Metagame Views From The Council

[njnp]

The views from this post are based on just NJNP and not the entirety of the council.

Kokoloko Path​

Hey guys! This thread is being created so different Council Members can get out lengthy views and ask for community input without it getting clogged in metagame discussion. I want to discuss something very important to the continued growth of the tier so I will be leading this thread off.



Hi guys, we’re a couple of weeks now from SPL. I think we must focus on creating the best tier possible for not only tour players but also our fellow ladder players. As we’ve discussed since DLC 2 has dropped there are a lot of amazing Pokemon and only one that truly deserved a quick ban which we handled. We now have the issue of having too many threats in the tier and not a single stand out. We have some of the community that feels the tier is in a good place and we have some who view the tier to be a mess, a very interesting split. Most high-level players do view it as balance being the clear best play style with meow/kyurem balances mostly dominating high ladder. You’re very limited in creativity with all the current threats that you have to handle and in particular, you find yourself using copy-paste cores over and over just to complete a semi-successful 6. There are a lot of factors at play with this. I wanna get into this.


If you’re building an hyper offensive/offensive team you have to handle currently about 5 different types of leads, Deoxys-S Screens/Setter, Ninetales Veil, Sam-H Stack, Glimmora, & Webs (Ribombee, Araquanid, Smeargle). As things stand currently it’s practically impossible for a hyper-offensive team to properly handle all these variations while also having to counterattack the popular Gliscor/Skarmory hazard stack balances. Hyper Offense has to deal with familiar faces like Valiant, Moth, and Zamazenta. While having to handle Volcarona once again, Raging Bolt, Iron Boulder, and various new cheese-stored power sweepers in Latias and Iron Crown, while also still needing to break through unaware monsters in Clodsire, Skeledirge, and Dondozo. A thing that stands out to me in building hyper offense currently is the old friend Glimmora and its ability Toxic Debris. You’re left with as a ho user the option of using Glimmora yourself or Iron Moth which is generally sub-optimal. You’re at times left with this being your option as practically the best breakers and sweepers in the tier being mainly physical leads to toxic debris activating more than ever. Another thing that stands out to me is the immense amount of priority from Raging Bolt, Kingambit, Dragonite & more. It limits the attempts of sweepers from the most popular sweepers in the tier resulting in a tera being burned or relegating former powerful sweepers to breakers. The final thing that stands out is we have an immense amount of walls it's truly rather impractical to account for every single one when building an offensive team currently. Pokemon like Archaludon and Skarmory are fantastic new additions to the tier in being anti-offense while not being instantly passive. We still have to deal with familiar faces like the unaware monsters mentioned above along with the hazard stacking menaces in Gliscor and Ting Lu. It currently is a very mu-based time for hyper offense with so much to combat.


If you’re building a balance/semi-stall team, you have the best advantage in the team builder to abuse the best item in the tier Heavy Duty Boots. This coincides with the fact you're able to abuse some of the best Pokemon in the tier rather easily as well. Pokemon like Gliscor, Ting Lu, Toxapex, Skarmory, Skelidirge, Dondozo etc etc… allows this team popular structure to cover up the weaknesses of Meowscarda, Darkari, Kyurem, and Zamazenta very easily as they apply the offensive pressure in the tier currently for the structure. This is mostly known stuff so I won't get into this heavy but balance has few flaws and it just simply becomes a who can knock off quicker contest in decent amount of balance vs balance matches.


Personally, as the tier stands right now, it is not awful, but it’s not great either. I also do not believe a suspect test will aid it anytime soon or in enough time for SPL. In fact, regardless of SPL, I think we should consider going this path just for the overall betterment of the tier going forward with power creep being so immense and so many OU viable Pokemon at a crazy level. We should go this path as I feel it will give us the best chance to give an ideal OU metagame for the entire player base that has been plagued with an up-and-down vicious slate. The path I'm speaking of is the Kokoloko Method.

I know it is a controversial method and this tier has been full of controversy since the beginning but if we’re serious about the long-term growth of this tier and considering we have essentially 0 quick ban options to push tier development/growth our best way at going at this is in my opinion the Kokoloko method.

