Metagame SV OU Metagame Discussion v2 [Update on Post #5186]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Karxrida

Death to the Undying Savage
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
50% speed reduction and 25% chance to lose your turn: Fair and balanced, A++ would add to my team again.

20% chance to go first, as long as the opponent isn't using a priority move: OH NO THINK OF THE CHILDREN.
Don't really have an opinion on Quick Claw, but Paralysis at least does have counterplay. Electric-types are immune to it, the most accessible way of spreading it is Thunder Wave and that means Ground-types can also not care, and the Speed reduction is static and thus predictable. Randomly losing a turn sucks, but at least we aren't dealing with Serene Grace Jirachi flinching you on top of it like in old Gens where that shit was legal.
 
The way I see it (when should we ban something for its luck-based element), it depends on why do you run it. I never run Paralysis because I 'm going for the 25% proc. I run it more for the speed control, and dismantling of threats whose wincon is their speed, like Iron Valiant/Dragapult/etc. This can make these Pokemon so much more manageable for slower teams like Bulky Offense, Balance or Stall.

The only reason you run Quick Draw is to go for a 20% chance of a proc to ignore the opposing player's move. It has no consistent effect, it has no value outside of adding more luck-based elements to the game; it's exactly why I was staunchly against Sand Veil/Snow Veil during the conversations in Gen 8 OU threads. Was Sand Veil good? Not really. Was it broken? Not statistically. Does it add nothing to the game other than attempting to cheese out a win? Absolutely.

Freedom Cup is honestly showing this more. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most cheese strats that some assumed would be pretty good, like Evasion strats, aren't even really all that consistent there. It's basically just Big HO tier # uno dos. If we unbanned evasion right now, Paralysis would still probably have a bigger effect on who wins or loses games, but I do not see them as the same; what does a mechanic add matters, in my opinion.

What do you all think?
 
Insane how qc has taken over the ladder and the forums in the span of like 7 hours. And although it is really funny, it honestly seems like an oversight that this thing is still in the tier. Quick claw has absolutely no merit aside from cheesing through mons you shouldn't be able to beat. It's the same as King's Rock in the sense that it's rng for the sake of it.

I don't think it needs immediate attention because it isn't broken per se, it probably should get banned at some point.
 
snarkily gesturing at some perceived contradiction is not an argument

not my fault you can’t tell the difference
Yeah, apologies for the snarky response. The "probability" argument has rubbed me the wrong way since last generation & even though I supported the King's Rock ban (and even pushed for a QC bam at one point) the reasoning for Bright Powder being banned never really jived well with me, causing me to reevaluate my stance on some other elements of the game perceived to be uncompetitive. Still, stuff like uncompetitiveness can be up to interpretation & is not valid justification to make snarky comments to those that may have a different POV. This thread can be somewhat Toxic as is, and I don't want to contribute to that sort of environment. God knows I hated Toxic last generation.
 
Don't really have an opinion on Quick Claw, but Paralysis at least does have counterplay. Electric-types are immune to it, the most accessible way of spreading it is Thunder Wave and that means Ground-types can also not care, and the Speed reduction is static and thus predictable. Randomly losing a turn sucks, but at least we aren't dealing with Serene Grace Jirachi flinching you on top of it like in old Gens where that shit was legal.
To be clear, I am very much a ban minimalist and do not regard paralysis as an issue. My view is that pure RNG is so intrinsic to Pokemon, from accuracy to damage spreads to secondary effects to speed ties, that it's not worth getting worked up about until it starts actively denying player agency. (Yes, this means I do not actually support banning Scald, even if I do think that widely-distributed Scald is a blight upon the metagame.)

Quick Draw doesn't (yet) reach that point. Using it makes you objectively weaker 80% of the time due to lacking another item, and you need to specifically build to leverage the remaining 20% because you can't control it. Delibird Heart built a team around bulky setup mons that can maximize those opportunities, and it's currently highly effective, but it's also new and nobody has figured out the best way to play against it. Trick Room requires specific counterplay, weather requires counterplay, psyspam requires counterplay, Quick Claw spam is going to require counterplay. Bleating for a ban at this point is like people who demanded a quick ban of Walking Wake, but the meta adapted and found how to handle it.

