Metagame Views From The Council

[MrE]

I have seen many headass posts but lets address this one specifically since it offers some evidence actually in favor of my argument.
First, 'Is this bursting with variety? Is Skarm/Pex/Fat ground/Fast knock really better than zap/Tinglu/glowking/zama on both sides?'
judging from the oupl game u linked, 10 unique mons out of 12 is not 'bursting with variety' to u? look at scl finals and tb games, do u see a single game without zama pult gambit ground on either side i mean please i implore u to find one such game to show the past meta brimming with diversity that you are dying to return to trad for.

Next. 'But I think the most important part is the increase in offensive powercreep in balance's speed control options. Weavile and Meowscarada getting Triple Axel make them 2x better as progress makers via knock off and general speed control. To me, this is the main reason why balance is strong right now, and in conjunction with all the factors in the OP by njnp, you are looking at a very narrow set of consistent options and a very wide array of MU fishing'
ok so you are telling me that more options to hit annoying mons of the past like zap lu scor meow, options like knock to force progress vs sit and do nothing stall forcing it to adopt new strategies, and more mons such as kyurem to put pressure on fat teams whereas the booster mons bolster the prowess of ho, the meta is actually LESS diverse? so you trad boys parade around the idea that all the new shit is broken, and the new shit is so diverse and flexible they boost basically any team theyre on, yet only one style aka balance is viable? so which is it, the new mons are only broken and usable on balance or do they offer diverse boosts to different strategies in this meta?

If we want to look at individual mons, I agree we can wait for survey results and weighted usage stats to gauge the brokeness of mons like gouging fire, who alongside meow are my best hitters of DLC 2, undeniably. However, every mon has flaws and counterplay. I have used every DLC 2 mon and built teams around them, testing on high ladder w fiends like vert who occupy the top spot longer than aubrey graham. I dont think anything is immediately over the top like ursaluna where coverage is perfect and u get a mix of longevity and immediate power, somewhat of a perfect mon. similar mons like gouging fire, bolt, kyurem and company exist, but they each have flaws. Instead of banning them, I think introducing more borderlines such as bax back into the meta can create another situation of offensively checkign threats. For example, cry all uwant about ground volc, but u get a kill with it and now i send out bax with shard in the back, u have already exhausted tera so i have the upper hand. Similarly, use your gouging fire but my lando/tusk/dozo/primarina will still come in and blow ur nose off. There is counterplay to everything, stop crying about fishing and randomness, notice how all the top players consistently perform with little randomness or variation involved, no matter the meta changes. Over the last week or so I have used/given teams to people at the top of the ladder ranging from cheese ho to stall, even rage built some stall ct to snipe some pussies. They all work. Please player base have some respect for yourself and accept that no matter the tiering actions taken, the top players arent better cuz 'mu fish', and that losing to the 'broken mons' everyone has access to isnt the real reason your spl campaign has fallen short for the 5th season in a row. Just let the real players play w unmitigated options as long as they are fair and balanced, until proven otherwise.
Lastly, if you are still having the conversation about banning THE core mechanic and its extension (tera blast), please help yourself to the nintendo switch and hit that custom wifi battle playa, we here to play some real mons
No personal shots at anyone: this is not disparagement, this is a conversation.
Thank you for tuning in.

I agree with most of this post and to expand a lil bit on the variety of the meta the 2 mons that are repeated are OU GOATED Skarm that has been OU since it's introduction minus one black mark against its record and a bulky water with a busted ability, both of these mons should be expected to be quite common.

HOWEVER, calls to unban bax is beyond silly imo, that guy is so broken it's not even funny and the only thing that has changed between the last time it was in the tier and now is that people cannot just mindlessly lead ATales veil up and sweep as DeoS will just taunt the ATales, instead people will lead HRott kill the DeoS/force it out go to ATales set up veil and sweep. Having a mon in the tier that can set up in a variety of ways with an effective uninvested bulk of 371 495 312 is never going to not be broken, most defensive mons would kill to have those stats, let alone have those stats and be as potent as Bax is offensively.

 

[Tio Chico]

Could the next Survey (asap) ask for approval of the Kokoloko Method, limit of Pokémon treated by this method, in addition to the order of priority we want/need;
Terastal, definitive Quick Bans, Gholdengo issues, Kokoloko method, short suspects, long suspects, etc? (Edit: 60% x 50% in public suspects too)
I see focus and willingness in leadership, now we just need direction.

