Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

[MANNAT]

Out of curiosity has any suggested only letting the last remaining pokemon on a team use Tera? Sort of as an attempted comeback mechanic.

1. It solves the advantage tera has over Dynamax, that being you can then switch in and out the pokemon as normal

2. It lowers the problem of it completely dominating the match from the start if you mispredict, if you have worked yourself into a 3 to 1 lead there's a much lower chance that last pokemon using tera is going to cheap shot win, and if it does it may very well be because they had thought 4 moves ahead (this is already possible with things like berries and baiting counters or using mon-standard sets so it's not a great diversion from normal gameplay)

3. It preserves the "feel" of the new generation, this is somewhat less on the competitive side of things but people always tend to react adversely to bans on mechanics, the in game trainers already use it this way so it should sate that crowd

4. It still allows a form of comeback, inverse to 2, it is very competitive if you were able to analyze your opponents team and moves throughout the match to save the perfect tera for the end and push out a win, this is the type of mechanical use people would get excited about versus normal tera Dnite just sweeping the opposing team 5-0 with Espeed, conversely if the player with the lead can figure out the tera you may be saving it would be easy to keep his lead, also via skill smd planning

There's probably more benefits (and obviously some downsides) but I feel if tera is deemed to be a bit overpowered this might be an easy compromise

this is kind of epic as hell and even though its (probably) still unbalanced i’d like to see someone try it lol

 

[Athyestic]

Out of curiosity has any suggested only letting the last remaining pokemon on a team use Tera? Sort of as an attempted comeback mechanic.

1. It solves the advantage tera has over Dynamax, that being you can then switch in and out the pokemon as normal

2. It lowers the problem of it completely dominating the match from the start if you mispredict, if you have worked yourself into a 3 to 1 lead there's a much lower chance that last pokemon using tera is going to cheap shot win, and if it does it may very well be because they had thought 4 moves ahead (this is already possible with things like berries and baiting counters or using mon-standard sets so it's not a great diversion from normal gameplay)

3. It preserves the "feel" of the new generation, this is somewhat less on the competitive side of things but people always tend to react adversely to bans on mechanics, the in game trainers already use it this way so it should sate that crowd

4. It still allows a form of comeback, inverse to 2, it is very competitive if you were able to analyze your opponents team and moves throughout the match to save the perfect tera for the end and push out a win, this is the type of mechanical use people would get excited about versus normal tera Dnite just sweeping the opposing team 5-0 with Espeed, conversely if the player with the lead can figure out the tera you may be saving it would be easy to keep his lead, also via skill smd planning

There's probably more benefits (and obviously some downsides) but I feel if tera is deemed to be a bit overpowered this might be an easy compromise

Notably, this also happens to follow the philosophy of every ingame trainer, teraing their last pokemon in order to try and squeeze out a victory. It doesn't play a part in tiering decisions ofc, but this does allow for every battle to have a level of flair akin to the games (and prob the anime lol) to them,

 

[ThitOneGuy]

Almost like we got more offensive megas than defensive ones. Not that such is relevant anyways.



No actually. Theoretically a restriction with one designated tera user per team would actually let people realistically gleam from preview which mon is the abuser and to plan from there. Especially with teams packing multiple offensive options. As opposed to now wherr anything at any point could tera which just adds to the nonsense.



Here is the turn options when they tera:
-RM teras (flying) and boosts. You click rock tomb expecting flying. Cool.
-RM teras (flying) and clicks acro. Breloom dies. You lost offensive check.

And this gets worse if "rock-tera breloom" caught on because now the RM adapts and now can click EQ. This leads to more coin flip guessing and could see ground tera RM pop up. This makes it even messier. You say "there is a ton of options" but don't say what such options are.



Wanted to highlight this especially, but no. More paths mean more on the spot 50/50 guesses. Guessing "will they tera and attack or tera and boost", and "should i tera to match theirs and which move should i click? Or should i switch" is not a skill. There is no consistency there. No practice will help there.

Defensive megas only saw consistent use on stall/defensive teams. Offensive and Balanced team comps almost always opted for offensive megas, because the increased power was worth more in more situations. I'm using megas as a way to paint the picture that limiting it to one mon per team selected at building removes the identity of Tera and reduces the counterplay by nerfing defensive Tera mons, since they're less high percentage options than something like Tera Flying RM.

RM Teras(flying) and sets up, you don't and click Tomb, killing.
RM Teras(flying) and clicks Acro, killing Loom.
RM Teras(steel) and sets up, you don't and click Tomb, then Mach Punch, killing.
RM Teras(steel) and clicks Iron Head, doing about 70%, you click Tomb then Mach Punch, killing.
RM Teras(f) you Tera(rock) and Tomb, killing as they set up.
RM Teras(f) you Tera(rock) and take the Acro, killing with Tomb.
RM Teras(s) you Tera(r) and Tomb into MP as they set up, killing.
RM Teras(s) as you Tera(r) and Tomb, losing Loom.

Of the 8 main options RM can do, non-tera Tomb is the one that wins you the interaction most often. If Rock Tera Loom catches on and RM starts running EQ, then you adapt the set. Like you should do as the meta adapts anyway.

