Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]

Status
Not open for further replies.
also have people considered the benefits of defensive terastalization
yes.

also to make this post not literally one word lol
it's not my job to be the CEO of Pro-Tera, pointing out that said posts exists and that you can look at them is enough

my job is not to sit here as you essentially vent about how tera is killing your babies (pokemon with crazy stats and abilities) while half of the anti-tera arguments start with "Terastilization is really fun"
It is your job to defend your points if you want them to be seen as legitimate. Otherwise, what good reason would there be to even bother posting in the first place?
 

Perish Song

flaunt
is a Tutor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Staff Alumnusis a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
Most of the issues ppl complain are more about on the radar mons.
While this isnt necessarily true, this logic can be applied to almost every problematic thing there once was. If you pass a second placer on a race, you now become the second place. If we get rid of certain Pokemon for being too overpowered under tera, new stuff will become broken. This logic does not even address the actual issue and is just a lazy response.

50/50s are not new to Pokemon, move usage and sets for example can easily become 50/50 and nobody thinks its uncompetitive.
What tera does is far beyond forcing 50/50's, as that term is normally used for a situation with 2 outcomes (A coinflip). Tera's many type changes allows crapload more than that, and WHILE I ACKNOWLEDGE WE NOW HAVE DECIDED SOME KNOWN GOOD TERA TYPES FOR CERTAIN POKEMON THAT ARE ALSO VERY MUCH SO PREDICTABLE, we havent fully explored the lesser good options. An example would help I hope. You have a water type pokemon and you wanna pick a tera type, your natural weaknesses are Electric and Grass. Obviously Dragon/Steel seems like the BEST possible outcomes. Or rather, you may opt to one of Bug, Fire, Flying, Grass, and Poison for Grass attacks and use either Electric / Grass to mitigate Electric weakness. Please stop pretending like tera is easy to predict because people are automatically using the best/most logical tera type because its more convenient.

Tera can and WILL win u games, but it can also lose them.
Dynamax could win or lose you games. Didnt change the fact that it was a broken mechanic.

Ppl still need to adapt, learn, many mons to be released, some bans might eventually happen (ChiYu, Annihilape, Dondozo).
The fact that you think Dondozo is a contender for ban is curious. (Seriously, use Electric-types people. Rotom-W is quite underrated) :blobthinking:

When my opponent terastilizes and surprises me and maybe even wins the game, i dont feel cheated like i do when i miss the hydropump or get crited, i feel proud of my opponent for catching me offguard with such a nice Tech.
This may be the single most stupid comment I've read so far on this thread. Are you actually saying you get proud when you get outplayed?

Currently im playing at around 1600-1700 Elo testing stuff, not high but def shows that i know what i talk about.
1670011769202.png


Nope.
 
there's this really funny fallacy I always see all over these threads and it's the idea that "competitiveness is not subjective"

just saying that something is uncompetitive because an interaction is possible in the game is not an objective statement

it's also not indicative of any deeper meaning.
The pro-tera crowd will dismiss all examples as just bad play. I don't like having to guess as to whether or not I can hit my opponent's pokemon with this attack. And yeah, that might be an uncommon example but it's something you have to have in the back of your mind every single game.

That's not what I call a fun or skillful interaction.

I can use a level 1 Rattata and surprise someone who has never seen that strategy before. It doesn't make me or the strategy good.
 
Query… why not just get objective data on whether it’s worth keeping Tera and non Tera by running an OU with and an OU without. This way people choose what they want, and you get to run Tera for a longer period of time to get a better understanding of how strategy changes

It might tell us what we don’t want to see , and that is that the Tera meta is likely to be wildly more popular. Although it does give an option for a non-Tera meta which can be the default option for competitive situations like tournaments.

Interestingly, we might find both meta games diverse in their own way. For example a Tera meta might make otherwise mediocre Pokémon viable. Whilst a non Tera meta might allow extreme threats that can take advantage of the mechanic able to be used rather than be banned.
 
The pro-tera crowd will dismiss all examples as just bad play. I don't like having to guess as to whether or not I can hit my opponent's pokemon with this attack. And yeah, that might be an uncommon example but it's something you have to have in the back of your mind every single game.

That's not what I call a fun or skillful interaction.