 

[Hyjack]

To enact the Kokoloko method is to acknowledge the need for bans in the current meta. I do not feel there is a NEED for bans at the moment.

DLC 2 just dropped, and

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.

as Asuma said, tournaments help the development of a metagame. To ban things because there is "a lot going on" feels counterproductive to letting the players figure out a meta. I think the current state of SV OU is not complete, but is competitive enough to run SPL, and SPL will then assist in later judgment on what is or isn't healthy for the tier. Taking action now would be a shot in the dark. Taking Kokoloko action right now would be a shotgun in the dark.

 

[Wolf-X]

Merry Christmass, first and foremost I salute my fellow countrymen and dear leaders,
This is certainly a way to go with the meta, its a bit controversial but imo it can work, I think Im OK with it, but I also feel we can wait for a bit longer, there is not anything that we would say its clearly bannable or broken right now (maaaaybe moon?)

If this method goes though this is what I expect to be banned:

• Deo-S
• Gouging Fire
• Serperior
• Kyurem
• Roaring Moon
• Volcarona
• Kingambit
• Gholdengo
• Iron Boulder
• Gliscor

If we follow this method there is 0 reason to NOT ban Kingambit or Gholdengo, so much people agree they are a problem.

Good bye and have a nice day fellow citizens of the OU Monarchy.

 

[MrE]

Merry Christmass, first and foremost I salute my fellow countrymen and dear leaders,
This is certainly a way to go with the meta, its a bit controversial but imo it can work, I think Im OK with it, but I also feel we can wait for a bit longer, there is not anything that we would say its clearly bannable or broken right now (maaaaybe moon?)

If this method goes though this is what I expect to be banned:

• Deo-S
• Gouging Fire
• Serperior
• Kyurem
• Roaring Moon
• Volcarona
• Kingambit
• Gholdengo
• Iron Boulder
• Gliscor

There is 0 reason to NOT ban Kingambit or Gholdengo, so much people agree they are a problem.

Good bye and have a nice day fellow citizens of the OU Monarchy.

Outside of the fact they're not broken? Gambit already failed in a suspected test at a time when it was better than it currently is, maybe it will get super annoying and hateful again (I was team ban before the dlc) as the meta settles down, but he's isn't nearly as egregious now as he was. Dengo hasn't ever been broken, just a top mon.

 

[CheesyBrie]

Hi, okay so

This will be my last post of the generation, only because the OU Council took the time to ask and look to administer a new wave of corrective action.
But I don't think Kokoloko or anything else of that nature adequately fixes the innate issue of OU:
Your statistics are not helping you.
If you create a tier based solely on Usage percent, it fails time and time again to adequately gauge what is and isn't broken without community input.
It isn't that the 4.52% cutoff is bad. In fact, it IS a good way to assess what is "used" and "Over Used."
But the problem is that these statistics don't actually provide anything. They aren't actionable. It's just a snapshot that is determining your entire metagame.
I'll answer the actually council question in a minute, but bear with me for a few more sentences.
You need at least one more set of data to determine your tiering and more accurately identify threats. You're talking about SPL right now. You and the playerbase both care about the success and enjoyment of the tournament meta. I'm not saying replace your usage stats, I'm saying supplement them with stats from the SPL, where you can record not only tournament usage by the best of the best, but also win rates of various mons, teams, and cores.
With multiple statistics (Overall Usage, Tournament Usage, and Tournament Winrate), you can better define what is and isn't healthy. And I mean that you can provide this data to supplement what is and isn't OU by usage. Doing this might be a bit messy for the playerbase, but it could help stabilize drops into the lower tiers. And if you're already doing this, then you can show it to the playerbase to help them see where you're coming from.
I can't tell you what your benchmarks should be, but I think this change would go a long way.