This leads to more skillful play being rewarded, as your teambuilding needs to be better and you need to play better. Both players can win through building their team better and playing it better. Plus Breloom is far from the only option you could use for RM. I was using it due to it being what the person I was replying to was. You can build your checks to deal with the mon and their common Teras. As the meta develops, what each mon uses changes to adapt to it, leading to more adaptation. Terastalizing is a mechanic with an EXTREMELY high skill ceiling.

What do you mean by this? How is knowing more about the meta not going to help in these scenarios?

 

[Jaajgko]

The only way to make terastalization healthy is to completely modifiy its mechanics. Even if you have to decide upon a single tera-user on your team, which you'd have to immediately terastalize upon entry, it'd still be broken because of the free Adaptability boost and the fact that you can get a better defensive type while gaining an additional stab move.
Outright banning it is the only solution.

 

[Cayle Caiser]

For people playing a game where half of your best moves can outright fail with accuracy, we sure are calling things a "50/50" when they aren't and not telling people to "get good" and make better midground plays like we do when they complain that Scald destroyed their endgame, which was otherwise supposedly perfect.

We used to have a time where you straight up had to predict or play around not knowing the enemy team in its entirety. Or not knowing the Z-Move. In rare cases, not knowing the Mega. Tera is a mechanic that allows you to very easily combat enemy Teras with better teambuilding. The skill ceiling for teambuilding has never been higher. I'm sick of this "unskillful play" nonsense, I strictly see better players winning more

"50/50s"

than worse players. Because it's a buzzword in this context.

Like, what is even this Breloom example? Havs you heard of option 3:

Go to your Pokemon that can play against both of these moves. There's quite a few better plays you can make than blindly Terastilizing to hope to catch another Terastilization. This isn't a mechanic to use to counter another in the same turn, it's much better to hold onto later.

That's a 20/20/60 because 60% of players would rather decide to not risk an entire Pokemon and Tera on such a ridiculous play.

If you have no other counters? Well, that's before Tera was even used, and that's the result of how you played. "If Scald destroyed your endgame, you could've played better." moment. Nothing in competitive Pokemon is a true given, and we have to play around it to the best of our abilities. Tera gives more options, and you can use it pretty skillfully in the teambuilder and match itself.

Have none of you baited a Z-Move before? That's a not-so-uncommon play in Gen 7, despite in concept being quite "risky", and not knowing for sure the other person's Pokemon has the crystal. But eventually you learn what types of Pokemon and on what team has a set like that, and you learn to bait it out as a midground play that is recoverable on most of the time.

Z-Moves and Tera are by no means the same mechanic, but once Tera is popped, it's immediately way less threatening because now you can more knowledgeably counter their Tera'd mon.

And if the metagame is too strained by a Pokemon like that, making it almost impossible to counter? Ban it.

Some people here keep saying: "We can't work on the premise that this will later become more predictable and managable."

Which bothers me as others in the thread and in general, only a week in, are saying it's become way more predictable and managable.

Maybe learn what they have.

Name literally the "other Pokemon" that can counter everything RM can run.

You guys are STILL comparing Z-moves here when it has literal zero relevance to the discussion here.

And I'm still waiting for an actual logical arguements here from tera defenders.

Other than "you guys sux at competitive loool!"(Not an arguement)

To be specific it's a 50/50 for the player trying to predict a tera sweep here.

And it's a 75/25 for the opposing player. Because they have the luxury to just switch to a different pokemon on their team. Or just go for a 3rd tera type(you guys do realise all the top-tier pokemon have at least minimum 3 viable tera types to choose from right??). The player was forced to tera early to prevent an early sweep from happening. You guys(going to be a tad rude here but no offense here) clearly do not understand how the mindset of a high tier ladder player. They can force their opponent to play sub-optimally. All because all 6 of their pokemon are designed to play around people who are trying to play the "safer" game by not entering any risky situation.

Let me state a true and obvious fact here. There's a thing called the First-Mover's Advantage. If you want to win more and win consistently then you have to force your opponent until he has no other choices but to choose a very risky move or just lose a pokemon to his opponent. The statistics supports players who already won from Team Preview. Because the concepts of reliable checks and counters(they very core ideas of competitive pokemon itself) goes out the window. Literally because every pokemon has access to a SuperSTAB or a defensive tera to remove any possibility of countering/checking. Literally every pokemon.

Also "the better player wins" means jack diddly squat here. I can beat the majority of Showdown users when Dynamaxing was legal still. So according to this logic here we should have kept Dynamaxing in the game. Because "the better player wins."

The argument I'm struggling a little with is the forced 50/50s argument. It's not that I disagree with the argument. To use an example I ran into, we have boosted Annihilate vs Iron Valiant. Valiant could click spirit break to KO. But it could also predict it changing to steel or normal and click close combat to KO. That is a 50/50, I'm not arguing against that.

