Once you hit the requirements for reqs and do /linksmogon check you are on the voter list. After that you are good even if you decay
-
Follow our Instagram!
-
Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.
-
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.
Announcement Gen 4 Random Battle Suspect Process: Stealth Rock (Result: Stealth Rock stays gone!)
- Thread starter A Cake Wearing A Hat
- Start date
Okay, so I just got reqs and it was a little brutal at times (Tilted from 1610 to 1520 in 3 consecutive poorly played games). I had couple really unlucky games and some moments where concentration lapsed, but I am glad I was able to put a streak together after haxxing Drifting to rebound my points. I met a ton of sweet and kind people on the ladder and I want to express how cool it was to have conversations with people and revisit a gen I love. JirachiSphere was particularly kind after a crushing defeat the first time I was 1 game away so thank you!
Speaking of loving DPP, I am going to be frank, I have not played a ton of randbats in this gen before, but the suspect piqued my interest and I had things I wanted to blow off taking care of. I will be disecting the thread and laddering some more over the next few days while I make up my mind. People are encouraged to reach out and discuss it with me as I'm still in the data collection phase so to speak.
Huge shout out to Pokéguy Austin who I ran into on the ladder and who's video I watched while playing lower on the ladder for some insight!!
Also wanna thank DBK31TH & Tytohbird the encouraging words and tolerating being spammed on discord dm's with updates when I lost <3
Extras:
- 2 accidentally queued gen 9 games because I am silly
- 1 ZU game in which I was able to finally complete a platinum Ladder Acheivement challenge
Speaking of loving DPP, I am going to be frank, I have not played a ton of randbats in this gen before, but the suspect piqued my interest and I had things I wanted to blow off taking care of. I will be disecting the thread and laddering some more over the next few days while I make up my mind. People are encouraged to reach out and discuss it with me as I'm still in the data collection phase so to speak.
Huge shout out to Pokéguy Austin who I ran into on the ladder and who's video I watched while playing lower on the ladder for some insight!!
Also wanna thank DBK31TH & Tytohbird the encouraging words and tolerating being spammed on discord dm's with updates when I lost <3
Extras:
- 2 accidentally queued gen 9 games because I am silly
- 1 ZU game in which I was able to finally complete a platinum Ladder Acheivement challenge
Last edited:
Hadn't really played much of the new gen4 before the suspect and went in with the expectation that the rockless format would be overall more balanced, although maybe sometimes less fun since there is no denying that seeing your opponent reveal charizard into masquerain into Regice after having a rocks lead is quite the dopamine kick. Who doesn't love winning without having to do anything for it?
While playing, I changed my mind - I now think it's more balanced and more fun! It really feels like you have so much more agency over the vast majority of games. Are there still matchups that are absolutely terrible? Yes, of course. It's Rands. My second to last game had my opponent completly unable to beat Gastrodon+Heatran without the option to go for any kind of play. Are Spikes and TSpikes more problematic now? Well, not really? It's just far more noticable now that they aren't overshadowed by Rocks. They definitely do feel like "rocks light" in a sense that you are usually at an advantage if you get them and your opponent doesn't, but much less egregious. I fail to see how reintroducing rocks would do anything but make that problem worse again.
I feel like Amaranth summed it up pretty well in his post. Every Pro-Rocks argument always seems to assume that you always get rocks. You don't. That's exactly the issue.
"Oh Rocks are necessary to apply pressure with double switches, its a skill check!" Ok so I just lose the games where I didn't roll rocks because I can't apply pressure?
"Oh Rocks are necessary because without them Flying types run rampant and are unkillable!" Ok so I just lose the games where I didn't roll rocks because I can't damage the (even bulkier) flying types?
"Oh Rocks are necessary because Shedinja!" Ok so you'd rather play a 5v6 every time you get shedinja? Also small sample size, but I think Shedinja appeared 4 times in my run:
One died after Shadow Clawing an unrevealed Flame Body on switch in
One died to Hail
One was lead into Spikes Froslass with no removal
The only one that may have been kind of problematic because I had none of these things was just kinda given to me (I think I had 3 mons that could potentially hit it?)
I think we're gonna be fine
The format is also still very distinct from and not nearly as slow as gen3. The few long games I played ended around the 100 turns mark, most of them before actually hitting 100. Phys/Spec split and all of the new high base power moves do their thing in that regard. So I don't see gen4 losing their "unique identity" either.
Didn't expect to ever vote in a suspect ever again, but here we are. You can probably guess what I'll be voting.
While playing, I changed my mind - I now think it's more balanced and more fun! It really feels like you have so much more agency over the vast majority of games. Are there still matchups that are absolutely terrible? Yes, of course. It's Rands. My second to last game had my opponent completly unable to beat Gastrodon+Heatran without the option to go for any kind of play. Are Spikes and TSpikes more problematic now? Well, not really? It's just far more noticable now that they aren't overshadowed by Rocks. They definitely do feel like "rocks light" in a sense that you are usually at an advantage if you get them and your opponent doesn't, but much less egregious. I fail to see how reintroducing rocks would do anything but make that problem worse again.