As for Kokoloko, I stated my opinions in the OU Forum very clearly: I wanted nothing unbanned with the introduction of this new meta. Not even Darkrai (which I'm still amazed has proven relatively tame).
The first thing I would get rid of is . However, I think that the BEST solution is to run a suspect on Tera. If it fails? Then you ban everything listed in this forum and more.
If you want to raise hell and ruin OU for a week, then I have a simple solution: Ban Great Tusk. If it's the only glue mon holding the tier together, with it's average 40%+ usage for over one (1) YEAR OF COMPETITIVE POKEMON then maybe you'll be able to identify what's wrong with your tier while it's gone. In Gen 8, Clefable had an asinine usage stat while it existed to check Urshifu-Dark (or whatever that ugly bear is called). In Gen 8 pre-dlc, people were running SEISMITOED, a literal shitmon, because of Dracovish. Great Tusk is not a shitmon, but it is the only good mon in OU. It is not broken, but it checks broken. It is the glue that holds OU together, and without it, your entire tier would be even worse off then it is. Great Tusk isn't the problem, it's the only viable solution to Kingambit, Gholdengo, and every other threat in the meta.
So take a moment and think about that as we approach the new year.

Nuke it all from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
I won't post more or respond to anything, because my opinions are pretty radical (by pokemon standards) and I'm just very done with this generation. I want to thank the OU Council again for how much they have grown this generation. They have been more responsive and responsible while simultaneously exhibiting caution and consideration for the game and meta as a whole. I'm just one little low-tier whiner, but this generation felt like I could at least be heard and that action was taken, not necessarily on my behalf, but on the greater opinions of the larger playerbase. OU is heading in the right direction long-term. Gen 9 has been the turning point. Thank you for the transparency, responsiveness, and patience reading this wall of text. Have a happy new year, and maybe I'll see you all in Gen 10

 

[MrE]

Hi, okay so


If you want to raise hell and ruin OU for a week, then I have a simple solution: Ban Great Tusk. If it's the only glue mon holding the tier together, with it's average 40%+ usage for over one (1) YEAR OF COMPETITIVE POKEMON then maybe you'll be able to identify what's wrong with your tier while it's gone. In Gen 8, Clefable had an asinine usage stat while it existed to check Urshifu-Dark (or whatever that ugly bear is called). In Gen 8 pre-dlc, people were running SEISMITOED, a literal shitmon, because of Dracovish. Great Tusk is not a shitmon, but it is the only good mon in OU. It is not broken, but it checks broken. It is the glue that holds OU together, and without it, your entire tier would be even worse off then it is. Great Tusk isn't the problem, it's the only viable solution to Kingambit, Gholdengo, and every other threat in the meta.
So take a moment and think about that as we approach the new year.

I'm sorry but this idea is really dumb, in ecology there's something called keystone species, so strong can the effect a keystone species be that when reintroduced to an environment the literal geography itself can be changed, as show by the fact that the rivers and streams of Yellowstone park changed completely after Wolves were reintroduced. In the pre wolf yellowstone 'meta' elk were clearly op and needed banning as they destroyed the riverbanks and tree coverage of the park as they were free to graze and drink without a care in the world for predation severely hampering other 'playstyles'. Banning Tusk won't show you what actually is or isn't broken you'll just be flipping the meta on its head and causing mons that were otherwise fine to become broken. Tusk has had 40%+ usage because it's super splash-able and the best hazard removal in the tier, Lando had similar usage stats last gen (IIRC) for similar reasons and nobody seriously thinks that removing Lando would have been a good idea.

 

[CheesyBrie]

Fine. I'll edit my post and remove the Great Tusk thing. I shouldn't bother making points like that ever again anyway.

 

[JunkoAJ]

Your statistics are not helping you.
If you create a tier based solely on Usage percent, it fails time and time again to adequately gauge what is and isn't broken without community input.
It isn't that the 4.52% cutoff is bad. In fact, it IS a good way to assess what is "used" and "Over Used."
But the problem is that these statistics don't actually provide anything. They aren't actionable. It's just a snapshot that is determining your entire metagame.

I'm a little confused on posts like this when they come about - if usage shouldn't be what the tiers are based on, there should be some kind of concrete solution from the person/people who think it isn't enough to determine tiers. What exactly is the problem, usage by and large does provide an accurate snapshot on what is good in the meta, that's the point. If something is potentially used too much in any tier below OU, it moves up a tier, not used enough, it goes down. It is by definition actionable because action is taken every month based on what the usage stats result in.

Furthermore, to this point:

You need at least one more set of data to determine your tiering and more accurately identify threats.