But isn't Pokemon full of these already? Will he click sucker punch and KO me so I click substitute? Or will he predict that and attack with knock off? Will this Zard X change form so I should click earthquake? Or will it stay in Zard form and I should click an electric move? Will this Zapdos click roost so I should EQ? Or will it click hurricane and I'm left looking extremely silly? Will they switch Lando-T into my Sand Excadrill so I should click swords dance, or will this Heatran in front of me click eruption and KO me if I don't just click EQ?

I don't see how tera forcing predicts is different from these scenarios. Don't say "because you win or lose games from these predictions" because I constantly win or lose games based off sucker punch predictions. Tera forces you to make predicts, but so does every Pokemon game.

I'm not even necessarily anti-ban. But the more I think about it, the weaker I feel the 50/50 argument is.

I'm starting to wonder if players wants to play a coin flip simulator.

Because pro-tera players here are unable to distinguish a game with luck involved and actual "skill" choices.(this isn't directed at u in particular just at anyone who thinks this raises the game's skill ceiling. Because once this is thought thoroughly then the argument falls flats.)

 

[Winddragon48]

Notably, this also happens to follow the philosophy of every ingame trainer, teraing their last pokemon in order to try and squeeze out a victory. It doesn't play a part in tiering decisions ofc, but this does allow for every battle to have a level of flair akin to the games (and prob the anime lol) to them,

It also follows the general idea of "comeback mechanics" many competitive games have (Mobas have big endgame mobs the losing team can steal, fighting games have meter gain or MvC3s admittedly a little broken super mode)

Z-moves, while I didn't really like them to be honest had this sort of effect where you had a one shot chance to just slam through a bad position (but could also do it to kick a guy who's already down which is why I kind of disliked it)

Megas were just great save for a few outliers but most people seem to agree this was a good mechanic

Dynamax was an awful ball of game design and even if you were forced to use it last(as in did this sort of change to dynamax) was still way too overpowered (changed all the moves making things lIke airstream overpowered as hell, broke through protect, massive hp increase, CANT EVEN USE IT FOR MOST OF THE MAIN GAME WHAT THE HELL)

It's early still obviously but (after basically skipping gen 8 after getting bored even before D-Max was banned) I feel tera is a great idea the actually can stimulate teambuilding, but goes a tad too far, while I hope the meta settles and it doesn't need to be banned I would rather try to save it if at all possible, but not if it actually limits diversity by getting 10 mons banned because they are too good with it

 

[ThitOneGuy]

Name literally the "other Pokemon" that can counter everything RM can run.

You guys are STILL comparing Z-moves here when it has literal zero relevance to the discussion here.

And I'm still waiting for an actual logical arguements here from tera defenders.

Other than "you guys sux at competitive loool!"(Not an arguement)

To be specific it's a 50/50 for the player trying to predict a tera sweep here.

And it's a 75/25 for the opposing player. Because they have the luxury to just switch to a different pokemon on their team. Or just go for a 3rd tera type(you guys do realise all the top-tier pokemon have at least minimum 3 viable tera types to choose from right??). The player was forced to tera early to prevent an early sweep from happening. You guys(going to be a tad rude here but no offense here) clearly do not understand how the mindset of a high tier ladder player. They can force their opponent to play sub-optimally. All because all 6 of their pokemon are designed to play around people who are trying to play the "safer" game by not entering any risky situation.

Let me state a true and obvious fact here. There's a thing called the First-Mover's Advantage. If you want to win more and win consistently then you have to force your opponent until he has no other choices but to choose a very risky move or just lose a pokemon to his opponent. The statistics supports players who already won from Team Preview. Because the concepts of reliable checks and counters(they very core ideas of competitive pokemon itself) goes out the window. Literally because every pokemon has access to a SuperSTAB or a defensive tera to remove any possibility of countering/checking. Literally every pokemon.

Also "the better player wins" means jack diddly squat here. I can beat the majority of Showdown users when Dynamaxing was legal still. So according to this logic here we should have kept Dynamaxing in the game. Because "the better player wins."



I'm starting to wonder if players wants to play a coin flip simulator.

Because pro-tera players here are unable to distinguish a game with luck involved and actual "skill" choices.(this isn't directed at u in particular just at anyone who thinks this raises the game's skill ceiling. Because once this is thought thoroughly then the argument falls flats.)

Tera Electric Iron Valiant can. Icy Wind into T-bolt/CC beats Flying and Steel Tera unless the RM player reads this. This isn't a 50/50. It's just a turn with multiple options. It's not even limited to these 2.

An actual logical argument like everything I've said breaking down JUST Rock Tera Breloom vs Roaring Moon? Because if you have another situation with checks you'd like me to break down I can. You build your team and checks to deal with what you intend for them to check. The meta develops and counterplay is found for them, which promotes further development and new checks, which becomes a cycle leading to a meta that has high variance and a higher skill ceiling.

Even in gen 8, making a team of 6 mons designed to be as safe as possible still lost to teams that were designed to force these situations. Tera allows for this easier right now because of how chaotic it is in a new meta.

Name a single pokemon with no checks due to Terastalization. The offensive uses of Tera get checked by defensive use of it, and defensive use of it gets checked by offensive use. Both get checked by offensive mons with coverage and reads.

