Announcement np: SV OU Suspect Process, Round 1 - Oops!...I Did It Again

[thunderbug]

It is disingenuous to claim the suspect process is democratic if only three digits worth of players will get the reqs when at least four digits worth play and care about this.

A ban here means that in less than two months the signature feature of Gen 9 is gone. I think tera deserves longer than that. And right after the ban would take effect even more pokemon will be added via home in early 2023. Instead of banning more pokemon, the question might be should some already banned mons be tested back into OU.

I agree its not like they did a public survey with over 4000 responses from the public and from the people at the top of the ladder


Plus it hasn't been banned (yet hopefully soon but tbd) and there is significant support based on this thread/survey/general discourse to not do such a thing. I strongly recommend getting the reqs to help get your voice heard never know of your ballot will change for your favor

 

[swampmist1142]

I do not agree with this - it feels like you're supporting having the mons take the fall to save Terastalization. Now, mons can be overbearing even without Tera, like Flutter Mane and Neo Delibird were (and Chi-Yu and Chien-Pao are), but still. This reeks of incurring a LOT of collateral damage to save a mechanic that prolly is in fact broken and needs to go. Because honestly, I think having to ban all the mons that Tera breaks is fruitless; you'd likely have to ban a crapload of mons all because Tera exists... at which point it's blatantly obvious that Tera is unhealthy as all get out and needs to get chopped.
Sure, there are some mons that are broken and need to get banned (even without Terastalize), but I don't see how that will help when Terastalize is a major factor in that. Especially when Tera's existance might make some otherwise okay mons into bannable ones.

You’re making the claim that “a crap ton” of mons need to be banned just because of tera; can you name some? Mons that you believe are completely balanced without tera, but ban worthy with it? I can only name one (dnite), and Im not even convinced dnite ortera is the specific problem there (as much as shed tail lets him DD for free and preserve multiscale). Maybe Espartha? But I think the psibirb is fixed by team preview so it cant psyche you out with fairy vs fighting.

if you can name 3+ other mons that are only bannable because tera exists, even restricted, Id agree that a ban is worth considering. If you cant, shouldnt we try banning stuff that needs it regardless before banning the core gen 9 mechanic

 

[NidoTheKing]

Okay, I'm throwing my hat in the ring about Terastalizing, because a lot of the following pro-ban arguments being thrown out don't work in a vacuum due to the following reasons or comparisons:

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy
"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets
"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves
"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution
"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks
"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close
"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing
"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have
"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up
"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes


The irony is that Terastalization is nothing new, because we've seen all of this before, and we've already accepted all of it.

Let me give it to you straight: Terastalizing is a symmetrical battle mechanic that makes Pokemon which are already good better. It doesn't centralize anything, it doesn't invalidate any playstyle, and if anything it gives players more tools to keep things in check than create newfound problems.

Personally, there is not enough grounds to warrant banning Terastalizing at all; this all seems more like a kneejerk reaction to change than an actual problem. If you want to reasonably restrict Terastalizing, such as a team preview if VGC will be doing it, then that's fair game. However, can we all agree that we shouldn't heavily limit or ban a new mechanic that does things that have never been a problem before?

 

[Empress Mobile]

I don't really get any action other than ban or no action. The nerfs provided make little sense and adds what would frankly be the most complex ban on Smogon yet. The reveal at preview is not something that would be replicable on cart. It would be equivalent to adding team preview to ADV games. I've seen some posts describing the restrictions as manipulating the game mechanic just to preserve it, and I couldn't agree more.

 

[alephgalactus]

Okay, I'm throwing my hat in the ring about Terastalizing, because a lot of the following pro-ban arguments being thrown out don't work in a vacuum due to the following reasons or comparisons:

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy
"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets
"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves
"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution
"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks
"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing

Dragonite’s absolutely not a problem in a post-Tera meta, nor is Regieleki when it comes back. Espathra has numerous terrible matchups if it doesn’t have the option to Tera Fairy or Fighting. Dragapult, far as I can see, will just do the same shit it did last gen once Tera’s out of the way. Some people are even arguing that Garganacl is OP, which I disagree with already, but it would also fall firmly into the “absolutely not a problem” camp if it couldn’t exchange its terrible natural typing for a vastly superior one at any time.

