Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

[Pluim]

Tera in my eyes should be restricted if any action is going to take place. I personally think tera should be outright banned however a restriction at the moment makes far more sense for the time being as it allows people to test and evaluate the meta to see if it COULD possibly be kept around, as well as potentially reveal the impact of tera more clearly.

Firstly, it is disingenuious to claim that No ban is the only way forward just looking at the survey. Not accounting all the skewing and all that; I won't be adding much to that conversation, but the majority of people do believe action should be taken on tera in some capacity. The point has been made that you shouldn't group restrictions with no ban, but I would say that if it were no ban vs ban, and after enough is said and done with the new mechanic, most people would vote a ban. This is as the meta as it stands is inherently pretty centralising and has too many broken pokemon powered up by tera, and most people voting restrict see that. People also who would vote ban could also jump ship to restriction, like myself, who just wants to determine if we can keep it in any form. There are certain many many people who have done this to analyse the effect of a restriction, as opposed to believing tera is okay but then voting restriction... So, if anything, lumping Ban + Restriction isn't an out there claim to make as it brings up a good point and an effect of adding an in-between option.


The main restrictions I see floating around are: Stab Tera ban, Non stab tera ban, tera preview and only allowing 1 pokemon to tera.

- Stab tera ban won't fix the core part of the issue; being that offensive pokemon can completely negate their usual counter-play and get rid of any pokemon that would stop a sweep. Espathra, Annihilape, Roaring Moon, Dragonite and potentially Dragapult potentially down the line are still going to do what they do. The only pokemon I see currently being impacted is Chi-Yu and Chien-Pao, the former being busted regardless in my eyes. The point is, this wouldn't solve many issues regarding tera at all and will only highlight how important non-stab tera shakes up the meta game, for the worse.

- Non-Stab tera ban is the only way forward I see truly working besides an outright ban. It stops the core part of the problem, enabling pokemon to obtain free coverage on whatever they so please, and combats pokemon that otherwise probably aren't broken such as Annihilape, Dnite, Espathra, and plenty of other pokemon I mentioned already and some I haven't.

- Tera typing at preview won't change the fact that multiple pokemon are still broken. Sure, it will get rid of the mind games of constantly worrying about "what if they tera dark and then kill my pokemon completely randomly", but I'd argue that it is still there in some form: when the opponents tera type is a major factor. Besides, showing the tera type of pokemon I listed under my last point aren't going to magically stop them from being broken at all. Sure, it is somewhat limiting, but most people expect, let's say, tera flying on Roaring Moon which wont stop it from wreaking havoc.

- The last option follows the same reasoning as the prior point. Only now, the benefit about using tera preview is gone, being that it limits 'random' super-plays that completely change the outcome of the game using unpredictable teraing that loses a vital pokemon on your team. It does get rid of the fact that different pokemon can tera and you have to play around saving counters to all of them, which is a valid point, however this is partly due to the fact that so many pokemon still would be broken with tera such as Espathra. This is also likely a partial fix that doesn't resolve many issues already stated with tera as a mechanic.

All other options I don't see working unless there is a merging of 2 restrictions. If one is suggested that is well able to stop/limit pokemon like Annihilape going from an alright OU pokemon to being likely broken (debatable, just an example) without being too complex then feel free to suggest one.

One last point is the option of creating an alternate ladder. I don't see this happening as it would not only divide the community but would also require additional moderating and counselling, as well as forums which just sounds like a nightmare.
However an OM I could see being created instead which wouldn't be as dividing and would make it much smaller and easier to manage.
If things come to it and the community cannot decide on an option, maybe this has to be looked at, but for now if we can come to an agreement by getting an idea on the meta-game post restriction or ban, then that is the far better option.

All things considered, I conclude that an initially a ban to Non-Stab tera would allow us to get more of an understanding of if tera itself is the problem and we should ban it entirely or not. If at that point tera is still overpowering it can get the boot.

 

[Skyuchi]

Tera in my eyes should be restricted if any action is going to take place. I personally think tera should be outright banned however a restriction at the moment makes far more sense for the time being as it allows people to test and evaluate the meta to see if it COULD possibly be kept around, as well as potentially reveal the impact of tera more clearly.