I can use a level 1 Rattata and surprise someone who has never seen that strategy before. It doesn't make me or the strategy good.
nobody to my knowledge on either side of the argument has claimed everything is good plays

bad faith
 
Query… why not just get objective data on whether it’s worth keeping Tera and non Tera by running an OU with and an OU without. This way people choose what they want, and you get to run Tera for a longer period of time to get a better understanding of how strategy changes

It might tell us what we don’t want to see , and that is that the Tera meta is likely to be wildly more popular. Although it does give an option for a non-Tera meta which can be the default option for competitive situations like tournaments.

Interestingly, we might find both meta games diverse in their own way. For example a Tera meta might make otherwise mediocre Pokémon viable. Whilst a non Tera meta might allow extreme threats that can take advantage of the mechanic able to be used
I just wanna say, I know having two OU tiers for one generation is unheard of, particularly from a tournament planning perspective if we’re trying to treat them equally, but I think Tera and No Tera OU would be vastly different, but equally interesting and fun metas. I understand the logistical complaints council has with the idea, but is there really no world where this can happen?
 
It's fairly easy to read when someone is going to Tera, and what they're going to Tera into already. The issues people have with the mechanic almost exclusively stem from a lack of familiarity with it or from a couple mons that abuse it.
ok... but lets say their tera that you think "ah they are gonna tera since they are gonna use it to counter me" doesnt... and its just using as a stab boost and now they haven't tera since no point to and you just lost a mon on a 50/50. But then if ur an offense team and u have to bring in for ex. scizor vs iron valiant and u switch out assuming tera.... lets say they do but sd instead due to expecting a BP and being able to take advantage of it so now an offense team.... on the backfoot because scizor had to switch out assuming a def tera that was going to own it and now the team is in pretty deep shit... Just cuz u can predict the tera doesn't mean the opponent can't also
 
Where is your evidence that any of these takes are true?

Gonna edit in some evidence of my own, but I didn’t want to let a post as toxic as this one just sit and fester.


edit is now in

Point 1 is unprovable as of right now so it can be discarded.

Point 2 is provably wrong. Just because no tiering action has been taken on mons like Dragonite, Roaring Moon, and Chi-Yu yet doesn’t make them balanced.

And we have usage stats out, so idk where you’re going with Point 3. Roaring Moon at #8? You think that would’ve happened in a no-Tera meta? How about Dragonite at #27, higher than mons like Dondozo and Ting-Lu? How about literally every argument about running specific defensive Tera types in order to answer offensive Tera mons? Arguing about how ‘centralizing’ it is can be difficult, but I can at least say with absolute certainty that it has had a MASSIVE impact on the meta.

Also y’all know where you can put this argument. To whoever said this first and put it in people’s minds as a legitimate point in pro-Tera’s favor, I hope the next time you try to microwave something it freezes.
see, the thing about saying "point 2 is false" is that there isn't any evidence that these pokemon are not broken on their own. at best, this point is unprovable for the pro ban argument, at worst it's provable that these pokemon would be broken anyways unless tera was banned frankly

your argument about point 3 is mostly opinion and conjecture, similar as your point 2 counter-argument

i'd again emphasize that we have things we can point to as evidence, because it's provable within this thread: the arguments and opinions of people who are highly experienced players

also, next time you try to use your microwave i hope it works correctly because otherwise, that'd be a waste of money
 
Please stop pretending like tera is easy to predict because people are automatically using the best/most logical tera type because its more convenient.
Echoing this because I don’t want it getting lost in the weeds of a pretty long (and pretty good, not trying to diss you here lol) post. Once we start getting serious high-level play (particularly tournaments), surprising opponents with niche Tera types is sure to be an integral part of the metagame. This is also my main argument against Tera Preview, because I think the Tera guessing game is actually a good point of the mechanic.
 
see, the thing about saying "point 2 is false" is that there isn't any evidence that these pokemon are not broken on their own.
8 generations of OU or lower Dragonite beg to differ

editing this in so I don’t post 3 times in 10 minutes lol
i'd again emphasize that we have things we can point to as evidence, because it's provable within this thread: the arguments and opinions of people who are highly experienced players
Alright, fallacy man. Riddle me this. What, per say, is the definition of the phrase “argumentum ab auctoritate”?
 