I feel like Amaranth summed it up pretty well in his post. Every Pro-Rocks argument always seems to assume that you always get rocks. You don't. That's exactly the issue.
"Oh Rocks are necessary to apply pressure with double switches, its a skill check!" Ok so I just lose the games where I didn't roll rocks because I can't apply pressure?
"Oh Rocks are necessary because without them Flying types run rampant and are unkillable!" Ok so I just lose the games where I didn't roll rocks because I can't damage the (even bulkier) flying types?
"Oh Rocks are necessary because Shedinja!" Ok so you'd rather play a 5v6 every time you get shedinja? Also small sample size, but I think Shedinja appeared 4 times in my run:
One died after Shadow Clawing an unrevealed Flame Body on switch in
One died to Hail
One was lead into Spikes Froslass with no removal
The only one that may have been kind of problematic because I had none of these things was just kinda given to me (I think I had 3 mons that could potentially hit it?)
I think we're gonna be fine
The format is also still very distinct from and not nearly as slow as gen3. The few long games I played ended around the 100 turns mark, most of them before actually hitting 100. Phys/Spec split and all of the new high base power moves do their thing in that regard. So I don't see gen4 losing their "unique identity" either.
Didn't expect to ever vote in a suspect ever again, but here we are. You can probably guess what I'll be voting.
I just find the format to be more fun with stealth rocks and that's what its identity should be. If you want toxic-stall fests on the ladder, go play gen3 rands. Let gen4 rands be a hyperoffensive shootout meta, that's what it's always been.
However I will say that there's certainly a merit to rockless gen4 rands and I would love if it could stay as a challengable format, but just have rocks rands be the main one. Kind of similar to when we had regular gen8 rands and gen8 no-dmax rands. Especially as people have spent a lot of time working on balancing both these versions of gen4 rands. Would be sad if one of them became unplayable. I wouldn't even hate if people could have a gentlemen's agreement on which gen4 rands they want to play in a tournament.
Eitherway, rocks are still just more fun to play with so gonna vote to have rocks in gen4 rands
However I will say that there's certainly a merit to rockless gen4 rands and I would love if it could stay as a challengable format, but just have rocks rands be the main one. Kind of similar to when we had regular gen8 rands and gen8 no-dmax rands. Especially as people have spent a lot of time working on balancing both these versions of gen4 rands. Would be sad if one of them became unplayable. I wouldn't even hate if people could have a gentlemen's agreement on which gen4 rands they want to play in a tournament.
Eitherway, rocks are still just more fun to play with so gonna vote to have rocks in gen4 rands
Synopsis:
I think Rocks in gen4 creates polarising gameplay which is how the format (and to some similar extent gen5) gained an infamous reputation to begin with. Relating the above comment from Xceloh: in terms of subjective experience and game-feel, I prefer a format that enables long-term strategising and gameplans over fast and furious games decided quickly by whoever got Rocks. I suspect that fear of "stall" is an exaggeration from players who are less familiar with long-term games in rands. Though not impossible, I think it is rare to face multiple perfect walls and truly have no counterplay via. conditioning, doubling to a breaker, read clicks, etc.
I also think that the identity of gen4 does not have to revolve around the new domineering Rocks hazard-mechanic when there are also several new powerful items (Specs, Scarf, Life Orb; also Toxic Orb for Guts mons) that redefine offensive capabilities compared to gen3. These, alongside continually rising power levels in each generation (and perhaps also the introduction of Nasty Plot for special sweepers), are also significant factors that affect pace and the viability of the Toxic vs. RestTalk contest (more so the latter: Toxic is always progress). Perhaps relatedly, the distribution of these moves in the format barely changed before/after Rocks.
I broadly agree with Amaranth's viewpoints. I'm inclined towards data-based argumentation, although I think R1C3M4N has RBTT winrate stats that most clearly demonstrate how overpowering Rocks can be. If anything I am slightly more partial to rocks staying in gen5, but that's a discussion for another day.
My primary reasoning:
Rocks pre-HDB are an inherently limiting/warping factor on team gen, and therefore game/team matchups, based on typing alone: always taking 50% clean off a Moltres, Articuno etc. or severely punishing mons weak to it with limited counterplay, especially if your opponent also happens to have a good defensive check/wall to that mon. Previously we couldn't make a Ledian any higher than level 100 to solve its inherent shittiness, but in a Rock-less world we can adjust its level to reduce its stat bulk if it becomes excessive. The balancing option is there, which I think is the superior option to attempting to balance around Rocks, which works in absolutes (set percentages based on immutable type traits). Likewise, attempting to mould setdev around Rocks sounds convoluted to me - most mons with Rocks are not as flawed as Wormadam. Do we reduce a mon's level when it has the Rocks set and thereby remove a key aspect of rands, the set information-gathering, and simultaneously reduce the identity of many mons into being Rocks bots instead of assessing their holistic traits? I'm not a fan.