Dynamaxing could easily leave the person on the receiving end down 2 or 3 pokemon facing a mon with +3 speed and a Nasty Plot or SD up. Nothing Tera does is half that broken.

How is Tera luck at all? As the meta gets locked in, it'll become easier to judge what type a mon is running, and whether or not they'll Tera. It's entirely down to skill.

Every pro-ban argument uses the consequences of a new meta with new tools and blames it entirely om Tera, rather than unfamiliarity with the meta and what's good. It's too soon to call a mechanic as complex as Terastalization banworthy.

 

[Askeia]

The irony in pro-Tera citing gen 8 stall wars as boring is that in the long term, keeping Tera around is what will actually kill HO and put stall on top of the leaderboard once offensive Tera abusers inevitably get suspect banned and stall starts optimizing around it.

All the examples for playing around Tera can be summarized as “just play more defensively”, which is something that HO just can’t do as effectively by nature. Offensive teams are what constantly face these 50/50s unfavorably, while defensive teams just better dodge around it. We had broken offensive threats like Mane, Paladin and Bundle abusing all the offensive advantages of Tera and stall teams are already creeping up to the top. Meanwhile, the offense teams ending up climbing less consistently because every offense vs offense matchup just ends up being decided by who wins the Tera type coin flip.

Also, regarding Tera forcing 50/50, the difference from other mechanics is that it is happening every turn. RM vs Breloom induces these much variance in one turn. From the start of the game, both players are playing this Tera cat and mouse coin flip game until one guy clicks the Tera button.

 

[ant4456]

Tera Electric Iron Valiant can. Icy Wind into T-bolt/CC beats Flying and Steel Tera unless the RM player reads this. This isn't a 50/50. It's just a turn with multiple options. It's not even limited to these 2.

An actual logical argument like everything I've said breaking down JUST Rock Tera Breloom vs Roaring Moon? Because if you have another situation with checks you'd like me to break down I can. You build your team and checks to deal with what you intend for them to check. The meta develops and counterplay is found for them, which promotes further development and new checks, which becomes a cycle leading to a meta that has high variance and a higher skill ceiling.

Even in gen 8, making a team of 6 mons designed to be as safe as possible still lost to teams that were designed to force these situations. Tera allows for this easier right now because of how chaotic it is in a new meta.

Name a single pokemon with no checks due to Terastalization. The offensive uses of Tera get checked by defensive use of it, and defensive use of it gets checked by offensive use. Both get checked by offensive mons with coverage and reads.

Dynamaxing could easily leave the person on the receiving end down 2 or 3 pokemon facing a mon with +3 speed and a Nasty Plot or SD up. Nothing Tera does is half that broken.

How is Tera luck at all? As the meta gets locked in, it'll become easier to judge what type a mon is running, and whether or not they'll Tera. It's entirely down to skill.

Every pro-ban argument uses the consequences of a new meta with new tools and blames it entirely om Tera, rather than unfamiliarity with the meta and what's good. It's too soon to call a mechanic as complex as Terastalization banworthy.

Honestly, the point of "what can switch into RM" is more a question of RM. And with metagames with way, way more options opting to ban RM? It's kinda funny to me that that is the basis of the entire counter-argument.

also about the post said above me: alright this thread is too long and now it's about to become less civil, when "pro" and "anti" starts coming out, be ready for more toxicity frankly.

So I'ma peace out, with a final summation of my opinion: Tera good, banning Tera bad.

 

[I'm Tapu Bulu]

I'm worried Pokemon is becoming basically unplayable competitively, as the generations keep passing.

It's very obvious that most mechanics introduced by GameFreak heavily favour offense. That's what happened with Dynamax and Z-moves, after all. Tera is a very fun mechanic, but let's be honest, I'm not sure how many people want an ExtremeKiller Arceus that formed from a dragon/flying type to roam freely in OU. Or Rage Fist Annihilape with hazards cleared.

I never thought I would miss the days of mega evolutions.

 

[Lord Xen III]

Banning Tera Blast

Banning Tera Blast would be seen as the least invasive, but most straightforward and precedented, way to restrict Terastallization. To put it bluntly, this does not address the core of the problem or the most focused on aspects of the mechanic, so it seems like a solution that should only be elected if this concept is viewed to be only slightly problematic rather than wholly.

Only so many abusers actually utilize Tera Blast as many simply prefer the additional STAB for other coverage or for making it harder to approach your Pokemon with would-be super effective attacks. Tera Blast is just one subset of the larger topic of Terastallization and this would be the most minimal restriction of the bunch, reserved for cases where only minimal reform is needed if discussion trends in that direction.

limiting the amount of Pokemon on any given team that have access to possibly Terastallize during a battle

One can argue that the layers of unpredictability will be minimized if less Pokemon can possibly utilized the mechanic, potentially limiting it to a smaller pool of Pokemon on each team or even just a singular Pokemon on each team. This can be akin to a handshake agreement made between players on the cartridge, too, that we would essentially enforce as a clause into our mechanic and implement through the teambuilder rather than as a modifier of the battle mode itself.