Last edited:
I think we need to take a step back and look at the whole reason this thread exists. The goal is to determine whether Tera is uncompetitive, not if it has popular support or you personally like it or don’t like it. I will admit I am somewhat guilty of this myself, but I took a step back to look at the discussion in this way: Is Tera competitive or not. This should be the only question. Competitive means the better player wins more often than not. I personally currently defend Tera not because I particularly like the mechanic (in fact I thought it would be broken pre-release), but because this question of competitiveness has been answered. A Tera metagame, in essence, is a teambuilders meta. Battles are won or lost within the builder more than ever, and building is a skill that is going to be more and more required if Tera stays. Tera does not force 50/50s on every turn as highlighted a lot in previous posts that I might link here later in an edit.

The way I see it currently, people have opinions based off of personal biases and preference as opposed to whether they think the mechanic is competitive or not. I do not think a part of banning a mechanic (or really anything) is if it makes some pokemon stronger than usual. If this was a factor Z-moves would have been banned from Nat Dex long ago. On top of that, only a few pokemon see significant improvements (notably Dragapult, Dragonite, and maybe Annihilape?), and anything else is either broken with or without the mechanic or balanced with or without the mechanic. Were Z-moves banned or Torn-T and Pult? Coversely, was Baton Pass banned because it made Scolipede and Smeargle too strong, or was it banned for being uncompetitve?

In a Tera based meta, the better player arguably wins even more due to knowing how to build with Tera, knowing when to use it in battle, knowing when an opponent is going to use it, and making safer plays. The argument that unexpected Teras cause seemingly cheap wins can be true, yes, but they are typically matchup fishes which have existed for as long as pokemon have. If you are running Tera Fire Breloom, you better have a damn good reason for it. (I’ve run that set it’s pretty good, but needs Tera Blast so it can be matchup fishy, so not to be expected). If your team struggles with a specific threat and you want to beat it, that’s good teambuilding skill. In conclusion to this, Tera types outside of a norm will consistently be more matchup fishy than consistent, and therefor will be seen less at higher levels of play.

In conclusion to my (hopefully last) post here, I hope that you think about how competitiveness works with Tera, and this may swing people to support it. I would love to see the one-liners and attack posts stop, and for everyone to take a step back out of their bubble and look at what has happened in the 2 weeks now that Tera and SV as a whole have had that much time to develop. Opinions can be opinions, but I’d hate to see such a unique mechanic go to waste because of them.

Thanks for listening, y’all.:quagchamppogsire:
 
Objective: to have a competitive metagame, i.e. without features that make it too uncompetitive

scenario: do you preserve the mechanic, and sacrifice a long list of top threats whilst you try to keep the metagame stable, or do you preserve the Pokémon’s, and sacrifice or strip back the mechanic.

Seems obvious to me that there’s no precedent for this, so create one. See how both pan out as seperate metagames.

Just my 2c

basically.. mega Pokémon isn’t a precedent because it couldn’t happen to any Pokémon. Dynamax isn’t precedent either, due to the extreme power given, predictability of the second and third turns and the list of best abusers being known very quickly
 
8 generations of OU or lower Dragonite beg to differ
tiers with almost every defensive Pokemon in good stature that we no longer have or where dragonite didn't have its best ability

(clefable, lando-t, ferrothorn, skarmory, zapdos, etc.)

also i dont think dragonite with tera is broken as of now anyways, and that's an entire other argument for the council/suspect test to decide
 
It’s both. Dragonite will be banned unless both of them are.
Personally I think she’s tail is the biggest offender there. Multi scale + substitute is crazy strong, and once you get 2-3 dragon dances the game is probably over. Tera definitely makes that set even better, but I think dnite would still be one of the best sweepers in the game without it
 

Karxrida

Death to the Undying Savage
is a Community Contributor Alumnus
The pro-tera crowd will dismiss all examples as just bad play. I don't like having to guess as to whether or not I can hit my opponent's pokemon with this attack.
Heaven forbid actually having to think about the game state, the potential Tera your opponent's wincon might be to stop being checked, and weigh the risk/reward of taking particular actions during a match.

Maybe it's because I watch a lot of Mega Man Battle Network 6 competitive games where you never actually know for sure what your opponent can do on any given turn because you can't see their hand, but this does seem like an unironic skill issue. But that can be fixed with familiarity with the meta and practice. The game is still quite young.
 
What a trainwreck.