On this topic, Corsola and Magcargo were mentioned by Texas first thing in the thread as "objectively bad Pokemon", and generally he argued their defensive niche was "eliminated" turning them into "valueless" Pokemon. Fittingly, though extremely anecdotal, both mons were entirely valuable as defensive pieces in my recent Gen4 Open round 5 games! You can take this with a grain of salt, but my point is that game contexts enable opportunities for even these flawed Pokemon to shine thanks to their innate traits. Is this not literally a big part of the appeal of rands? Rocks was so centralising that their other qualities were/are barely in consideration.
Ironically, looking at Markov's Rands winrates sheet reveals that the new level tuning has already done a decent job at keeping the most feared(?) mons in check. Everything being average winrate - the Articunos, Ledians, Mothims, and Scythers are not dominating at all, nor really Moltres nor HoOh; offensive birds in general. There is DEFINITELY more work to be done and more level changes to be made with the data. Ariados apparently popped off in July before getting another nerf. Very defensive walls (Giratinas/Dustox especially; P2, Quag; Blissey has ALWAYS been problematic) and fast glass cannons (Deoxys-es, Gengar, Zangoose) look also look like problematic targets potentially in need of further level nerfs. All this data is NOT gospel, but it is useful and indicative of rebalancing at work.
Concerning Spikes and Toxic Spikes: I think the former is fine accounting for its limited distribution of 19 users in the format (6.4% of 295 total mons), the completely neutral and initially lower 12.5% damage, and the counterplay in non-grounded mons. Toxic Spikes is a bit troublesome, it is even less common with 13 users (4.4%) and so I don't think it can ever be banworthy, but it can be equally polarising accounting for whether your opponent has a Poison type, although it has another immunity drawback in Steel. Compare this to Stealth Rocks: I counted ~69 fully-evolved mons with rocks by gen4, and before the ban in May, there were 63 mons in the format (21.4% of total) with rocks sets. You don't need me to tell you how good Rocks are.
I do not find a "force Rapid Spin" argument compelling when there are I believe ~16 unique fully-evolved spinners in existence by gen4 (source being /nds), and 11 of them (3.7% of total) have spin sets in the current gen4 rands format, but they are hardly all good at doing so (e.g. Armaldo, Torkoal) for a move that is already exploitable/unreliable compared to their other possible roles. In contrast to Spin, we have always known Rocks as a free and immensely rewarding move to click on almost any mon, which is not particularly fairly aligned with the huge potential reward. Finally, we all understand the absence of Defog. So to put it concisely, the extremely powerful option is widespread while the conditional counterplay is sparse.
My one regret is that Shedinja exists in rands when I would prefer it not to.
My vote is to keep Rocks banned in gen4 random battles.
I think Rocks in gen4 creates polarising gameplay which is how the format (and to some similar extent gen5) gained an infamous reputation to begin with. Relating the above comment from Xceloh: in terms of subjective experience and game-feel, I prefer a format that enables long-term strategising and gameplans over fast and furious games decided quickly by whoever got Rocks. I suspect that fear of "stall" is an exaggeration from players who are less familiar with long-term games in rands. Though not impossible, I think it is rare to face multiple perfect walls and truly have no counterplay via. conditioning, doubling to a breaker, read clicks, etc.
I also think that the identity of gen4 does not have to revolve around the new domineering Rocks hazard-mechanic when there are also several new powerful items (Specs, Scarf, Life Orb; also Toxic Orb for Guts mons) that redefine offensive capabilities compared to gen3. These, alongside continually rising power levels in each generation (and perhaps also the introduction of Nasty Plot for special sweepers), are also significant factors that affect pace and the viability of the Toxic vs. RestTalk contest (more so the latter: Toxic is always progress). Perhaps relatedly, the distribution of these moves in the format barely changed before/after Rocks.
I broadly agree with Amaranth's viewpoints. I'm inclined towards data-based argumentation, although I think R1C3M4N has RBTT winrate stats that most clearly demonstrate how overpowering Rocks can be. If anything I am slightly more partial to rocks staying in gen5, but that's a discussion for another day.
