It's not like Pokemon haven't had specific restrictions placed on them to work in OU before, like the Soul Dew ban or the Sand Rush ban on Excadrill. We also really shouldn't base balancing choices for competitive 6v6 singles based on GameFreak's intentions IMO. GameFreak balances Pokemon based on 4v4 level 50 doubles and singleplayer, which are completely different from singles, singles should be balanced differently.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Metagame Terastallization Tiering Discussion [ UPDATE POST #1293]
- Thread starter Finchinator
- Start date
- Status
I don't really feel like there's much serious discussion here but I don't have PR privileges so here goes
Much discussion has been had around the plausibility and reasonableness of various nerfs, but I want to focus on the premise that Terastalizing is uncompetitive and needs to be nerfed. I firmly disagree with this.
As a whole, tera can seem hard to prepare for as singular moments such as facing down a +1 energy boosted Roaring Moon with the ability to tera can be quite hard to cover. But how did we get here? At team preview, one can identify the entire team you are facing and prepare your game plan for various threats. At the same time your opponent will have to do so, so maneuvering your own team into a position where they have just as hard a decision is a good goal. Is it really too outlandish to think that maybe allowing an extremely strong revenge killer with the ability to tera is something good players should prevent? Obviously this is tough in practice and there are always times you end up with your back against the wall and only a small selection of options available, but this kind of large scale complex game planning is something that takes time to develop and perfect, and we are playing a totally new game.
Tera is not broken in any sense because it does not enable otherwise reasonable pokemon to become unreasonable (as dynamax would). Instead it just acts as a particularly strong battle element such as a move would: it's planned in builder and can be used at any point in the battle by either team. But only once. Forcing your opponent to burn a tera or lose momentum is surely something we will get better at, and burning it too early or too late (probably less common) will be a sure fire loss.
As for the "uncompetitive" label I'm finding it hard to see a clear explanation for why this is being applied. Obviously it's not common for pokemon to be able to change typing but it has happened before with things like Protean. A strong ability but not inherently uncompetitive: it's just an option that some pokemon use to evade checks, boost their own power, or even gain immunities. Tera is not on an inherently unfair level compared to gen6-8 protean, in face they have pretty balanced trade offs that make each better or worse in some cases. More widely available, but less versatile. Can change to only one type, or can change to 4. Activates multiple times vs activates once. Loses stabs vs keeps stabs. And so on. Its fine to say tera is stronger than protean but I think in terms of how "random" it makes the game I think they are on quite similar levels.
I'll also add a small part here about team types. Its pretty clear hyper offense is a great user of tera but it can also be really weak to opposing tera. Where stall can use it but also can pretty decently counter it. Offense and balance probably somewhere in the middle. To me this just feels like the exact same way these team styles respond to almost all other game elements. It hardly exacerbates matchup issues except for teams like HO which already have those, and can actually help alleviate issues if teams prepare multiple viable tera mons so they can cover different threats.
Finally I will mention that I find it quite annoying when some users seemingly form opinions on tera without even playing the meta. I've seen comments such as "I'm not playing gen 9 until tera is banned" or "I don't play but this sounds very op" and while it's fine to have opinions I don't think these are at all relevant to the discussion at hand. Those of us who have played a fair bit can tell tera is simply part of the game right now, and the more we play I'm sure the more used to it we will get.
Much discussion has been had around the plausibility and reasonableness of various nerfs, but I want to focus on the premise that Terastalizing is uncompetitive and needs to be nerfed. I firmly disagree with this.
As a whole, tera can seem hard to prepare for as singular moments such as facing down a +1 energy boosted Roaring Moon with the ability to tera can be quite hard to cover. But how did we get here? At team preview, one can identify the entire team you are facing and prepare your game plan for various threats. At the same time your opponent will have to do so, so maneuvering your own team into a position where they have just as hard a decision is a good goal. Is it really too outlandish to think that maybe allowing an extremely strong revenge killer with the ability to tera is something good players should prevent? Obviously this is tough in practice and there are always times you end up with your back against the wall and only a small selection of options available, but this kind of large scale complex game planning is something that takes time to develop and perfect, and we are playing a totally new game.