Also, at the absolute worst, 20% chance to lose a mon because the opponent went first is still less than a 25% chance to lose a mon because you were fully paralyzed.
 
To be clear, I am very much a ban minimalist and do not regard paralysis as an issue. My view is that pure RNG is so intrinsic to Pokemon, from accuracy to damage spreads to secondary effects to speed ties, that it's not worth getting worked up about until it starts actively denying player agency. (Yes, this means I do not actually support banning Scald, even if I do think that widely-distributed Scald is a blight upon the metagame.)

Quick Draw doesn't (yet) reach that point. Using it makes you objectively weaker 80% of the time due to lacking another item, and you need to specifically build to leverage the remaining 20% because you can't control it. Delibird Heart built a team around bulky setup mons that can maximize those opportunities, and it's currently highly effective, but it's also new and nobody has figured out the best way to play against it. Trick Room requires specific counterplay, weather requires counterplay, psyspam requires counterplay, Quick Claw spam is going to require counterplay. Bleating for a ban at this point is like people who demanded a quick ban of Walking Wake, but the meta adapted and found how to handle it.

Also, at the absolute worst, 20% chance to lose a mon because the opponent went first is still less than a 25% chance to lose a mon because you were fully paralyzed.
One big difference between para and qc is that electric types can't be paraed, and ground types often can't either. Another big difference is that in order for the 25% chance to start taking effect you need to actually para the mon, whereas qc always is active. This leads to situations where e.g. if your mon is paraed it can't be sacked to bring in a counter, whereas with qc you can bring in a counter and get rnged. I think the contextlessness of qc makes it feel worse than other rng mechanics which can be mitigated with counterplay or only come into effect at certain times.
 
And if you don't want to deal with that 20% chance, just Covert Cloak, bro
Getting absolutely zero "hahahas" on this is maybe the lowest point in my forum history.

In actual relevant conversation, one of the biggest differences between Quick Claw and secondary effects like Para/Freeze/Flinch (beyond those actually being mitigated by Cloak) is that those effects only apply to specific moves. As Smashburn pointed out, Quick Claw is permanent. i.e. it applies to every move.

Fishing for a Scald Burn or Discharge Paralysis can change a game, but it's rarely the optimal play (I'll admit that Flame Body and Static are another story since they are also "always active" and unilaterally punish the other player's choice instead of rewarding yours). It's something you do to turn the tables when the matchup hasn't gone your way. Quick Claw takes the optimal play and 20% of the time makes it the super-optimal play.

Example: Your opponent just brought in Dragonite against your +2 Iron Hands after a KO. Iron Hands is at 30% health (out of non-Tera ESpeed range, well within EQ range). Clicking Ice Punch is probably the smart move to punish a DD from somebody expecting a switch or to prevent your switch-in from taking extra damage when Iron Hands *probably* isn't gonna do too much more in the match beyond serve as a sac with its low speed and hazards on the board.

In non-bizarro world, there's a simple flow chart. Opponent clicks DD, Dragonite Dies. Opponent clicks EQ, Iron Hands dies. Your opponent has agency. They ask "will they switch or will they stay in and attack" and make the correct choice based on their knowledge of the game. In this Quick Claw example, 20% of the time it simply doesn't matter what the other player clicked. Dragonite Dies. And the genius behind this monoclaw insanity is that most of the `mons being run here have the potential to OHKO the overwhelming majority of the tier after a boost.

Similar example. Let's say Iron Hands_is_ in Extreme Speed range now, but you also have a Scarf Iron Valiant in the back that already clicked Tera Ghost (because this is the world we live in now). Dragon Dance is basically not an option (lose to Iron Hands if it stays in, lose to Valiant if it's a switch), but now it's a choice between clicking Earthquake to either KOing Iron Hands or deal massive chip to Valiant but risk getting ganked by Quick Claw or clicking Extreme Speed and guaranteed killing Iron Hands but letting Valiant in for free.