This is almost exactly what the tiering surveys are for, the more intricate details that the usage stats don't show - okay a mon is used a lot but do people actually have a problem with it? That's the point of the surveys, it discusses the more problematic mons in the tier, regardless of usage.

Fine. I'll edit my post and remove the Great Tusk thing. I shouldn't bother making points like that ever again anyway.

While I disagree with what you said, it doesn't meant what you've said is worthless - all opinions are welcome and worth discussing (provided they're not a shitpost) :)

I think most people have said this but if we were to use Kokoloko tiering, it should be in a meta WAY more volatile than this one (i.e. DLC1) - nothing is overtly broken as of right now, some things are constraining but not to the point of stranglehold as seen in previous SV metagames. The meta is (relatively speaking) balanced and I don't think anything should change from the way the Council have been handling bans; not necessarily in terms of the # of bans, but curating responses from community surveys every so often to gauge the opinion of the general public.

 

[TCTphantom]

I feel like this just isn’t the meta for a Kokoloko tiering system. That aggressive action is best served in metas where action is required asap. It’s untenable to just do a quick ban or two and proceed to suspect tests. If this was DLC1, I’d be more open to it. That metagame needed decisive action: it’s why we saw so much tiering action in it. But right now? It feels like trying to brute force a hyper competitive SPL.

I think this isn’t a perfect meta. DLC2 didn’t just drop and every issue in OU went away. I still think this is a good enough meta for tour gameplay. We don’t need to aggressively act in order to fix the tier right now. While the council has for the most part done a great job with tiering stuff this gen, I think we all remember the meltdown the forms had over Volcarona being quickbanned. The OU playerbase, while open to quickbans, clearly has a breaking point. Part of why the Volcarona Ban got as much flack as it did was due to how compared to other quickbans after the Tera test, they really didn’t have much input. Volc wasn’t an outlier on surveys and wasn’t even on the survey before it was banned. While this thread helps, I feel like it also shows the cracks in how this format would be received. It’s clear that this topic is highly divisive. Sure, some of the community wants this aggressive tiering action, but the vibe of this thread gave me that overall people want more focused action. A new survey would alleviate that, sure, but I feel like we can all see that Kokoloko tiering, despite any benefits it could bring for SPL, would be highly controversial.

I also doubt that Kokoloko’s method would fix things long term. I’ve seen some people say the praise of this meta boiled down to different from dlc1 was an improvement and that the core issues of the meta remained. I feel like quick banning a ton of stuff still doesn’t fix some of our biggest problems. The hazard metagame is at a breaking point, and Gholdengo is public enemy number one on that. Does banning it automatically fix the metagame? Probably not, but it does give both players more options to deal with hazards. Tera has also been something on the mind of the playerbase for a while. I probably would oppose a hard ban on Tera, but a compromise like a Tera blast ban would benefit the tier. Banning strong set up mons like Serp or Roaring moon helps the tier in the short term, but with how this generation is something else will just take its place. Look at HOME. We banned Volcarona, and suddenly Kingambit useable grew to its peak levels and Valiant could flex its muscles as a sweeper more. Is Roaring Moon too much for the tier? Probably, but I feel like it’s a symptom of our meta woes, not the cause.

I feel like the best avenue to take things is just throw out another survey. We will probably see high responses for a few things and can tackle them there. We shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of good. With a few minor tweeks, we can have a metagame easily sustainable for SPL. Run the survey, ban Roaring Moon probably, and the tier would be in a spot that would be stable enough for SPL. I would suggest that before the council considers swift decisive action on the Kokoloko level, we should look into our structural problems of the metagame that have been there for a while.

 

[Lethargic]

My bad if this is out of line, I am a complete idiot.

However one thing that strikes me immediately is that not only is there not a universal consensus on what is “broken”, a lot of posters here seem to think 12+ mons are broken and I can’t help but think they simply list things they don’t like playing against. Gliscor gambit and dhengo are more manageable than they ever were before and I can’t help people are simply stuck in the past and want them gone because they didn’t get the validation before or the validation in gliscor case was short lived. I mean okay meow + kyurem is arguably best on high ladder right now but maybe let’s see if that’s the case in a week? Bird spam in ORAS was clearly “broken” oh wait talonflame isn’t as good as we though whoops glad we didn’t kokoloko pinsir + talon.