"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have

“It’s not broken because you can use it too!”

"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone actually make the argument that every team needs Tera. Something doesn’t need to be mandatory to be broken—there were teams without Flutter Mane or Palafin that still worked fine in the first couple weeks of the meta.

"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes

Never seen this argument either. Plenty of people bring up Tera’s unpredictability, but they don’t mean what you apparently think they mean by it.

The irony is that Terastalization is nothing new, because we've seen all of this before, and we've already accepted all of it.

Let me give it to you straight: Terastalizing is a symmetrical battle mechanic that makes Pokemon which are already good better. It doesn't centralize anything, it doesn't invalidate any playstyle, and if anything it gives players more tools to keep things in check than create newfound problems.

I’m just going to leave this part here without comment because I don’t need to formulate an argument against it.

Personally, there is not enough grounds to warrant banning Terastalizing at all; this all seems more like a kneejerk reaction to change than an actual problem. If you want to reasonably restrict Terastalizing, such as a team preview if VGC will be doing it, then that's fair game. However, can we all agree that we shouldn't heavily limit or ban a new mechanic that does things that have never been a problem before?

If this is a kneejerk reaction, it’s one of the slowest ones I’ve ever seen—it will be next year, at the earliest, by the time any action can be taken on Tera. This suspect test is even longer than they usually are specifically because it isn’t a kneejerk reaction. The Council has explored this as slowly and methodically as they possibly could.

 

[thunderbug]

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy

Ah yes the mon that was banned for multiple generations and only let out once the general meta was faster than it/could kill it before it set up/didn't have infinite healing in rain. Because 1 mon being difficult to switch into is the same as multiple mons becoming multiple possible combinations

"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets

Oh you mean running a set usually bad against a greater portion of the meta than the main set but beats a specific mon or 2 and could be potential dead weight outside the lure

"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves

Because Z-moves weren't controversial at all. This is ignoring where Z took your item slot, lasted 1 turn and protect nerfed damage

"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution

Took the item slot, limited to 1 per team, (usually) on mons that simply sucked in the tier without it and those that didn't were almost always banned or were just worse than the normal version

"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks

Again Megas had 1 option not 12. If you clicked draco meteor into Mega Altaria that is on you. If you click Draco Meteor on a Garganacl and it turns into a fairy type that is on the mechanic being a guessing game as to what the mystery box holds. The only part of mega that sort of did this was the guessing game of Zard X/Y (which can usually be figured out on preview)

"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close

Dynamax was banned and very few people if any are saying tera is even close to as broken as Dmax. If Dmax is the bar for banning anything then nothing should be banned ever

"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing

Agree because Dragonite has been a problem for years. Curse you RBY Wrap

"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have

Dynamax is fine bro you can do it too

"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up

Trust me fam you can just sabotage yourself. You play pokemon so I know you like self flagellation. This isn't even an argument I've seen made but im sure someone did somewhere but even then the idea of actively hindering yourself for no reason is silly

"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes

I don't understand why someone who doesn't like uncounterable teams would want to play a meta of uncounterable nonsense for one and 2 are we seriously trying to compared an OM whos entire purpose is to be broken and nonsense to an actual metagame

 

[EnesBatur]

Okay, I'm throwing my hat in the ring about Terastalizing, because a lot of the following pro-ban arguments being thrown out don't work in a vacuum due to the following reasons or comparisons:

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy
"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets
"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves
"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution
"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks
"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close
"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing
"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have
"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up
"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes


The irony is that Terastalization is nothing new, because we've seen all of this before, and we've already accepted all of it.

Let me give it to you straight: Terastalizing is a symmetrical battle mechanic that makes Pokemon which are already good better. It doesn't centralize anything, it doesn't invalidate any playstyle, and if anything it gives players more tools to keep things in check than create newfound problems.

Personally, there is not enough grounds to warrant banning Terastalizing at all; this all seems more like a kneejerk reaction to change than an actual problem. If you want to reasonably restrict Terastalizing, such as a team preview if VGC will be doing it, then that's fair game. However, can we all agree that we shouldn't heavily limit or ban a new mechanic that does things that have never been a problem before?

