Announcement SV 1v1 DLC2: Tiering Survey #5

[Indi01]

With 1v1 WC IX now drawing to a close, it's the best time to review how the state of the metagame has shifted ever since Regidrago's ban in March 2025. We here at the 1v1 SV council have been reviewing many high-paced series, from those in World Cup, Premier League, and even in daily room tours to better gauge the effect of removing this draconian menace from team previews.

Now, please take the time to complete the following with answers reflecting your own opinions, thank you in advance.


(1 is no suspect needed, 10 is suspect IS needed)

This survey will remain open until Sunday November 30th, 11:59PM GMT-5. If anything is unclear or you have further questions, feel free to message me specifically, or any 1v1 council member on discord or smogon.

Please note: Bad faith replies will be met with infractions - Forum Mods

 

[Untitled Goose]

(This wonderful survey summary written by Indi01 spoilered pictures of just the results are at the very end)


Obligatory Intro
Welcome everyone to 5th tiering survey results of the SV 1v1 DLC2 era! I'll be your guide today as I provide info on how the 1v1 community perceives the current state of the metagame. The main topics we'll be reviewing today are:

1. META ENJOYMENT
2. META COMPETITIVENESS
3. POKEMON OF INTEREST
4. SUSPECT REQ

As a note, a total of 24 participants completed the survey, which is a lower turnout compared to the previous survey, and is a bit worrying. Additionally, unlike the past survey, there are no "qualified voters" as this survey's main purpose is to understand the genuine opinions of all, where no individual's ability as a 1v1 player will provide greater value compared to another in terms of their survey responses. Now, please look forward to the following survey results that reflect the SV metagame as of late 2025.

**Much thanks to lost heros for their compilation of all the data**

--

META ENJOYMENT
How do you like the metagame now that regidrago is gone?

• Average rating: 4 out of 5
• Standard deviation: 1.36
• Median: 4

With the current meta no longer having to worry about set guessing Regidrago, there has been a noticeable shift in regards to the team cores developed in builders. While Primarina still stands to be one of the top mons, other fairies such as Iron Valiant and Azumarill have seen less usage. Additionally, although the use of dragons in teams is still very prevalent, many do not require a hard fairy counter to win against, such as Air Balloon Metagross being able to generally win vs physical dragons, but may have struggled to consistently win vs Regidrago. With this, players are able to develop their teams in what is considered to be a slightly less centralized meta, where there is more freedom in regards to what cores a team is built around.

Given the positive rating from the survey results, it is clear that the metagame is currently healthy, although there is definitely room for improvement. This will be further explored later in this post, specifically with mons such as Hoopa-U, Pecharunt, as well as Custap Berry.

In general, which of these mons/item do you like building with the most?

• Ursaluna - 50.00%
• Hoopa-Unbound - 29.17%
• Custap Berry - 16.67%
• Pecharunt - 4.17%

With a whopping half of survey participants stating how they prefer building with Ursaluna the most, it goes to show how much of an all-rounder this mon is in terms of its use in teams; whether its the core of the team or simply covering the type weaknesses of the other two, the player base clearly enjoys utilizing Ursaluna much more compared to the other options. Shown later in the report, Ursaluna is considered to be the least suspect-worthy mon from the survey, which may infer that players prefer building with mons that are strong, but not strong enough to influence a rise in cteamy sets/mons from opposing players.

Given how Pecharunt is on the polar opposite, this can be inferred that players either believe this mon to be too inconsistent in its matchups, and/or does not possess the diverse creativity that the other 3 options offer. Additionally, given how players prefer using Ursaluna exponentially greater in comparison to Pecharunt, the fact that the majority will likely use Ursaluna in their teams discourages those who would have considered using Pecharunt in the first place.

Custap berry has a unique disposition in this scenario, as while it is only preferred by a sixth of participants, it influences the usage rates of both Ursaluna and Hoopa-U; while there have been custap Pecharunt usage here and there, data for this is too statistically insignificant to even be considered for on outlier. The enjoyment from building Ursa and Hoopa-U does likely share some reliance on custap's ability to allow these mons to win matchups vs faster mons, and their bulky stats further increase this notion. Hence, it can be concluded that a player's ability to enjoy building can be correlated to what held items they enjoy using and whether the top meta mons can benefit from this.

