Discussion Retesting Non-Pokemon elements and Generational Mechanics

[Jho]

A while back, closer to the start of the new generation, National Dex like most tiers held a Tera suspect test. This test ended in a Do Not Ban result by a margin of a single vote. As the metagame has progressed the general communities opinion on Tera has noticeably become more hostile, despite nothing having changed about the uses or mechanics surrounding it.

If it were a Pokémon that previously had a DNB result but was later discovered to have a stronger set, something else was banned that pushed it over the edge, or the meta just shifted to allow it to thrive, a retest would not be unheard of in any tier. In fact, we did just that last generation with Cinderace, with its first suspect test ending in a DNB result prior to an innovation in National Dex World Cup bought about a set that hadnt been seen before that became the norm and was much too much to handle in the tier.

However, with Non-Pokemon elements, and especially Generational mechanics, it becomes far harder to justify such a retest as they fundamentally do not change and the changes which occur are within the abusers of the mechanic, which is why they usually get the boot if anything in these situations.

As I couldn't find any precedent for this, since the only other banned mechanic is Dynamax and that passed first time in almost every metagame, and it may end up effecting more than just National Dex if any other tier wanted to retest Tera along the line, I wanted to broach the question:

Is it okay for a metagame to retest a previously public suspect tested non-Pokémon element which received a Do Not Ban Result, and if so, what conditions must be met for it to be justified?

At least in National Dex, my plan was to confirm the communities want for a retest via a thread within a subforum allowing people to voice their opinions, and if the resulting discussion made it clear that a Tera retest was wanted, we would look into another suspect test. Whether this is an ideal way of going about it I'm not sure, maybe there are some better ideas floating around.

 

[chimp]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your Cinderace example, nothing fundamental about Cinderace actually changed either. Its not like it got a new move or ability, people just found a new way to use it.

That seems like it could easily happen to Tera or other gimmicks as well.

 

[adem]

Echoing the above post, I dont see why this isnt treated the same as other things that are suspected, I dont think a fancy “generational gimmic/mechanic” label that we slap on it changes anything about it. Replace Tera with idk Choice Band, if it did the same thing Tera did (made a lot of mons problematic, and banning all the abusers is not realistic I dont see why this is much different. While the item / mechanic doesnt change, the pool of abusers become much more apparent as time goes on, and thats a pretty much identical situation to retesting pokemon, just a slightly different perspective.

 

[Jho]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in your Cinderace example, nothing fundamental about Cinderace actually changed either. Its not like it got a new move or ability, people just found a new way to use it.

That seems like it could easily happen to Tera or other gimmicks as well.

This is true, however, at least with Tera in this case, a new way to use it has thus far meant a different type on a mon which leads to the Pokemon being under scrutiny for being a good abuser of the mechanic instead of the mechanic itself. If this is the precedent which continues then it seems really difficult to justify a retest under the circumstances.

I am of the opinion that as long as community consensus is properly measured and reaches the conclusion that another suspect test is warranted, then that alone should be enough for another test. This is the route we are planning to take in National Dex, but I know that tiering policy isn't as strict for us as it is for say, OU. If OU wanted to retest Tera in the future, for example, would it be so easy? I think its important to iron out the framework for such a process that makes it as objective as possible to avoid dissent.

 

[R8]

It should always be OK to resuspect something when an immense majority of the community including the council wants to, and it is pretty clear NatDex is in this exact situation. There is currently a huge distaste for the state of the tier and most particularly what Tera does to the tier, anyone that is in touch with any part of the playerbase can tell you what people think about Tera, and if you are still not convinced, you can take a look at the latest survey results, and the two threads dedicated to discussions about Tera in National Dex.

Is it okay for a metagame to retest a previously public suspect tested non-Pokémon element which received a Do Not Ban Result, and if so, what conditions must be met for it to be justified?

In my opinion the council and the playerbase of said metagame are the most qualified to give an answer to this question. If there is significant support from both the community and the council for a retest, then I really don't see why it shouldn't happen.