Firstly, it is disingenuious to claim that No ban is the only way forward just looking at the survey. Not accounting all the skewing and all that; I won't be adding much to that conversation, but the majority of people do believe action should be taken on tera in some capacity. The point has been made that you shouldn't group restrictions with no ban, but I would say that if it were no ban vs ban, and after enough is said and done with the new mechanic, most people would vote a ban. This is as the meta as it stands is inherently pretty centralising and has too many broken pokemon powered up by tera, and most people voting restrict see that. People also who would vote ban could also jump ship to restriction, like myself, who just wants to determine if we can keep it in any form. There are certain many many people who have done this to analyse the effect of a restriction, as opposed to believing tera is okay but then voting restriction... So, if anything, lumping Ban + Restriction isn't an out there claim to make as it brings up a good point and an effect of adding an in-between option.


The main restrictions I see floating around are: Stab Tera ban, Non stab tera ban, tera preview and only allowing 1 pokemon to tera.

- Stab tera ban won't fix the core part of the issue; being that offensive pokemon can completely negate their usual counter-play and get rid of any pokemon that would stop a sweep. Espathra, Annihilape, Roaring Moon, Dragonite and potentially Dragapult potentially down the line are still going to do what they do. The only pokemon I see currently being impacted is Chi-Yu and Chien-Pao, the former being busted regardless in my eyes. The point is, this wouldn't solve many issues regarding tera at all and will only highlight how important non-stab tera shakes up the meta game, for the worse.

- Non-Stab tera ban is the only way forward I see truly working besides an outright ban. It stops the core part of the problem, enabling pokemon to obtain free coverage on whatever they so please, and combats pokemon that otherwise probably aren't broken such as Annihilape, Dnite, Espathra, and plenty of other pokemon I mentioned already and some I haven't.

- Tera typing at preview won't change the fact that multiple pokemon are still broken. Sure, it will get rid of the mind games of constantly worrying about "what if they tera dark and then kill my pokemon completely randomly", but I'd argue that it is still there in some form: when the opponents tera type is a major factor. Besides, showing the tera type of pokemon I listed under my last point aren't going to magically stop them from being broken at all. Sure, it is somewhat limiting, but most people expect, let's say, tera flying on Roaring Moon which wont stop it from wreaking havoc.

- The last option follows the same reasoning as the prior point. Only now, the benefit about using tera preview is gone, being that it limits 'random' super-plays that completely change the outcome of the game using unpredictable teraing that loses a vital pokemon on your team. It does get rid of the fact that different pokemon can tera and you have to play around saving counters to all of them, which is a valid point, however this is partly due to the fact that so many pokemon still would be broken with tera such as Espathra. This is also likely a partial fix that doesn't resolve many issues already stated with tera as a mechanic.

All other options I don't see working unless there is a merging of 2 restrictions. If one is suggested that is well able to stop/limit pokemon like Annihilape going from an alright OU pokemon to being likely broken (debatable, just an example) without being too complex then feel free to suggest one.

One last point is the option of creating an alternate ladder. I don't see this happening as it would not only divide the community but would also require additional moderating and counselling, as well as forums which just sounds like a nightmare.
However an OM I could see being created instead which wouldn't be as dividing and would make it much smaller and easier to manage.
If things come to it and the community cannot decide on an option, maybe this has to be looked at, but for now if we can come to an agreement by getting an idea on the meta-game post restriction or ban, then that is the far better option.

All things considered, I conclude that an initially a ban to Non-Stab tera would allow us to get more of an understanding of if tera itself is the problem and we should ban it entirely or not. If at that point tera is still overpowering it can get the boot.

Banning non-stab tera would skew things rediculously in favor of offense while basically removing the main selling point of the mechanic. You'd basically just be saying 'one of your offensive Pokemon can get Adaptability as a second ability, go wild'. If what you want is offense vs offense every single game, sure, but you really remove balance and what's left of stall from being things entirely if you do that. I don't see what that would add to the metagame whatsoever vs an outright ban.
It'd be Z-moves on crack and we barely even survived the Z-move meta as is.

 

[flamewizzy21]

Hello,

I'm not a good player, the best ELO i got was around 1300 and it was many years ago, but i still enjoy watching competitive pokemon matches. I'm more often on the quiet side of discussion, and i know i'm not qualified to say what's overpowered and what's not. I've seen a lot of discussion about Terracrystalisation, should it be banned or not, how should it be nerfed. Seeing the opinion of the best players (which are often right, when it comes to balancing a competitive game), Terra is obviously overpowered as it is. But there's one solution I haven't seen anywhere i've looked and which could be good :

Ban Terracrystal+Item on the same Pokemon.

