. It's tough though because enjoyability naturally decreases as the generation gets older.

Fewest bans possible - meaning we are not banning something unless we are trying to fix one of the factors above. Balance becomes an issue to fix when something like Ursaluna-B becomes a standout pokemon stronger than the rest, or when an archetype like Offense becomes a standout archetype over all the rest, as was the case in the Chi-Yu meta.

So ideally we ask for suspects when one archetype or pokemon is clearly above the rest, or when enjoyability is declining.
--
On the topic of diversity, it clearly is affecting the Enjoyable part of the equation more than the Balance part. And of course it is quite subjective. So diversity or "randomness" of the meta should not be a reason in itself to suspect something, unless it is shown that Enjoyability as a whole is decreasing. Which of course we have the surveys for.

In terms of balance, maybe we could include questions on the survey to ask what people think is the strongest team style? Or ranking a styles strength out of 5. If a style is really unbalanced, it would surely show up in the survey as a consensus best style. And then perhaps we could start to develop metrics around how standout does it have to be to be problematic. We already do this for pokemon.

Ideally I think more clear identification of issues would be beneficial. If Kyurem is suspected because it is considered unbalanced as a pokemon, compared to other pokemon, than it is not unreasonable for players, who feel Kyurem is on a similar level to other threats, to vote No-Ban. If a style like Rain becomes unbalanced in a heavy concensus, it is not unreasonable for players to vote Ban on Archaludon even if it alone is not an unbalanced pokemon. It is simply an attempt to fix a core issue - balance between styles.

On Tera

I really think this is a less important discussion right now so hiding this here.
Tera affects both balance and enjoyment in a lot of ways. Balance is kind of impossible to determine as we're not comparing tera to other mechanics more than just comparing tera to non-tera and trying to imagine which would be more balanced. Which feels impossible.
For enjoyment, we could always ask how much people "enjoy" tera as a mechanic. If we have a significantly low score on that then sure a test might be worth doing. But otherwise I would leave it alone. Arguing about how "competitive" it is is basically just a subset of enjoyment. Because competitiveness factors into enjoyment. And arguing about how it balances the tier is pure speculation.

 

[yomaalt]

I'm gonna sound crazy for this one, but if the community ultimately cannot agree on what to ban, then freeing Chien-Pao or another Uber would be for the best. This idea is basically adding a necessary evil to the tier, much like we have Kingambit, in order to decrease diversity, and provide another offensive tool that keeps over a dozen other threats in check by itself.

Immensely powerful dragon killing stab? Check
A method of being a check to metagame threats? (Tr abusing to flip rain matchups by using their speed against them, being a fatass in general, capable of abusing agility to be a fast sweeping threat as well cause yeah why not?) Check
NOT unkillable? (It's typing defensively has got the be the single worst typing like it resists psychic and ice only while being weak to fire rock dark steel bug ghost etc... lmfaooo) check
Checked by either dondozo, kingambit or tusk? Yeah dozo and gambit got it trust

Therefor, drop to balance the metagame. Dozo/gambit can take it's hits, and half the meta has the power to slap it for chunks. It's also rocks PLUS knock weak, and kyurem was rocks weak, sooooo just knock it and corv/skarm IDpress 1v1's

Oh yeah corv munches through the glacial PP like no other

 

[Finchinator]

In my opinion, Raging Bolt and Roaring Moon are the definition of suspect worthy: both Pokemon are playable and have some counterplay, but any teambuilder feels undeniable stress when accounting for both. They have set mixes that limit universal counterplay thanks to complimentary options like Taunt.

 

[sims796]

In my opinion, Raging Bolt and Roaring Moon are the definition of suspect worthy: both Pokemon are playable and have some counterplay, but any teambuilder feels undeniable stress when accounting for both. They have set mixes that limit universal counterplay thanks to complimentary options like Taunt.

How do you feel about Gouging Flame? Both as a unit in and of itself, and as a unit to be used alongside the other two threats (they are seen on the same team often enough).

 

[Finchinator]

How do you feel about Gouging Flame? Both as a unit in and of itself, and as a unit to be used alongside the other two threats (they are seen on the same team often enough).

I mean I don’t really have a comment on all three together, but Gouging Fire is one of the biggest threats in the tier, too. Band speed boost in Sun, Booster Energy DD, and bulky DD are all very strong. Should be discussed as well.

 

[Magcargo]

So one issue I have with unbanning Zama-C is that it kinda exacerbates the MU fishy nature of the tier. A key issue I have with regular ID Zama (and to a lesser extent, ID Corv, Garganacl, and Skarm) is that they all can just autowin vs certain structs at times. Their wincondition isn't really too difficult to achieve - just weaken or KO all enemy special attackers and there will be very little stopping them from sweeping, barring a random Tera Ghost. Zama-C would have strongest & fairly fast Body Press, the highest SpDef, and an innate Toxic immunity, making it very difficult for HO builds to actually beat. Granted, I'm not sure this is entirely a bad thing, or even all that different from the impact other mons like Curse Dozo have, but IMO, I don't think the meta needs this mon at this time, esp as Skarm and Zama normal can perfom a similar role.