My primary reasoning:
Rocks pre-HDB are an inherently limiting/warping factor on team gen, and therefore game/team matchups, based on typing alone: always taking 50% clean off a Moltres, Articuno etc. or severely punishing mons weak to it with limited counterplay, especially if your opponent also happens to have a good defensive check/wall to that mon. Previously we couldn't make a Ledian any higher than level 100 to solve its inherent shittiness, but in a Rock-less world we can adjust its level to reduce its stat bulk if it becomes excessive. The balancing option is there, which I think is the superior option to attempting to balance around Rocks, which works in absolutes (set percentages based on immutable type traits). Likewise, attempting to mould setdev around Rocks sounds convoluted to me - most mons with Rocks are not as flawed as Wormadam. Do we reduce a mon's level when it has the Rocks set and thereby remove a key aspect of rands, the set information-gathering, and simultaneously reduce the identity of many mons into being Rocks bots instead of assessing their holistic traits? I'm not a fan.
On this topic, Corsola and Magcargo were mentioned by Texas first thing in the thread as "objectively bad Pokemon", and generally he argued their defensive niche was "eliminated" turning them into "valueless" Pokemon. Fittingly, though extremely anecdotal, both mons were entirely valuable as defensive pieces in my recent Gen4 Open round 5 games! You can take this with a grain of salt, but my point is that game contexts enable opportunities for even these flawed Pokemon to shine thanks to their innate traits. Is this not literally a big part of the appeal of rands? Rocks was so centralising that their other qualities were/are barely in consideration.
Ironically, looking at Markov's Rands winrates sheet reveals that the new level tuning has already done a decent job at keeping the most feared(?) mons in check. Everything being average winrate - the Articunos, Ledians, Mothims, and Scythers are not dominating at all, nor really Moltres nor HoOh; offensive birds in general. There is DEFINITELY more work to be done and more level changes to be made with the data. Ariados apparently popped off in July before getting another nerf. Very defensive walls (Giratinas/Dustox especially; P2, Quag; Blissey has ALWAYS been problematic) and fast glass cannons (Deoxys-es, Gengar, Zangoose) look also look like problematic targets potentially in need of further level nerfs. All this data is NOT gospel, but it is useful and indicative of rebalancing at work.
Concerning Spikes and Toxic Spikes: I think the former is fine accounting for its limited distribution of 19 users in the format (6.4% of 295 total mons), the completely neutral and initially lower 12.5% damage, and the counterplay in non-grounded mons. Toxic Spikes is a bit troublesome, it is even less common with 13 users (4.4%) and so I don't think it can ever be banworthy, but it can be equally polarising accounting for whether your opponent has a Poison type, although it has another immunity drawback in Steel. Compare this to Stealth Rocks: I counted ~69 fully-evolved mons with rocks by gen4, and before the ban in May, there were 63 mons in the format (21.4% of total) with rocks sets. You don't need me to tell you how good Rocks are.
I do not find a "force Rapid Spin" argument compelling when there are I believe ~16 unique fully-evolved spinners in existence by gen4 (source being /nds), and 11 of them (3.7% of total) have spin sets in the current gen4 rands format, but they are hardly all good at doing so (e.g. Armaldo, Torkoal) for a move that is already exploitable/unreliable compared to their other possible roles. In contrast to Spin, we have always known Rocks as a free and immensely rewarding move to click on almost any mon, which is not particularly fairly aligned with the huge potential reward. Finally, we all understand the absence of Defog. So to put it concisely, the extremely powerful option is widespread while the conditional counterplay is sparse.
My one regret is that Shedinja exists in rands when I would prefer it not to.
My vote is to keep Rocks banned in gen4 random battles.
This is a follow up to this post:
this suspect and wcor wrapping up finally gave me the motivation to write the code needed to scrape tournament threads for replays. In one adhd-fueled evening, I was able to implement (without any llm usage, which was a nice break from the prompting that they call software engineering in 2026) some nice stuff like pagination so I would only have to paste the link to the first page of every thread, making it fairly easy to get stats for all previous randbats team tours.
The issue with spikes and tspikes is that they're not generated enough, so our sample size just isn't big enough to be super representative imo. These hazards being uncommon also in itself differentiates them from rocks, and makes them a worse candidate for a ban, as it's less feasible and necessary to try to control sources of luck with very low or high chances (see rby 1/256 rolls as an extreme example of a mechanic being busted but fine to keep). Inconsistency leads to uncompetitiveness, which is why rng rolls that are closer to 50/50 feel the worst (see sleep talk as sleep counterplay in bw ou). From our previous data, rocks aren't rolled on either side in 40% of games, and independently, there's around a 38% chance that each player rolls rocks. Spikes and tspikes on the other hand are uncommon enough that their presence isn't as warping to the average dpp rands game.