I may seems like a complexe ban at first but it's not. What it means is only Pokemon who don't carry an Item can terra. It doesn't break the game as it's something your could play on a Switch in S/V, and it's not that much more complexe that revealing every terratype to the adverse player before the match for example.

There are 3 issues with Terra from what i could read (in that order) : unpredictability, defensive utility, offensive utility.

→ unpredictability : if terra is only avalable without an Item, then terra isn't a « trump card » anymore, it's a « set », you would run terra like you run choice scarf, specs, leftovers, etc... So if you encounter let's say a Dragapult you can check if he isn't boots, cause it tooked your hazards, neither leftovers cause they didn't activated, nore Band/Specs cause of the damages dealt → so you know it's probably terra and you can play around it. If you see an Item on the mon, you know it's not gonna terra and you're safe. With this, Terra loses a lot of unpredictability. There would still be the terra type unknown but i think it's much more manageable.

→ Defensive utility : The most obvious : terra would means, no boots, no lefto, no eviolite, no AV etc... so the benefice of changing typing now comes with a price. No Lefto when almost every recovery moves were nerfed, and no Boots when hazard stacking is that powerful etc...

→ Offensive utility : Well same as defensive utility, if you terra for double stab then you don't get Specs/Band/Life orb on top of it, You can't boost both your speed with scarf AND your damage with terra. And if you terra for third stab, then you loose on potentials bonus on your main stab.

I've seens people complains that Terra wasn't an object you had to carry, like mega-stones or Z moves, and this solution basically makes it a pseudo-object. You obviously can't trick it or remove it with knock off but it was the same for mega-stone/Z moves. And there is almost no pokemon with knock off anyway in gen 9 (for now) so not that impacful overhall.

Maybe this solution is stupid and all, but I think it worth listening to. As i said, i'm not a very good player, but i heard and listened to what good player said. And i'm open to every criticisme

To expand on this idea, a better version of this might be:

Clause: “Only pokemon holding a tera shard can terastalize.”

I’m not sure if I like this restriction, but I think it is a more practical version of “Limit to one designated tera user on the team.”, which was one of the most popular restrictions. It would also be actually somewhat enforceable on cartridge (or any situation without communication).

I think this restricts your ability to use Tera flexibly (ie on any pokemon at any time), while making Tera and choice items mutually exclusive. This would make you really commit to a specific pokemon on your team being the Tera user.

 

[Bugboy]

I want to propose a concept for the suspect test that I believe has some validity. Let me know your thoughts and if my logic makes sense.

Consider the fact below:

Tera as a mechanic was competitively balanced/designed around the opponent having full knowledge of a team’s tera types.

With high likelihood the mechanic was designed around tera team preview for competitive use. This is obvious based on the open team sheets used in official SV vgc tournaments. I believe, based on this, the suspect test should present the mechanic in the competitive context that it was designed to exist in. This means implementing the Tera on team preview concept on showdown prior to the suspect test’s start. The value of this concept is the following:

1. We are judging the mechanic in the competitive context it was designed to be experienced in.
2. There is an argument that this is how the ladder should have looked from the get-go if we had full knowledge of the vgc ruleset from the start of the generation.
3. We allow players to have experience in both how the meta feels with (during suspect) and without Tera team preview (pre-suspect).
4. We can allow for a more accurate vote as to whether this concept works for the meta after suspect testing.

 

[TheCounterTeamer]

you literally just described what i proposed dude...

first vote: should we act on tera, yes or no
second vote: ranked choice on the options ( https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ )

i think you missed the point of my post.

We have the results of the responses to our first SV OU tiering survey up here!

It seems increasingly likely that we are approaching the first suspect of generation, and the subject of it is set to be Terastallization. As alluded to previously, the plan is to make it a two-prompt suspect (it will likely be a single-time vote, but in order to complete that vote, you have to respond to two simple questions rather than just one). We feel this creative and novel solution best captures the unique situation we are attempting to tier, but also acknowledge that there is no outright perfect solution either.