Tera is not broken in any sense because it does not enable otherwise reasonable pokemon to become unreasonable (as dynamax would). Instead it just acts as a particularly strong battle element such as a move would: it's planned in builder and can be used at any point in the battle by either team. But only once. Forcing your opponent to burn a tera or lose momentum is surely something we will get better at, and burning it too early or too late (probably less common) will be a sure fire loss.
As for the "uncompetitive" label I'm finding it hard to see a clear explanation for why this is being applied. Obviously it's not common for pokemon to be able to change typing but it has happened before with things like Protean. A strong ability but not inherently uncompetitive: it's just an option that some pokemon use to evade checks, boost their own power, or even gain immunities. Tera is not on an inherently unfair level compared to gen6-8 protean, in face they have pretty balanced trade offs that make each better or worse in some cases. More widely available, but less versatile. Can change to only one type, or can change to 4. Activates multiple times vs activates once. Loses stabs vs keeps stabs. And so on. Its fine to say tera is stronger than protean but I think in terms of how "random" it makes the game I think they are on quite similar levels.
I'll also add a small part here about team types. Its pretty clear hyper offense is a great user of tera but it can also be really weak to opposing tera. Where stall can use it but also can pretty decently counter it. Offense and balance probably somewhere in the middle. To me this just feels like the exact same way these team styles respond to almost all other game elements. It hardly exacerbates matchup issues except for teams like HO which already have those, and can actually help alleviate issues if teams prepare multiple viable tera mons so they can cover different threats.
Finally I will mention that I find it quite annoying when some users seemingly form opinions on tera without even playing the meta. I've seen comments such as "I'm not playing gen 9 until tera is banned" or "I don't play but this sounds very op" and while it's fine to have opinions I don't think these are at all relevant to the discussion at hand. Those of us who have played a fair bit can tell tera is simply part of the game right now, and the more we play I'm sure the more used to it we will get.
BlackKnight_Gawain
PUPL Champion
The more I see posts on this thread, the more I'm convinced that a no tiering action actually makes more sense than a compromise. I also want to take a second to appreciate advaita's incredible post that thoughtfully analyzes some top level play and tera.
Going back to why I'm thinking these compromise options won't work: a lot of it feels very lacklustre, as others have pointed out. Actions taken feel too ineffective, in some cases downright stupid (banning tera blast is not a solution to anything) or just delaying adjustment to a tier. Initially I was in favor of at least presenting the preview for tera typing, but advaita's post and some rethinking about people's attempts to call these interactions 50/50s (which a few other users have pointed out, will edit in quotes once I find them) has me convinced that this compromise is actually more uncompetitive.
After having tried to experiment with a few teams with tera typing options in mind I feel it does in fact reward teambuilding skills and prep work. Instead of designating one single mon as a wincon with tera typing, having a few options for certain scenarios (eg: Tera Fighting Gholdengo for Sucker Punches while also having the usual Tera Flying Moon as a sweeper) opens up a lot more options for the teambuilder.
This immediately goes out the door when you present this information to the opponent. You are no longer rewarded for your understanding of applying new strategy because your cards are now out in the open.
"But Gawain, isn't that the swingy matchup that traditionally destroys standard interactions like checks and counters?"
On paper, yes. In practice, I still find that fully competitive because now you have to actually pause to rethink what has been fundamentally old hat strategy for years. Breloom vs Kingambit would be an obvious interaction, click Mach Punch to win, right? But now tera adds a bit more dynamism in that interaction we've taken for granted — while rewarding both players for correctly predicting which option to take in the scenario. The matchup does not automatically swing for granted if Kingambit goes tera fighting, and the Breloom player can Spore or hit Bullet Seed (or switch, this is not a guaranteed 1v1!). If you know that interaction going in that information is played with too early and actually takes away from any competitive value the mechanic is adding. Now if you think that's still busted and all, I implore you to see some of the other in-depth posts in this thread. But I do believe that compromise is actually taking away competitiveness from what is a balanced mechanic that rewards more nuanced play and adds variety to mons, playstyles and teambuilding alike.
tl;dr no tiering action is the better choice of action over a compromise that will ultimately make us return to debating again
Going back to why I'm thinking these compromise options won't work: a lot of it feels very lacklustre, as others have pointed out. Actions taken feel too ineffective, in some cases downright stupid (banning tera blast is not a solution to anything) or just delaying adjustment to a tier. Initially I was in favor of at least presenting the preview for tera typing, but advaita's post and some rethinking about people's attempts to call these interactions 50/50s (which a few other users have pointed out, will edit in quotes once I find them) has me convinced that this compromise is actually more uncompetitive.