"Manaphy" - Manaphy is a good Pokemon, but it requires setup to be truly unwallable and even then struggles to find moveslots for the right coverage moves. Besides, its middling speed meant it was very much possible to counterplay with faster offensive Pokémon.

"Lure sets" - Lure sets require more opportunity cost than Terastalization. You argue later on that it's a tool that makes matchups better instead of it being needed, while lures sacrifice other potential options a Pokemon could use. It qualifies as surprise factor but weakens Pokémon in matchups where they don't need it.

"Z-Moves" - Z-Moves could only be used by Pokemon with items. Terastalization can happen at any time, and isn't just a nuke but potential defensive counterplay to help you defend against threats you really shouldn't or set up on something that should be impossible.

"Mega Evolution/Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks" - Mega Evolutions are a unique case. Unlike the next three generational gimmicks, Mega Pokemon are unique to each and every Pokémon that has it, and therefore can be balanced around the meta. It's not like you could slap Mega Mawile on a team and expect it to win every game. Megas are undoubtedly very good, but because of being fundamental changes to Pokémon similar to having new ones altogether, they can be balanced in the same way regular Pokémon can, unlike the generational gimmicks following it. It also requires an item, so there's not a complete loss. On your point of Mega Evolutions changing matchups, many of the Pokémon stay the same type or are obviously mega. Seeing Lopunny in Gen 7 OU should immediately tip off that the Lopunny will Mega Evolve, while Pokemon like Garchomp, whose regular forms and Mega forms were both viable, stay the same type regardless and have very similar counterplay. Terastalization is not specific, and fundamentally the same for every Pokémon instead of different stat changes per different mon (although it definitely does not benefit all Pokémon to the same degree), along with being usable by every Pokémon, so balancing Terastalization is much different from balancing Mega Pokémon.

"Compared to Dynamax, not even close" - Sure, it's not as overcentralizing as Dynamax, but that itself was very overpowered, so it doesn't mean that Terastalization being less overcentralizing means it is not at all.

"Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing" - Terastalization can make bad Pokémon good and good Pokémon broken. I think that if nothing is done about Terastalization, we'll end up going down the line of broken Terastalization mons until more of the healthy metagame is gone thanks to inaction on Terastalization than not.

"No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up" - You're make a point that there is counterplay, but Terastalization completely changes the fundamental core of many Pokémon, especially defensive Pokémon, and a Terastalization can easily result in a pivotal team member being lost at any time.

"Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have" - It technically isn't necessary to Terastalize to win a game or even gain the upper hand, but that's not the problem. The problem is what I said before, it's beatable and not necessary, but Terastalization turns the tables on matchups that should be losses because of a failure in strategy earlier in the game or teambuilding.

"Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes" - Balanced Hackmons is in a power level much greater than OU, with an extremely wide range of possibilities. I don't think it's fair to compare the two at all.

And you aren't denying that all of this is offered at once. Sure, you can accept Rampardos's ridiculous 165 Attack stat because in every other department it struggles, which isn't the case with Terastalization. Of course, this is not to say you can't make arguments to say Terastalization isn't broken, but I don't think your points really work. Often times, especially in your earlier arguments, the way you structured your arguments feel like finding a specific measure to counter a very broad subject. I really like Terastalization, and would prefer if it didn't get banned, but it absolutely is worth considering a ban from the Overused tier, and your post hasn't changed my mind at all.

 

[Taka]

Okay, I'm throwing my hat in the ring about Terastalizing, because a lot of the following pro-ban arguments being thrown out don't work in a vacuum due to the following reasons or comparisons:

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy

Manaphy is a single pokemon with a one-time use Z move. Outside of this Z-move, it is not unwallable. Any offensive pokemon can reasonably tera, and Tera boosted attacks can happen multiple times and hit similarly hard.

"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets

Lure sets have limits, as you can try to predict based on the movepool of the mon. Tera gives far too much leeway for such a factor. Lets also not pretend that tera is purely just like a lure set, as it makes lure sets often hit with strong stab attacks rather than purely just utilizing coverage.

"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves

Z-moves are again, one time use. Stab tera lets a single mon use Z-moves all game long.