They “might” get retested sure but what’s more likely is the banned shit gets forgotten about because people become okay with the way things are and that is easier. Darkrai for example COULD have been tested maybe a generation or two ago but was that/ did that ever happen?

Once again the ambiguous vocab of “anything POTENTIALLY broken” causes me issue, cuz, well, people think like 15 mons “might be broken”. Pre dlc people though zamazenta “may” be broken so what we just ban it and ask questions later?

just my two cents once again I’m dumb as hell

 

[GT89]

Thanks for the reply, just to address some of the points



We are in a different (and better) meta game now, but core aspects of the game - Tera & Hazards+Ghould were frustrations of DLC1 and they still remain in DLC2, there wasn't any action against Ghold. I was highlighting how the current tiering method lead to an unsatisfying and unhealthy metagame. Not saying it was easy to balance but the Ghold problem was never dealt with.



Similar to the first point, DeoxysS in past gens has nothing to do with DeoxysS in Gen 9 OU, my point was how long we played with a Pokemon that should have been banned long ago. Given all the Pokemon on the Radar at the moment, it could be a slow process if they're suspected one by one, or a few at a time, or whether Tera/Hazards are looked at beforehand. While others may disagree I see a mountain of work ahead of tiering Gen 9 OU with all the potential suspects and there's likely less than 2 years if gamefreak continue the same release schedule.



Obviously you can't ban every Pokemon with Hazards, the only other real alternative is to ban the moves themselves. Gliscor has never been close to uber until it became blatantly broken in DLC1 with the addition of one move - Spikes. If Baton pass is bannable (its not broken on everyone) then why can't hazard moves be looked at? They're not broken on everyone but they dictate of a lot of OU and there's massive issues teambuilding to combat them.

Hazards just seem like such an integral part of Pokemon at its core that I couldn't fathom restricting/removing them all together. It feels like an entire playstyle or core mechanic of the game that would just be weird if they weren't around. Just wild for my brain to think about.

 

[Chlora]

Gliscor gambit and dhengo are more manageable than they ever were before and I can’t help people are simply stuck in the past and want them gone because they didn’t get the validation before or the validation in gliscor case was short lived.

I believe this is due to the fact that the new things that blow everything up also blow up those 2, like, if pokemon X is problematic but new pokemon Y shows up and it becomes better than the other peers that doesn't mean pokemon X isn't problematic anymore, just that pokemon Y is so problematic that it completely shuts down mon X like it shuts down everything else, which is the case, this is not a mon just being good at handling that thing, it's a mon (but in our case, a group of them) handling the entire metagame.

Especially when you consider what they are: Gliscor is a defensive annoyance that just so happens to be the glue for a lot of defensive teams to work, and Gholdengo an extremely oppressive and centralizing presence. Although i dislike metas without defensive playstyles being viable, that's not necessarily an indicator of an unhealthy tier afaik, BUT currently offense simply plays the trade game and more defensive teams scramble to do their thing both in game and in the builder, like genuinely it's stupid hard to build anything you'd consider "solid" against everything rn

And in these 2's case, when you outpressure the already big & arguably too much pressure mons, i think that speaks volumes to how it affects the tier's health

I think both need to go eventually

 

[arnimacarni]

Just my unasked for two cents here: I agree with many others that Kokolokoing should be only in extreme desperation cases and within great uncertainty in the meta, and it should be fairly widespread in scope (7+ mons or so). I think it's a good idea to implement it in a future Gen10, but at this point we have no rush. I would like to point out tho, that if we do things this way, it's not only about banning the newcomers, but also existing mons, as many mons such as Bax and Moon only got clearly broken in DLC1 with certain Movepool additions. All in all, not necessary at this point in my opinion.

 

[CatsAreCute]

Of the options listed, I think:

• Deo-S
• Roaring Moon
• Kingambit
• Gholdengo
• Iron Boulder
• Enamorus

Are the only ones that more or less need to be banned. If you can tell, these guys pretty much necessitate Priority or Tera counter for obvious reasons. Gholdengo because the hazard options are far too numerous and we didn't get the Rapid Spin/Defog distribution as we had been hoping.

The only one I'm a bit against is Kyurem , because although the Sub+Freeze-dry/Specs are probably too overwhelming for the tier, we don't have a Special Ice OU Type whose name is NOT A-ninetales. But I understand if it does and I go either way with it.

