Metagame Shared Power [Under Re-Construction!]

[Kadabrium]

All you need to know is that it's because Speed Boost is banned from sharing.

The usual reasoning would have made it so that blaziken does not receive abilities from othersÞ not the other way aroundæ

 

[Haaku.]

is there a post why blaziken was unbanned from the very beginningÞ

Yes, there’s a link in the OP if you click on Blaziken’s name in the unbanlist. n_n

 

[Level 1000 Weedle]

The usual reasoning would have made it so that blaziken does not receive abilities from othersÞ not the other way aroundæ

I'm not sure I understand. All bans have restricted a particular ability from sharing, not its user from being shared to, and all pokemon unbans have worked the exact same way. Anyway, thanks to Haaku for giving us directions; I spent 10 minutes or so trying to find the post.

 

[WarriorGallade]

Do Weather based abilities like Chlorophyll, Swift Swim, etc double speed for the whole team?

 

[Yahooboo]

Do Weather based abilities like Chlorophyll, Swift Swim, etc double speed for the whole team?

abilities that strictly boost speed may not be shared according to the OP. that includes the weather abilities, so no.

 

[Ivy]

Regarding Serene Grace:
Because Magic Guard exists, stealth rocks can't reliably be used as a counter to focus sash. Some situational options like a rock setter with Mold Breaker or sandstorm / hail damage exist, but aren't available to every team.
This is the reason why flinch and multihit-strategies are common.
I'll note that flinching is mostly relevant to the fast-offense vs. slow-offense matchup. Defensive teams usually carry priority healing, which completely avoids it.
Finally, there seems to be some uncertainty as to how stench, king's rock and serene grace interact. I believe it works like this:
- Stench gives a 10% chance to flinch to any more that does not have a flinch chance
- King's Rock gives a 10% chance to flinch to any more that does not have a flinch chance. Since stench already provides one, this does not happen
- Serene grace doubles the 10% flinch chance from Stench to 20%
- beat up hits 6 times with a 20% chance to flinch on every hit. The total chance to flinch is 1 - (0.8)^6 = 0.737855999999999, so approximately 74%. A good upgrade on Serene Grace iron head, but not that close to 100% either.

I suppose magic guard exists, but without it being shareable, I've not seen a single team use an Alakazam or a non-Unaware Clefable. Stealth rock is incredibly useful, but most importantly, hazard removal still exists. (I think you meant Magic Bounce, which yeah, is everywhere thanks to that espeon/lele core)
Thanks for the concrete numbers on flinch stats btw.

 

[OrdA]

I suppose magic guard exists

Sorry. I meant magic bounce. I corrected my post above.

Edit:

it is quite common to run Lele and THAT is actually the main reason Pangoro Teams don't work so well

My argument would be that triage pangoro forces other offense to run lele, because it's too constraining to run two sashed checks. I didn't point out lele because it's the obvious answer to Pangoro; I thought everyone was already aware of that

You basically HAVE to run something on the side like Fini/ Bulu/ Koko, but I have not seen many of them together with Pangoro yet.

I considered running something like this on triage, but I feel like it doesn't improve the odds by enough to be worth it. You'd essentially be running an ability for one matchup that will be useless otherwise, and hurt your chances in general. They still get a 50/50 by either switching and re-applying the terrain to let drain punch fizzle, or koing Pangoro as I try to hit their switch with a non-priority move. 50% sounds pretty good, but this can be repeated and ultimately still prevents Pangoro from sweeping.

literally every team runs either Mold Breaker Exca or M-Pinsir (with MB pre-Mega). It is really easy to fit on any team

I could drop my rock setter (tough claws) and replace it wish sash mb Exca. But only my espeon matchup would profit from it, and I'd lack the power the team needs otherwise.