"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution

There were a limited number of mons that could mega, and you can usually tell what these mons are. With tera, any of them can, and multiple have the chance to do so in a game.

"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks

Mega evolution only changed matchups for a few mons, such as Zard X and Gyarados, and those blanket checks still could cover them. Also, most pre-mega forms kind of suck, so you could tell that it was going to mega. Additionally, the mons that could have changed matchups had set types. Blanket checking doesn't necessarily work for tera, since it completely changes matchups based on typing (Tusk v Kingambit).

"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close

No point in comparing with Dynamax. Dynamax was found to be broken, so it was banned. If the skilled community finds terastallization to be similarly broken, it will be banned/restricted.

"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing

This I agree with to an extent. Most tera abusers are not broken after removing Terastallization (examples: Dragapult, Dragonite, Roaring Moon). There are only a few clearly broken ones outside of Tera like Chi-Yu, Gholdengo, and Chien Pao.

"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have

How do you predict the timing perfectly? This leads to too many guessing games, where you could predict their tera type wrong, or they could predict your tera and hold off on their tera. There is no way of guessing if they will for sure tera in a given turn or not. You are forced to always make midground plays, which limits the skill required for the game.

"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up

They don't need to terastallize, but it does not make matchups or already-good sets better, it makes games much more luck based. With how many super offensive threats there are in the metagame, you can't mess up a single turn especially with tera, as you could lose to a sweeper/wallbreaker instantly.

"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes

This point is moot. We're talking about OU, and Balanced Hackmons is a metagame that has so many options that the tier is much more centralized and limited in what can be done, not to mention that Tera is absolutely shredding that tier at the moment too.

 

[swampmist1142]

I don't really get any action other than ban or no action. The nerfs provided make little sense and adds what would frankly be the most complex ban on Smogon yet. The reveal at preview is not something that would be replicable on cart. It would be equivalent to adding team preview to ADV games. I've seen some posts describing the restrictions as manipulating the game mechanic just to preserve it, and I couldn't agree more.

Given VGC added tera preview, I dont think its unreasonable to do so for showdown ou

 

[PokePoindexter]

But I want to stress that Tera isn't a problem so to say. It's actually more interesting to my mind in teambuilding than the dynamaxes.
Basically it's THE interesting thing of this generation.

Same can be said for the 105 Pokemon introduced in this generation. Should Iron Bundle, Palafin, Houndstone and Flutter Mane have been kept in OU just because they're new faces introduced in Gen 9? No, anything that's broken should go, regardless of whether or not it's "THE interesting thing of this generation". And battle gimmicks, to be frank, are the last things one should bend over backwards to preserve.

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy

Nice whataboutism. So a single mon with a Z-Crystal is comparable to the 18 ways any Pokemon at any time could Terastallize? If you say so...

"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves
"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution
"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks

Once again, nice whataboutisms. Z-Moves took up an item slot and could only be used once. Megas also took up an item slot, only a small number of Pokemon could use them, and they rarely altered type matchups. There is a huge difference between a Mawile Mega Evolving versus a Roaring Moon Terastallizing into a Flying-type.

"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close

"This bleach is less toxic than that bleach, so let's keep drinking this bleach."

"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing

Yeah, let's ban the likes of Dragonite, Garganacl, Dragapult, and Volcarona because we need to preserve the gimmick over everything else. Not.

"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have

"You can use Mega Rayquaza too so Mega Rayquaza is fine."

"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes

OU =/= BH.

 

[swampmist1142]

Yeah, let's ban the likes of Dragonite, Garganacl, Dragapult, and Volcarona because we need to preserve the gimmick over everything else. Not.

Not interested in commenting elsewise but I highly doubt garg and volc need a ban in tera-unbanned environment. If anything Id argue volc’s problem is shed tail being legal.

 

[658Greninja]

Okay, I'm throwing my hat in the ring about Terastalizing, because a lot of the following pro-ban arguments being thrown out don't work in a vacuum due to the following reasons or comparisons:

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy
"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets
"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves
"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution
"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks
"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close
"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing
"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have
"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up
"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes


The irony is that Terastalization is nothing new, because we've seen all of this before, and we've already accepted all of it.