 

[serotine]

My issue with Kokoloko as a whole, is the shifting from determining if a given Pokémon is uncompetitive, broken, etc., while within its given tier to instead if a given Pokémon is uncompetitive, broken, etc., by being introduced to the tier. Kokoloko is a extremist approach to tiering, and fails to address metagame concerns because it only avoids the conversation rather than confronts it.

The difference between the two is, more than anything, the productiveness of the conversations. Dropping Uber-level Pokémon into OU has always been the most cyclical, misguided, and abstract arguments. The burden of proof is borderline impossible when you have to argue that: the Pokémon itself is not overbearing, and that it is also a healthy presence to the tier. Banning a Pokémon has the benefit of tangible evidence in replays, tournament success even. Unbanning has none of that, and Darkrai is demonstrative of the mental friction that comes with that - nearly everyone was sure it was too much based on abstraction, calcs and the like. It took actual implementation in suspect slots and a drop to actually ascertain whether Darkrai was overbearing or not. Without tangible in-game/in-tournment evidence, unbanning Pokémon is significantly harder.

Kokoloko also bans several Pokémon at once, another potential issue that can lead to unproductive discussion. The main reason is if, theoretically, some of the banned Pokémon are strong checks/counters to other banned Pokémon. It then becomes extraordinarily difficult to create discussion based solely onto a specific Pokémon and its viability within OU. Think “X is broken but if we ban Tera then..” Moreover, if a drop does occur - every argument restarts with “is X okay now in this OU?” Unless there is a line in the sand, this argument will keep coming. Kokoloko doesn’t have a discernible end point, neither a clear separation or indication of what is bannable.

I don’t think Kokoloko is successful in any form, for any meta game. It’s scorched earth policy and puts an unreasonable burden onto arguments. Quick Bans and suspects are effective, albeit inefficient, methods of tiering.

(A point to bring up, what happens if a release/ update, even minor like event mons or movesets, occurs during Kokoloko testing? Do we start over? Do new mons get added to the list? These are all really messy questions with serious implications.)

 

[Lethargic]

I believe this is due to the fact that the new things that blow everything up also blow up those 2, like, if pokemon X is problematic but new pokemon Y shows up and it becomes better than the other peers that doesn't mean pokemon X isn't problematic anymore, just that pokemon Y is so problematic that it completely shuts down mon X like it shuts down everything else, which is the case, this is not a mon just being good at handling that thing, it's a mon (but in our case, a group of them) handling the entire metagame.

Especially when you consider what they are: Gliscor is a defensive annoyance that just so happens to be the glue for a lot of defensive teams to work, and Gholdengo an extremely oppressive and centralizing presence. Although i dislike metas without defensive playstyles being viable, that's not necessarily an indicator of an unhealthy tier afaik, BUT currently offense simply plays the trade game and more defensive teams scramble to do their thing both in game and in the builder, like genuinely it's stupid hard to build anything you'd consider "solid" against everything rn

And in these 2's case, when you outpressure the already big & arguably too much pressure mons, i think that speaks volumes to how it affects the tier's health

I think both need to go eventually

I see where you’re coming from, but I’d push back and say if Pokémon X is broken then Pokémon A—H are introduced, enough of which check/counter X…. Maybe X isn’t broken anymore? If it’s because A-H are all more broken than X was but it still results in balance… what’s the problem?

And also even if the result isn’t balanced… why would the kokoloko method be the way to go about this? Also add the points Serotene just added above me and something I already touched on: if we ban first justify later the burden of proof required is not only higher but more difficult to achieve, as it evidenced by darkrai. Especially if the burden of proof in question is whatever MIGHT be broken like come on people are listing 10+ mons here as “broken”.

 

[Zetalz]

I have little to add about Kokoloko as a tiering philosophy that hasn't been addressed in some form by other users. I really don't care for doing a meta up-end only 2 weeks in and do not support it and will leave it at that.

What I would like to mention is something also brought up by users like Dreadfury about the impact of Tera Blast in the tier. At least 3 of the most consistently complained about mons that people want to see action on in some form ( ) are being done so directly and nigh entirely because of Tera Blast's influence. Even if we don't count the handful of other mons people have issues with Tera Blast on like bolt or gambit or whatever, having several top mons being pushed over the edge in some form or another by this 1 move I think is cause enough to act on it in lieu of more controversial and potentially damaging methods like Kokoloko.