I feel like a lot of the "pro Tera side" is making up things that people who have concerns with Tera think, and then boxing at shadows by scoring dunks on opinions that very few people actually have.

Like, one of the things the pro-restriction/ban side has frequently brought up is that the possibility space Tera creates due to there being very little opportunity cost to just including it on a set makes long-term decision making in a match difficult. But then the anti-restriction side reads that, sees "very little opportunity cost", and is like "nuh uh, there's an opportunity cost because you can only Tera once per game!" Like, yeah, this is obviously true; it is only when reading the argument in the worst possible faith and ignoring all surrounding context that you think your response contributes in some way. It is practically impossible to tell whether these arguments are born out of a genuine failure to consider the other side's opinions honestly (i.e. ignorance) or out of a deliberate attempt to frame the topic in the worst possible light to advance your own agenda and get some likes (i.e. malice). There are very many other points made that are like this.

There's also the hilarious idea that players at a top level are anti-restriction, which is blatantly contradicted by just reading the PR thread; almost every take there is someone wanting a restriction or ban. Now, you could argue they're just being overly conservative, or that that thread naturally attracts more reactionary viewpoints; but regardless of whether you agree with them, don't make any claims about top-level opinions if you're not even willing to read said top-level opinions. You'd think this would be common sense, but it still happens — I'm not sure whether these people have deluded themselves into thinking one or two highly-liked posts by ladder heros constitutes a consensus or whether they're intentionally ignoring the actual status of the debate in an attempt to alienate those they disagree with. It's bizarre.

To me, Tera doesn't meet the tiering policy definition of "uncompetitive" (it doesn't actually make the better player lose all that often relative to other mechanics), and it's dubious whether it counts as "broken" (on reading the tiering policy, it's unclear to me what it would even take for a mechanic to count as "broken" — it has counterplay but not in the same way, say, an individual Pokemon has counterplay). I think we could allow unrestricted Tera and ban a half-dozen abusers and end up with a "balanced" and "dynamic" metagame. But to me, it is definitely "unhealthy", that dubious third policy that is hard to define but that tiering decisions can still be made off of nonetheless.

There are definitely merits to the mechanic. I actually think Tera is really interesting in the teambuilder. I am unconvinced by claims that it diminishes matchup issues — sure, you can smack Tera Fairy on a defensive mon to totally change the profile of what it checks in certain matchups, which allows you to change your team's matchups on the fly, but I feel like the ability to reactively partially account for bad matchups (and again, this is only partial since you can only Tera one Pokemon) is diminished by the fact that, realistically, there will exist offensive threats with a specific typing and move combination that your team doesn't really have counterplay to even with Tera. In other words, while Tera increases the amount of defensive threats, it also does so to offensive threats. Indeed, as people get better at the metagame, I predict that they'll learn to account for defensive Teras during play, but offensive Teras that just sweep them will continue to be a problem. Still, though, I think I overall agree that Tera adds a lot of skill to the teambuilding process by introducing this dynamic of customizable threats and versatile counterplay. (Teambuilding in generation 9 is miserable right now, though, but I think that's more due to the inadequacies of hazard removal and the prevalence of Unaware than Tera itself, and I don't think banning Tera would fix this particular reality in the short-term.)

Yet I still think these benefits in the builder come at significant cost to the quality of matches. The reason Tera is so unhealthy to me is the delta in gamestate outcomes it creates just by existing in a battle.

Allow me to explain with an analogous example: for a while, DPP OU was held up as some stellar example of a "competitive" metagame. It isn't particularly well-balanced and Jirachi is a demon, but it was still seen as a metagame with a lot of opportunity for cool teambuilding, good gameplay, and fun dynamics. But in the last few years, many peoples' opinions have soured on DPP, even relative to generations traditionally considered "worse" competitive-wise like GSC and BW. Why is this? A big reason is that DPP has a very big "delta" in how games can progress from any given gamestate, due to the lack of a team preview. Of course, generations that are seen as very good like ADV lack team preview, but ADV also has very predictable team structures; you might not be able to guess the last 2 mons from the first 4 with perfect accuracy, but a skilled player can guesstimate what role they'll serve on the team and account for them, and if you're "wrong", it's usually not game-losing. This is not true in DPP, however; there are plenty of situations where it's very unclear what your opponent's last mons are besides vague things like "well, they need to be able to break Clefable" or whatever. So while DPP is still a cool metagame with a lot of interesting things to consider both in the teambuilder and in a match, a lot of top players have soured on the quality of its play recently. Obviously there are still plenty of top players who like DPP a lot, but it's no longer unanimously seen as "the peak of competitive OU" (the extent to which that sentiment was driven by nostalgia rather than anything tangible could perhaps be analyzed, but that's for another time).