Now, as it stands

• Deo-S
• Gouging Fire
• Serperior
• Kyurem
• Roaring Moon
• Volcarona

MAYBE

• Enamorus
• Raging Bolt
• Kingambit
• Gholdengo
• Iron Boulder

This list was a good likelihood of what will be included on the latest survey. The Pokemon on this list I want removed from this tier due to the Kokoloko Method. We can use this list as a starting point of what we enact into starting the Kokoloko Method and test them back down one by one.

Now I'm making this post as I want to inform the people on how I view the metagame and feel is the best path we can embark on to improve this tier. I know we things to consider in the future like Tera and our hazard problem. Dealing with the realities of many people being split on a lot of things concerning this tier I'm hoping we can come together on this manner regarding the tier and see to its continued growth.

Please ask as many questions as you want regarding this, give your own list of Pokemon you'd like removed due Kokoloko Method, and please let us have a lengthy discussion as I'm all for it, and let us continue making this tier great!

 

[Ruft]

Sharing my personal thoughts here also.

While I find that it's an interesting proposal, my personal view says that the Kokoloko method should only be used as a last resort, when both of the following conditions are definitively met:

1. the metagame is in a bad state and doesn't look like it'll change for the better without tiering action;
2. there are many unhealthy elements in the tier but it's unclear which tiering action should be taken on.

I personally think that, with the metagame not even two weeks old, it's much too early to definitively call that either of these conditions are met. I don't think the metagame is in quite that bad of a state, to the point that I'd even be okay with sending it into SPL like this. For these reasons, I think that, for now, we can continue as we normally do: keep these suspects on the radar, use surveys, and take tiering action (probably suspect tests) on individual Pokemon from there.

Nonetheless, I'm open to community feedback on the ideas outlined here.

 

[Bakugames]

I think that for future games with dlc metas, the kokoloko method would be incredible to reach balanced metas against the volatility and uncertainty of the dlcs. I dont think theres any harm in trying it out, even if this meta is probably the one that needs it the "least"

the quick pace means im ok with stuff thats not perceived as broken being removed from the tier. itll return as fast as it left

I would move gholdengo from maybe to yes. kokoloko is all about being ok with some pokemon catching strays, especially if theyre polarizing.

whichever method we go (normal or kokoloko), i think the tier can only go up from here

 

[AK]

Thank you for posting this thread.

I always have wondered why we wouldn't take this path with each DLC release, at least with the returning additions (I understand that not being able to play with the new additions at the release of a DLC is insanely dumb) but why haven’t we just reintroduced mons like Deoxys-Speed, Darkrai, Kyurem, Volcarona, Roaring and so on overtime? You can even limit that to Deoxys and Kyurem. This way it’s more much evident to be able to tell which mons make our meta game worse.

However, I’m not sure I like going with this now that we’ve got a glimpse of the metagame, it would be weird to just take it back. But I’m certainly not opposed to trying this as I believe it can be a more efficient way to improve this metagame than regular suspects.

Here’s the mons I would personally use this method on:








This thread raises a very interesting discussion and I’m excited to read what everybody thinks.

 

[Eeveeto]

If this proposal goes through, my list of Mons would be:

 

[Finchinator]

The metagame right now is very playable and it has grown more competitive as things have begun to settle and teambuilding roles have become more apparent to our players. I remember day 1 when very respectable players called for immediate quickbans on Raging Bolt or Iron Boulder so many times that I had to turn off discord tags for a little bit; we have come a long way from this point.

I still think some work needs to be done (and there may be new work to be done after we get through that, for example) and we will address that in the immediate future with a survey, potential action following, etc. The survey will include a question specifically on a lot of Pokemon, the Kokoloko method prospects, and so on.

I do think threat saturation can be seen as a real problem, but I also think banning just to remove things is shortsighted. I think we need to take a step back from that type of mindset about forcing action and instead try to find the roots of our problems with the metagame. There's also unique perspectives like NJNP's from his new thread about flipping the onus with the Kokoloko method or mimikyu's from earlier on about showing greater restraint and so on. Personally I am somewhere more in the middle about carrying on our process in the way the community feels best, but right now is all about keeping an open mind.