In theory, spikes and tspikes have more counterplay than rocks. For spikes, 1 layer is pretty impactful but not as brutal for rock weak pokemon like rocks are, and flying types/levitators are straight up immune. On top of that, you need 3 layers, which is a whole 3 turns, to replicate what rocks can do in 1 turn against approximately a quarter of the dex, and this is enough for 3 layers of spikes to often not be worth it in faster games. Tspikes imo are totally fraudulent in the rocksless dpp meta. The amount of pokemon that are immune to tspikes is even greater, with steels and poisons along with the flying and levitate mons being unaffected, and on top of that, grounded poisons, which are pretty common, remove them just by switching in! Imagine having a mon that removes stealth rock upon switchin, except it's a whole type. The nail in the coffin is that without rocks, the main way to force progress is by clicking toxic, which means that most mons will be badly poisoned over the course of a game anyways, so tspikes generally just aren't even that impactful when you CAN keep them up.
I also collected stats for spikes and tspikes from wcor 2026 and the final rounds of the gen 4 open, which are the highest level replays of the post-rocks era, and the stats (keep in mind that this is an extremely small sample size) kind of support this:
Spikes sees a slight uptick in winrate because they aren't overshadowed by rocks anymore, and tspikes has a flat 50/50 w/l, probably because they're not actually that impactful on a game to game basis.
I hope you guys enjoyed that yapathon; tldr is that rocks are broken and because of both the stats I gathered (rocks vs no rocks has a 70% wr in high level tour gameplay!) and my anecdotal experience playing the format, I'm voting ban.
PS: One more thing, I think it would be cool if dpp with rocks was a playable ladder/format for a bit to help those who hadn't played the format much form their opinions. I think many would agree that the current dpp rands is pretty enjoyable but aren't sure how that compares to dpp rands in the past.
this suspect and wcor wrapping up finally gave me the motivation to write the code needed to scrape tournament threads for replays. In one adhd-fueled evening, I was able to implement (without any llm usage, which was a nice break from the prompting that they call software engineering in 2026) some nice stuff like pagination so I would only have to paste the link to the first page of every thread, making it fairly easy to get stats for all previous randbats team tours.
First, I wanted to see the winrate of rocks vs no rocks from a larger representative sample size. I decided to focus on all randbats team tour replays from after the great replay purge and before rocks were nuked, which includes wcor 2024, 2025 and rbtt 7,8,9. This gives us the following:
Yeah, 70% in a larger sample size is a pretty staggering number, and anyone who's played dpp with rocks should know why. I think this data clearly demonstrates that rocks are pretty strong in dpp, but that alone isn't enough for them to be deserving of a ban. After all, there are other moves that are just as broken, such as scald, toxic, recover, but no one is clamoring to ban those. So why rocks? I think what sets rocks apart from these other moves is the fact that it's pretty much a one-time use move. Hazard removal is scarce enough that most games where you have rocks, you click it once and get rewarded with huge chip every time the opponent switches. This is not true for these other broken moves. Notice how we wouldn't be able to do a similar analysis to the one I did on any of the other moves mentioned because just having clicked one of those moves once doesn't necessarily mean they'll have much of an impact. Scald usually has to be clicked multiple times to net a burn. Toxic has a miss chance and also can't affect poison and steel types. Recovery moves are strong but the prevalence of status makes mons with recovery generally manageable, and those can also be level balanced. Rocks not only has no drawback to click (hell even magic bounce doesn't exist in dpp) but also affects every mon on the team.
I think people have done a pretty good job of addressing the arguments the anti-ban side brought up (flying types with roost will eventually be level balanced), but I think there's one thing that hasn't really been brought up, namely the metagame becoming slower and more status focused without rocks. The main reason for this is because aside from rocks and the rare spikes, status is the best way to make progress, whether it's the passive damage of poison/burn or full para odds stopping walls from recovering hp. From my anecdotal experience playing some ladder and making it to finals of open, status has been more than enough to ensure that in most games, progress can be made (other than crobat, that guy is busted and needs to be nerfed a few levels), and managing status (especially toxic) is also a skill in itself that I'd put on similar ground as doubling with rocks up (note how doubling with rocks up is only extremely rewarding if you're the one with rocks and your opponent doesn't have any). In fact, I had many close games in later rounds of the open where being able to double freely because I didn't have to worry about my mons taking chip on switchin helped me win games, and that felt extremely rewarding.
Stats for stealth rock in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 499
Player with stealth rock wins: 158.5, 31.76%
Player with stealth rock loses: 65.5, 13.13%
Both players have stealth rock: 75, 15.03%
Neither player has stealth rock: 197, 39.48%
Winrate for player with stealth rock when opponent doesn't have stealth rock: 70.76%
Total Replays: 499
Player with stealth rock wins: 158.5, 31.76%
Player with stealth rock loses: 65.5, 13.13%
Both players have stealth rock: 75, 15.03%
Neither player has stealth rock: 197, 39.48%
Winrate for player with stealth rock when opponent doesn't have stealth rock: 70.76%
Yeah, 70% in a larger sample size is a pretty staggering number, and anyone who's played dpp with rocks should know why. I think this data clearly demonstrates that rocks are pretty strong in dpp, but that alone isn't enough for them to be deserving of a ban. After all, there are other moves that are just as broken, such as scald, toxic, recover, but no one is clamoring to ban those. So why rocks? I think what sets rocks apart from these other moves is the fact that it's pretty much a one-time use move. Hazard removal is scarce enough that most games where you have rocks, you click it once and get rewarded with huge chip every time the opponent switches. This is not true for these other broken moves. Notice how we wouldn't be able to do a similar analysis to the one I did on any of the other moves mentioned because just having clicked one of those moves once doesn't necessarily mean they'll have much of an impact. Scald usually has to be clicked multiple times to net a burn. Toxic has a miss chance and also can't affect poison and steel types. Recovery moves are strong but the prevalence of status makes mons with recovery generally manageable, and those can also be level balanced. Rocks not only has no drawback to click (hell even magic bounce doesn't exist in dpp) but also affects every mon on the team.