If the the pokemon who can terastaliize are limited to one, I can see terablast becoming more of an issue down the road, because now the opportunity cost of running Terablast currently will largely be mitigated. The current opportunity cost is that you don't know if you will end up Teraing the mon(s) that you are running Tera Blast on, making it potentially a dead move slot. But with being forced to only run 1 tera mon, terablast can be effectively used with no downside. Though at that point, terablast may still be among the smaller fish to fry. As someone else mentioned, it's worth coming back to this down the road when DLC comes out because more mons may also consider running TeraBlast then, but not sure how relevant this will be then.

Limiting Tera typing to previously existing STAB types

Much like the above option, this would inherently restrict the abuse of Terastallization, but it would not be a full-stop to the possibility for trouble to arise. It would be more possible to keep Terastallization in the metagame without having to worry about Pokemon adopting entirely new typings to shift their match-up coverage throughout the metagame. However, adopting a Tera type within your STABs for a Pokemon with two types can still drastically shift a Pokemon's profile as you can shed weaknesses if timed properly. In addition, granting every Pokemon boosted STAB to the point that it is like they have Adaptability can be seen as problematic in it if itself.

From a competitive point of view, this would be less problematic to the metagame than leaving Terastallization entirely untouched and skirts away from the aspect many believe is the least competitive one. However, it also leaves a lot there that can prove troublesome for the playerbase, especially when this is considered to be present on top of one of the least forgiving power creeps we have ever seen. Implementing this could be seen as something akin to a handshake agreement between players, which could be more plausible as well.

I think the Adapatibility boost is probably still too strong. Furthermore, limiting tera this way hurts defensive cores more. The offensive boosting mons can still change their typing for some defensive merit ( Dragonite can now make itself x2 weak to ice instead of x4, which can be relevant) but now defensive pokemon, while they can still make themselves a mono-typing for improved defense in some cases, this really limits their options I think for checking a runaway Tera Sweeper in an emergency.

Furthermore, as other people have stated, it guts the identity of the mechanic in a less than ideal way, the cool part is being able to change your typing to something completely new. Being able to change to a mono-typing from a dual typing still preserves this idea of typing change to some extent, but it kinda awkwardly falls short, and would leave mono-typing mons with only an adaptability boost to look forward to, which is likely still problematic in and of itself to the point further action is still likely needed anyway.

In the event that Terastallization is seen as a concept conducive to competitive play, bringing out an acceptable metagame state with it involved on a consistent basis, then we would opt to not change the application of the core mechanic whatsoever. This would neglect to address any of the above points about the burdens of type changing on counterplay or the potential issues with the additional strength provided to Pokemon through boosted STAB or a novel STAB type as well. However, neglecting these matters could be seen as acceptable if they do not seem overly problematic to the bulk of the playerbase. This will almost surely be an option in any suspect or vote on the matter of Terastallization because of this and the fact that it is the status quo. It is important to us that many players see Terastallization as a draw to participating in our metagames; while it is the first and foremost priority to maintain competitive integirty and balance, it is also a factor to have generations motivate players to participate and have an identity. This premise is a large driver behind the potential for no tiering action or limited restrictions, and additionally add a potentially higher burden of proof to the outright ban side as well.

Would be ideal, but I don't think it will be realistically possible unfortunately to leave the mechanic as is, and don't think DLC will make the issue any better.

Showing Tera type at Team Preview

This would be the biggest restrictor of the core mechanic and perhaps is the one that has garnered the most discussion. Cons include the fact that it is still not a perfect solution to the guesswork required to play around Terastallization and it would require potential display modifications that are seen as undesirable in many circles. The pros, however, would be that it limits the pool of possibilities for players to abuse the mechanic while setting an expectation what's to come.

From a competitive point of view, it is helpful to know what every Pokemon's Tera type is, but it is still inherently challenging to line-up your counterplay with the timing of the opponent and their use of the mechanic. When a Pokemon's defensive profile can do a flip-flop on command, changing the entire type chart on whim, it makes counterplay as a whole unreliable. Surefire revenge killing methods can be dwarfed by sudden resistances and immunizations while an additional STAB typing or boost to previously existing STAB can tear through counterplay even with prior knowledge of the possibility just because all game will be played in fear of the prospect and it adds a premium offensive bonus that is not seen through other means regardless of what information is disclosed.

This restriction may cut closest to the core of the problem, but it still does not assure the balancing of Terastallization and implementation is controversial.

Helpful, but still too much of a half-measure. Still wouldn't be able to time the Tera accordingly in many scenarios, and in addition it still leaves room for mind games as people can use Dnite with Fire Tera to bluff a certain coverage and set for example only to run another coverage, and terrastallize something else, taking advantage of the information presented to the opponent at team preview.
More work would still likely need to be done if this was implemented, but could be a helpful supplement in nerfing Tera down.

Outright ban

An outright ban is Terstallization will remove the entire concept from the metagame with no strings attached. This can be seen as the "nuclear option" as it removes the entire core mechanic from the current generation of OU, but in extreme cases a nuclear option may be necessary to reach the ideal result. In this case, the ideal result is a competitive metagame and we would resort to this option if it is determined that there is no place for Terastallization in a competitive environment.