 

[Zyrax]

My argument would be that triage pangoro forces other offense to run lele, because it's too constraining to run two sashed checks. I didn't point out lele because it's the obvious answer to Pangoro; I thought everyone was already aware of that

I don't fully agree that everybody uses Lele because he doesn't want to waste two Sashes on his Mons. Almost all Teams used to run some from of Priority Prevention since the beginning of this Meta (most OMs from Gen 6 had E-Speed Spam as a viable strategy, so a prevention of Priority is always nice to have). If you wanted to just prevent Priority, Queenly Majesty/ Dazzling is arguably better, as it cannot fade after 5 turns. But then you would lose to Pangoro/ Hawlucnha (Mold Breaker). Essentially, what all teams did, was swap their Bruxish/ Tsareena for Lele.

I could drop my rock setter (tough claws) and replace it wish sash mb Exca. But only my espeon matchup would profit from it, and I'd lack the power the team needs otherwise.

I think we might run similar teams. I use Barbaracle (Tough Claws) with a Sash for a potential sweep, M-Beedrill (Adaptability) which can sweep after a +1 Speed, Scarfed Kartana (Beast Boost) for Beast Boost and Late Game Sweep and Scarfed Lele (PS), to wreck some Holes in the opponent's Teams with surprise Scarf and Boost in Spa after KO'ing a mon, so that I force his Scarfer and kill it afterwards with my sashed Barbaracle. This is basically all I need as an offensive Core. Granted, I am not well prepared for defensive Teams, if I cannot 2HKO their Mons, so I have to predict a lot and play risky, but it worked out for me as of right now. For the last 2 Slots, I can play anything I want to counter certain playstyles. I use Sash Exca for setting up Rocks and also getting rid of them at the same time. After setting up Rocks I spam Rapid Spin until Excadrill dies (my opponent can either break my Sash turn 1 or set up Rocks, either way I will prevent him from keeping up rocks). Against offensive teams, his Sashes are broken and my offensive Mons break Holes in his team and can even Sweep them after a Beast Boost. My last Slot is usually used for what I am struggling with right now. Currently it is Sashed Ribombee to prevent flinch/ para with Zap Cannon etc. Since BLaziken cannot KO it with Double Kick, I can revenge it. It also gives me Webs in case my opponent doesn't have Espeon and can even potentially Sweep with Quiver Dance.

Tl,dr: I think you can fit in Excadrill even on an offensive team in which you need a lot of abilities to break through Unaware Mons.

 

[hiei-q]

The usual reasoning would have made it so that blaziken does not receive abilities from othersÞ not the other way aroundæ

I think that your question was "why blaziken is unbanned and pokemon like Lugia, Hoho and arceus are banned despite being unable to share abilities?"

If that was your question, i believe that the reason of blaziken unban was that blaziken doesnt have the same raw power and movepool of lugia, hoho and specially of arceus. For the same reason aegislash was unbanned.

 

[rsbound]

peaked rank 30 with this team

Espeon @ Choice Scarf
Ability: Magic Bounce
EVs: 44 HP / 212 SpA / 252 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Psychic
- Shadow Ball
- Dazzling Gleam
- Trick

Tapu Lele @ Focus Sash
Ability: Psychic Surge
EVs: 176 HP / 80 SpA / 252 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Psychic
- Moonblast
- Thunderbolt
- Shadow Ball

Excadrill @ Choice Band
Ability: Mold Breaker
EVs: 248 HP / 8 Def / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
IVs: 26 Atk
- Earthquake
- Iron Head
- Stealth Rock
- Drill Run

Porygon-Z @ Focus Sash
Ability: Adaptability
EVs: 252 SpA / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Timid Nature
IVs: 0 Atk
- Psychic
- Tri Attack
- Thunderbolt
- Shadow Ball

Ferrothorn @ Rocky Helmet
Ability: Iron Barbs
EVs: 252 HP / 120 Def / 136 SpD
Sassy Nature
IVs: 0 Spe
- Leech Seed
- Thunder Wave
- Knock Off
- Gyro Ball

