i argued early on in this thread that the mechanic is not uncompetitive. The current state is strongly a teambuilder’s meta and boy do I love teambuilding. My opinion has not changed on that after reading the thread, but my idea for the solution has changed.
After reading the thread, I think a separate tera OU is the only real viable solution. I have zero confidence that restrictions placed on this mechanic will be handled gracefully or with patience. I don’t see any value maintaining it in a wishy washy state where half the people playing high level hate the mechanic in the first place. I would also not be surprised if a restriction is tested only as a way to appease people so they can ban it later and say that they tried. Many players still seem to think that only “casuals” could like the mechanic and a restriction test is merely a way to reduce the amount of pitchfork wielding casuals angry at smogon (incredibly disingenuous opinion to hold by the way). I apologize for the bleak and somewhat exaggerated take on the state of things.
I am also a bit confused by the direction a lot of the discussion has taken. Many seem to be trying to prove that one restriction wouldn’t work. Isn’t that what a suspect test would prove? Isn’t it far more efficient to experience the restriction in practice and decide if it fixes the mechanic? I think eventually the discussion needs to refocus based on a decision made by the council determining whether a restriction will be tested or not. Then the discussion can focus on coming to a consensus on which restrictions are most valuable to test.
I’m a dumbass though and would never want to be in the councils shoes sorting through this trying to decide which idea is best lol. I do know however that a tera OU has many benefits and would be my pick. Players can experience the mechanic in a non-washed out state, both people who hate it and love it will be satisfied, and the council doesn’t have to sift through a thousand incredibly varied opinions to somehow choose one to represent them all lol.
For all I care, Tera OU can be a permanent OM with standard being a tera-free OU. I just would like to continue playing the metagame that I enjoy more.
If I'm totally honest, at this point there isn't anywhere else to really take the thread. Pretty much every solution has been brought up (from the fringe to the easy to implement), and it feels like we're at a standstill where everything after this point is a formality.
Seeing the council's posts overall, I think it's kind of clear that the council has a plan in mind, and it's not hiding the fact that a lot of this is for some vague notion of "preventing backlash". A forum thread that 99% of the playerbase likely hasn't seen, that's immediately less important than the Policy Review thread- which has had its own cycle of the same opinions and takes, in two pages rather than now nineteen.
It is genuinely questionable what this thread aims to do now, let alone at the start. There will not be much common ground, frankly, because the vast array of opinions have not reached any conclusion, nor will they.
If none of us can rally around if the mechanic is even competitive or not, or even what type of players like what, then there will not be any true progress outside vague gestures of "we tried".
However, I'll just recap some things I feel I've noticed over the course of these discussions, through an old Magic the Gathering perspective of types of players in these sorts of games.
There is the -Johnny-, someone who plays looking for the best wins, rather than the most overall wins. This is that person who runs Cloyster, Kommo-o, DD Dragapult and Blaziken on the same team because he just wants that funny funny sweep. If he wins 3/10 games, but those 3 games were 6-0s, he goes home pretty happy.
There is the -Timmy-, someone who plays looking for the coolest mechanical wins, rather than the most overall wins. This is that person that runs Shedinja even in OU, and likes Baton Pass but doesn't really know how broken it is, loves the more niche mechanics like Magic Bounce way more, even in a generation like 8 where Defog is one of the easiest moves to fit on a team structure, nor out of some deep understanding of the game. If he goes 3/10 games, but those 3 games had his super niche strategy work out as he "perfectly" planned, he goes home pretty happy.
Then we have the -Spike-. This is the tournament player. He wins 9/10 games with a pretty meta team, and if he feels he should have won that 10th game, he goes home not feeling great. Honestly, some of the funniest and most iconic forum blow-ups from salt come from people who won almost all of their games, but failed to get the gold, and feel awful despite the immense skill displayed and social achievement, albeit understandably given the goal.
This framework somewhat accurately describes the three types of players who are attracted to things like competitive Pokemon. And I fail to see how Terastilization fails any of them, in any way.
As some people on the pro-ban side have mentioned, even, the best players are still winning. While that is always true in any meta to an extent, I have not seen any evidence provided that Terastilization has had any impact on this fact, nor have I seen any proof or evidence as to Terastilization creating upsets or lost games in ways that are somewhat normal to competitive Pokemon. Not having the right set for the job, failing to account for that one niche offensive threat in the teambuilder, not playing around the opponent's options correctly, and simply having bad luck.
All I've seen is vague buzzwords and notioning to this fact, with made-up examples or rarely linked replays that really just show a lack of practice or skill in the format.
There has been no proof that "Spike" is being neglected, worse off, or that his 9/10 games has become an 8, or 7, or especially not lower. There has been no definitive proof that teambuilding and playing around this mechanic with so much depth, even just 9 or so days in, has not become much easier and skilled. I also believe that playing Terastilization well could even increase the skill gap in a positive direction, but I have no proof on that notion.
On the other end, this is, yes, a highly attractive mechanic for the other two more casual groups as well.
Timmy has an endless array of potential choices to use, and play with, tinker, teambuild and create cool ideas and test them out. And I believe that Spikes can teambuild around a middleground that still wins against the fringes, as the ladder has always had. I'll never forget that time I lost to fucking Diggersby, because I didn't know it had Fire Punch, and I immediately improved my team... Diggersby tho?
Johnny has the potential to make his funny funny Youtube Smogon Salt Compilation Magikarp 6-0 sweep as usual, with Terastilization giving more potential for funny or pub stompy Pokemon. Again, I have seen no proof that Spikes are losing due to this, and while I have no direct evidence, I think there's good reason to believe that good teambuilding can patch these holes that the potential of Johhnys and Timmies may have.
In short: I see no evidence as to why Terastilization is so negatory besides vague notions of gamefeel, "I should have won that 10th game" that will always exist in Pokemon. And as, if I recall, the beginning of the thread states:
The onus is on the people committed to getting something restricted or banned to prove their claims. Less buzzwords, less "It's broken, we all know it's broken"; less fringe exaggerations ie. "It's more broken than Dynamax".
If there is no evidence yet? Then I have a solution: let's wait for actual statistics to arrive, tournaments to run, actual data in a less-new metagame.
Please.