If the playerbase votes on taking action, which will likely require over 60% support to begin with, then the current options the council are considering for tiering action are as follows:

• Outright banning Terastallization
• Limiting Terastallization to a single user per team
• Showing Tera type at Team Preview
• Limiting Terastallization to previously held STAB types only

We will likely adopt ranked-choice voting for the second prompt's results in order to generate the most specifically fair verdict that represents the sentiments of those who obtain suspect requirements.

Please note that this is NOT set-in-stone and we continue to discuss matters so we can serve our community in the best way we know possible. Thank you.

I would like to see something, and I also have a question regarding it. I would like to see the suspect vote split into there categories, Ban, Restrict, or No Ban. This would ensure that all options get a fair shake at getting voted on. Currently, a 2-part voting system would most likely result in Ban being voted, into Restrict. However, looking at high ladder opinion, the opinion looks split like so: 38% favor no action, 33% favor restriction, and 29% favor a full ban.

Doing a Ranked-choice voting for the first vote is the best course of action, due to split in community on what action to do.

Going to add in that there still should be two parts, but only if Restriction wins. Also, a supermajority for a 3 choice vote would be 55%. I’d say a ranked choice voting would be the best course of action for a suspect test. You cannot lump Restrict in with any side, due to it being able to be seen either way. While yes, 62% of people want action, 71% of people don’t want Tera banned, so you cannot combine them in any way.

 

[Finchinator]

I would like to see something, and I also have a question regarding it. I would like to see the suspect vote split into there categories, Ban, Restrict, or No Ban. This would ensure that all options get a fair shake at getting voted on. Currently, a 2-part voting system would most likely result in Ban being voted, into Restrict. However, looking at high ladder opinion, the opinion looks split like so: 38% favor no action, 33% favor restriction, and 29% favor a full ban.

Doing a Ranked-choice voting for the first vote is the best course of action, due to split in community on what action to do.

Going to add in that there still should be two parts, but only if Restriction wins. Also, a supermajority for a 3 choice vote would be 55%. I’d say a ranked choice voting would be the best course of action for a suspect test.

This would take away the advantage of the status quo — preserving Tera — that current mandates a 60/40> verdict to override in the first vote and it eliminates the ranked choice voting between individual restrictions and banning outright, which there is a lot of desire for given how polarizing some options are and, as you mention, how split the community is.

I understand where you’re coming from, but this is a more complicated, action-prone variant of what we have on the table that I view as a step mostly in the wrong direction.

 

[Pluim]

Banning non-stab tera would skew things rediculously in favor of offense while basically removing the main selling point of the mechanic. You'd basically just be saying 'one of your offensive Pokemon can get Adaptability as a second ability, go wild'. If what you want is offense vs offense every single game, sure, but you really remove balance and what's left of stall from being things entirely if you do that. I don't see what that would add to the metagame whatsoever vs an outright ban.
It'd be Z-moves on crack and we barely even survived the Z-move meta as is.

How is removing non stab tera any worse for balance/stall than keeping it? It tones down many threats such as Roaring Moon, Espathra, and the ape, so how does it buff offence? Defensive tera typing is and will likely be worse for a while so the effect on it wouldn't nearly be as hurtful to it as offence. Infact as a balance player myself, I don't particularly enjoy this offensive meta game but I'm not going to bring that in. I don't see why you are bringing this offensive meta game into the equation when I am not saying anything that propitiates it. If anything I'm making it worse which potentially leads to it being banned outright.

Also why do you bring up Z-Moves? It's not like I'm saying that stab tera should be allowed, I even said that I wanted a complete tera ban, I just said that it would make more sense to restrict at the moment and see what happens. I agree with you, running basically adaptability is over powered, but removing non stab helps solve the issue and lets us evaluate while seeing a meta without it as opposed to imagining.

 

[Pluim]

I want to propose a concept for the suspect test that I believe has some validity. Let me know your thoughts and if my logic makes sense.

Consider the fact below:

Tera as a mechanic was competitively balanced/designed around the opponent having full knowledge of a team’s tera types.