Specifically on the Kokoloko method: I am not a huge fan right now personally as just banning a handful of problematic things may not rid the metagame of any unbalance when new things could pop up. It also would not necessarily make a tournament like SPL, which should not be our primary focus, better as rebalancing after many bans will take a long time naturally for players to adapt. Regardless of this, suddenly we would be combining retesting thing we essentially promised to retest, which may not even be broken in the first place, with those things. I think this method is best used on day 1 with a larger infusion of broken Pokemon, especially when things approach unplayable, or when a tier is so far behind the ball that it would require longer than reasonable to hit a point where quickbans are no longer needed and we can pivot to suspects, which is not now as there is not close to unanimous support to quickban anything as things stand.

For me, Deoxys-Speed and Kyurem are two pressure points in the tier that I have been eyeing. I do not find the standard lead Deoxys sets to be problematic as much as attacking ones and maybe even some word for screens. Kyurem has a more interesting set mix discussion, but I find its strain on the builder more worrisome than most other presences.

I do not find other hot topics like Iron Boulder, Darkrai, or Enamorus to be problematic. Iron Boulder is very weak to priority, struggles to find a ton of free turns against offense, is easy to defensively Tera against, and does not break through balance well even after a boost while just using common Pokemon; to me, it is an example of something that is very good and practical, but not broken. Darkrai is a perfectly viable Pokemon with Hypnosis variants being cheese and some NP defensive Tera options being able to nab timely kills, but nothing overbearing and not even top tier to me. Enamorus is cool with Stellar and in general, but it is by no means able to circumvent normal counterplay to an unreasonable degree, especially not without exhausting Tera that opens up for other counterplay options to it or a defensive Tera to negate it.

You can make a fair argument about Roaring Moon and Volcarona being problematic sweepers for the same reason as prior metagames, but I do think their threat level has went down marginally. They still have my eye though (and yes, I hear you loudly...and sometimes clearly...to the Gholdengo crowd).

 

[hunter.]

I honestly don't think this Kokoloko Method is enough by itself. With how unapologetically chaotic this entire generation has been on the Singles side of things between the many breaks in series tradition (like the total cut-off of transfer moves (thanks GameFreak I didn't actually want Defoggers anyway)) and a truly stupefying level of power creep that would put Gen 5 KyuB into UU and possibly make it balanced, among other factors, I don't think it's wholly unreasonable to consider a full reset of the metagame at this point and doing the exact opposite;

I propose that we take some level of necessary tiering action for now like sending back where it belongs (I STILL don't know what you guys were on with that but I want a prescription) as well as , , , , , and maybe + being put in the OUBL Time-Out Chair. Following SPL, there could be either a mass unbanning or staged suspect rollout of almost every other Pokémon that's been sent to Ubers this generation minus the mind-bogglingly silly psychopaths like , , , , , , , and maybe , as well as Shed Tail so we don't have to discuss Compressed SubPass ever again on this forum. Would it erase a lot of progress that's been made for the last thirteen months? Kinda, yeah, but we've already been greatly set back every three or four months since May's HOME compatibility patch.

In my mind, this would also include a second Terastallization suspect test, which would run for three weeks as the original one did, and take place before anything else is considered for a straight unban or drop-test since its result would once again shape the entire metagame for the rest of the generation (i.e. whether or not is even worth having a discussion about dropping back to OU). I personally like Terastallization, but I know many other players have very much looked forward to a second look at the mechanic that may feel long overdue.

I don't mean to sound out of line or anything when I say this - I'm just generally frustrated with how it feels like OU Council and all levels of the playerbase alike have been forced to play Whack-A-Diglett for 2/3rds of the entire cumulative run of SV OU through little fault of our own, and I genuinely wonder if a near-total reset could be what we need.

