I understand why people want to ban Terastallizing, but we should attempt to find a compromise first before outright banning a huge mechanic like this. Like Dynamax, Terastallizing heavily favors offensive Pokémon. The main arguments in favor of banning Terastallizing (by order) are these:
- It gives the user either an extra STAB or a super STAB.
- It makes revenge killing very random by changing the user's resistances and immunities mid-battle.
- There are six Pokémon with 18 different types to choose from, for a total of 108 possible outcomes. Although realistically it's way less since each Pokémon only has like a maximum of 5 types to change into, and defense and supportive Pokémon don't really Terastallize, but that's still way more than enough to a pain to deal with.
- As with Dynamax, there is also the issue of not knowing which turn they would Terastallize.
- It fixes coverage issues.
- It has no opportunity cost like wasting an item slot.
For me, the randomness of Terastallizing is my biggest issue because there is no way to prepare for it aside from prediction. The randomness generally benefits offensive Pokémon due to their ability to snowball harder if they get the element of surprise right. Assuming it doesn't change game mechanics, I think revealing Tera Types is the simplest way to "nerf" the mechanic while retaining all of its main functions. Knowing the user's Tera Type makes it easier to play against and also gives us an idea on whether they plan to Terastallize for STABs, coverage, or to change weaknesses. Pokémon like Chi-Yu for example can Terastallize for those three reasons, but not all at once, so knowing which type it Terastallizes helps a lot in predicting what it might do. No it won't reduce the STAB problem or the unpredictability of which turn they Terastallize, but at least we have more control on how to play around the mechanic, especially since it's not as much of an auto-win like Dyanamax.
If Terastallizing continues to be a problem even with the clause, then a suspect can be made after. Nerfing the mechanic doesn't mean that a ban is off the table. This post is not against a Terastallize ban. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's still banworthy, but I want to see actual proof of it first.
And there have been compromises and attempts to compromise with past mechanics. Dynamax is a stupid mechanic that should have been quickbanned for reasons such as granting three powerful moves that never misses, doubling HP, useful secondary effects, randomness of which Pokémon and turn Dynamax would happen, breaking out of locked moves, avoiding cheesy and stalling tactics like Destiny Bond and phazing, Ditto, and more. However, since Dynamax was a major mechanic, it was given more leeway with players trying to find a compromise and was thoroughly discussed in the suspect thread to make sure all options were addressed. One suggestion was to minimize Dynamax level, another is to only allow Gigantamaxing to reduce the randomness factor. But with how many problems Dynamax has, a compromise is impossible to make without overcomplicating the issue.
Held items is a major mechanic, and certain items were deemed to be too strong or uncompetitive in past generations, especially in the lower tiers. Rather than banning the item mechanic as a whole, a simple solution of banning only the problematic items is done. And if held items suddenly become a problem, there are still other clauses like no duplicates or revealing held items that could be tested first before banning the item mechanic as a whole. Terastallizing is a more compex issue, but if we can find a simple and consistent solution to balance the mechanic, then we should implement those first.
Lastly, I have a question for the tiering council. If every generation introduces new mechanics, for those that aren't as busted as Dynamax, are you willing to experiment with other tiering options (assuming it's simple and follows game mechanics) rather than the same binary banning or unbanning of the mechanic in its entirety? What compromise (clauses, complexities of policies, etc.) are you willing to consider? Would you consider a different policy of "quicknerfing/clausing" (basically quickbans but for clauses), and have a suspect/quickban after attempts to nerf the mechanic have shown to not be enough? I'm willing to give a pass to Dyanamax being outright banned without trying a compromise because that mechanic was so obviously busted, but I think now is a good time to try something different so that next generation's tiering would go by more smoothly if a more borderline mechanic gets introduced.
Other thoughts:
- Power creep is so much higher now with all these new high BST Paradox forms. UU cannot come sooner.
- Supporting hyper offense is so much easier with so many new hazard setters, Shed Tail, and Gholdengo brainlessly switching into most passive hazard clearers. At least it isn't as much of a switchfest as the previous generation and that there are actual attacking moves being used.
- Last time I checked this thread, it only had like 10 pages. I wish more moderation was done for Houndstone vs. Last Respects posts. People who missed the past few days of this thread would now have to read through 20 pages where a good chuck of the post disagrees with the Houndstone ban after it's been explained that the ban is most likely going to be undone when Basculegion comes back. I don't mind seeing disagreements, but some posts didn't even seem like they read through Finchgator's posts properly and understand Smogon's tiering policy.