With high likelihood the mechanic was designed around tera team preview for competitive use. This is obvious based on the open team sheets used in official SV vgc tournaments. I believe, based on this, the suspect test should present the mechanic in the competitive context that it was designed to exist in. This means implementing the Tera on team preview concept on showdown prior to the suspect test’s start. The value of this concept is the following:

1. We are judging the mechanic in the competitive context it was designed to be experienced in.
2. There is an argument that this is how the ladder should have looked from the get-go if we had full knowledge of the vgc ruleset from the start of the generation.
3. We allow players to have experience in both how the meta feels with (during suspect) and without Tera team preview (pre-suspect).
4. We can allow for a more accurate vote as to whether this concept works for the meta after suspect testing.

From what I've heard, as I'm not a VGC player myself, team sheets may also be due to people with connections being able to find out opposing sets easier than people without, thus gaining an advantage, especially if you play that person later into a tournament. I agree that we have to experience a meta with certain restrictions first though. Could be wrong about the VGC stuff but it makes much more sense.

 

[TheCounterTeamer]

This would take away the advantage of the status quo — preserving Tera — that current mandates a 60/40> verdict to override in the first vote and it eliminates the ranked choice voting between individual restrictions and banning outright, which there is a lot of desire for given how polarizing some options are and, as you mention, how split the community is.

I understand where you’re coming from, but this is a more complicated, action-prone variant of what we have on the table that I view as a step mostly in the wrong direction.

Thank you for the quick response, quite appreciated. I’m not sure I made my point correctly, given this response, so I do want to give this one more shot. Currently, by the survey, Pro-ban/Restrict has a slim 62% difference. This would lead to restriction, and would make Anti-ban, who has the majority in the survey, the last choice. I don’t know what a good choice for this would be, but I would prefer to attempt to allow the community majority to come through. We shall see what the suspect actually is, and I appreciate your transparency, but I would like to see a method that would allow the majority to come to the conclusion.

 

[Skyuchi]

How is removing non stab tera any worse for balance/stall than keeping it? It tones down many threats such as Roaring Moon, Espathra, and the ape, so how does it buff offence? Defensive tera typing is and will likely be worse for a while so the effect on it wouldn't nearly be as hurtful to it as offence. Infact as a balance player myself, I don't particularly enjoy this offensive meta game but I'm not going to bring that in. I don't see why you are bringing this offensive meta game into the equation when I am not saying anything that propitiates it. If anything I'm making it worse which potentially leads to it being banned outright.

Also why do you bring up Z-Moves? It's not like I'm saying that stab tera should be allowed, I even said that I wanted a complete tera ban, I just said that it would make more sense to restrict at the moment and see what happens. I agree with you, running basically adaptability is over powered, but removing non stab helps solve the issue and lets us evaluate while seeing a meta without it as opposed to imagining.

Go into the calc and run some math on choiced wallbreakers with Adaptability. It gets honestly disgusting.
252+ Atk Choice Band Roaring Moon Crunch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Corviknight: 212-250 (53 - 62.5%) -- 99.6% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
He can do this under the sun for a Proto boost to make it even more insane.
It's even worse with Chien-Pao or Chi-Yu, but they already tera their own STABs all the time anyway.

Then take away the fact stall/balance can turn one of their walls Fairy. You have insane offensive Dragon/Dark threats with basically no Fairies to answer them.
I'm a balance player too and my fairy Skeledirge is often the only thing holding my team together.
I bring up Z-moves because the same level of insane wallbreaking power was seen back then, although at least it was only once per game so you'd only get a KO on one of their mons from them.

 

[Finchinator]

Thank you for the quick response, quite appreciated. I’m not sure I made my point correctly, given this response, so I do want to give this one more shot. Currently, by the survey, Pro-ban/Restrict has a slim 62% difference. This would lead to restriction, and would make Anti-ban, who has the majority in the survey, the last choice. I don’t know what a good choice for this would be, but I would prefer to attempt to allow the community majority to come through. We shall see what the suspect actually is, and I appreciate your transparency, but I would like to see a method that would allow the majority to come to the conclusion.

I don’t see how the current proposal doesn’t allow for it and how your proposal suddenly does moreso.

 

[Pluim]

Go into the calc and run some math on choiced wallbreakers with Adaptability. It gets honestly disgusting.
252+ Atk Choice Band Roaring Moon Crunch vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Corviknight: 212-250 (53 - 62.5%) -- 99.6% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
He can do this under the sun for a Proto boost to make it even more insane.
It's even worse with Chien-Pao or Chi-Yu, but they already tera their own STABs all the time anyway.