After having tried to experiment with a few teams with tera typing options in mind I feel it does in fact reward teambuilding skills and prep work. Instead of designating one single mon as a wincon with tera typing, having a few options for certain scenarios (eg: Tera Fighting Gholdengo for Sucker Punches while also having the usual Tera Flying Moon as a sweeper) opens up a lot more options for the teambuilder.
This immediately goes out the door when you present this information to the opponent. You are no longer rewarded for your understanding of applying new strategy because your cards are now out in the open.
"But Gawain, isn't that the swingy matchup that traditionally destroys standard interactions like checks and counters?"
On paper, yes. In practice, I still find that fully competitive because now you have to actually pause to rethink what has been fundamentally old hat strategy for years. Breloom vs Kingambit would be an obvious interaction, click Mach Punch to win, right? But now tera adds a bit more dynamism in that interaction we've taken for granted — while rewarding both players for correctly predicting which option to take in the scenario. The matchup does not automatically swing for granted if Kingambit goes tera fighting, and the Breloom player can Spore or hit Bullet Seed (or switch, this is not a guaranteed 1v1!). If you know that interaction going in that information is played with too early and actually takes away from any competitive value the mechanic is adding. Now if you think that's still busted and all, I implore you to see some of the other in-depth posts in this thread. But I do believe that compromise is actually taking away competitiveness from what is a balanced mechanic that rewards more nuanced play and adds variety to mons, playstyles and teambuilding alike.
tl;dr no tiering action is the better choice of action over a compromise that will ultimately make us return to debating again
More and more over time I find myself drawn to no tiering action on it at all but I do support Preview if anything has to be done to it. I want it kept flat out as is and you've made some great points on it. I've taken to Preview due to me believing that people are going to support banning it or nerfing it no matter what. Tera should be kept as is
Want to drop 2c but also don't want to go far enough in-depth for a PR post.
I think it's at least worth attempting to keep Terastral around since it's not even vaguely as broken as Dynamax. It's also probably too good to keep totally untouched forever, people will just continue to find new ridiculous ways to abuse it.
Limiting it so you can only have 1 Terastralizer on a team seems like it'd work fine, that type of restriction kept Megas and Z-Moves in check and I think it'll also work here. Not having the threat to pick one of your 6 options makes it a lot harder to win games off of "luck" by choosing to pack the right terastral type for your opponent's answers. Games at high level being won or lost in the teambuilder has caused some of the worst metas in history.
Adding an additional restriction of revealing which mon can terastral at team preview is something that I think would also help, but maybe isn't mandatory. There were some benefits in oldgens of mindgaming which mons was your Mega or Z-Move, but terastral is such a powerful mechanic it might not be healthy to allow something like bluffing Normal DNite when you're actually using Water Ape with how carefully you have to play around these more threatening terastral sets.
Also since PR is discussing things on the coding end, I support this implementation suggested by Amaranth. It's very clean and I think makes it as intuitive as possible to use in the teambuilder.
I think it's at least worth attempting to keep Terastral around since it's not even vaguely as broken as Dynamax. It's also probably too good to keep totally untouched forever, people will just continue to find new ridiculous ways to abuse it.
Limiting it so you can only have 1 Terastralizer on a team seems like it'd work fine, that type of restriction kept Megas and Z-Moves in check and I think it'll also work here. Not having the threat to pick one of your 6 options makes it a lot harder to win games off of "luck" by choosing to pack the right terastral type for your opponent's answers. Games at high level being won or lost in the teambuilder has caused some of the worst metas in history.
Adding an additional restriction of revealing which mon can terastral at team preview is something that I think would also help, but maybe isn't mandatory. There were some benefits in oldgens of mindgaming which mons was your Mega or Z-Move, but terastral is such a powerful mechanic it might not be healthy to allow something like bluffing Normal DNite when you're actually using Water Ape with how carefully you have to play around these more threatening terastral sets.
Also since PR is discussing things on the coding end, I support this implementation suggested by Amaranth. It's very clean and I think makes it as intuitive as possible to use in the teambuilder.
I'll also add that the default selection for Terastral-restricted metas should be "Can't Terastralize" in the builder for maximum convenience.