Congratulations, you have trolled your opponent into seriously considering a terrible option (ESpeed) because they don't want to lose for making the correct play.

Finally, to echo one last point from people making comparisons to status: Yes, status RNG hax decide games, too, but banning Paralysis, Freeze, Flinch, etc. would be a massive change, drastically reducing the number of available moves in the game and, as a consequence, functionally upending the viability of entire types based on move availability. Banning Quick Claw would be straightforward. I'm not actually advocating for banning Quick Claw (yet), but arguing that we shouldn't do one if we won't/can't do the other is clearly disingenuous.
 
I still find it very annoying when people try to argue that removing people's ways to vote about one of the most polarizing topics in Smogon history is a good idea.

The next Tera suspect needs options. Period. You are simply incorrect if you say/think otherwise. If people want to vote for a restriction, then they should be able to; it being narrow last time isn't evidence to remove options, it's to keep it.

The only "good" reason to not have options like Tera Preview is because you think that, otherwise, Tera might not be banned. If you think that, you are opposing the qualified playerbase's potential wishes by denying them an option that you do not see as valid, when we decided months ago it is. In that case, you are being against the playerbase. You are actively antagonistic to it, in my opinion.

As long as a Policy Review thread acknowledges it as valid, then it should be allowed to happen. No matter how inconvenient it is to what you want to happen.

PLEASE if you care anything for the future health of this metagame make your thoughts known about Tera

This is also an eye-roller. People have been talking about Tera good or bad for months (even when mods say to move on), of varying skill levels, experience, time in the community; you don't need a call to action worded as to suggest only those whom you agree with have the tier's best intentions at heart.
I'll admit it is somewhat at an extreme end after months of losing my mind with tera and being mostly withdrawn. However, it is the opposite of trying to code this such that only people that agree with my limited opinion can call things to action after months of tera banter. I'm aware that the Tera discussion been going on. I'm simply tired of it never seemingly coming to a meaningful head, however.

To comment on some other points, I'll again refer to what Seal said- discounting point 2 in the case of a restriction. I will again state, in my opinion, I do not think that restriction is a good idea. I have given enough personal leeway to agree with what vgc did regarding official team uploads to combat the unpredictability of tera, but it was only a temporary fix for the sheer variety and generally unstoppable offensive and defensive nature of Tera. I do not think that, for the sake of the health of a singles metagame, a restriction is enough. It does not stop three fourths of what makes tera potent and still introduces a lot of problems from preview, such as when and where it would be triggered. Notice with my wording, I am very clearly stating that I am against having variety in the decision because I find it to be a waste, but I do not have the authority to deny the choice that the playerbase has. I am aware that other people have differing opinions and I openly stated that my own opinion has been entirely staunchly negative and critical towards Terastalization from the moment it was announced. I am not antagonistic. I am contrary perhaps, but not such that I am against the entire community. If I felt there wasn't a reasonable sum of the active playerbase that felt the same way and maybe less strongly, then I wouldn't have posted to begin with. I am not that naive, so much as I am occasionally headstrong admittedly.

My point isn't made out of a want for convenience either, it's for engagement and the points above. If I'm seen as complacent in one way or another then so be it.
 
I'll admit it is somewhat at an extreme end after months of losing my mind with tera and being mostly withdrawn. However, it is the opposite of trying to code this such that only people that agree with my limited opinion can call things to action after months of tera banter. I'm aware that the Tera discussion been going on. I'm simply tired of it never seemingly coming to a meaningful head, however.