Kartana @ Choice Scarf
Ability: Beast Boost
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 Def / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Smart Strike
- Leaf Blade
- Knock Off
- Sacred Sword

espeon is to keep focus sash. it gets +1 speed from beast boost
porygon-z is for doublade and adaptability
ferrothorn is for pangoro and to break sashes

 

[Billybobman]

UR->B+
I've been seeing more people use this. It usually runs Counter and Destiny Bond, and has a teammate with prankster (usually tornadus). It almost always wears a focus sash. Imo it does not hit very hard, even with Hustle, but it can take out a physical attacker with counter, and then take out another with Dbond. Counter is also useful for making sure Delibird moves after the opposing pokemon. The main reason Delibird useful is that it provides Hustle to the rest of your team.
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7sharedpower-711082576
https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen7sharedpower-711073649
Some usable moves include: Drill Peck, Ice Punch, Fake Out, Ice Shard, Rapid Spin, Counter, Defog, Destiny Bond, Gunk Shot, Focus Punch, Spikes. On a side note it also learns Splash and Happy Hour. There are some other moves that might be usable, like aurora veil if ur using snow warning.

 

[Haaku.]

I have some very unfortunate (albeit fortunate for some) news. The OM leadership has identified two problems with the Shared Power metagame that will make it unable to exist as an OM moving forward. Meaning- Shared Power will be retired as an OM and will only continue to exist if these problems are fixed. The following, as outlined by The Immortal, are as follows:

1. Difficulty balancing the metagame - When an ability based OM bans 30 abilities and still hasn’t been balanced, it may be easy to see why this is a problem. The very concept’s nature makes it exceedingly tough to balance regardless of the quality of the Tier Leader or the council or the amount of bans.

2. Ability restrictions - Shared Power does something unlike any OM at the moment, and that’s the way it handles ability restrictions. No metagame official or unofficial has done what Shared Power has done (the exceptions being Endless Battle Clause and Mega Ray Clause). You’re “banning” mechanics. OMs should be thought of as the actual game. So in this game of Shared Power, Pokemon share all their abilities in battle. By restricting abilities, you’re effectively altering game mechanics. To give you a comparison, it’d be like OU “banning” Scald from burning. Or Jirachi being “banned” from flinching. You’re not banning the ability or the Pokémon but you’re “banning” the mechanic. This is something that should never be done.

Now, while these problems are fixable, they can’t be fixed without drastically altering the entire premise of this OM. Since I am very passionate about my metagame, I am absolutely open to this and can’t do it without your help. I want to change Shared Power’s premise while maintaining the spirit of the metagame. I will soon make a post outlining a similar idea I’ve actually developed as an OM (unrelated, but now related, to Shared Power) and I want you guys to offer your input. I know this is lots to take in on such short notice, and although I may heavily disagree with all of this and personally think it’s a horrid idea to close a metagame with such a passionate and large userbase, I can do nothing but comply in order to give this metagame an actual future. As much as I personally hate to admit it, I knew they were right, and this goes into my own personal reasoning to go on a very frequent banhammer spree (my own idea) so I guess now you guys know the reasoning as well. Shared Power is something that means a lot to me, as cliché as it sounds. It’s my first OM and my gateway into the great OM community, and I don’t want to go out like this. So once again, I ask for your help in coming up with a premise that retains our lovely premise without making it unplayable. And again, I will post my own idea soon so I’ll be waiting for your input on that as well.

I want to thank The Immortal and Chloe for trusting me enough to host such a crazy metagame. My future projects, including Shared Power Unity and my Flying Press article, will be put on hold. I want to end this on a high note by saying Shared Power is not gonna die so as long as we, the playerbase, stick by it and show its support.

tl;dr the OM leadership is closing shared power unless a similar OM without shared power’s problems is created. need help. sorry about this.

 

[Akumeoy]

Unfortunate, but understandable.