As someone who's played since gen 4, I'm somewhat suprised by how many people seem to want competitive pokemon to be chess with funny animal models. I haven't played super much, but in the games I did play I don't really have the idea that this mechanic is broken, and overall I feel no restriction should happen. That said, I am against a complex ban if action does end up being taken.
The major arguments I see calling tera uncompetitive are that it introduces more 50/50s, and that it strains teambuilding too much to answer everything.
50/50s in pokemon are a fake concept most of the time, where the actual answer to this 50/50 situation is a play 1 or 5 or 10 etc. turns ago. With tera, the situations introduced are 1) which type is their tera on this poke and 2) will they go for it this turn or not. The first one you can decently glean from the rest of their team, along with the plays they have made. It will also more and more become predictable meta knowledge, just like how its not very suprising that a lele may run Z-fighting in gen 7, or a ttar running chople in gen 5. These are also choices made in teambuilder, hidden to your opponent, and similar to items, EV spreads, coverage moves, natures, etc.
The idea that it strains teambuilding is also not something I'm entirely convinced by. While it is true that there is a lot of HO in the meta, I've seen both balance and stall do just fine. While getting more offensive power from tera helps offense, a well timed defensive type transformation to resist and survive a key move can give the defensive player the momentum swing that the HO player cannot recover from. I think tera is fundamentally different from dynamax/Z-moves which were both inherently offensive, in this sense. The caveat is obviously that your team needs to have an availible tera typing for this, but this just comes down to team building, meta reads, and game sense to know which mons are important.
Obviously a big difference tera has over the other new mechanics since gen 6 is the lack of opportunity cost; every poke can do it and you don't need to commit an item/moveslot/etc to it. This is similar to dynamax, but since the power level of teraing is still significantly lower I don't feel this is a problematic downside.
The major arguments I see calling tera uncompetitive are that it introduces more 50/50s, and that it strains teambuilding too much to answer everything.
50/50s in pokemon are a fake concept most of the time, where the actual answer to this 50/50 situation is a play 1 or 5 or 10 etc. turns ago. With tera, the situations introduced are 1) which type is their tera on this poke and 2) will they go for it this turn or not. The first one you can decently glean from the rest of their team, along with the plays they have made. It will also more and more become predictable meta knowledge, just like how its not very suprising that a lele may run Z-fighting in gen 7, or a ttar running chople in gen 5. These are also choices made in teambuilder, hidden to your opponent, and similar to items, EV spreads, coverage moves, natures, etc.
The idea that it strains teambuilding is also not something I'm entirely convinced by. While it is true that there is a lot of HO in the meta, I've seen both balance and stall do just fine. While getting more offensive power from tera helps offense, a well timed defensive type transformation to resist and survive a key move can give the defensive player the momentum swing that the HO player cannot recover from. I think tera is fundamentally different from dynamax/Z-moves which were both inherently offensive, in this sense. The caveat is obviously that your team needs to have an availible tera typing for this, but this just comes down to team building, meta reads, and game sense to know which mons are important.
Obviously a big difference tera has over the other new mechanics since gen 6 is the lack of opportunity cost; every poke can do it and you don't need to commit an item/moveslot/etc to it. This is similar to dynamax, but since the power level of teraing is still significantly lower I don't feel this is a problematic downside.
The issue I find with this is it feels like an arbitrary lame solution for the mechanic. The mechanic was designed with flexibility in mind. Limiting it to one Pokemon just makes it Mega and Z move part 3, which imo is kind of lame.
How can you be bluffing Normal Dnite in favor of Water Ape? That's just not how Tera works. There's no bluff in that scenario. It's either you decide to reap the benefits of using your Tera on Dnite and getting normal typing, or you don't and then you can Tera your Ape later. That's not a bluff, that's just careful decision making and evaluating the current state of the game. It's the same as evaluating your wincon, and seeing which high value play makes the most sense.
pokemonisfun
Banned deucer.
Well what if 2 high elo players play against each other then? I don't think predicting will ever get easier between two top players, a true prediction will generally be closer to 50-50 than favoring any side. I don't think anyone ever "wants" to be in a position where they have to predict, you much rather have safer win routes, although whether this is an argument to ban terra is a whole other story.