Then take away the fact stall/balance can turn one of their walls Fairy. You have insane offensive Dragon/Dark threats with basically no Fairies to answer them.
I'm a balance player too and my fairy Skeledirge is often the only thing holding my team together.
I bring up Z-moves because the same level of insane wallbreaking power was seen back then, although at least it was only once per game so you'd only get a KO on one of their mons from them.

Then we have to decide whether the mon is broken or the mechanic. If many occurences like this happen then we ban the mechanic. Again, I do believe that tera is broken, but it is easier to see when we actually play with it rather than debating to ban or not to ban without accounting for restrictions. It would also be more sensical for the comminity to not have as many people whining about how tera is fun and we just had to restrict it if we actually look at that scenario.

 

[Ibaragi]

One thing we need to remember is that no fix to Tera, not even Banning the mechanic entirely, will free all of the most problematic of the pokemons we currently have in suspect-territory: arguments that claim that X Restriction wouldn't work on X Pokemon aren't conclusive to judge the Restriction itself. We will, most likely, be getting a bunch of bans out of these problematic pokemons regardless of what we do here and now. No tiering action will solve this right away, and we will have to spend quite some time discussing and suspect testing different things no matter what.

Home Pokemons are also not an argument. Any analysis or opinion built on X or Y Home Pokemon becoming broken by Tera is theoretic at best; Espathra is UU because no one noticed how broken it could be the first week or so of the game which affected its usage stats, and Roaring Moon and Iron Valiant were included into the "In The Radar" preliminary list by the council as potentially broken at the same time as Flutter Mane, and now the former is not even within the Top 5 of problematic pokes (although close enough and can see it getting banned eventually) and Iron Valiant is seen as perfectly fine for now. And we all know that Houndstone is gonna get freed in exchange for Last Respects when Basculegion comes out, but not one second earlier no matter how "obvious" it may be.
Point being, we can think about it all we want, but it's not a fruitful discussion point and won't reach any conclusions on Pokemons that are simply not here and we cannot test right now. "Tera will become more broken with Home" is a reasonable thought, but we cannot take a preemptive full ban on something we don't have practical data about, nor use it as a valid argument until it actually happens.

As for why do people (including myself, btw) want to keep Tera, it's definitely not because "it's simply on the cartridge and we need to be close to it", "because it's marketed", or because "GF has brainwashed all of us into submission". I understand it can have its flaws, but it's a very deep mechanic that makes you consider your pokemons weaknesses on team building, make decisions on what Tera to set it to to either strengthen its fortes, cover its weaknesses or check a pokemon it couldn't. Then it also encourages understanding the opponents pokemon to think on what would be their option, the current state of the game to better determine which side would get a bigger advantage from Tera now, and so on.
It's a mechanic with MANY layers of complexity that makes playing around it and trying to understand its potential a very satisfying experience, which could be simplified as "fun", sure, but it is done so in a purely competitive way. This kind and level of complexity and decision making is pretty much the back and bone of Pokemon as a game and sport: the hundreds of pokemons to choose from, the thousands of moves that exist and require being understood (knowing who learns which to some degree, even), the dozens of items with competitive effects... and the in-battle aspect of it is no less reminiscent of predicting enemy sets and timed switches. And THEN there's the layer of adapting to it after the fact; Tera doesn't just let you check pokemons you couldn't before, it can leave you VULNERABLE to pokemons you used to check. I wrote on the survey about my favorite case of this when an opponent was forced to Tera-Ground Dondozo to survive Thunderbolt, yet in doing so his entire team run out of options against Chien Pao.
Problem is, Tera offers yet another layer ON TOP of all of the ones already existing in the game, with too many variables to consider simultaneously on a mechanic that can be activated suddenly with no forewarning. Furthermore, it exacerbates the current offensive meta, maybe pushing it too far. But that's not entirely Tera's fault, so to speak; the current OU is just ridiculous in terms of power creep and offense. I cannot say whether it's problematic in lower tiers because UU doesn't really exist as a tier yet (more like a very enjoyable chaos pit), but it felt much more manageable than it is in OU to me at least, Espathra aside.
These are the reasons why I support Tera staying, but understand it causes problems and would accept any result from any suspect: I think most options are fair and have good reasons to be supported, but none is perfect, which is precisely when a consensus needs to be reached. This suspect and the voting that may ensue are NOT a win/lose battle between pro Ban vs Anti-Ban or pro-action vs anti-action. Voting and Suspects are NOT a competition, and winning or losing should not be in anyone's minds when addressing this issue. Leave that for when actually playing the game, please.