If we want to preserve "abilities are shared across the whole team" in some respect, the idea that comes to mind immediately is to have each mon share its ability with the next mon in the team, and then the sixth mon shares its ability with slot 1.

So for example, a team with the following structure:

1. Magic Guard Alakazam
2. Unaware Clefable
3. Poison Heal Gliscor
4. Guts Conkeldurr
5. Beast Boost Kartana
6. Sturdy Magnezone

Would end up like:

1. Sturdy + Magic Guard Alakazam
2. Magic Guard + Unaware Clefable
3. Unaware + Poison Heal Gliscor
4. Poison Heal + Guts Conkeldurr
5. Guts + Speed Boost Kartana
6. Beast Boost + Sturdy Magnezone

So instead of six mons with any given ability, you'd have two. This would put considerable restrictions on "spam" teams instead of making them automatic, prevent splashable two-mon combos from dominating the metagame, ensure that hazards remain relevant, and enforce trade-offs on making a team that OHKOs everything.

It would still require some effort to balance, but I don't think it would approach the troubles that came with balancing Shared Power.

 

[Ivy]

2. Ability restrictions - Shared Power does something unlike any OM at the moment, and that’s the way it handles ability restrictions. No metagame official or unofficial has done what Shared Power has done (the exceptions being Endless Battle Clause and Mega Ray Clause). You’re “banning” mechanics. OMs should be thought of as the actual game. So in this game of Shared Power, Pokemon share all their abilities in battle. By restricting abilities, you’re effectively altering game mechanics. To give you a comparison, it’d be like OU “banning” Scald from burning. Or Jirachi being “banned” from flinching. You’re not banning the ability or the Pokémon but you’re “banning” the mechanic. This is something that should never be done.

I feel like this comparison is a bit extreme tbh. Those are some very special examples. The ability softbans would be more comparable to forbidding certain Pokemon in STABmons from receiving all STAB moves (i.e. Tapu Lele, which was otherwise banned for its powerful wallbreaking capability thanks to STAB moves). Of course this is still unacceptable by OM standards unfortunately.

 

[earl]

I feel like this comparison is a bit extreme tbh. Those are some very special examples. The ability softbans would be more comparable to forbidding certain Pokemon in STABmons from receiving all STAB moves (i.e. Tapu Lele, which was otherwise banned for its powerful wallbreaking capability thanks to STAB moves). Of course this is still unacceptable by OM standards unfortunately.

While this may sound extreme to eliminate this problem you could just ban the ability as a whole- not unlike the arena trap ban. Neither the original user nor any recipients would be able to use it and it would fix the issue of complex bans, albeit with the downside of losing a lot of useful and balanced pokemon (mainly the Mold Breakers). Idk how this could ever be balanced, but that problem doesn't just apply to this metagame.

 

[Level 1000 Weedle]

I am frankly outraged by this decision. Shared Power has proved to be an extremely popular and fun metagame with a large fan base that is completely behind it. I think that the leadership's arguments are completely wrong and mislead.

1. All metagames have issues with balance. Even OU currently has 40 something banned mons, and we're not calling for OU to be closed. Now I do understand that SP is far more difficult to balance, but that's still no reason for shutting it down. So maybe the second argument is better?

2. Ability restrictions are one of the things that have made SP special. Instead of outright banning things SP has made logical bans that still allow for design space while balancing the metagame. I understand showdown is an emulator and changing the base game is against smogon policy. However, metagames are naturally not part of the base game, and therefore design space should not be limited by restrictions on the base game. The way I see it Shared Power has done a better job maintaining design space and creativity than any other metagame, and we should embrace that, not discontinue it.

However, I know that my opinion will not change the OM Leadership's decision. However, all our opinions may be able to. But if this decision is final, I believe that Akumeoy's idea of having abilities only share to adjacent pokemon could be good. It's a lot like the new(?) metagame on rom, The 5th move, which is similar except it takes the first move of a mon and shares it to the next mon. Anyway, I hope that shared power can be kept alive and this will not destroy what we have worked so hard to create.