Please read more thoroughly. I was talking about using this as an additional restriction to a single-terastral teambuilding restriction. In that scenario it would be a bluff, because you decided which mon would be your terastralizer before the game started instead of during it.
I don't think prediction is a healthy argument to have here since there are already other situations in game where you can make a prediction and gain high amounts of value, or run a riskier play (such as clicking fire blast over flamethrower) in hopes of getting more value. The question which you always need to ask is "what is the highest value play I can make in this moment that has the lowest potential downside" in tandem with "how much do I need to get back into this game, do I need to make a risky play to swing tempo?"
Sure, Tera adds another layer of prediction to the mix, but as others have stated, you start to adapt to the metagame forces around you. The best play against an obvious Tera is not always to make a frivolous play and stay in and overpredict, it's to be safe and switch out to your Ting-Lu to take whatever force they throw at you. If you lose a Pokemon due to being overly confident with a specific play, that's not due to Tera, that's due to you not making smart game actions over the course of the match.
Also, once Tera is used by your opponent, you now have the upper hand, and you are no longer reliant on predicting, and now your opponent has to be put into a somewhat uncomfortable position to get tempo back in their favor. You now have a tool which you can threaten against them that they can no longer do. In some cases this is insurmountable (a dragonite with a shed tail sub with 2 dragon dances up and you have no unaware walls) but you were likely going to lose anyways in these cases.
pokemonisfun
Banned deucer.
I generally agree!
Ah, I see what you're saying. I think this could create an odd bluff metagame.
I don't think that's a play pattern that is necessarily fun nor competitive. It's a feel bad moment that makes pre-game decide the course of a match, because you now have to predict which mon they chose to Tera on their team, rather than understanding the state of the game at a given moment and adjusting your own play patterns for the situation. What if you chose the wrong Tera mon and your opponent chose right? You still have to be scared of which Pokemon is going to Tera, but you just lose because you read the team preview wrong.
Essentially, I don't think this helps with the "50/50" element (I disagree that it's a 50/50) that others claim that Tera has. If anything it makes it an even harder situation to deal with because you have no knowledge about your opponent's team, and cannot react if you guess wrong. I think this will make Tera even more powerful than it already is, ironically.
I would even go farther to say Tera types are MORE competitive than these things. You can control how you play around mons that normally terastalize and improve your odds of success by being proactive with switches and taking calculated risks. You can't play around the fact that you might get full para'd, flinched, crit, frozen, or have a random stat drop in the same way. The only counterplay to most of these things is to just cross your fingers and hope things go your way, but you can play around Terastalizing by analyzing the enemy team and anticipating your opponents strategy. I do absolutely think terastalizing is a game-changing mechanic and that using it properly can secure a win by itself, but so can a lucky crit EQ on your Iron Defense Garganacl or a Sp. Def drop from Chi-Yu's Psychic. Competitive Pokemon is usually won or lost in a single decisive moment where one player either outplays the other, or a random effect is triggered that can allow one player to carry that momentum to the very end. Even if Terastalizing is overpowered and overcentralizing, it's still more competitive than any random game mechanic in the entire series that we've accepted for years because it can be actively played around.
*Whoops I meant Psychic not Energy Ball lol it doesn't get that move*
While I agree with your sentiment. It is often that games are decided over the course of a match and making objectively correct plays for multiple turns in a row. Yes games can be decided from luck, but games can also be won for correct evaluation of the best plays through the course of a match whether that be a safer play, a middle ground play, or a more aggressive play turn by turn.
However, I don't think arguing for more randomness is a great argument. If we could remove the freeze chance from ice beam, we would, as an example. Although, I do think that it is interesting to note that playing around Tera is somewhat similar to playing around these random chance situations. As an example, in previous gens with Scald, you would often not go into your best answer to the Scald user, but rather the safest play to both soak the Scald enough, but also not mind being burnt in case the 30% chance happened. If you decided to go into your physically offensive mon into a Scald, and got burned, that's either on you, or just part of the game.
I think this post by advaita the sums up high level Tera play, go read it if you haven’t.
I’ve been seeing a lot of people saying Roaring Moon would be fine without Tera. Here’s a wall of calcs that may say otherwise in terms of that.