---

This is probably not the time to discuss it in full length, but I would like for the Council to consider/voice their opinion on regards of having each lower tier have at least the possibility of enacting Tera if it's not broken in their meta. I understand the issues and complications this implies. I also understand it goes against some of the current site policies in regards to bans in OU. But I do believe that the Tera situation is complicated and exceptional enough to guarantee at least to look again into said policy. Since I believe that Tera being problematic is in great measure due to the power creep that OU is suffering rather than an intrinsic flaw of the mechanic itself, I do consider this worth a though, at the very least.
I'm not a player that is too invested in OU specifically, prefering UU/RU/Mono/Ubers and can't help but feel distressed at the thought of having the mechanic banned everywhere out of what might be a "OU Problem", granted Mono already banned it for obvious reasons (then proceeded to ban Annihilape, Chi yu and Booster Energy even without Tera; not an argument as it's an entirely different meta, but interesting to note). I insist that I understand the situation, just wanted to voice an opinion and worry.

 

[Martin]

From what I've heard, as I'm not a VGC player myself, team sheets may also be due to people with connections being able to find out opposing sets easier than people without, thus gaining an advantage, especially if you play that person later into a tournament. I agree that we have to experience a meta with certain restrictions first though. Could be wrong about the VGC stuff but it makes much more sense.

It has nothing to do with either the competitiveness of the mechanic or outside advantages e.g. scouting advantage. Open team sheets are being used because there is no lockable battle box and, as such, it is the only way to enforce the team lock.

Same reason that they were used in online events last gen.

 

[Pluim]

It has nothing to do with either the competitiveness of the mechanic or outside advantages e.g. scouting advantage. Open team sheets are being used because there is no lockable battle box and, as such, it is the only way to enforce the team lock.

Same reason that they were used in online events last gen.

Ah okay makes sense. Thanks for the response.

 

[Project_Mars]

It has nothing to do with either the competitiveness of the mechanic or outside advantages e.g. scouting advantage. Open team sheets are being used because there is no lockable battle box and, as such, it is the only way to enforce the team lock.

Same reason that they were used in online events last gen.

Team Sheets have been around for several generations but this is the first time your opponents can actually look at them.

 

[Bugboy]

It has nothing to do with either the competitiveness of the mechanic or outside advantages e.g. scouting advantage. Open team sheets are being used because there is no lockable battle box and, as such, it is the only way to enforce the team lock.

Same reason that they were used in online events last gen.

That is not true as far as I understand. It has rarely ever been the case that official in-person vgc tournaments implement open team sheets (which is what is happening in gen 9). This is a new phenomenon clearly influenced by Tera. In-person events have team sheets supplied to the staff to enforce the team lock, whether the team sheets are open and available to all players has nothing to do with that team lock.

 

[KamenOH]

Weird question:

Why do we have to take action now? For the pro-ban or at least pro-restriction side, is it that problematic, and requiring such urgency in a suspect test?

 

[tinyranitar]

One of the problems I keep seeing popping up is the mention that "Fairy-type Tera defensively is a problem". This is true because it invalidates Fairy-type Pokemon which are balanced by not having good enough defensive stats, and it makes Pokemon who are supposed to be balanced by its typing despite have gargantuan defensive stats/amazing defensive ability (i.e. Unaware, Regenerator). This kind of give me an idea.

I have not seen this suggested, but what about banning certain Tera type? Like you can see some very obvious abusers of Tera have similar tera choice, such as Tera Flying Acrobatics, Tera Normal Extremespeed, Tera Fairy defensively, etc. Banning them would limit the options of Tera in those Pokemon, and can open up some very interesting alt built, like Tera Fire Dragonite with Fire Punch to beat Corviknight (under the premise that Flying and Normal Tera are banned).

I agree this is a very band-aid fix and banning defensive Tera would boost offensive Tera and vice versa, but it is an interesting option to consider.

 

[Finchinator]

Weird question:

Why do we have to take action now? For the pro-ban or at least pro-restriction side, is it that problematic, and requiring such urgency in a suspect test?