There has been a significant amount of buzz about removing Terastallization from the metagame altogether as the alternatives, which will be discussed below in the "restriction" and "no tiering action" sections, all leave things to be desired. They all come with their own respective cons, but the collective pro of preserving some semblance of the generation's core mechanic in the metagame. As for an outright ban, it is the opposite -- if we were to go to this option, we would face the con of it being removed altogether, but have the pro of avoiding a potentially ideologically flawed or inconsistent method chosen as our solution.

In terms of practical outlook, a lot can be said as to having the ability to change defensive typing making finding consistent counterplay to Pokemon an impossibility. Terrstalization fundamentally alters how we approach handling the wide array of threats our metagame presents us, occasionally forcing the metagame to resort to extremes with a surplus of revenge killers to minimize prospects or a surplus of extreme walls to outright blank Terastallization options on more dynamic offensive presences. It is possible to argue that this concept as a whole does not belong in a competitive metagame due to how much it warps how we play and how even with the closest attention to detail, it can be seen as an unreasonable ask to handle both Pokemon in their original state and these Pokemon with altered types. However, it is also true that more experienced players have began to expect specific Terstallizations from specific opposing Pokemon. This at least adds a layer of strategy and a component of prediction to the matter. It is true that there can be some guesswork when it comes to timing and specifics, but it also takes proper usage to reep the rewards of Terastallization.

The move Tera Blast also warrants discussion. It has been serving as a practical tool to a number of Pokemon in the metagame with a STAB boost and being able to adapt to your stronger offensive side. The limiting factor of it is that it does take up a valuable moveslot and it also is only 80 base power. This makes the viable pool of Tera Blast users slightly limited, but there are still a good amount of users overall. We can say that Tera Blast alone as a concept is not the most overwhelming thing we have seen and may be tolerable in a vacuum as of now, but there are still lots of new applications of it popping up that give Tera Blast potential to get scarier by the day in the metagame.

Overall, the main selling point for an outright ban would be that the sudden type shifting is seen as an uncompetitive element of the metagame, thus making the premise of the core mechanic banworthy. It is currently yet to be seen as to if the playerbase views this dynamic as competitive or uncompetitive, but we will use this thread to assess that matter and guide us in proceeding.

Probably will be the best option tbh, and more consistent with Smogon tiering philosophy as of recent (i.e. Dynamax ban). Banning a generational mechanic is of course very controversial and will leave many unhappy, but Smogon still put its foot down for the sake of competiveness last gen despite the outrage. Community growth and interest is an understandable concern, but think about how much bigger Smogon could theoretically be if we also didn't ban everyone's favorite Pokemon or items from Overused. There will always be people shunned by this (I know a lot of people who were upset when Megas were being banned left and right at the beginning of XY) and I think Smogon ought to want to attract like-minded people looking for tiers with the best competitive balance possible, and "Complex" rulesets should usually be avoided as per Smogon's tiering policy and tradition, and for good reason as complex rulesets can be seen as arbitrary if not causing a reduction in accessibility And the thing about all of this is, while it is and can be frustrating at times to not be able to play with a mechanic or pokemon in a certain tier, especially if one really thinks it is balanced in said tier, the reality is Smogon still has at least one avenue where these things can be used (Ubers, Anything Goes, or if people really want and resources are available, can make an OM with Tera available in a clone of the OU (or other ) metagames). There's also just challenging people to a private battle with your own rulesets established, worst case scenario.



I think Tera is a cool design in principle, just very poorly balanced, and I think the best way to balance it would probably need a modification of cartridge mechanics to some extent.

 

[Joseph Gomes]

I'm worried Pokemon is becoming basically unplayable competitively, as the generations keep passing.

It's very obvious that most mechanics introduced by GameFreak heavily favour offense. That's what happened with Dynamax and Z-moves, after all. Tera is a very fun mechanic, but let's be honest, I'm not sure how many people want an ExtremeKiller Arceus that formed from a dragon/flying type to roam freely in OU. Or Rage Fist Annihilape with hazards cleared.

I never thought I would miss the days of mega evolutions.

Mega evolution is what started this nonsense. I only miss them because of the cool design.

 

[escarlata]

Honestly, the point of "what can switch into RM" is more a question of RM. And with metagames with way, way more options opting to ban RM? It's kinda funny to me that that is the basis of the entire counter-argument.

Just for reference, if you replace all mentions of RM in the discussions with SD Jumpluff, you end up with mostly the same combination of interactions.

Jumpluff suspect test when?

 

[I'm Tapu Bulu]

Mega evolution is what started this nonsense. I only miss them because of the cool design.

Idk but they were by far the most well done concept. There was Mega Latias and Altaria, who could set up on a lot of cores and attempt to sweep thanks some of their awesome defensive attributes (Latias taking zilch from Earthquake, Altaria setting up against other dragon-types, and having Fire Blast to beat Ferrothorn).