If Tera isn't restricted, I feel like we will gradually develop a similar sentiment as DPP-in-hindsight did. To me, Tera creates a level of "long-term ambiguity" in a given gamestate comparable to the current state of DPP. It is unclear how your opponent's wincons function, whether you have Pokemon that can check them, whether they have Pokemon that can check yours, etc. To me, as players get more comfortable with the tier, they wil find it is very rarely profitable to make a long-term-oriented play while their opponent hasn't used their Tera, since — like in DPP — there are so many things that can disrupt or uproot a long-term plan that you are nearly punished for it more often than you're rewarded.

But it's worth noting that this is, admittedly, a very narrow look at Tera. Tera is an entire mechanic with a lot of "fair" uses and positives that don't compromise the quality of a game, and even if you're convinced that this negative is worth restricting it for, then your take becomes "if we don't restrict it now, in a few years we might regret it, maybe". But I think there's merit in being at least somewhat hasty here; the ever-too-soon coming of SPL aside, if we don't deal with Tera now, the metagame and ban decisions made within it will necessarily revolve around Tera to the point where, like a parasite gradually supplanting its host, it will become too embedded in the tier for us to exorcise it when we do actually find it problematic.

Yet still, Tera has its upsides, and the compromising-long-term-planning concern I brought up is only a narrow part of what Tera actually does. To that end, I support trialing a restriction that attempts to target the aspect of Tera that creates the largest delta in gamestate evaluation and planning — and to me, that restriction is a complex ban on using Tera on mons that possess stat-stage-boosting moves, items, and abilities. Perhaps Substitute should be banned as well, but I think we could start here and reevaluate later. This was proposed by Relous and I think it's absolutely genius at diminishing the worst downsides of Tera while preserving most of the upsides.

I support something here like what BW OU did recently; that is to say, we interpret "boosting moves/items/abilities" as broadly as possible (including things like Defiant, Curse, Contrary, and Ancient Power) while not including things that require very contrived situations to create a boost (e.g. Magic Bouncing back something or whatever). To me, the existence of this policy shows that such a complex ban is possible. While normally we avoid complex bans, there's an argument that an entire generational mechanic deserves privileged status here. If it fails, we can always reconsider later.

This solution might not be enough to resolve all of the worst abuses of Tera, but if we encounter something like Rage Fist that "boosts" without technically being stat-stage-boosting, then we can evaluate its brokenness on its own merits later. Besides that, I think this effectively targets the actual unhealthy parts of Tera while preserving most of the interesting teambuilder dynamics and a lot of the in-game decision making.

But why do I think this deals with the most problematic parts of Tera while preserving the good parts? The problem with Tera, to me, is how swingy it is and how that disincentivizes long-term planning as a way to express skill; by preventing the worst abusers from being able to Tera, we see its offensive swinginess diminished while still preserving the actually skillful and positive aspects like being able to use Tera on defensive mons to patch up very specific holes in your team. This does "nerf" Tera, of course, but it does so primarily on the mons often seen as the most problematic (it does miss a few, like Chi-Yu or non-CM Iron Valiant, but those can be addressed individually).

Another advantage of this is that this complex ban makes "scouting Tera types" an actual thing. Some people have claimed in this thread that the ambiguity introduced by Tera types is like that introduced by Pokemon having multiple viable items or sets. But I disagree with this, since if you try to "scout around" Tera, many of the worst abusers can just set up and win on the spot. Yet by banning setup moves with Tera, such situations can no longer be exploited; you can actually "waste turns" to try to draw out a Tera without putting yourself in a massive disadvantage. Indeed, I think this makes scouting Tera types and trying to bait overly-eager Teras a very interesting form of skill expression in matches.