In general, which of these mons/item do you like building with the LEAST?

• Pecharunt - 50.00%
• Hoopa-Unbound - 20.83%
• Custap Berry - 29.17%
• Ursaluna - 00.00%

Pecharunt is unsurprisingly the least favorite mon to build. Whether it is because the mon generally only has stall sets that can still lose matchups due to rng crits, or they may feel a sense of guilt from winning matches due to Malignant Chain's confusion, there appears to be consensus that this mon is not enjoyable to build. On the flipside, not a single soul dislikes using Ursaluna, and given how 50% of players enjoy using it the most, it reflects how even the other 50% players still consider this mon to be more enjoyable compared to the other options.

As for Hoopa-U and Custap Berry, this decent percentage likely is due to how players perceive its inability to be fully consistent with how well-known they are in the meta. Given how many opponents will plan for this by ensuring at least 1 mon in their team is able to specifically beat Hoopa-U and counter custap users, such as with Zapdos's U-turn for Hoopa-U or Iron Moth's Protect for Custap Primarina, it can be a challenge to build knowing that other players will likely already have counters against you without the need of a scout. Thus, it is evident that the community does not prefer to build with mons that rely on the rng of their moves and are considered "broken" enough to warrant blind counters to it.

--

META COMPETITIVENESS
Do you like how competitive the meta is now?

• Average rating: 4 out of 5
• Standard Deviation: 0.90
• Median: 4

Similarly to meta enjoyment, the community has a positive response in regards to how competitive the meta is right now. Given the recent tours of 1v1 World Cup, 1v1 Premier League, 1v1 Last Chance Qualifier, along with the presence of 1v1 as a tier in other non-1v1 centered tours, many have had the opportunity to experience the new norm of the meta after it had settled after Regidrago's ban.

Looking at 1v1 World Cup IX, the top used mons with their usage percentages are:

1. Hoopa-Unbound - 14.85%
2. Primarina - 12.88%
3. Urshifu - 11.97%
   Note

   (Note: This number is skewed due to replays not revealing the form of an Urshifu if is not clicked)
4. Ursaluna - 10.61%
5. Ninetales-Alola - 10.45%
6. Iron Valiant - 10.15%
7. Raging Bolt - 10.15%
8. Metagross 8.79%
9. Goodra-Hisui - 7.73%
10. Volcanion 7.12%

Here, it is evident that Hoopa-U is the most used mon, and for good reason. It is able to make use of all three Choice Items, roseli and custap berries, Assault Vest, Life Orb, along with some others to fill niche roles. Its expansive move pool is also incredibly diverse, allowing for it to excel as both a physical and special attacker without the opportunity cost that other mons face, such as Iron Valiant and its rather mediocre special attack move pool.

Moving on to the other mons, Primarina maintains its spot as the #1 most used fairy mon, given its impressive stats and access to varying sets. Interestingly, there has been a strong shift from the standard custap Primarina towards Life Orb, Weakness Policy, and Choice Specs sets, which may be because it became too regular, and thus predictable to use a custap variant. Similarly, Ninetales-Alola has also seen the same movement, with more sets opting for a life orb version compared to the common leftovers/sitrus berry sets. As for Urshifu, Ursaluna, Raging Bolt, Goodra-Hisui, and Volcanion, all have benefitted from the absence of Regidrago, and has seen greater usage throughout the past year. Coincidentally, all four have had increased usage in respect to their custap sets between ladder and tours, most notably Ursaluna. This correlation can likely be inferred that custap berry as an item has similarily improved in terms of teambuilder value as a result of the Regidrago ban.

Metagross remains a strong meta mon. He he. Ha ha.

All in all, it appears that over 50% of the the Top 10 most used mons would have all had some issues with dealing with Regidrago in the past. Now that the draconic shackles have been released, we as a community have seen much diversity in regards to sets used by these mons, as the usages of each individual 1v1 player contain many of these mons, and thus reflect their desire to experiment and try new sets/cores with said mons. From this, there has been a growth in anti-meta mons/sets as a response to the Top 10, and maintaining this balancing act of a healthy usage of meta/anti-meta mons is what will support the state of the metagame now and in the future. Looking forward, we hope to continue preserving the health of the metagame by ensuring no one mon forces a specific change in all other mons, which I will be discussing in the next section.