Let me give it to you straight: Terastalizing is a symmetrical battle mechanic that makes Pokemon which are already good better. It doesn't centralize anything, it doesn't invalidate any playstyle, and if anything it gives players more tools to keep things in check than create newfound problems.

Personally, there is not enough grounds to warrant banning Terastalizing at all; this all seems more like a kneejerk reaction to change than an actual problem. If you want to reasonably restrict Terastalizing, such as a team preview if VGC will be doing it, then that's fair game. However, can we all agree that we shouldn't heavily limit or ban a new mechanic that does things that have never been a problem before?

Might wanna bring that hat of your’s out of the ring cause some of these takes show a lack of knowledge as to why these things are not broken.

The first one is just whataboutism. While Manaphy didn’t have any true counters, its role was as a wallbreaker who can be picked off by hazards, speed control, or smart plays. Tera isn’t like that.

Z-Moves had limitations such as being one time, taking up an item slot, and being scouted with Knock. They also didn’t allow the user to win the 1v1 against their would be checks. In a natural scenario, Pult would be able to kill Ghold, however it goes into Tera Normal and pulls the Uno card. If Ghold had a Z-Move, it didn’t matter, it was gonna get rkilled by Pult no matter what. Lure sets had limitations of of their own. They are worse at doing their job so they can lure a specific threat. Take Whirlpool Taunt Shifu for example, it beats Pex but you have a much worse Shifu. Tera lets you keep your standards sets and still lure shit while also not taking an itemslot or moveslot.

Again, Z-Moves were a one time nuke. Its not comparable to Valiant firing off Adaptability boosted Moonblasts on a whim. Also the rest of the limitations listed earlier.

You can only have one Mega, whereas any of your 6 members can Terastilize. Also the rewards for mega evolving are not the same as Tera. Mega evolutions are treated like normal Pokemon that have to go through a transformation and only one can be on a party. Tera allows you to win losing mus and make your moves even more ridiculous. Also Megas don’t change the dynamic of a matchup like you claim because again, they are treated as normal pokemon you have to account for.

Something doesn’t have to be as broken as dynamax to be considered for a ban. This is the same argument people had for Kyurem when it was suspected.

Way to many mons become monsters with Tera. Espathra, Moon, Dnite, Valiant, Hatt, Garg, etc. I don’t think we should be banning 10-15 mons that are broken with a mechanic just to keep said mechanic. We had this discussion with Dynamax.

“Yes there is counterplay to Zygarde Complete because YOU can also use it” Maybe don’t use broken checks broken as an argument.

When has anyone said you need Tera?

Comparing Balanced Hackmons to an official tier is just nonsensical. What OU deems as healthy isn’t the same as Balanced Hackmons.

Tera is an example of “there is being creative, and then there is creating unnatural scenarios”

Games were already dynamic without Tera and they would continue to be even if the council banishes it to Ubers.

 

[Levant Mir Celestia]

You’re making the claim that “a crap ton” of mons need to be banned just because of tera; can you name some? Mons that you believe are completely balanced without tera, but ban worthy with it? I can only name one (dnite), and Im not even convinced dnite ortera is the specific problem there (as much as shed tail lets him DD for free and preserve multiscale). Maybe Espartha? But I think the psibirb is fixed by team preview so it cant psyche you out with fairy vs fighting.

if you can name 3+ other mons that are only bannable because tera exists, even restricted, Id agree that a ban is worth considering. If you cant, shouldnt we try banning stuff that needs it regardless before banning the core gen 9 mechanic

Dragonite, Espathra, and Dragapult, for three. Also, that isn't even the main reason I'm anti-tera. It's because it massively benefits offense. It's no conincidence that most of the mons ppl whine about teraing are offensive mons. Also, because it makes teambuiliding a fuckton harder when you have to account for the possibility of terastalization.

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy

Manaphy is only one mon, and one mon with a Z-Crystal is not comaprable to any setup sweeper being able to alter their typing on a whim.

"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets

Lure sets are generally only useful against whatever they're meant to lure out, and deadweight otherwise.

"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves

Z-Moves could only be used once, had an opportunity cost (your item slot), and could have their damage blunted by Protect.

"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution

Mega Evolution also had an opportunity cost, and not every Pokemon could Mega Evolve. Terastalize has no such restrictions.