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Gholdengo: 560-660 (148.1 - 174.6%) -- guaranteed OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (110 BP) vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Great Tusk: 388-458 (104.5 - 123.4%) -- guaranteed OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (110 BP) vs. 252 HP / 132 Def Great Tusk: 270-318 (62.2 - 73.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 252 HP / 168+ Def Corviknight: 201-237 (50.2 - 59.2%) -- 76.2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Unaware Clodsire: 450-530 (96.9 - 114.2%) -- 81.3% chance to OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (110 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Annihilape: 590-696 (139.1 - 164.1%) -- guaranteed OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 382-450 (94.5 - 111.3%) -- 68.8% chance to OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Garganacl: 268-316 (66.3 - 78.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 248 HP / 56 Def Multiscale Dragonite: 131-155 (34 - 40.2%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Unaware Dondozo: 118-139 (23.4 - 27.5%) -- 73.2% chance to 4HKO
Dondozo seems to be the only reasonable check, and it struggles in other matchups.
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (110 BP) vs. 0 HP / 0 Def Great Tusk: 388-458 (104.5 - 123.4%) -- guaranteed OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (110 BP) vs. 252 HP / 132 Def Great Tusk: 270-318 (62.2 - 73.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 252 HP / 168+ Def Corviknight: 201-237 (50.2 - 59.2%) -- 76.2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Unaware Clodsire: 450-530 (96.9 - 114.2%) -- 81.3% chance to OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Acrobatics (110 BP) vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Annihilape: 590-696 (139.1 - 164.1%) -- guaranteed OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 0 Def Kingambit: 382-450 (94.5 - 111.3%) -- 68.8% chance to OHKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Earthquake vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Garganacl: 268-316 (66.3 - 78.2%) -- guaranteed 2HKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 248 HP / 56 Def Multiscale Dragonite: 131-155 (34 - 40.2%) -- guaranteed 3HKO
+1 252 Atk Roaring Moon Throat Chop vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Unaware Dondozo: 118-139 (23.4 - 27.5%) -- 73.2% chance to 4HKO
Dondozo seems to be the only reasonable check, and it struggles in other matchups.
Roaring Moon is just Mega Salamence-lite with an item slot, I don't know why people are pretending it's strange for a Pokemon like this to be broken in a metagame without even most OU staples lololol
For what it's worth, we're unlikely to create any type of suspect on Tera for at least the next week or two still. It’s too early, there are too many options, and we lack a consensus (not even particularly close to one either). I really want to make sure we get this right and stress on the details rather than anything being done haphazardly.
There is still discussion to be had as to what the appropriate avenue is, in my opinion, and I think limiting the conversation to the two extremes of fully allowing it and fully banning it would be doing the metagame a disservice. There’s merit to restrictions that can be done within good ideological faith such as restricting Tera to previously existing STABs. I am also coming around to considering limiting it to one Pokemon given some of the above posts and the consistency that would have with some past core mechanics, but I am still not sold on that. My point is that we should be willing to be a tad creative (within reason) here to try and preserve the mechanic if we feel it can enrich and add to our metagame. At the same time, we cannot force it if it is not meant to be either, but I am not of the opinion that we are at that point.
Finally, as OU tier leader, my job description went from overwhelmingly clear for the last couple of years to more murky recently. Ruft and I are asked to handle normal tiering and making the metagame as competitive as possible typically, which is fine and something we have continued to optimize procedurally. Now we have an entirely novel mechanic, communal sentiments being spread further apart from each other than ever before, and a pretty massive outcry for focusing our decisions on things beyond sheer competitive natured Pokemon -- for "fun" (which can vary from one person to another), for changing Smogon's historical tiering narratives, and for catering to specific demographic's of the playerbase and their retention, and so on. I do not know what is going to ultimately happen here, but any possible decision is going to make some groups unhappy -- it is impossible to please everyone and trying to do so is a fool's errand. All I can offer is transparency on where we are at with regular updates like these and an outcome that will be decided by the community, so please keep posting your thoughts as you see fit.
There is still discussion to be had as to what the appropriate avenue is, in my opinion, and I think limiting the conversation to the two extremes of fully allowing it and fully banning it would be doing the metagame a disservice. There’s merit to restrictions that can be done within good ideological faith such as restricting Tera to previously existing STABs. I am also coming around to considering limiting it to one Pokemon given some of the above posts and the consistency that would have with some past core mechanics, but I am still not sold on that. My point is that we should be willing to be a tad creative (within reason) here to try and preserve the mechanic if we feel it can enrich and add to our metagame. At the same time, we cannot force it if it is not meant to be either, but I am not of the opinion that we are at that point.