 

[Ivy]

However, I know that my opinion will not change the OM Leadership's decision. However, all our opinions may be able to. But if this decision is final, I believe that Akumeoy's idea of having abilities only share to adjacent pokemon could be good. It's a lot like the new(?) metagame on rom, The 5th move, which is similar except it takes the first move of a mon and shares it to the next mon.

I noticed this as well. This archetype of OM seems to have risen into the public eye recently and it's pretty neat. Definitely should poke around with The Fifth Move on ROM a bit.

 

[dhelmise]

I am frankly outraged by this decision. Shared Power has proved to be an extremely popular and fun metagame with a large fan base that is completely behind it. I think that the leadership's arguments are completely wrong and mislead.

1. All metagames have issues with balance. Even OU currently has 40 something banned mons, and we're not calling for OU to be closed. Now I do understand that SP is far more difficult to balance, but that's still no reason for shutting it down. So maybe the second argument is better?

2. Ability restrictions are one of the things that have made SP special. Instead of outright banning things SP has made logical bans that still allow for design space while balancing the metagame. I understand showdown is an emulator and changing the base game is against smogon policy. However, metagames are naturally not part of the base game, and therefore design space should not be limited by restrictions on the base game. The way I see it Shared Power has done a better job maintaining design space and creativity than any other metagame, and we should embrace that, not discontinue it.

However, I know that my opinion will not change the OM Leadership's decision. However, all our opinions may be able to. But if this decision is final, I believe that Akumeoy's idea of having abilities only share to adjacent pokemon could be good. It's a lot like the new(?) metagame on rom, The 5th move, which is similar except it takes the first move of a mon and shares it to the next mon. Anyway, I hope that shared power can be kept alive and this will not destroy what we have worked so hard to create.

sorry pal, but comparing the bans of an OM with other countless issues than just the banlist size to OU is frankly idiotic. i dont want to sound rude but reading your post made me even angrier than you probably are. shared power's mechanics make it inherently impossible to balance; this is not news. yes, shared power was both popular and fun, but an OM is not about being "for teh LULZ". IF anything, that goes directly against the groove of what an OM (or any meta) should be. if an OM is fun, then cool. but it obviously needs to be able to be balanced in order to function correctly, and shared power is simply not that.

this om is not being retired just because of a lengthy banlist. if this were the sole reason, literally every ou-based om would be shut down because they have the same banlist as ou. shared power's only viable method of banning would have been to flat out ban abilities, but we didnt do that.

besides that, what is your second point even about? if you think ability restrictions are the only thing that made sp special, go play aaa. haaku's post quite clearly covers how shared power's method of restricting abilities was quite literally modifying mechanics, and it was 100% correct at that. yes, metagames are not a part of the base game, this is a fact. the design space that you claim we are being limited on is simply not there; the freedom of design space is the whole concept of OMs and Pet Mods themselves. the limitation to that freedom, however, is creating an om with a mechanics change that simply makes it impossible for an om to be balanced. if we banned one ability, another one would become broken. it's just how it worked/works. another issue is how the banning/restricting process was handled, but that is an entirely different issue for someplace else.

shared power is a unique metagame for sure. but so is mix and mega. so is metagamiate. scalemons. averagemons. partners in crime. you get the point. all OMs are in some nature unique, so im not sure what you're going on about in that sentence either.

also, why are you trying to be a martyr or catalyst for change? the om leadership team quite clearly admitted that they'd be open to revisiting this metagame if it was handled differently. now does that mean changing the banlist, changing how sharing works? i dont know. the point is they'd bring this OM back if it were modified sufficiently.

also, shared power has only been a think for two and a half months. it should not take that long to even attempt to balance a meta.

sorry if i sounded rude, but your attitude pissed me off, and your points generally did not make any sense, nor did they give any reason as to why the om leadership shouldve not retired this. i personally think this should have happened sooner to allow the meta to be rethought before it got a ladder on ps.