I also would ask for the consideration of a Stellar Terapagos Clause a la ORAS's/SM+Ultra's/Natdex's Ubers Mega Rayquaza Clause, assuming Terastallization remains legal for the remainder of SV OU. It's been argued that banning Stellar Terapagos by itself would be against policy since it's tantamount to banning Terapagos from Terastallizing altogether, since it cannot change Tera Types, to which I say... that's tough? I guess? Stellar Terapagos feels a hell of a lot more like a Mega Evolution than a standard Terastallization than anything else in the game, and would feel even more so if 65 points of its +100 BST didn't go straight into HP - it is inconsistent from other Terastallizations by design, and as such should be handled separately since it's literally as if we manifested the Mega Mismagius and Crowned Sword Weavile jokes into a real creature. The only thing close in circumstance are Ogerpon's Terastallized Masks, but aside from Embody Aspect their Terastallizations still function about the same way that all 1023 other Pokémon to have ever existed would when Terastallized.

also free Reshiram you cowards smh

 

[ausma]

Here are my personal thoughts on Kokoloko; I'll make a post regarding my thoughts on the metagame later.

I sort of disagree with Ruft in that the Kokoloko method does not have to be a last resort. His logic is very sound and I generally agree with it, but I think if there are time constraints relative to major tournaments like SPL that it's reasonable to tier in a way that would rapidly lower the polarity of the tier for major competitions, especially when many of the centralized threats either springboard off of each other to obscure the obvious candidates, or embody "broken checks broken" in practice to further inflate matchup fishing. Even if there is, effectively, a brand-new metagame to adapt to like Finch said, I disagree with the idea that it would be unreasonable for the competition seeing as major tournaments invite massive metagame growth and force adaptations in and of themselves, and we still have a groundwork on what's generally viable. To me it would just make that development more rapid and also less polarized which I believe can be a net positive.

I think depending on the circumstances that Kokoloko is a fine tiering approach if done deliberately and is very well communicated with the general public. That being said, I have a few concerns that make me wary to try it, and I would open anybody here to retort them as it would help sway me one direction or the other.

1: How do we know what to target?

This one may seem like an obvious question to answer, but I believe the direct proof of why this is necessary to ask is the fact njnp made two lists, indicating uncertainty in how to approach the target group. As mentioned earlier, there is a lot of obscurity that we have to navigate through as a result of how much these threats interact with one another and saturate the metagame. What factors can help guide our judgment?

2: How much is too much?

If made haphazardly, it's possible that we debilitate the metagame by removing Pokemon that had a net positive effect on the metagame and didn't wind up very broken in practice, thus creating a counter-intuitive effect where Pokemon that are, organically, checkable evolve into a problem. This isn't broken checking broken, but moreso generating an inorganic environment where strong, but balanced Pokemon become too centralizing and tiering becomes a slippery slope. I'm not trying to say this would be what would happen, but I think overshooting could create a dishonest environment and warp how we evaluate threats, which makes it very fickle.

3: How do we know what to prioritize for a suspect post-Kokoloko?

This one is mostly self-explanatory, but the tl;dr is that Pokemon that pose broken presences but have healthy qualities in theory are tough to evaluate without tangible evidence of their dynamics in a post-Kokoloko metagame.

----

With this in mind (as well as the sheer saturation of threats making #2 a bigger problem to me), I do err closer to trying to have a greater dialogue on what the core problem with the metagame is, and then having a council vote to quickban a group of target Pokemon, and what would instead warrant a suspect. I believe this way we can still quickly lower polarity in the metagame, and rely less on a series of "what-ifs" to know what to prioritize and focus moreso on evident dynamics we can see in the metagame right now.

 

[bigasschungusboi]

Don't have much else to say other than the Kokololoko Method should be applied to ou and that all other methods of tiering action are either ineffective or messy longterm get the brokens out and have the community come together as a whole to see whether they should be let back.

 

[Finchinator]

Expanding on the Kokoloko method a bit: I think the logic behind it tracks sometimes, but the timing is not the most applicable right now.

It feels a bit extremist to go from not having enough support to quickban anything besides Terapagos for the first couple of weeks, left in a state of waffling to decide what's next and resorting to a survey (which is coming out in the near future, btw) to banning a half dozen or more Pokemon and flipping the script entirely, devoting our resources to testing them one-by-one.

I think there is a metagame and a time where the Kokoloko method is good, but this almost feels like the release conditions with the least appropriate timing for it. If anything, it would feel a bit more appropriate at the start of the generation or something where we had ban after ban after suspect after suspect lined up even like DLC1. Right now, it does not feel like we are there.