"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks

Mega Evolution doesn't change most Pokemon's typings, and for those that it does, it doesn't completely alter their counterplay like Terastalization does; Mega Charizard X (the only real guessing game Mega Evolution induced, by the way, is Charizard) is still vulnerable to Rocks, like the Stealth kind, Mega Gyarados still doesn't take Electric attacks well, etc. That's nothing compared to, say, Dragonite being able to Tera Normal.

"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close

Dynamax was obviously really broken. So it was banned. This may not be as bad as Dynamax, but that doesn't mean it's healthy for the metagame.

"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing

This wouldn't justify inaction on Terastalizing; if anything, hitting whatever is broken thanks to Tera would probably damage the metagame more than just singling out and eliminating the root of the problem. This is more of throwing the baby out instead of the bathwater.

"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have

Just because both sides can use it doesn't make it okay. Case in point: Dynamax.

"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up

Terastalizing makes matchups much more swingy and luck-based, causing tons of 50-50s. Especially with how many offensive threats the game has.

"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes

OU and BH are two completely different metagames.

 

[Mainzorg]

I do not agree with this - it feels like you're supporting having the mons take the fall to save Terastalization. Now, mons can be overbearing even without Tera, like Flutter Mane and Neo Delibird were (and Chi-Yu and Chien-Pao are), but still. This reeks of incurring a LOT of collateral damage to save a mechanic that prolly is in fact broken and needs to go. Because honestly, I think having to ban all the mons that Tera breaks is fruitless; you'd likely have to ban a crapload of mons all because Tera exists... at which point it's blatantly obvious that Tera is unhealthy as all get out and needs to get chopped.

I personally dont see that many mons in curent meta that posses that potential to banned due to tera other than Chi- yu(Who lets be real here problably should be banned regardless if tera is or is not in the metagame) and a big maybe on Dragonite, with other big tera abusers like Dragapult,Skeli and even Ape have been manageble in my experience

 

[Moyashi]

"Pokemon become unwallable" = Manaphy
"Complete surprise factor" = Lure sets
"Gives them nuke options" = Z-Moves
"Too little investment for too high reward" = Mega Evolution
"Changes matchups" = Mega Evolution again, and even if it's a broader scale they'll still have blanket checks
"Overcentralization/steals games away with little skill" = Compared to Dynamax, not even close
"x becomes broken because of it" = Well maybe you should deal with x instead, because odds are it'll still be a problem even if you hit Terastalizing
"There's no counterplay" = Yes there is, because YOU can do the same thing as they can with just as little trade-off as they have
"Every team needs Terastalizing" = No they don't, because it's just a tool that makes matchups or already-good sets better, you don't NEED to always use it to keep up
"Makes every Pokemon become uncounterable because they could be anything" = Oh please, go play Balanced Hackmons, a popular OM where virtually everything is technically uncounterable by the same definition, and watch how pointless this claim becomes

Whoo boy.

Manaphy: whataboutism. Not to mention it still isn't comparable to terastilize.
Lure sets: significant opportunity cost.
Z moves: opportunity cost again. One time use. Reasonable counterplay exists.
Mega Evolution: both your comparisons here are poor given you still give up an item, and match ups and counterplay vs megas are very much identifiable like any regular pokemon. It doesn't change midgame like with tera.
Dynamax: being less broken than dmax is not an argument and is not a standard we should use.
Broken Mons: If you remove tera, a ton of problematic mons stop being problematic. Dragonite, Dragapult, Roaring Moon, Espathra (this one is debatable). That's to say nothing of the mons who can click tera to dodge SE hits and start boosting up. Or those who can abuse same type tera to become near unwallable.
Both sides can use it: this was also true of Dynamax.
Every team needs Terastalizing: pretty sure no one has said this so let's not make strawmen.
go play Balanced Hackmons: OU and BH are vastly different metas. This is just a nonargument.

 

[Djuseppe]

You're all keep talking of a shit-ton of broken pokemon because of tera but you all keep bringin up the same 4-5 names.
Chi-yu and chien-pao are broken even without Terastal (maybe not both, but chi-yu is for sure).
Regieleki IS NOT IN THE GAME AT THE MOMENT STOP TALKING ABOUT UNOBTAINABLE POKEMON.
Set-uppers like Dragonite and Volcarona are more made broken by shed tail rather than terastalizing.
Garganacle broken? When?