This solution does not get rid of some aspects of Tera; it does not get rid of the so-called 50/50s, for example. But it at least lowers the difference between a successful and unsuccessful Tera predict by making it far less frequent for the difference between "correct Tera prediction" and "incorrect Tera prediction" to decide the game early, since no longer can setup sweepers abuse Tera type changes to try and cheese out an early setup and/or dodge priority. That is to say, 50/50s will still exist — as they always do in mons — but the difference between a success and failure will fall more within the boundaries of what is considered acceptable by lowering the ceiling on how much a Tera can pay you off. There are still concerns that this is potentially too much (Tera being once-per-match-only means that Teraing and being wrong is a huge "waste" to the point where the fail case is still often very very punishing, potentially enough to decide or at least wildly swing games).

To me, I support either this particular complex ban (or perhaps this complex ban in combination with something else) > a Tera ban > Tera being preserved >>>>>>>>> anything else currently proposed. Every other complex ban proposed feels bad to me. Tera-team-preview doesn't fully address the match deltas and ambiguities; it diminishes the problem, but it still exists, and I predict it will continue to be problematic long-term (as mentioned often in this thread, most mons only have one or two viable Tera types anyway, and on those with more, scouting a Tera type is almost comparable to scouting a set — just with a higher outcome delta). Tera-as-same-types just makes it a one-time Adaptability boost, which eliminates basically all of the positive, skill-based aspects of Tera while still potentially breaking certain mons (hey Chi-Yu) and, regardless of whether this "fixes" the issue or not, it guts the mechanic to the point where I feel like it'd be more honest to everyone if we just banned it. Only-one-mon-Teras does deal with the long-term deltas I talked about earlier (at least if it's public information), but it also feels like a pet mod at best rather than something actually targeted at dealing with the issues of Tera, and I think it also comes with unnecessary collateral damage to Tera's positive contributions.

I know that this is a complex ban, and one that could create a lot of confusion. But to me, it feels less arbitrary than a lot of the other proposals people are putting forth, since it's targeted at the specific element that (to me) feels the most troublesome and unhealthy. Perhaps it would not fix the issue entirely, but I think it's worth trying; if we still find Tera to be a problem, we can always reevaluate later, but by taking some action as precedent, we express that our metagame won't be shackled to trying to accommodate all of the issues that come with Tera.
 
What a trainwreck.
This is a stellar post, and I agree strongly with a lot of the points made. However, while your proposed solution is indeed a catch-all for most of the problematic Tera mons, I personally believe that it’s just a bit too complex for something that doesn’t solve the entire Tera problem in one fell swoop. Mons like Chi-Yu and Iron Valiant, like you yourself mentioned, are still problematic with Tera regardless, and because of that I just don’t see this being enough on its own. This is definitely a better solution than a lot of the ones proposed on this thread, but overall I still wouldn‘t prefer it over either extreme.
 
I don't think we should overlook the fact that Terastallization is a system mechanic that S/V is more or less balanced around. I'm extremely opposed to banning Terastallization, simply because:

1. Smogon has always been a Pokémon simulator that has aimed to ACCURATELY simulate Pokémon online battles. If we're just constantly making a bunch of clauses and bans, then at what point are we just making Smogon into its own completely separate thing?

2. Unlike Dynamax, Terastallization is a relatively balanced mechanic and has a lot more applications than just giving your Pokémon double health and Z-Moves for 3 turns. It lets Pokémon like Avalugg remove their terrible defensive typings and replace it with a new one. It enables weaker offensive Pokémon to suddenly get relevancy. There's a lot of decision making at play with Terastallization, and it makes the game refreshing and fun, instead of boring and predictable.

The decision to ban the main mechanic of Generation 9 is not one that should be taken lightly. Banning Terastallization would make the game incredibly unfun for a lot of players. If we're going to ban the mechanic, then I think we should give the game a few months (or a year, really) to breathe, so people can discover new strategies and adapt to the new mechanic, instead of kneejerk reactions.
 
Pokemon Showdown and Smogon are different, albeit closely related entities. SV OU is not required to keep things legal if they are unhealthy. Please refer to this post
How can we call Tera unhealthy when the game isn't even a month old? We're not talking about banning a Pokémon, we're talking about banning an entire mechanic that defines S/V as a whole. I think bans like these are genuinely toxic and restrict experimentation and creativity. We're literally just banning anything that could be seen as strong, instead of letting players and the game evolve.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 2)

Top