 

[Finchinator]

Don't have much else to say other than the Kokololoko Method should be applied to ou and that all other methods of tiering action are either ineffective or messy longterm get the brokens out and have the community come together as a whole to see whether they should be let back.

I also find posts like this to be off the mark because they fail to respect the fact that determining "the brokens" are is not exactly a walk in the park and suddenly we would end up with larger tiering discourse about hypothetical Kokoloko bans that mirrors the current discourse on potential suspects and bans to begin with. We would have to combine that with the normal discussions on suspects and bans that will follow the rollout, too, which would get quite messy.

The method for sure has some merits and strengths, but I actually think this bit is a negative if anything.

 

[Munchkin Marvin]

Seems like there is both a bunch of really fat stuff and really strong stuff that get to exist simultaneously because of terastallization. and are both heinous stat piles on either side of this coin, respectively. I think tera is an interesting game mechanic and quite skillful to actually use well, AND it's very fun to build with, but it also just breaks lots of things. There's a good chunk of stuff that requires defensive tera to stop. There's another good chunk of fat stuff that can't be broken by offensive teams unless they get tera boost of their own (or otherwise have to lean into hazards).

First take a stance one way or another on tera. I don't think there's any correct outcome there.

If it stays, then I think you have to kokolokolize at minimum:

If it goes, then anti-kokolokolize this stuff
and it should become clearer which pokemon are just too strong/fat standalone.

Really, I think just clearing some of the turbo offense stuff out will be good. If big chunky things remain un-killable, then you can always reintroduce breakers.

As it stands, things are pretty good in the tier; it just seems like there's a bit of an identity crisis. What is OU? Is it a quality of play? Is it a BST threshold? Is it something more dogmatic? I feel the recent Ubers drops were a good means of exploring the fuzzy boundary between OU and some things that have always been presumed Uber due to legacy decisions.

A thought: when we feel the need to ban 15+ pokemon, is it because that much is "broken", or can we not let go of the more familiar power-levels of OUs in years gone by? In any case, I hope this generation is only judged against its own merits; the past and idealistic utopias shouldn't hinder progress for the sake of it.

Onward!

 

[Return to Zero]

I would not support the use of the Kokoloko method, personally. I've always viewed it as a last resort, a panic button that's pressed if salvaging a playable metagame isn't possible with normal methods. I think what we've got now is acceptable and competitive, albeit really messy still. A lot of stuff that we - and even I - have said would for sure be busted and need to go right now like Roaring Moon, Enamorus, Kyurem, Deoxys-Speed, have had people changing their minds on them pretty quickly. I'd say only Kyurem and Deoxys out of those are potentially banworthy, and even then more in terms of needing a suspect test rather than a quickban. I think if we are going to try out the Kokoloko method, we need to all agree on at least like 6-10 picks that we agree at least most of them could be banned justifiably, which I suspect will be difficult. If I had to suggest some of my own...

 

[LBN]

As far as the Kokoloko method is concerned, I think the best way to go about it is a concentrated list of a couple (no more than 4), pokemon should be used with this method. If applied too hap-hazardly it can become a bit of a whack-a-mole of problems that may not even end up being problems should some partners / other threats leaving open things up. For Example, if we nuked Gholdengo immediately, opening up corviknight as a viable defogger would potentially reign in gliscor and iron boulder would gain another check. These types of dynamics are both widespread, and common. And simply nuking a ton of them feels slightly counter-productive to the tiers development.

If, and I do say if, the Kokoloko method is employed, the pokemon chosen must be not just broken, but constrictive. In that sense, I'd personally pick these

These are the ones that I think should go, (besides maybe one of kyurem/gouging fire). I understand the Gholdengo divisiveness, and I would also understand the hesitancy to send it up to Ubers due to this, but I think it's the primary thing stopping a tier less pidgeonholded by its setup sweepers. Being able to safely remove hazards with Corviknight would very much change how alot of teams play around the game, allowing different item choices and others to be freed up.

I'm personally celebrating Christmas today instead of yesterday so I'm not going to go super indepth with this one, but coles notes is: If we use the kokoloko method, it needs to be a decisive change. Not just banning a bunch of nukes, the tier would need to be drastically repaired w kokoloko's method to justify using it. Not through quantity, but quality.