POKEMON (and berry) OF INTEREST
How suspect worthy are the following Pokemon? (0-10; 0 = No need, 10 = Yes need)

Hoopa-Unbound

• Average rating: 6
• Standard Deviation: 2.98
• Median: 7

Considered to be the most likely mon to be suspected as of now, and for good reason. Although the average is just a 6, with a SD of nearly 3 and a median of 7, there is definite contrast between survey participants' opinions, whether they strongly do or strongly do not believe in a suspect. This, however, does not constitute as sufficient evidence for a suspect to occur, as the community opinions on the mon are rather split, with only a slight lean towards a suspect. Personally, I find this mon to be quite a presence on team preview, as it forces players to think twice on choosing a special attacking mon, even if it 2-0s the other mons. It also has forced mons such as Zapdos and Landorus to run U-turn specifically for Hoopa-U, which can be a bit off-putting for some builders. However, just as the majority of the 1v1 council, I do not believe Hoopa-U is broken in the way mons like Archaludon and Gouging Fire were, whom were able to dominate the team preview on a much stronger level: Hoopa-U simply does not force teams to constantly have at least 1 mon to specifically counter it. For instance, in a bo5, a player could use Gouging Fire in their Game 1, 2, and then 5, and not be too punished for reusing the same mon even if sets are changed. However, reusing Hoopa-U in this scenario would have a much stronger punish, as the opposing player would have many more options to defeat Hoopa-U that may not be explicitly obvious on team preview, such as the Urshifus. Therefore, Hoopa-U will remain steadfast in the metagame for the time being.

Ursaluna

• Average rating: 3
• Standard Deviation: 1.64
• Median 3

Not too much of a discussion for Ursaluna, this mon is respected to be one of the greater mons in the current SV metagame with its stats and varying sets, however, it does not force as many mons to counter it specifically. Many of those who completed the survey agree that while the mon does possess some of the characteristics that a suspect-worthy mon may have, such as having very strong offensive and defensive capabilities, it holds no water in comparison to the likes of Hoopa-U or Pecharunt. On a side note, there has been a noticeable decrease in Landorus-T usage with the fall of Regidrago, and Ursaluna appears to be the replacement Ground user for players who previously used Landorus-T much more than Ursaluna. I believe this goes to explain Ursaluna's versatility quite well, albeit not enough to warrant a suspect.

Pecharunt

• Average rating: 4
• Standard Deviation: 3.04
• Median 4

To the handful of you who in the survey responded to my joke of maybe increasing Malignant Chain's poison rate from 50% to 100%, thank you for your colorful responses ;). But on a serious note, it is clear to see that there is evidently frustration with how Pecharunt functions. It is bulky enough to usually handle at least 1 supereffective move from a mon, granting it the opportunity to try a single Malignant Chain. If rng permits, this "chain effect" of the opposing mon getting confused and slapping itself allows for Pecharunt to win a host of interactions that it should normally never have the opportunity to. While the average and median are at a middling 4, a whopping 3.04 standard deviation reflects just how annoying facing this mon on team preview can be, as people either strong hate it or don't mind it much at all. In the case of Hoopa-U, it was deemed to be incredibly strong, but not unfair in its interactions vs other mons. However, with Pecharunt, it makes 1v1 seem even more of a rock-paper-scissor meta.

Now, while it is does not exactly help the competitive nature of the game with its 50/50s, it does still maintain itself in the realm of realistic logical possibilities that can occur once a battle commences. For example, moves like Will-O-Wisp, Hurricane, and Hyrdo Pump can make or break a game if it misses, and can similarly allow mons to defeat other mons it should normally not win against. This here is where I believe move accuracy and second effect occurrence rate come together to intertwine into one single concept: opportunity cost. Yes, Malignant Chain will poison much more often than a Hyrdo Pump will miss, but you also need to factor in the 67% chance that confusion will not harm the user. I believe many people unconsciously overlook the 67% chance of confusion not hurting due to how harmful the effects of confusion working can be against the player. This bias to only look at the negatives of an effect, can often lead one to miss the true opportunity cost of the move: 50% to poison > 33% of confusion hitting that turn = 16.67% of getting confused and hurting oneself for each Malignant Chain. Many interactions between mons do rely on some percentage of accuracy/rng to successfully occur, and Pecharunt takes a round-a-bout way in this respect.

