Sneasler, a mon which you acknowledge is clear cut broken, was also a mon that could pick its counterplay by deciding between tera dark, ghost, and flying sets. So how is having to guess sneasler tera different from having to guess volcarona/ival tera? I think you got it right, the difference is that volcarona/ival can be more easily checked. The raw stats make a big difference here, but idt I can give you a clear set of criteria that draws the line between mons like sneasler/gf and volcarona/ival, and it would be irrelevant even if I could.
Ik professor ctc is hungry for math and facts but what ultimately matters is that
the players who achieve reqs will cast their votes based on their own vibes and subjective feelings. That holds true for your next arguments.
Archaludon was banned with a strong 75% majority, and here is its overall SPL stats:
| 34 | Archaludon | 16 | 5.71% | 56.25% |
It was banned from week 5 onwards, so lets ignore usage and focus on winrate: 56.25% is not close to the overwhelming 70% winrates that mons like sneasler and ursabm had. Clearly, a pokemon does not need to be that good in order to get banned from OU. Your standards for brokenness that a pokemon should reach in order to be banned are much higher than the standards of the voterbase.
The usage of archaludon and rain altogether took a massive drop after week 1 of SPL, but this doesn't change the fact that rain was still so oppressive that bridge got banned by a clear 75% majority weeks after rain's dominant week 1 showing. A pokemon does not need to constantly be getting high winrates and high usage to warrant a ban. The voterbase is going to consider more subjective opinions as well, like how healthy they think the mon is, how easy it is to prep for, what upsides it provides for the metagame health, etc.
That's fair, I just think arguments like "status, unaware, and phazing check x" are really fake and paper thin lol. Same also applied to sneasler, same would apply to chien pao if we throw in "hazards." Vague and amorphous "hazards, status, and phazing" can annoy many broken pokemon like chi-yu and is never good enough to keep a mon in a tier.
This is ignoring the low usage of toxic on gliscor itself, for reasons I stated in my post. You can see in Gen9 ou 1825 stats for gliscor here
View attachment 611936
That toxic is only being brought on 53% of gliscors.
Going by overall SPL usage, toxic gliscor has been brought 14 times, while gliscor overall has been brought 44 times. 14/44 = a mere 31%, and I think this aligns with my analysis of gliscor: the metagame is becoming more and more unfriendly to toxic gliscor, despite GF developing into more and more of a problem. This is why my point of "it's not easy to fit status (toxic)" is far from baseless or ignorant.
Where did I disagree that arch was banned due to electro shot in rain? Unsure why I am being called willfully ignorant or slow here. I didn't post in arch suspect thread but yeah, arch under rain clicking funny move was what broke it.
All the counterplay listed is insufficient to check GF alone. If I slap EP lando-t on my offense and call it a day my ass is getting blasted bc lando-t is the frontline response to 15 different mons and rarely makes it to the endgame healthy enough to handle GF. The rest would be repeating my first post.
Going by gen9ou 1825 stats from February, GF is sitting at #20 in usage at 10.5%, while the bulky grounds that are easy to wear down or often set up fodder for breaking swipe are at higher usage (Tusk at #2, Lando-T at #10, Gliscor at #11) while the sturdier, real counterplay to bulky dd sets are MUCH lower usage (alo at #32, garg at #45, skeledirge #48, etc).
I think it's always going to be the case that multiple checks and counters (you know, 5+ mons) are going to have higher combined usage than a single threat...Unless you were trying to say that most of GF's counterplay individually have higher usage than it? Which I would also disagree with.
I've spoken in the past about why I dislike this outlook but lemme say it again. I think this checks and balances system is just creating a MU fish meta. If I bring stall and my opponent brought rain, why is it a good thing that my opponent got "punished for cheese" or whatever? If I bring stall again and my opponent brings glowking BO this time, why is it a good thing that I got "punished for stall"? Are these massive advantages/disadvantages on team preview ok because of some imaginary ecosystem where they beat each other RPS style? I fail to see why this is a good thing. I would much rather have my games decided by skill and not team matchup, and I reject the checks and balances system of MU fishing that you seem to think would lead to a healthy meta. I want every teamstyle to have a solid shot at beating every other teamstyle, not stall>HO>glowking BO>stall where the >'s are super firm.
I dont even think GF is the best example for this, considering the bulky dd swipe set is the most problematic, and the most common item on those sets is in fact boots. Sure you can run cloak and necessitate removal, or run band and necessitate sun, but I see GF as a boots progress maker primarily.
I dislike the implication here that "max boots balance" is some endpoint of meta development. Ik that we settled into zap/glowking/ting lu BO towards the end of the home meta and DLC 1 meta, but it's not 100% certain that it would have stayed that way. We didn't get to find out because dlc kept dropping, but we're finally in the home stretch where we can take our time and be relatively certain that meta development won't get reset by content drops.
There are some crucial differences between home/dlc1 and dlc2 meta which make it unlikely that we will reach zap/king/lu BO again. Gliscor as a whole suppressed that playstyle, and we have new tools to pressure gliscor and account for it in the builder like sub serp and skarm. It's also way easier for gliscor to check zapdos than it is to check raging bolt, and we all know which one is in charge rn.
This is all just speculation on how the meta will develop though, I would overall encourage voters to not be afraid of some potential metagame that may or may not last which may or may not be due to a GF ban here.
I've addressed the usage/winrate statistics and the "ecosystem", so let's address the "we should wait and see" argument. I think the council has not been overusing surveys so far, I think they are coming out at a reasonable pace. So when the qualified responders (QRs) give back quickban numbers (4.1/5) on GF, what do you expect council to do? Do you want them to ignore the community and do nothing? I think it's very reasonable to put out a survey, see what the playerbase thinks, and act accordingly. That's exactly what happened:
QRs did not want to wait for the meta to settle.
They voted 4s and 5s on GF because they want it gone now. You can disagree, but I think you're in the minority.
To finish up: we don't need to wait for statistical proof, we didn't wait for arch and that turned out fine.
Ultimately, it is the feelings of the voterbase and not hard facts that will decide how they vote. I can't really provide the facts you're looking for, and they wouldn't be of consequence if I could.
The QRs did not want the meta to settle, they are ban happy and that has to be respected. The numbers speak for themselves. GF does not need to be on the same level of broken as ursabm, sneas, or bax to be banned.
Cheers.