 

[knexhawk]

has got to go. This guy has basically required all non-offense teams to spam boots for this entire generation, and now that more pokemon are viably running knock off, this strategy is unreliable at best. Removing on gholdengo is limited to 2-3 real pokemon ( and /), and a few niche picks (, , etc). I think a lot of the stress these balance teams face from spikes would be aleviated by being able to run leftovers on pokemon viably, along with being able to defog with pokemon like corviknight (and several others). Hazards would still be very good, everyone and their mother has spikes/rocks, but at least give the other side a chance besides having to run 5 boots and a dedicated knock off absorber(gliscor, mg clef, corv/skarm, tera flying mola), and hope you match up into a knocker that they beat.


Seeing as the past surveys would give gholdengo a >3.5/5 rating from the qualified playerbase, it's almost a war crime this dude has been here for so long with not even a suspect yet.


also i think it might be worth looking at booster energy. but gholdengo first.

 

[That_Dwayneee]

I'm a bit divided on the kokoloko method.

In DLC1, I absolutely think that this way of tiering should've been employed: there was a clear list of broken mons that were completely dominant at the time (ursaluna-bm, roaring moon, oger-w, kingambit, manaphy, gliscor, and ghold) but now that dlc2 has hit I'm not super sure if such a list even exists anymore. I think that some of the mons on that list, be it returning ubers or mons that remained from the dlc2 metagame, as well as some new additions - be it unbans or mons that came with dlc2 - should be banned, I'm just not sure that a quickban is needed for any one of them right now (as much as I hate mu moth I can't say that I have seen any outcry about it). Even if kokoloko tiering is employed on these new threats, that would likely just make old mainstays like oger-w into brokens again, and if we're employing this to avoid going into spl with a chaotic metagame filled with broken threats I don't think it should be done now, even if this period of calm is only going to be followed up by a storm.

As an aside though: I'd like to ask why you say that balance has few flaws right now but then most of the pokemon listed as potentially broken very notably have incredible matchups into balance teams, just an interesting thing I noticed.

 

[Tio Chico]

I think it's fair to wait a few more days in this new metagame if Kokoloko is implemented. This would justify the delay in not taking action now. We are in an unprecedented era of releases with things like DLC and so on. The council has been working hard but a new approach needs to be taken seriously.
The fact that this is the first time that so many archetypes are usable creates a sense of false stability, because a lot of old stuff is still new, or at least can be used now.

Priorities; Terastal. Generation "identity" or whatever, is a mechanic for Doubles that we use in Singles. Defining whether or not Terastal will remain is an essential pillar for evaluating the other elements (basically, any Pokémon) that will be discussed later. A lot would come back or go away due to his interaction with Terastal. I suggested alternatives with Finchinator on how to deal with it, perhaps the other council members already know but here goes;
Collect information in all viable ways; Test gameplay with Terastal, without Terastal and with team Preview Terastal. Taking a measure that will not please everyone but will be a step towards the legacy that generation 9 will leave.

; Another definer of how we approach the metagame, build and play. Type, ability, versatility, the metagame adapts to it and also needs different attention.

So we can guide the time to try something Kokoloko with

 

[Heatranator]

I firmly believe that Kokoloko tiering while potentially great, has many flaws in its system to be used as a big tiering system. It should, however, definetely be used as a last resort and with other tiering actions. A small list of mons should be used for this system, I say 5 max, to make sure the metagame doesn't crumple to otherwise balanced mons, which is the main negative of kokoloko tiering.
My personal list for mons are:

Some others that I could see suspected are:

However, despite this, it should not be used at the moment, as even the more "broken" mons are not so egregious that they should instantly be removed from the metagame. The tiering should be monitored closely to make sure it is not overdone. A survey for the mons included in it should be done before, as while this does delay the process, does make sure that it is not overdone. This should be combined with council views/votes, where a mon has to get both support from the community and council for the kokoloko system to be used against it.
This is if you want to use it, I don't think it is necessary, but just something to be considered.

Edit: Furthermore, I believe that mons like kingambit and gholdengo, who have been in the metagame for a long time and have not gained many new tools to make them broken, i.e. no new moves or mechanics inherentially benefit them, then kokoloko tiering should not be used. They are too controversial, thus pushing council away from the community, even if it is for the benefit of the metagame. And this is coming from someone who hates gambit immensly, so I think it would be for the betterment of showdown.