I think people have done a pretty good job of addressing the arguments the anti-ban side brought up (flying types with roost will eventually be level balanced), but I think there's one thing that hasn't really been brought up, namely the metagame becoming slower and more status focused without rocks. The main reason for this is because aside from rocks and the rare spikes, status is the best way to make progress, whether it's the passive damage of poison/burn or full para odds stopping walls from recovering hp. From my anecdotal experience playing some ladder and making it to finals of open, status has been more than enough to ensure that in most games, progress can be made (other than crobat, that guy is busted and needs to be nerfed a few levels), and managing status (especially toxic) is also a skill in itself that I'd put on similar ground as doubling with rocks up (note how doubling with rocks up is only extremely rewarding if you're the one with rocks and your opponent doesn't have any). In fact, I had many close games in later rounds of the open where being able to double freely because I didn't have to worry about my mons taking chip on switchin helped me win games, and that felt extremely rewarding.
In general, longer games tend to offer more avenues and reward for skill expression simply because there's more turns to outplay your opponent. ho vs ho games are often decided on 50-50s because there are only so turns that can decide the game's outcome, and I think everyone can agree that pure 50-50s aren't very competitive (we should just play rps instead of pokemon, what are we doing?). On the other side of the spectrum, stall vs stall games are extremely boring because often times there's no hope of either side breaking through. I think dpp rands in its current rocksless state is in a pretty good middle ground here where far more often than not, both teams have the tools to break each other, but it takes a decent amount of time to do so through clever positioning and forcing progress via toxic. Even without rocks, there are still a decent amount of matchups that are pretty offensive as well for those that enjoy these types of games more.
Stats for spikes in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 499
Player with spikes wins: 44.5, 8.92%
Player with spikes loses: 41.5, 8.32%
Both players have spikes: 1, 0.2%
Neither player has spikes: 409, 81.96%
Winrate for player with spikes when opponent doesn't have spikes: 51.74%
Stats for toxic spikes in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 499
Player with toxic spikes wins: 48, 9.62%
Player with toxic spikes loses: 23, 4.61%
Both players have toxic spikes: 1, 0.2%
Neither player has toxic spikes: 424, 84.97%
Winrate for player with toxic spikes when opponent doesn't have toxic spikes: 67.61%
Total Replays: 499
Player with spikes wins: 44.5, 8.92%
Player with spikes loses: 41.5, 8.32%
Both players have spikes: 1, 0.2%
Neither player has spikes: 409, 81.96%
Winrate for player with spikes when opponent doesn't have spikes: 51.74%
Stats for toxic spikes in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 499
Player with toxic spikes wins: 48, 9.62%
Player with toxic spikes loses: 23, 4.61%
Both players have toxic spikes: 1, 0.2%
Neither player has toxic spikes: 424, 84.97%
Winrate for player with toxic spikes when opponent doesn't have toxic spikes: 67.61%
In theory, spikes and tspikes have more counterplay than rocks. For spikes, 1 layer is pretty impactful but not as brutal for rock weak pokemon like rocks are, and flying types/levitators are straight up immune. On top of that, you need 3 layers, which is a whole 3 turns, to replicate what rocks can do in 1 turn against approximately a quarter of the dex, and this is enough for 3 layers of spikes to often not be worth it in faster games. Tspikes imo are totally fraudulent in the rocksless dpp meta. The amount of pokemon that are immune to tspikes is even greater, with steels and poisons along with the flying and levitate mons being unaffected, and on top of that, grounded poisons, which are pretty common, remove them just by switching in! Imagine having a mon that removes stealth rock upon switchin, except it's a whole type. The nail in the coffin is that without rocks, the main way to force progress is by clicking toxic, which means that most mons will be badly poisoned over the course of a game anyways, so tspikes generally just aren't even that impactful when you CAN keep them up.