Sure, some of them were stupid, but I don't think the concept itself was flawed. Mega Lucario was probably the dumbest one because to me it felt like they created it for people who love Ash betrayal fanfics. It was stupidly powerful, faster than the majority of the metagame, and could set up easily thanks to its steel typing. It even came with Extreme Speed and Bullet Punch, so not even hyperoffense was safe.

Terastallizing on the other hand basically takes the game out of your control, the way it is right now. I would however keep it with the team preview clause at least until Pokemon Home.

 

[Negative Charge]

One tera that is announced at team preview seems like a nice compromise that I haven’t really seen any substantive rebuttal to yet?

 

[Joseph Gomes]

Idk but they were by far the most well done concept. There was Mega Latias and Altaria, who could set up on a lot of cores and attempt to sweep thanks some of their awesome defensive attributes (Latias taking zilch from Earthquake, Altaria setting up against other dragon-types, and having Fire Blast to beat Ferrothorn).

Sure, some of them were stupid, but I don't think the concept itself was flawed. Mega Lucario was probably the dumbest one because to me it felt like they created it for people who love Ash betrayal fanfics. It was stupidly powerful, faster than the majority of the metagame, and could set up easily thanks to its steel typing. It even came with Extreme Speed and Bullet Punch, so not even hyperoffense was safe.

I just dislike it set a precedence for generational gimmicks, which is now plaguing the pokemon competitive meta.

I like quite a few mega actually. I wouldn't mind if Megas were permanent and new megas were introduced each new Gen. But that's not how it transpired sadly

 

[I'm Tapu Bulu]

I just dislike it set a precedence for generational gimmicks, which is now plaguing the pokemon competitive meta.

I like quite a few mega actually. I wouldn't mind if Megas were permanent and new megas were introduced each new Gen. But that's not how it transpired sadly

Because pokemon is ultimately a game for kids and the smogon and competitive community in general is probably 129th or something on their concern list.

They make Mega Evos, Z-moves etc. as ways to market their games. It's more convenient for GameFreak to know children can enjoy beating up everyone with Mega Lucario.

They market them something like "Fairy-types keep bullying your Hydreigon? We have the solution! Teach your Hydreigon Flash Cannon and embrace the way your Pokemon becomes a steel-type through this mysterious mechanic!"

And it seems it's working so far, as from what I've heard Scarlet and Violet surpassed 10 million sales. They're more concerned with selling Eevee merch than make Terastallize a balanced concept.

I'm sure that as more stuff gets banned, Gen 9 will ultimately become more playable. Maybe we find a way to utilize Tera as a defensive weapon, as some people earlier suggested

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

People out here with guns drawn on Tera like:

The "unpredictability" of Terastal mainly comes from the fact that the meta hasn't settled down enough yet for people to be able to guess what mon is the most likely Tera pick.
Once it does, it'll be about as predictable as Z-Moves were. Sure, you can get got by some bait set, but that's why they exist in the first place and they have their own drawbacks.

I've seen people asking for it to be axed as soon as it was revealed, y'all are tripping with this nonsense.

With that said, if after a couple months it turns out to be too strong and unpredictable, testing out "Showing Tera on Team Preview" is the correct course of action imo.

The nuclear option should always be the last thing to ever be considered.
Tera is not like Dynamax where even if you knew that it was coming, it was so strong that you couldn't do anything about it.

 

[Porygon2Bandit]

Overall I think Finchinator made interesting proposals to the community about Terastallization. But I also think most of them are iffy if not bad options in order to deal with the mechanics. Like I said earlier, we could surely pick "Showing Tera type at Team Preview" but will it remove the inherent issue about Terastallization ? I don't think so. And the same sadly applies to other choices we have. Like "Banning Tera Blast" is in my opinion as useful as doing nothing about the Terastallization issue. There isn't a lot of Pokemon which are using this move to begin with, people rarely Terastallize their mons to use this attack but more so to benefit of the typing change in order to take a hit from the opponen in order to retaliate back or to benefit the "Adaptability" buff the mechanic provides. I also think "Limiting the amount of Pokemon on any given team that have access to possibly Terastallize during a battle" or "Limiting Tera typing to previously existing STAB types" are poor options or and an admission of weakness from our part that we can't really deal with Terastallization without making complex arrangements just in order to keep the new mechanic usable.

So what's the 'inherent issue with Terastallization' (specifically as it relates to "tera types revealed at team preview")? The guess on the turn they choose to use it?

Because there were situations like this in 7 where you would knock off a mon, nothing comes off, and know that had to be a ZMove crystal. Now, if you're slower, you HAVE to play that game of "do they use it" all the same. The difference to me seems to be that speed no longer invalidates the question. If you were faster than a mon with a Zmove, you could shrug and say "who cares, it dies before" whereas now the type change could potentially change a damage number. Assuming you knew which type it was, couldn't you also easily math out "will they use it" by just checking to see if it causes a KO to do so?

 

[Askeia]

Defensive megas only saw consistent use on stall/defensive teams. Offensive and Balanced team comps almost always opted for offensive megas, because the increased power was worth more in more situations. I'm using megas as a way to paint the picture that limiting it to one mon per team selected at building removes the identity of Tera and reduces the counterplay by nerfing defensive Tera mons, since they're less high percentage options than something like Tera Flying RM.