 

[Biannual Run]

I’m in the process of getting my reqs, played 50+ games but did not quite get near the GXE requirement. I think I’m going to experiment with some different team structures and give it another push some time during the holiday season. I’m also in the mindset that either Tera Team Preview or Full Ban are the best decisions, and I’m still deciding between the two.

Anyway, one thing I feel is that I have had a very tough time isolating Tera as the problem. This might sound nonsense, as it feels like there are a ton of problems in the meta and that Tera seems to be a common denominator, but at the same time so many of the new toys feel genuinely too strong and above what would be a normal OU power level, and some of the synergies in the meta feel ridiculously strong.

Take, for example, Screens + Shed Tail + Tera Fairy Espathra. This is a structure where Tera is super strong, as it effectively gives Espathra one turn of a 50/50. If the opponent fails to predict the turn of Tera and the Tera type, that Esparatha can get an additional CM + Speed Boost, which in many instances can straight up win the game.

Or, for example, suppose your Gholdengo had its balloon popped and is in against a faster Pokemon with EQ, such as Garchomp. You can probably switch out, or maybe you can click Tera and force a 50/50. If the opponent does not anticipate the Tera, they may fire off a now neutral, not very effective, or ineffective EQ and take big damage from a Make it Rain. This turn may swing the entire momentum of the game and turn a win into a loss.

And this is the problem I’m feeling with Tera. It’s not just that there are 50/50s - those have been around in Pokemon forever - it’s that the two options in the 50/50 are so extreme that there aren’t really effective middle ground options and that the outcome of the 50/50 can straight up win or lose you a game. This is why I think banning Tera might be the way to go.

However, this last point about how much 50/50s swing the game seems exclusive to Hyper Offensive metas. If we were in a slower, bulkier meta with longer games and better relative defensive options, I don’t think a single 50/50 per game is really a problem. In fact, maybe in these metas, the “cool” parts of Tera can shine, as it can make defensive options potentially more versatile, can reward creative teambuilding, and can introduce an aspect of baiting a Tera and capitalizing on the new weaknesses of the new type. It has the potential to be such a cool and deep mechanic in these settings yet we are not in these settings - largely because of the amount of very powerful Pokémon in the meta. (I mean, is it really possible that Shed Tail, Esparatha, Gholdengo, Chi-Yu, and Annihilape are all broken? /s)

The question is how to proceed. It’s hard for me to determine if the fact that Tera can force a 50/50 makes the mechanic broken, or if the fact that some Pokémon can turn a single won 50/50 into a won game makes those Pokémon broken. I don’t really have a good answer to that, but maybe as I play more, get better, and get reqs (which I’m setting as a goal for myself) I’ll come to an answer.

 

[alephgalactus]

You're all keep talking of a shit-ton of broken pokemon because of tera but you all keep bringin up the same 4-5 names.
Chi-yu and chien-pao are broken even without Terastal (maybe not both, but chi-yu is for sure).
Regieleki IS NOT IN THE GAME AT THE MOMENT STOP TALKING ABOUT UNOBTAINABLE POKEMON.
Set-uppers like Dragonite and Volcarona are more made broken by shed tail rather than terastalizing.
Garganacle broken? When?

Dragapult with physical Ghost STAB. Roaring Moon with the Acrobatics set. Annihilape with Tera Water/Fairy. Espathra. Iron Valiant with its like eight different viable Tera types. Should I go on?

 

[shawk*+:)]

While I do not have the energy to write an essay in MLA format with double spacing in a 12 point font regarding my thoughts on tera. I will offer a short explanation on why I believe tera should not be nerfed, but restricted in some ways.

• Show the Tera Typing in preview:
- This is the most straightforward option (and my personal favorite.) It nerfs tera as a whole. Arguments about this being unfair can be negated as official VGC rules use this concept at this point in time.

• Only 1 User Per Team:
- Another option is only having one user per team. This could, in theory, work as a suitable option to relieve some stress about guessing which one is going to be the user. The downside is that you still have to guess which one it is.