To comment on some other points, I'll again refer to what Seal said- discounting point 2 in the case of a restriction. I will again state, in my opinion, I do not think that restriction is a good idea. I have given enough personal leeway to agree with what vgc did regarding official team uploads to combat the unpredictability of tera, but it was only a temporary fix for the sheer variety and generally unstoppable offensive and defensive nature of Tera. I do not think that, for the sake of the health of a singles metagame, a restriction is enough. It does not stop three fourths of what makes tera potent and still introduces a lot of problems from preview, such as when and where it would be triggered. Notice with my wording, I am very clearly stating that I am against having variety in the decision because I find it to be a waste, but I do not have the authority to deny the choice that the playerbase has. I am aware that other people have differing opinions and I openly stated that my own opinion has been entirely staunchly negative and critical towards Terastalization from the moment it was announced. I am not antagonistic. I am contrary perhaps, but not such that I am against the entire community. If I felt there wasn't a reasonable sum of the active playerbase that felt the same way and maybe less strongly, then I wouldn't have posted to begin with. I am not that naive, so much as I am occasionally headstrong admittedly.

My point isn't made out of a want for convenience either, it's for engagement and the points above. If I'm seen as complacent in one way or another then so be it.
For context there are people who get upset at the idea of multiple options potentially being in the second Tera Suspect test, so that's why I read your post as that. If you do not mean that, then I have no problem with your post ofc, feel free to express your opinion, positive or negative. Not that you need my permission haha. My apologies.

For the record, I'm also pro-ban for NatDex OU.
 
For context there are people who get upset at the idea of multiple options potentially being in the second Tera Suspect test, so that's why I read your post as that. If you do not mean that, then I have no problem with your post ofc, feel free to express your opinion, positive or negative. Not that you need my permission haha. My apologies.

For the record, I'm also pro-ban for NatDex OU.
Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand for SV but NatDex OU is a clusterfuck and terra needs to go.
 
unban Volcarona and allow Genesect in the tier if it comes back with DLC
I can get behind a Genesect unban. It lost Shift Gear and Extreme Speed, which makes it less of a force than it was in the past. Now it won't be doing endgame sweeps as easily or revenge-killing everything in the sun. Granted, maybe Tera will make it too strong, but if Zamazenta got a chance in OU, so should Genesect given the movepool nerfs.
 
I can get behind a Genesect unban. It lost Shift Gear and Extreme Speed, which makes it less of a force than it was in the past. Now it won't be doing endgame sweeps as easily or revenge-killing everything in the sun. Granted, maybe Tera will make it too strong, but if Zamazenta got a chance in OU, so should Genesect given the movepool nerfs.
We're going to retest gene in OU because humanity never learns
 
We're going to retest gene in OU because humanity never learns
This is honestly the first time Genesect has any business ever being unbanned after it was banned in BW. It had not received any material nerfs aside from the very small Hidden Power Base Power nerf in XY and with the Steel-type typing no longer resisting Dark and Ghost-type attacks. Testing Genesect this gen makes a hell of a lot more sense than testing Magearna this gen, which was obviously going to be extremely broken. Genesect will probably still be broken, but it deserves a test considering Magearna got one, which is much more effective at ending games on the spot than Genesect.
 
Last edited:

luckie

unluckiest player
what the hell happened.gif

Logging onto the thread for the night to see it turned upside down because of Quick Claw spam.


Honestly I have zero opinion on Quick Claw right now, but being 100% honest I'm completely flabbergasted that it was attempted and even more so that it worked after watching the replay. Definitely wanna try that team myself when I have time.
 
View attachment 529372
Logging onto the thread for the night to see it turned upside down because of Quick Claw spam.


Honestly I have zero opinion on Quick Claw right now, but being 100% honest I'm completely flabbergasted that it was attempted and even more so that it worked after watching the replay. Definitely wanna try that team myself when I have time.
I would say that the team is really good and quick claw is just like a 15% of why it wins. Bulky offense is super good rn against HO because mons like Valiant or Pult just die if they can OK something.
 
Given quick claw is now getting attention, perhaps I can point out an error in it’s implementation on showdown. On showdown, quick claw overwrites mycelium might and allow spore to go first. On cartridge, this can never happen. I submitted a bug report which was acknowledged but as far as I’m aware no action has been taken and it’s still this way on showdown, providing non parity with cart play
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 7)

Top