That's not to say I'm against unbanning it or other Ubers (including depending on what else we decide to ban) but IMO we should get rid of some of the more egregious bullshit first before discussing ubers to "stabalize the metagame". As Finch said, Raging Bolt and Roaring Moon are some clear, immediate suspect candidates, and the likes of Ogerpon-Wellspring, Gouging Fire, and Tera Blast are not far behind imo.

 

[sims796]

I mean I don’t really have a comment on all three together, but Gouging Fire is one of the biggest threats in the tier, too. Band speed boost in Sun, Booster Energy DD, and bulky DD are all very strong. Should be discussed as well.

I was thinking along the lines of "if even one goes, would that be enough of a break to make the others less oppressive". For example, I feel if Arch leaves, rain as a whole will be manageable, and I've been wondering if only losing one or two of the ones you mentioned would be enough.

It seems you (and maybe the council as a whole) desires a less - what's the word - 'brutally offensive' meta. Maybe not killed, but neutered. Am I in the right ballpark?

It's certainly what I desire.

 

[Finchinator]

I was thinking along the lines of "if even one goes, would that be enough of a break to make the others less oppressive". For example, I feel if Arch leaves, rain as a whole will be manageable, and I've been wondering if only losing one or two of the ones you mentioned would be enough.

It seems you (and maybe the council as a whole) desires a less - what's the word - 'brutally offensive' meta. Maybe not killed, but neutered. Am I in the right ballpark?

I don’t think it’s healthy practice to theorize what will happen after a certain condition in tiering is met. We take things one step at a time and react in accordance with the current metagame at any given time.

I don’t have any specific pace or agenda in mind; we just want each major archetype to be viable and the metagame to be balanced.

 

[sims796]

I don’t think it’s healthy practice to theorize what will happen after a certain condition in tiering is met. We take things one step at a time and react in accordance with the current metagame at any given time.

I don’t have any specific pace or agenda in mind; we just want each major archetype to be viable and the metagame to be balanced.

I can most definitely get behind this. Ok, next inquiry. Is the meta being as offensive as it is contributing to the overall lack of balance towards the meta? Or is it not as hyper offensive as I'm imagining? Sorry if I'm bugging, but I've been pondering this and it'll be useful for my overall understanding.

 

[yomaalt]

So one issue I have with unbanning Zama-C is that it kinda exacerbates the MU fishy nature of the tier. A key issue I have with regular ID Zama (and to a lesser extent, ID Corv, Garganacl, and Skarm) is that they all can just autowin vs certain structs at times. Their wincondition isn't really too difficult to achieve - just weaken or KO all enemy special attackers and there will be very little stopping them from sweeping, barring a random Tera Ghost. Zama-C would have strongest & fairly fast Body Press, the highest SpDef, and an innate Toxic immunity, making it very difficult for HO builds to actually beat. Granted, I'm not sure this is entirely a bad thing, or even all that different from the impact other mons like Curse Dozo have, but IMO, I don't think the meta needs this mon at this time, esp as Skarm and Zama normal can perfom a similar role.

That's not to say I'm against unbanning it or other Ubers (including depending on what else we decide to ban) but IMO we should get rid of some of the more egregious bullshit first before discussing ubers to "stabalize the metagame". As Finch said, Raging Bolt and Roaring Moon are some clear, immediate suspect candidates, and the likes of Ogerpon-Wellspring, Gouging Fire, and Tera Blast are not far behind imo.

Before we consider dropping mage can we please ban stored power I'm not dealing with that imebcillic damn set again I'm already pissed off enough at latias veil trying to cheese wins

Finch I never thought I'd say this but is a stored power ban actually possible? Say like I could prove it breaks 3+ mons could it at least be glanced at?

 

[Finchinator]

I can most definitely get behind this. Ok, next inquiry. Is the meta being as offensive as it is contributing to the overall lack of balance towards the meta? Or is it not as hyper offensive as I'm imagining? Sorry if I'm bugging, but I've been pondering this and it'll be useful for my overall understanding.

You can argue there is a correlation there, but I try to not look at it this way and instead I just try to play the tier, teambuild, spectate, etc. as much as possible and form a direct POV. What truly defines HO, weather, bulky-O, balance, stall, etc. can be interchanged and mixed to the point that assigning much permanence and weight to any of these is overcomplicating tiering. Sometimes you see a hard offense with a pivot, sometimes you see a bulky offense with a lead like Iron Treads or Glimmora, sometimes you see a balance with a glass cannon, etc. We, by nature, look to group things and assign mutually understood categories to make conversation easier, but this sometimes is doing us a disservice when it’s actually a more precise discussion that needs to be had.

What's truly most important is assessing if threats are too restrictive when building or playing. Does X have enough counterplay? Can you find resources to account for Y? Is the metagame still responding to Z and, if so, how/is there room for more evolution there? Etc. Truth be told: this metagame is still evolving rapidly and while some extremes are being accounted for and growing more surefire, other things vary. I find Archaludon absolutely broken and forcing the tier into a limited state, but you can talk me into a number of different spots on Gouging Fire or a few others. And that stance may change within the next few weeks, too. So my goal is to focus on what I feel is most clear cut, which is often reflected in survey scores and council sentiment rather than a more vague assessment of relative archetype viability.