We waited until the metagame hit a point where there was no longer support for any quickbans (right now) and then found we had ample support for a suspect on Tera, even greater than that of many possibly problematic Pokemon and it is the common thread between many Pokemon that are deemed troublesome.

This coupled with the fact that we are willing to do another test down the line (if needed) to continue to find the best solution if the first test does too much or too little makes now an optimal time to have a suspect test.

 

[TheCounterTeamer]

Voting and Suspects are NOT a competition, and winning or losing should not be in anyone's minds when addressing this issue. Leave that for when actually playing the game, please.

I don’t see how the current proposal doesn’t allow for it and how your proposal suddenly does moreso.

Ouch

I’m definitely not thinking clearly rn (running on 5 hours of sleep will do that) so this probably wasn’t the best time to make a post (or three). I should clear this up. I think figuring out community opinion should be a large part of this, and I do have faith that the community will make the right decision, no matter the situation. I didn’t mean to phrase it as “winning” or “losing” the suspect, I meant to phrase it as whichever the community that can vote wants. Looking at it, I do think that Finch and the council are making the right decision, even if there are some wrong parts (I still think Tera was suspected too fast), I do appreciate the replies.

 

[BobKingOfSeagulls]

While I do think the ultimate reason VGC uses team preview is likely because of the ability for someone to sus out an opponents tera types anyway, I also think that the designers would be aware of this when considering the generational mechanic and so it would be fair to say tera would be designed with team preview in mind.

I also would like to restate my earlier point that I think team preview does remove one of the most problematic elements of tera which is that a team with tera-X can look and act identical to tera-Y until they actually click the button. I like the element of prediction and a sudden "I used my save a turn card" that tera provides, but I dont like how it's very difficult for the opposing player to play defensively or proactively, which is what is happening when you dont know if your opposing espathra is tera fighting or fairy against your Kingambit. I think knowing what options your opponent has removes or at least reduces the inability to play proactively against a potential/predicted tera.

 

[Skyuchi]

One of the problems I keep seeing popping up is the mention that "Fairy-type Tera defensively is a problem". This is true because it invalidates Fairy-type Pokemon which are balanced by not having good enough defensive stats, and it makes Pokemon who are supposed to be balanced by its typing despite have gargantuan defensive stats/amazing defensive ability (i.e. Unaware, Regenerator). This kind of give me an idea.

I have not seen this suggested, but what about banning certain Tera type? Like you can see some very obvious abusers of Tera have similar tera choice, such as Tera Flying Acrobatics, Tera Normal Extremespeed, Tera Fairy defensively, etc. Banning them would limit the options of Tera in those Pokemon, and can open up some very interesting alt built, like Tera Fire Dragonite with Fire Punch to beat Corviknight (under the premise that Flying and Normal Tera are banned).

I agree this is a very band-aid fix and banning defensive Tera would boost offensive Tera and vice versa, but it is an interesting option to consider.

Fairy types do not have bad stats at all my dude. The reason tera Fairy is so good is that the Fairy type itself has weaknesses so insanely niche that the types which are super effective against it are not super effective against much else. What actually genuinely carries Steel or Poison moves, outside Steel and Poison types, unless it's to hit Fairy?
Then factor in you can just not swap into those extremely niche weaknesses, and that's why it's so good.

 

[Kowasabii]

This is probably a very unpopular opinion but hear me out. Recently a massive rule change was announced for VGC where competitors share their team info with their opponent prior to the match, including pokemon, Tera type, moves, and item. This video explains it really well.

My only thought is, I think competitive singles following a similar pattern is a good idea. It takes out a large portion of luck and makes matches more skill based. The only downside is that the surprise factor is eliminated but that can be beneficial as scouting for certain things is less needed.

 

[Bakugames]

This is probably a very unpopular opinion but hear me out. Recently a massive rule change was announced for VGC where competitors share their team info with their opponent prior to the match, including pokemon, Tera type, moves, and item. This video explains it really well.

My only thought is, I think competitive singles following a similar pattern is a good idea. It takes out a large portion of luck and makes matches more skill based. The only downside is that the surprise factor is eliminated but that can be beneficial as scouting for certain things is less needed.

Wait, sorry if I'm being an idiot but do you want all the open team features? I'm not sure if people would be inclined to that, vgc and smogon have complete different ways to play