 

[Magcargo]

Kokoloko method would have been better in DLC1 meta where quick, decisive action was needed & the meta was in a tenuous state even after multiple bans / QBs. Currently, I see little merit to employing the Kokoloko method, since there is both no rush & the metagame is not in the worst place atm. If anything, we should wait a month for the metagame to develope before taking any drastic actions. Generally I am anti-ban, so axing multiple Pokemon that may not even be problematic doesn't seem like the right way to go.

Currently the only priority targets I think that should be looked into for a suspect / quickban are Roaring Moon and Kyurem. That being said, I don't think they need to be immediately addressed and we can look at them later - preferably after an additional 2 weeks.

 

[Bunger Royale]

I don't know. It sounds like it would cause more headaches than it's worth. Especially since this thread is already showing that there isn't a constant list of mons that should be temp banned other than Roaring Moon and Golden Joe.

Does the current meta game have problems? Yeah. Are they currently that major that such drastic measures need to be taken? No.

Banning stuff just for SPL without the community backing is what lead to the Volcarona QB backlash. And if the council wants to do that again but with more bans? Yeah, I don't think that would be a good idea.

 

[Alternator]

My Kokoloko list:



Yes, that's the list. I think that GameFreak has handed us a list of mons where the top end balances itself quite well (for Week 2 of DLC standards, at least), with nothing obviously broken even if several are worth watching. If you start removing big chunks of the tier, however, then you're wrecking that balance; for example, if we remove a bunch of powerful offensive mons, then fat balance might start creeping toward unbreakable, creating new problems where they never existed before.

Yes, there are currently a ton of different threats that makes it difficult to build defensive cores, which is a sign that the tier is undercentralized at the moment. Some of the new mons have already started to fall off, while others are being experimented with and proving to have more quality options. It's week two of a metagame we're going to have for a year and a half, we should prioritize the tier's long term health over a tournament that's three weeks off, even if it is SPL.

If the tier is still a decentralized mess in a week or two, then consider "stability bans". Don't change how we operate tiers for a single tournament.

 

[ianlazerbeem]

NJNP you are a great team leader, discord admin, and council member, but I think this would be a huge mistake. Our current meta is by far the best balanced SV OU has ever been, more Pokémon, strategies, and team styles are viable than ever before. Mass bans because a metagame is "too diverse" or "has too much variety" does not seem reasonable to me. You claim HO is in a bad spot because it has to account for too much, yet half the threats you listed are HO leads. Why account for them if they're so ineffective? Balance being the best team style also comes off as being treated as an issue here, when it is the picture of diversity and variety in team building. Yet even still Mimikyu is maintaining #1 with HO and Quacc is hanging around on top 10 primarily running stall. This proposal, quickbanning 12+ mons without support then somehow determining behind closed doors within the span of two weeks which ones to reintroduce and which ones to leave banned, does not seem realistic or practical to me. This would be the mistake of banning Volc times a dozen, when as we saw comparing DLC1 to now that Volc's existence makes numerous "borderline" Pokémon such as Valiant, Kingambit, and Gholdengo more palatable. We have living proof from the Volc decision that the council making these choices behind closed doors is not always a positive for the meta, and this proposal has a huge margin to make that error again. I also want to point out that the suggested slate of bans as listed essentially is the proposal "turn this meta into late DLC1" which I personally found to be a terrible meta, and the suggested slate would almost certainly trigger a Gliscor ban from the fallout, and Gliscor is the domino that knocking down essentially destroys defensive playstyles. I suppose that killing entire playstyles and arbitrarily banning random threats makes teambuilding easier, but honestly trying to "remove threats enough that teambuilding is easier" is not possible with terastalization fully legal. I think a couple of the Pokémon you've mentioned are worth suspects and we have plenty of time to approach that, and this meta is far too good to risk the potential issues that trying to do this in about 2 weeks would almost certainly present. In short, I don't want a repeat of DLC1 and I don't want the council to destroy the relatively balanced spot this tier is in just because they may be feeling antsy.