• Banning certain Pokémon/restricting Them.
- This is one that I came up with myself when I got reminded about the “Baton Pass” ban back in ADV. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, one proposed fix to baton pass (going off of memory) was that only two of the six pokemon could use BP and none of those pokemon could be Smeargle. I feel like a similar restriction could maybe apply to tera where if a pokemon is chosen to be a problem, We as a community could suspect them. Alternatively we could just ban the move Tera Pulse on certain pokemon aswell.

 

[Djuseppe]

Dragapult with physical Ghost STAB. Roaring Moon with the Acrobatics set. Annihilape with Tera Water/Fairy. Espathra. Iron Valiant with its like eight different viable Tera types. Should I go on?

yes it was literally my question

 

[swampmist1142]

Dragapult with physical Ghost STAB. Roaring Moon with the Acrobatics set. Annihilape with Tera Water/Fairy. Espathra. Iron Valiant with its like eight different viable Tera types. Should I go on?

I'd argue annihilape is potentially uberable without tera types. Roaring moon hasn't seemed that problematic outside of shed tail. Same with espathra, tho I think it and valiant would both benefit from reveal tera types.

 

[BobKingOfSeagulls]

Dragapult with physical Ghost STAB. Roaring Moon with the Acrobatics set. Annihilape with Tera Water/Fairy. Espathra. Iron Valiant with its like eight different viable Tera types. Should I go on?

Their question was about how in examples typically the same 3-4 mons, which are the ones you gave, are the only ones cited (I assume because they're the most blatantly broken) and if the list of mons tera breaks is only like 4 then throwing the mechanic instead of a few mons feels like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Not necessarily saying you're wrong, just elaborating on that poster's question more.

 

[Mishra]

Dragapult with physical Ghost STAB. Roaring Moon with the Acrobatics set. Annihilape with Tera Water/Fairy. Espathra. Iron Valiant with its like eight different viable Tera types. Should I go on?

Dragapult with ghost is not that strong. Certainly not what's pushing it. Moon is strong but slightly overratred. Esparthra has a lot of answers and is more busted because of shed tail, and Ape is absolutely busto even without tera typing.

 

[Unowndragon]

Hello, fellow SV OU players, I would like to explain my own thoughts on Tera and this sus, for starters, I do agree that the game will cause a strong guessing and counterpoint is quite vague experience, and can do without loss of strength of the premise change resistance, difficult to predict, but at the same time, because this is a 6v6 singles battle, The fault tolerance rate of Taijing is much more friendly than bss and vgc, in the actual match, like the match rich vs the annihilape, garganacl, skeledirge, kingambit, their tera types tend to be fixed, for most pm, different gera types have their advantages and disadvantages, and 6v6 for tera, you can reduce losses through the actual situation of the match, Since 8 generations ago, we can not only look at the current Pokemon and Pokemon battle from the traditional perspective. Terastallization does make the game's guessing elements become more obvious, but after some development, I think eventually for most Pokemon, tera types will tend to be more fixed, among which, the balance is destroyed because of this mechanism. Or if the whole meta is being modified, ruled and shaped by a certain few Pokemon, it is more suitable for testing then.

Therefore, from the perspective of my personal opinion, I think more about sustainable development rather than just focusing on matches. For more basic players, I always believe that the mechanism should not be completely separated, and appropriate regulations can be made. If were to choose to
hierarchical terastallization, then I will choose both teams preview tera types, it is closes to vgc at the same time and also reduce the possibility of being surprised by it, but also let the players in the battle also have more to consider at the same time
From a game development perspective, I don't think a second three-year gameplay without new mechanics would be better for the entire 6v6 format. I've always believed that ladders and tournaments go hand in hand, and there are a fair number of tournament players in smogon, but we should also consider about both Ladder and tournament players' ideas and opinions. If tera is completely banned, then different battle modes and the game itself will have a feeling of separation. Please think twice before making such decisions. I always believe that whether the metagame is broken should change alongside with time. Teta is such an example, I would like to experience and play different matches, such as in the entire swsh metagame, vgc, bss players can experience dymax, Most 6v6 players (except for anything goes) won't be able to play dynamax battles (although dynamax is broken for 6v6).

 

[Max op boy]

Small question is there a option to not change it at all