 

[Chloe]

I am frankly outraged by this decision. Shared Power has proved to be an extremely popular and fun metagame with a large fan base that is completely behind it. I think that the leadership's arguments are completely wrong and mislead.

1. All metagames have issues with balance. Even OU currently has 40 something banned mons, and we're not calling for OU to be closed. Now I do understand that SP is far more difficult to balance, but that's still no reason for shutting it down. So maybe the second argument is better?

2. Ability restrictions are one of the things that have made SP special. Instead of outright banning things SP has made logical bans that still allow for design space while balancing the metagame. I understand showdown is an emulator and changing the base game is against smogon policy. However, metagames are naturally not part of the base game, and therefore design space should not be limited by restrictions on the base game. The way I see it Shared Power has done a better job maintaining design space and creativity than any other metagame, and we should embrace that, not discontinue it.

However, I know that my opinion will not change the OM Leadership's decision. However, all our opinions may be able to. But if this decision is final, I believe that Akumeoy's idea of having abilities only share to adjacent pokemon could be good. It's a lot like the new(?) metagame on rom, The 5th move, which is similar except it takes the first move of a mon and shares it to the next mon. Anyway, I hope that shared power can be kept alive and this will not destroy what we have worked so hard to create.

Flint and TI both had reasoning that they wanted to post, but since the decision to close this metagame was announced preemptively, I suppose I can explain to you why your post makes no sense whatsoever. Comparing Shared Power's ability bans to OU's Pokémon bans is not only obnoxiously ignorant, it showcases that you don't really understand the point of OM banlists. For clarification, let me state that Shared Power is based off an OU banlist, which is the standard for most OMs. We're not comparing a Shared Power banlist to a main tier banlist for blatant reasons. It forms the basis in which OMs are allowed to exist (these OU bans also exist in Shared Power :P). We're comparing it to other OMs, as that's the only fair comparison. Additionally, Shared Power is an ability-based metagame that even after 40 or so bans into its key concept isn't a balanced metagame. The metagame leader himself admits that this metagame is "unbalanceable" but rather only playable. Your statement that all metagames have issues with balance is also quite empty, considering that most metagames can work through the imbalances, whereas Shared Power cannot. The concept itself is inherently flawed in this aspect.

The way ability restrictions work is a ban that focuses on a change in mechanic rather than a teambuilder ban like all other OMs that occur. You cannot justify complex bans to this degree. OM leadership has been lenient with allowing it for the duration of the month because of our knowledge that this closure would come. We allowed you to have your fun for a month, even when it went against all our previous standards of what OM bans should be. If this doesn't make sense, consider how ability bans work in this metagame. In a metagame like AAA, while Pokémon that naturally have Huge Power are permitted to run it, all of these bans come into play during the teambuilding aspect of the metagame, instead of during the play. There are a few issues with allowing mechanic based bans. Ideally, you want people to be able to tell that their team is completely functional from their teambuilder, without having to consult an external banlist or command. By doing this, we're able to make OMs easy and fun to learn, desirable to play and simple to build for. This is only one aspect for why we disallow them however. An OM by definition makes a change or a few small connected changes to the base game. By allowing mechanic based bans, we are essentially forgoing the existent definition of an other metagame, we are making an unfair exception to one metagame that doesn't warrant special treatment.

There's also the blatantly obvious reason everyone else stated. Shared Power isn't balanced, nor will it ever reach that stage. It's a fun concept but not a competitive one, and it has a plethora of other massive flaws that I'm sure the rest of us will delve into. We've given you a chance that allows you to fix the metagame into something that complies with the standards that we set. Make the most of it, instead of complaining with the most illogical reasons I've seen to not remove something in this thread so far.

I'm closing this thread for now.