RM Teras(flying) and sets up, you don't and click Tomb, killing.
RM Teras(flying) and clicks Acro, killing Loom.
RM Teras(steel) and sets up, you don't and click Tomb, then Mach Punch, killing.
RM Teras(steel) and clicks Iron Head, doing about 70%, you click Tomb then Mach Punch, killing.
RM Teras(f) you Tera(rock) and Tomb, killing as they set up.
RM Teras(f) you Tera(rock) and take the Acro, killing with Tomb.
RM Teras(s) you Tera(r) and Tomb into MP as they set up, killing.
RM Teras(s) as you Tera(r) and Tomb, losing Loom.

Of the 8 main options RM can do, non-tera Tomb is the one that wins you the interaction most often. If Rock Tera Loom catches on and RM starts running EQ, then you adapt the set. Like you should do as the meta adapts anyway.

This leads to more skillful play being rewarded, as your teambuilding needs to be better and you need to play better. Both players can win through building their team better and playing it better. Plus Breloom is far from the only option you could use for RM. I was using it due to it being what the person I was replying to was. You can build your checks to deal with the mon and their common Teras. As the meta develops, what each mon uses changes to adapt to it, leading to more adaptation. Terastalizing is a mechanic with an EXTREMELY high skill ceiling.

What do you mean by this? How is knowing more about the meta not going to help in these scenarios?

There are 8 options for you, but only 2 options for them because they are aware of their own Tera type.
If they are Flying, they Acro you.
If they are Steel, they switch out.

If you Tera Rock, you win 50% of the time, and the other 50% of the time you just made a Tera Rock Breloom, grats.
If you don't Tera Rock, you don't get anything 100% of the time.

You have to play 4D chess to win 25% of the time.
Your opponent just needs to decide to switch or not.

The odds are stacked against you.

 

[theravenandtheram]

Hide

This is a drastic change because that is not how the mechanic works on cart. This turns the mechanic into something that it is not that is strictly against smogon's policies.

Even if a mega was low tier, except Audino, the drastic change in power and playstyle turned games, even if you knew it was coming. Using Tyranitar as an example, Sand teams would run Mega Ttar just in case the weather was changed so they could reactivate sand stream without switching. Charizard could technically coin flip if it was X or Y and change how moves were picked. Thinking all 6 pokemon on a team are a threat from terastilizing is lunacy. Support mons nearly never terastilize and would/could only in last ditch attempts at a losing game from my expiernce. Just because a Pokemon wants can become one of 18 types doesn't mean all those 18 types are actually good for it. You can quickly figure out just by playing a few games what tera types work for a mon and what don't or are weaker options. Mega's completely defined a meta game so i don't know how you can say they aren't comparable. There were next too no teams in that era that were good if they didn't run a mega. In fact, there are often times/games players don't need to terastilize because there tera type poses a bad match up.

I think it's equally as much of a "gentleman's agreement" as solutions like "You can only Tera into a STAB type", "You can only choose one mon before the game to Tera", and similar restrictions.

 

[pyramidhead]

I think that such a drastic decision like banning an entire core mechanic should only be done with vast community support, and as we can clearly see with how controversial this subject has been, there is not sufficient support for a full ban. I can only hope that we don't come to another awful and stale meta where everyone has to pretend it's better this way because it's in the competitive communities best interest. Let's listen to the community this time around.

For the record, d-max sucked and gen 8 was gonna suck no matter what. But gen 9 doesn't have to.

 

[ThitOneGuy]

There are 8 options for you, but only 2 options for them because they are aware of their own Tera type.
If they are Flying, they Acro you.
If they are Steel, they switch out.

If you Tera Rock, you win 50% of the time, and the other 50% of the time you just made a Tera Rock Breloom, grats.
If you don't Tera Rock, you don't get anything 100% of the time.

You have to play 4D chess to win 25% of the time.
Your opponent just needs to decide to switch or not.

The odds are stacked against you.

If they are Steel and attack on the turn you Rock Tera, they've oneshot your Loom and removed your Tera from the future.

If you don't Tera, and they Tera Acro, you know their set and can bring in another mon to kill from there. Plus you keep your Tera for the future. You disregarding options that can give you a better position is reductive at best. Especially since if they switch, they lose their Booster Energy boost, weakening their mon in the future.

 

[Hiddenfreezer]

I have an odd suspicion about Terra - can it simply be that have too many high BST mons in Ou? I will not be surprised if Terra in UU is balanced

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

So what's the 'inherent issue with Terastallization' (specifically as it relates to "tera types revealed at team preview")? The guess on the turn they choose to use it?

And that guess is very risky.

You're already losing some health getting in if you're not running Boots. Then if you delay a Tera, you're really hoping that the opponent will switch out instead of just smacking you with a safer move, otherwise, your HP might be too low for the type baiting to actually work.

People who want a Tera sweep will likely Tera as soon as they switch in the mon to get the most out of it. Knowing that, and seeing usual suspects like, idfk, Roaring Moon on Team Preview allow you to prepare for it a bit better.

That's why I said people are jumping the gun on this.