I also collected stats for spikes and tspikes from wcor 2026 and the final rounds of the gen 4 open, which are the highest level replays of the post-rocks era, and the stats (keep in mind that this is an extremely small sample size) kind of support this:
Stats for spikes in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 159
Player with spikes wins: 24.5, 15.41%
Player with spikes loses: 18.5, 11.64%
Both players have spikes: 2, 1.26%
Neither player has spikes: 114, 71.7%
Winrate for player with spikes when opponent doesn't have spikes: 56.98%
Stats for toxic spikes in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 159
Player with toxic spikes wins: 18, 11.32%
Player with toxic spikes loses: 18, 11.32%
Both players have toxic spikes: 1, 0.63%
Neither player has toxic spikes: 122, 76.73%
Winrate for player with toxic spikes when opponent doesn't have toxic spikes: 50.0%
Total Replays: 159
Player with spikes wins: 24.5, 15.41%
Player with spikes loses: 18.5, 11.64%
Both players have spikes: 2, 1.26%
Neither player has spikes: 114, 71.7%
Winrate for player with spikes when opponent doesn't have spikes: 56.98%
Stats for toxic spikes in gen4randombattle:
Total Replays: 159
Player with toxic spikes wins: 18, 11.32%
Player with toxic spikes loses: 18, 11.32%
Both players have toxic spikes: 1, 0.63%
Neither player has toxic spikes: 122, 76.73%
Winrate for player with toxic spikes when opponent doesn't have toxic spikes: 50.0%
I hope you guys enjoyed that yapathon; tldr is that rocks are broken and because of both the stats I gathered (rocks vs no rocks has a 70% wr in high level tour gameplay!) and my anecdotal experience playing the format, I'm voting ban.
PS: One more thing, I think it would be cool if dpp with rocks was a playable ladder/format for a bit to help those who hadn't played the format much form their opinions. I think many would agree that the current dpp rands is pretty enjoyable but aren't sure how that compares to dpp rands in the past.
Last edited:
Been a while since I've laddered old gen rands, was running a little bad until I stopped using an Mdill-inspired alt. After getting reacquainted with the mechanics and desensitised to the crits, I've had a fairly enjoyable experience laddering this suspect test, so much so that I snuck a fireable amount of my total games on phone at work yesterday. Also that stupid video got stuck in my head hence the dumb alt, probably should have picked something else but whatever, gonna ramble a bit so hopefully some of it's useful.
Used to play a lot of DPP in 2024 when I first started rands, it was probably one of my top 3 played formats, have hit 1800+ on it and so I have a good grasp on how pre-ban DPP felt - that is to say, unpleasant. Often I felt that I didn't have a great deal of agency in my games due to the prevalence of rocks, since I couldn't freely double on switches, try to swap mons around to get Life Orb chip on a sweeper, scout a potential choice-locked mon and more, since it'd cripple my team to ranges where I can't effectively do the above anymore. Rands is always going to have its unfair matchups and the crit rate and multiplier in old gens certainly doesn't do it many favours, but feeling like you have reduced ability to outplay is always going to suck, and one of the reasons I stopped laddering the format in the first place.
Hazards in current meta feel a lot less oppressive. Spikes are less common, can't hit all mons and need to be thrown up for multiple turns to get the most out of it, all of which constrain its efficacy. Toxic Spikes similarly haven't felt *as* detrimental, as I'll find that in most games I have at least 2-3 mons that aren't affected by it and/or can remove it. This is not to say they're completely without issue and I'm sure their effect on games is more noticeable now without rocks to overshadow them, but they feel significantly less centralising. Bug and Flying mons are obviously more consistent now and I'd hope level balancing does its job there, but matchups where I got curb stomped by something like a Dustox or Articuno were far and few. Most 'shitmons' are fairly serviceable even with rocks being gutted from their movepool - some guys like Probopass and Bastiodon certainly feel middling, but I think the overall level of viability has increased and feeling like you have less dead slots on a team is always a good thing.
I'd also like to touch on 'identity' and comparisons to ADV - I don't play much ADV so grain of salt here but from my limited experience playing it as well as watching it in RBTT/WCOR, I don't think the comparisons are apt. The new meta is certainly slower but as others have stated, the general increase in power level certainly bars it from being some slow, drawn-out status fest - physical/special split giving mons access to strong STAB moves, higher BP moves across the board, introduction of Life Orb and Choice Specs/Scarf, introduction of several stronger mons and abilities... Rocks may have been one of the defining points of DPP but it isn't the only one, and in my experience laddering I certainly didn't feel like the majority of my games dragged on that much.
There's a lot of interesting posts in this thread already talking about statistics, the previous and current tempo of the format, the current strength of certain types in the format and more, and I would urge everyone to read them all to best develop their own standpoint. That being said, I personally think the new format is a lot more competitive and enjoyable (to the point where I'd even consider playing it in team tours) and so will likely be voting ban.