This doesn't answer every problem that exists right now, the 1 mon I want action on without any shadow of a doubt is , which I will make clear in my survey ballot whenever that drops, but I'd much rather tackle something that is objectively pushing multiple mons into contention than try to sort out Kokoloko method for however many months it'd take.

 

[cyclonez_]

I'm not against Kokoloko on principle. Even though it sorta breaks tiering policy, I think it absolutely has some merits over traditional tiering for certain metagames--I (unintentionally, but still) used it for tiering my Solomod. One primary appeal of using it is that it artificially lowers the power level of the tier. It is an intentional overcorrection to a broken-checks-broken metagame.

With that said, I'm not convinced that Indigo Disk OU is the type of metagame that benefits from this. I admit I haven't had as much time to follow metagame trends as I would have liked. That said, looking at the Pokémon cited in this thread, Pokémon such as Raging Bolt and Dondozo do not strike me as being "broken" by any means. Strong, yes; potentially overbearing, sure. Broken to the point of being quickbanned? Ehh. Reviewing the definition of broken from tiering policy, the only things in the metagame that I would call broken as of right now is Roaring Moon, and possibly Volc / Kyurem. Ghold is debatably unhealthy as well.

Another thing to consider is community involvement/support. Seeing the reaction to Volcarona's quickban earlier in the generation, a ban I approved of fwiw, I have a very hard time seeing a slew of quickbans of less offensive Pokémon being seen positively by the greater Singles community. In addition, it would be a very difficult task to determine the list of Pokémon to be banned fairly. Even if we all agree on 3-4 threats, there's another dozen people have mentioned that others disagree with. How will the list be determined, and once determined, what's the process for taking action on the list? Survey into council vote? Double survey? Some element of suspect testing? (i.e. get 84% GXE to get a vote on each mon on the Kokoloko list?) It's a question with no obvious answer and one that will leave people upset no matter what.

I'm not married to the idea of traditional tiering, but I'm certainly not jumping at the idea of Kokoloko tiering. Is artificially lowering the power level the best option for OU by enough to make breaking previous standard worth it? If the answer is yes, then fuck it we ball. But, if it goes bad, doing this has the potential to irreversibly damage the tier, so the council should make sure it's what they want to do.

Maybe do some private testing of what a projected Koko'd metagame could look like--see if it's stable. The Darkrai games helped convince people it would be fine in OU, let's test the opposite out. We're already talking breaking policy by doing Kokoloko, might as well break the "no testing possible future metagames" rule. Could be kinda fun, too!

No matter what happens, ban volc so the metagame can be fun again

 

[Finchinator]

We have a brand new SV OU tiering survey on the DLC2 metagame -- including the topic NJNP mentioned in the OP and various council members discussed throughout the thread (with some support and plenty of opposition as well)! Be sure to check out our new forum-based survey and respond: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-ou-tiering-surveys.3711911/page-2#post-9907969

 

[Astoria]

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

I have seen many headass posts but lets address this one specifically since it offers some evidence actually in favor of my argument.
First, 'Is this bursting with variety? Is Skarm/Pex/Fat ground/Fast knock really better than zap/Tinglu/glowking/zama on both sides?'
judging from the oupl game u linked, 10 unique mons out of 12 is not 'bursting with variety' to u? look at scl finals and tb games, do u see a single game without zama pult gambit ground on either side i mean please i implore u to find one such game to show the past meta brimming with diversity that you are dying to return to trad for.

Next. 'But I think the most important part is the increase in offensive powercreep in balance's speed control options. Weavile and Meowscarada getting Triple Axel make them 2x better as progress makers via knock off and general speed control. To me, this is the main reason why balance is strong right now, and in conjunction with all the factors in the OP by njnp, you are looking at a very narrow set of consistent options and a very wide array of MU fishing'
ok so you are telling me that more options to hit annoying mons of the past like zap lu scor meow, options like knock to force progress vs sit and do nothing stall forcing it to adopt new strategies, and more mons such as kyurem to put pressure on fat teams whereas the booster mons bolster the prowess of ho, the meta is actually LESS diverse? so you trad boys parade around the idea that all the new shit is broken, and the new shit is so diverse and flexible they boost basically any team theyre on, yet only one style aka balance is viable? so which is it, the new mons are only broken and usable on balance or do they offer diverse boosts to different strategies in this meta?