 

[DaddyBuzzwole]

as one of the biggest supporters of kokoloko tiering during the dlc1 period, i don't consider it a good idea right now. it was absolutely needed during the dlc1 era, where we could have kicked out in about a week instead of using the entire three months to not even check off the whole list, especially since the actual root of the problem wasn't entirely clear—we were just playing whack-a-mole with whatever new threat popped up every two weeks, instead of just blanket-banning them all and buying ourselves some time to actually figure stuff out. but now? we've got something around two years to clean things up, and it's already been almost two weeks with nothing egregious coming up except —at this point in dlc1, we'd already quickbanned two things and were starting on what might be the most one-sided suspect in the history of modern tiering. there are plenty of things that seem like they might be problematic or have the potential to become problematic, but none of them are screaming "get this thing the hell out of the tier" to me, which is a lot better than how we were doing at this point in dlc1. i don't think kokoloko tiering is the play when this is the first time all gen it isn't imperative to act quickly and aggressively. we have the time, and enough of a playable tier, to slow down and analyze things with a more discerning eye. i support kokoloko tiering in future "temporary metas" if future gens are as power-crept as this one, but for now, we should wield a scalpel instead of a broadsword

also, rushing things for the sake of spl is how we got volcgate, and it'd be an order of magnitude worse this time because spl has left a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths recently with the rby bo1 controversy*. the only time tiering policy should be dictated by deadlines is when the actual meta itself will only be playable for a couple months, not because a tournament is coming up

*i personally have no skin in that race, but the tds' doubling down followed by the most half-assed walkback of all time was infuriatingly dumb even from an outside perspective, and considering that was kinda my first exposure to tournament culture as a whole, it was not a good first impression. seriously, y'all are in desperate need of a spin doctor. (i'm available for the position, dm me if you're interested)

 

[TLPenn]

In my opinion, the Kokoloko method should only be used in dire straits, like when SS National Dex quickbanned a handful of 'mons at once post-DLC1 because of the horrid state the meta was in. Using it right now feels... unideal, and especially arbitrary if it's just for the sake of SPL. Sure, 'mons like Deoxys-Speed and Roaring Moon have been touted multiple times as being problematic, but I feel it'd be better to give them proper suspects or have the council hold a vote after a survey if there's enough support in the data than just throw them and a handful of other 'mons into Ubers. Heck, if what I've heard is true, we're actually in a better state than we were in DLC1, so I don't see the need to rush out any bans, especially now that we've gotten both the DLCs out.

In general, the Kokoloko method is very flawed as an overall tiering philosophy; there's a lot of potential destabilization that could come from taking big chunks of meta 'mons out of the picture so suddenly, and it'd probably take a long time to properly suspect them down later, especially if other problems arise like I mentioned. That's not even mentioning the time we'd have to take to see how the meta would change afterwards, and some people already get agonized by the length of times between longer suspects.

TL;DR: Kokoloko path isn't the right way to go, better to take our time w/suspects or post-survey council votes.

 

[CTC]

They sneered at the broken checks brokens argument but the moment overpanicky ban happy mods have to hold their horses due to new releases, the meta seems to adjust itself into a mostly organic representation of what’s broken and spammed vs what isn’t. Currently, we have a meta broken off from the shed tail cheese / unaware stall of the initial sv meta, more diverse than the bax hail infested home meta, vastly superior to the gliscor zap lu spam of dlc 1 meta, a barren wasteland that houses little more than grassy terrain Strats or gliscor stall. As it stands, we have a meta where all those Strats are concurrently viable, with good wealth distribution among usable mons to curb the past hoarding of wealth committed by the likes of tusk and gambit; the number of threats has brought a renaissance to strategizing for team synergy, creating move techs, adapting to meta teras, and general outplayablilty. Please do not take a ban first test later approach in a meta rich with unexplored combinations, checks, and counters to the real broken strategies. If strategies like sneasler grassy become overwhelmingly spammed and boast extraordinary win rates, or if something like gliscor proves to be too centralizing still, we can then look to those specific threats and take action. Just my two cents, trust me I know better.
- tiering goat

Ps stop banning shit in general I’m on this site to play Pokémon not the lack thereof come on bruh