Now, obviously the math does not perfectly reflect every scenario, as some battles the opposing mon can still win even after losing 1 turn to confusion, while for others it ultimately ends the battle. But now we have to consider this, does Pecharunt dominate the battlefield with its potential to cause confusion and poison? This is still being actively debated amongst the 1v1 council, however, there is a slight lean towards it not being sufficient for a suspect/ban because it does not elevate it to the standards of what a broken mon is identified as. Thus, while there is definitely potential for Pecharunt to be suspected in the future, no action will likely be taken until the next major metagame change.

Custap Berry

• Average rating: 5
• Standard Deviation: 3.96
• Median 4

Saving the most anticipated for last, we have the berriest berry that will have ever berried: Custap Berry. With an essentially neutral average and median, it seemingly appears to be at a standstill, however, with a standard deviation of basically 4 it is exponentially the most split topic that will be debated today. For quite a number of mons, custap was the answer to Regidrago and helped teams ensure that they wouldn't get 3-0ed by the mon. Now that it is gone, custap's value is spontaneous between mons of all different tiers.

It is a valuable asset against both meta and anti-meta mons, and is generally difficult to set guess upon team preview. Once battle commences, however, it will be very clear when endure is used Turn 1, however, 1v1 players' all have different methods of understanding a set's "tell", and thus will have challenge knowing if something is running custap or not. On the flipside for the custap user, it can also be challenging to know when to endure, as enduring Turn 1 is not always viable. This is especially true when facing against mons that do not attack Turn 1, or their attacks do not deal at least 75%, or 99% for reverse sets. Such inability to make use of custap consistently when one wishes to, is what likely contributes to this contrast in opinions on whether it should be suspected or not.

Ultimately, custap is undoubtedly the most polarizing suspect subject as of now, with those within the 1v1 community divided between having a suspect conducted. As such, custap continues to be the greatest issue that 1v1 council is actively discussing, but no concrete actions will likely be taken by the end of the 2025.

--

SUSPECT REQ
For the previous suspect, 2850 COIL on a fresh new account on ladder was needed to be eligible to vote. How well did you consider this to be fair or not?

• Average rating: 4 out of 5
• Standard Deviation: 0.96
• Median: 4

All the data points from the survey points to the strong opinion that having to ladder to receive suspect voting eligibility is fair. However, the issue that many have with this process is not whether it is fair, but rather is it practical to complete. Given the nature of the ladder, there will likely be a set group of players that you will constantly face, all with varying knowledge of the metagame. Here is where it gets complicated in evaluating whether gaining voting eligibility through ladder is truly indicative of meta knowledge. The time of day you play, the experience level of the players you face, and how often you and your opponents switch between team or simply reuse can all determine the outcome of your ladder experience.

Comparing this to individual and team tours, the level of opponents you face will almost certainly be greater in aforementioned tours compared to your standard ladder opponent. This brings up the issue of whether players should be able to achieve voting eligibility through their achievements in recent tours, such as winning at least 3 games in a team tour, getting to quarterfinals in a individual, and etc. Similar to custap, this is a highly divided issue that is being considered back and forth within SV council. While no firm decision has been made yet, we are looking to loosely adjust the requirements to be more practical for players.

--

SUMMARY/CLOSING THOUGHTS

With all topics discussed, namely Custap Berry, Hoopa-U, and Pecharunt, these three stand out as the most particularly divisive or frustrating for the playerbase, and will require a closer look from council. We are also taking a closer look at suspect requirements to make tweaks that don't require as large of a time commitment, especially at high game counts.

That's all from me today, thank you for bearing with my first ever analysis post on Smogon :) I had to do quite a lot of research while writing this, flipping back and forth between tournaments and data from past weeks, months, and even a year ago to construct more informed ideas and conclusions. I started this thinking I was already prepped with my knowledge of SV, but compiling data is much more than just the numbers, and I had to use my Bachelor's degree to the fullest (yea, that's def why I went to university, to write Smogon posts lol). I look forward to the next time I can inform you all of the latest in the SV metagame.

Stay sharp, and remember to mirror armor your Corviknights.

Just the results