Finally, as OU tier leader, my job description went from overwhelmingly clear for the last couple of years to more murky recently. Ruft and I are asked to handle normal tiering and making the metagame as competitive as possible typically, which is fine and something we have continued to optimize procedurally. Now we have an entirely novel mechanic, communal sentiments being spread further apart from each other than ever before, and a pretty massive outcry for focusing our decisions on things beyond sheer competitive natured Pokemon -- for "fun" (which can vary from one person to another), for changing Smogon's historical tiering narratives, and for catering to specific demographic's of the playerbase and their retention, and so on. I do not know what is going to ultimately happen here, but any possible decision is going to make some groups unhappy -- it is impossible to please everyone and trying to do so is a fool's errand. All I can offer is transparency on where we are at with regular updates like these and an outcome that will be decided by the community, so please keep posting your thoughts as you see fit.
I guess what I don't like about the solution of adding different clauses is I feel like they either don't accomplish the goal that they set out to do (tera blast ban), don't actually fix the issue of the unknown (one Pokemon can do it that isn't revealed to your opponent), or create a sub metagame that isn't intended by the game at its core and will likely limit Tera to only those who abuse it best offensively, rather than being able to use it reactively (revealing all tera types on team preview).
see the problem is this premise works off the idea that these solutions would improve the mechanic (as it's flawed under the presumption) but not everyone inherently agrees with that lol
why would I "get creative" when I think it's a disservice to the metagame to limit tera in some way
that's why people are sticking to the "extremes", none of these middleground solutions are very appealing to anyone
You are entitled to have that opinion, but I am saying that people who have opinions that it should be restricted should be allowed to -- we should not limit our considerations at this point and we should not rush ourselves.
Breaking news: setup sweeper OHKOs offensive mons with super-effective coverage and 2HKOs walls if you let it set up for free! OU is in shambles!
So my question is, then, why are we even
I don't think it's unrealistic to say that we need more time than that with Tera. It's very new, and is an entirely different play pattern than we've seen before. If we truly cannot learn to adapt to it after a few months of play, then it's an obvious choice, but right now there is a looming question of "are we just to new to this?" which is leading the charge for the Pro-Tera folks, such as myself.
Last edited:
Games are definitely decided more by momentum in this generation, I'll agree. It does definitely take a lot to swing that momentum back to your favor if they have a Dragon Dance'd Flying type Roaring Moon in your face, but that's the point. That wasn't random at all. You allowed it to happen in the same way that getting Scald burned happened, but the WAY you allowed it to happen is different. Allowing a Moon to get a Dragon Dance off is because you got caught out of position, made the wrong play based on the opponent's win condition, or were already going to lose because your answer to Moon is dead. Switching into a possible Scald burn isn't playing poorly, it's taking a risk that the game itself might reward by letting you smack a chipped Pex with a massive EQ. They're both ways to lose a game, but one feels much more "your fault" than the other due to the random nature of the game we play. I don't want to remove randomness from the game as it's so inherent to the identity of competitive Pokemon and I love the game for what it is, but I do want to point out that Terastalizing isn't random and saying it causes 50/50's is unfair to the strategic depth the mechanic provides.
This is the right approach. I'm convinced with time and improved optimization the problem with Terastalizing will solve itself, and if I'm wrong, we can come back to this discussion in a month or two.
of course, and people have been (and continue to) create their own solutions/ideas, even if the conversation is still relatively to the "extremes", I don't think anyone is shutting those down
that was not my intention if that is what I implied
I moreso feel like this is a bit of a callout to a lot of us that are on one side rather than the middle, and I think it's pretty understandable why so many people are not in the middle
it's a very split thing
Because we need all of the input. I have spent hours and hours everyday discussing this and likely will continue to. To just pause discussion is silly.
Also, I said a few weeks, not until Home. Last I checked I have a right to set people's expectation and be transparent as it is my job. Not sure what else you want me to say, but if anything, we may have a test now and then another after Home
Nah, no callout. Every stance has merit and I accept that. I just need it to be clear to people to continue discussing, playing, exploring, etc.
- Status