If we want to look at individual mons, I agree we can wait for survey results and weighted usage stats to gauge the brokeness of mons like gouging fire, who alongside meow are my best hitters of DLC 2, undeniably. However, every mon has flaws and counterplay. I have used every DLC 2 mon and built teams around them, testing on high ladder w fiends like vert who occupy the top spot longer than aubrey graham. I dont think anything is immediately over the top like ursaluna where coverage is perfect and u get a mix of longevity and immediate power, somewhat of a perfect mon. similar mons like gouging fire, bolt, kyurem and company exist, but they each have flaws. Instead of banning them, I think introducing more borderlines such as bax back into the meta can create another situation of offensively checkign threats. For example, cry all uwant about ground volc, but u get a kill with it and now i send out bax with shard in the back, u have already exhausted tera so i have the upper hand. Similarly, use your gouging fire but my lando/tusk/dozo/primarina will still come in and blow ur nose off. There is counterplay to everything, stop crying about fishing and randomness, notice how all the top players consistently perform with little randomness or variation involved, no matter the meta changes. Over the last week or so I have used/given teams to people at the top of the ladder ranging from cheese ho to stall, even rage built some stall ct to snipe some pussies. They all work. Please player base have some respect for yourself and accept that no matter the tiering actions taken, the top players arent better cuz 'mu fish', and that losing to the 'broken mons' everyone has access to isnt the real reason your spl campaign has fallen short for the 5th season in a row. Just let the real players play w unmitigated options as long as they are fair and balanced, until proven otherwise.
Lastly, if you are still having the conversation about banning THE core mechanic and its extension (tera blast), please help yourself to the nintendo switch and hit that custom wifi battle playa, we here to play some real mons
No personal shots at anyone: this is not disparagement, this is a conversation.
Thank you for tuning in.

 

[artificialdeath]

Sorry if this is a low-effort post compared to others in this thread, but my view is basically that this point in SV is probably the least deserving of kokoloko tiering. For reference, this kind of tiering was implemented when (primarily due to how usage stats were still calculated iirc) XY UU had to contend with stuff like Mega Garde/Medicham/Pinsir(?), both Alakazams, Kyurem-B, Manaphy, Tornadus-T, Volcarona, and fucking Lando-I of all things in the tier. That's more analogous to post-release, post-HOME, or the first days of DLC1 than to now. None of the targets for tiering action, except maybe Roaring Moon, stick out the way Flutter, Bax, Hearthflame, Chi-Yu, UrshiRS, or Regieleki (to name a few) did. Mass bans would have been good back then but atm I feel large shifts will be more detrimental to the meta thn anything.

 

[grayblood]

Use this method to free my boy lando-I he deserves the generational week of happiness

 

[CTC]

I agree with most of this post and to expand a lil bit on the variety of the meta the 2 mons that are repeated are OU GOATED Skarm that has been OU since it's introduction minus one black mark against its record and a bulky water with a busted ability, both of these mons should be expected to be quite common.

HOWEVER, calls to unban bax is beyond silly imo, that guy is so broken it's not even funny and the only thing that has changed between the last time it was in the tier and now is that people cannot just mindlessly lead ATales veil up and sweep as DeoS will just taunt the ATales, instead people will lead HRott kill the DeoS/force it out go to ATales set up veil and sweep. Having a mon in the tier that can set up in a variety of ways with an effective uninvested bulk of 371 495 312 is never going to not be broken, most defensive mons would kill to have those stats, let alone have those stats and be as potent as Bax is offensively.

If Kyurem is proven to be balanced enough to stay bax can at least be suspected. How is it that much better than kyurem, it has glaive shard and eq over kyurem at the cost of mixed capabilities and veil benefits both equally. Tho i would run kyu w bax for the maximum overload

 

[MrE]

If Kyurem is proven to be balanced enough to stay bax can at least be suspected. How is it that much better than kyurem, it has glaive shard and shard eq over kyurem at the cost of mixed capabilities and veil benefits both equally. Tho i would run kyu w bax for the maximum overload

Not being able to burn it is huge imo and the more immediate power of 145 vs 130 is noticeable but Kyurem can go both ways and is still really stupid in need of a ban despite being arguably worse than Bax.