 

[The Immortal]

Haaku has already posted the problems with Shared Power, so I don't need to repeat it. Chloe explained further as well. Even if the 2nd problem is fixed, it would most likely result in the 1st problem still existing. I talked to Haaku in the first week of the month about the banlist and he said himself that it would greatly reduce the amount of Pokemon usable due to all the bans required to balance the metagame.

We see how popular Shared Power is and because of that we don't want to delete it. We wanted to keep this thread open so Haaku, together with the community, can come up with a solution to the problems. If you guys don't want to use the thread for that, then we can keep it closed.

 

[E4 Flint]

Just so I can get my opinion of the whole thing across (and hopefully not seem like the bad guy lul), I'll clarify it here as well.

Yes, I originally wanted to reject Shared Power entirely. Based on concept alone, I think anyone would've seen that it was going to be unbalanceable. What does this actually mean? I felt that there would be a continuous cycle of bans immediately following each other, and despite that, it would be difficult to reach any kind of balanced metagame without having a gigantic banlist. Why? Stacking abilities always causes problems especially if you have 6 of them active at once, which I think is an objectively true statement. Despite this, Chloe and Ti wanted to give it a chance precisely because there was already a community growing on it in our room (and others), and thought we could at least give it a chance. I think in open play though, the 'unbalanceable' nature was quickly evident and the above came true as Chloe mentioned.

Not only that, as a mons player in general, I was heavy critical of the flip-flop nature of the decisions SP was making at the time (e.g. banning harvest, then unbanning it, banning substitude then unbanning it) which reflected poorly on the metagame as it seemed like there was just a lot of guess-and-checking going (no OM has done this, and i'd even wager that no metagame itself has tried banning stuff just to "see what happens" and then reverting it as little as just a day later).

I think the confusion stems from decoupling the above from the experience of playing it; "fun" is a subjective term, and just because the metagame is popular because it is fun, doesn't mean you should ignore the problems that even Haaku admitted to being in the tier. On top of that, Ti brought up the point of the mechanics based problems with it. Mechanics-based bans are not allowed in any OM. That is just the way it is, because if you start modifying the mechanics beyond what your original premise is, then you are not playing an OM anymore, you're falling into the pet mod territory. A simple example is the EV limit which was present in BH last gen. I could not hold a "suspect" to change the mechanic back to full EV's even if I wanted to; that's just how it was in the game and what the premise was based on, and we're not allowed to modify it.

Again, just wanted to reiterate, the fact that SP has had a strong presence directly influenced a large part of our decisions. In my discussion with Ti about mid-February, we decided to not shut it down immediately only because of the above reason, i.e. if we are going to shut it down, we might as well let it run its course and for people to have fun. We even compared SP's bans to other decisions like AAA's like you mentioned, and even the Endless Battle and megaRay decisions and concluded that an OM shouldn't be making those type of exceptional decisions and certainly not with that level of frequency. Even in our internal discussion yesterday, I had brought up how OM's like Inheritance or Got Talent have been given a new lease of life with a new version of the old premise that would try and fix the problems instead of total shut-down only because of what Haaku told us i.e. the presence that SP's community has formed, even despite me being initially against having it at all.

A new iteration with complete mon or ability bans, or a change in the premise i.e. not stacking 6 abilities like what Akumeoy proposed, would be at least more limiting than the current "unshared" restriction and thus would require more thought and moderation. At the very least, it would also solve the mechanics-based ban problem, so we gave that as an option to try and salvage SP instead of just shutting it down. It's upto you all now to take advantage of that opportunity.

 

[Chloe]

It's been a few days since this thread was closed, so I'll reopen it. Please use it to discuss an alternative concept to replace Shared Power. One that fixes the aforementioned issues and retains the core ideas that you love about the metagame. Haaku

 

[Haaku.]

While I appreciate the immediate criticism on their choice to close SP, I believe the OM leadership has made the right decision as much as I still may be against it. I would like Shared Power to continue existing as an OM with a similar, but different premise. The leadership has expressed interest in accepting such an idea, and I will present one of my own. I do think Akumeoy has an interesting idea, but I’d like to add one as well. This was an idea that I’ve actually developed in the Workshop. The concept is still “sharing” except this time it’s not “all share with all” but rather “one shares with all.” I present:

KING’S POWER

Metagame premise:
The king has chosen to share power with his kingdom! The lead Pokemon shares its ability, first move, and a +10 boost to its highest stat to the entire team.

Explanation:
Basically, this is a very big twist on the Shared Power OM that most of us have come to know. The premise shifts away from the “all shares with all” format and goes more into “one shares with all.” The Pokemon you lead with will donate its ability, first move in its moveset, and a +10 boost to the highest stat to the entire team. If I have chosen Blacephalon as my king, my entire team will receive access to Beast Boost, Fire Blast, and a +10 boost to their SpA. This combines elements of an ability-based metagame, a move-based metagame, and a stat-based metagame to create the ultimate “share power” OM. This metagame is infinitely less matchup reliant than standard Shared Power, as your King varies on which lead you chose. You probably shouldn’t choose your Shuckle as King when the opponent has a potential Unaware Clefable King that could shut down your team. The first turn becomes the most important, setting the arena for both kingdoms to face off. A minimal banlist and early tiering decisions can easily make this metagame balanced and eliminates the matchup-based nature of the metagame. It single-handedly eliminates both of the problems that The Immortal outlined above, and may prove to be a very fun metagame. I have discussed this in our Discord server with positive feedback. Please let me know what you think!

I’ve also brought this up in the OM room with positive feedback, so hopefully the same stays true here. Shared Power means a lot to me. It’s my first OM, and I believe my time spent leading this metagame has given me the experience to lead another. I personally would find it tons of fun to lead an OM that can actually be balanced, so I hope this gets taken well and I can actually engage in developing this idea. What do you all think?

 

[The Consort]

Here is where I am at, take my opinion for what it is worth. I will be the first to admit that I have never been a huge fan of Shared Power, at least in it's original incarnation. I did not like the sheer amount of bans that it took in order to get to even a SOMEWHAT balanced metagame. I used to say that things like Super Luck would be eventually banned too because people would eventually start running crit teams, which would be deemed over centralizing and thus be banned as well. That gives you an idea where my head was at. Super Luck is clearly not a broken ability, but the nature of the metagame would have likely made it so if we let it get far enough.

However, considering this is an attempt to revamp it, rather than criticize it, I thought I would voice my opinion in order to improve it on the whole. So here is my opinion:

If we want to preserve "abilities are shared across the whole team" in some respect, the idea that comes to mind immediately is to have each mon share its ability with the next mon in the team, and then the sixth mon shares its ability with slot 1.

I think this is brilliant. It preserves the idea of Shared Power while controlling the meta a lot more. This way, we can still have the beautiful ability combos like Drought/Harvest, but it isn't automatically put onto every Pokemon. If one was dedicated enough, they could build a full drought/harvest team, but that would require 3 drought mons and 3 harvest mons on the team in alternating spots. This would severely inhibit team building if someone wanted to build this way, and it probably wouldn't end up a good team. This should also allow speed abilities back into the metagame for the same reason. Sure, a full team could have unburden, but only if 3 Pokemon on the team had it. By designing the metagame in this way, it should remove quite a bit of the splashability of Pokemon just due to their ability, making one super Pokemon (like Pangoro with Moldbreaker with Triage and whatever other abilities chosen for the team).

Like I said at the outset though, this is just my opinion. Feel free to disregard it, but I do think that this would be a positive way to revamp the metagame.

 

[tysequaine]

It sounds like a less cool godly gift, just share abilities with adjacent mons in the team builder so every mon has 3 abilities rather than 6