Used to play a lot of DPP in 2024 when I first started rands, it was probably one of my top 3 played formats, have hit 1800+ on it and so I have a good grasp on how pre-ban DPP felt - that is to say, unpleasant. Often I felt that I didn't have a great deal of agency in my games due to the prevalence of rocks, since I couldn't freely double on switches, try to swap mons around to get Life Orb chip on a sweeper, scout a potential choice-locked mon and more, since it'd cripple my team to ranges where I can't effectively do the above anymore. Rands is always going to have its unfair matchups and the crit rate and multiplier in old gens certainly doesn't do it many favours, but feeling like you have reduced ability to outplay is always going to suck, and one of the reasons I stopped laddering the format in the first place.
Hazards in current meta feel a lot less oppressive. Spikes are less common, can't hit all mons and need to be thrown up for multiple turns to get the most out of it, all of which constrain its efficacy. Toxic Spikes similarly haven't felt *as* detrimental, as I'll find that in most games I have at least 2-3 mons that aren't affected by it and/or can remove it. This is not to say they're completely without issue and I'm sure their effect on games is more noticeable now without rocks to overshadow them, but they feel significantly less centralising. Bug and Flying mons are obviously more consistent now and I'd hope level balancing does its job there, but matchups where I got curb stomped by something like a Dustox or Articuno were far and few. Most 'shitmons' are fairly serviceable even with rocks being gutted from their movepool - some guys like Probopass and Bastiodon certainly feel middling, but I think the overall level of viability has increased and feeling like you have less dead slots on a team is always a good thing.
I'd also like to touch on 'identity' and comparisons to ADV - I don't play much ADV so grain of salt here but from my limited experience playing it as well as watching it in RBTT/WCOR, I don't think the comparisons are apt. The new meta is certainly slower but as others have stated, the general increase in power level certainly bars it from being some slow, drawn-out status fest - physical/special split giving mons access to strong STAB moves, higher BP moves across the board, introduction of Life Orb and Choice Specs/Scarf, introduction of several stronger mons and abilities... Rocks may have been one of the defining points of DPP but it isn't the only one, and in my experience laddering I certainly didn't feel like the majority of my games dragged on that much.
There's a lot of interesting posts in this thread already talking about statistics, the previous and current tempo of the format, the current strength of certain types in the format and more, and I would urge everyone to read them all to best develop their own standpoint. That being said, I personally think the new format is a lot more competitive and enjoyable (to the point where I'd even consider playing it in team tours) and so will likely be voting ban.
I will be voting to keep stealth rock banned.
This metagame has been completely revitalised since this change have gone into effect. I've enjoyed playing this format for the first time maybe ever, and the difference in the viewer experience during this WCOR vs previous iterations and RBTT is stark. The level of consistently playable matches is far, far higher than it ever has been (obviously its not and will never be perfect but we play rands), based off of mine, and so many others' experiences.
I think anyone who thinks stealth rock is a skill expressive move/mechanic in this format is kidding themselves/has their head in the sand. It is not hard for anyone with baseline competency to double/switch into your hazard setter and click the broken move. Yes, there were rare occasions when forcing switches to chip down pieces did require some thought, but the vast majority of the time this happens naturally over the course of the game because you've been given such an overwhelming advantage through no real merit of your own.
Sure, the dopamine hit of having fast, frenetic games with rocks may appeal to some, and that is totally fine, but I find it impossible to see how it can be argued in good faith that gen 4 with the rocks enforcement code is a more skill rewarding format than the one we have now.
I was very skeptical of this change at first but oh my god how wrong I was. This vote is incredibly cut and dry to me, and I trust we'll achieve the correct result, so go get them reqs all! Good luck on your respective climbs.
This metagame has been completely revitalised since this change have gone into effect. I've enjoyed playing this format for the first time maybe ever, and the difference in the viewer experience during this WCOR vs previous iterations and RBTT is stark. The level of consistently playable matches is far, far higher than it ever has been (obviously its not and will never be perfect but we play rands), based off of mine, and so many others' experiences.
I think anyone who thinks stealth rock is a skill expressive move/mechanic in this format is kidding themselves/has their head in the sand. It is not hard for anyone with baseline competency to double/switch into your hazard setter and click the broken move. Yes, there were rare occasions when forcing switches to chip down pieces did require some thought, but the vast majority of the time this happens naturally over the course of the game because you've been given such an overwhelming advantage through no real merit of your own.
Sure, the dopamine hit of having fast, frenetic games with rocks may appeal to some, and that is totally fine, but I find it impossible to see how it can be argued in good faith that gen 4 with the rocks enforcement code is a more skill rewarding format than the one we have now.
I was very skeptical of this change at first but oh my god how wrong I was. This vote is incredibly cut and dry to me, and I trust we'll achieve the correct result, so go get them reqs all! Good luck on your respective climbs.
I don't recommend continuing on the same alt after already having multiple losses on low ladder. I was just stubborn, which made it more stressful, requiring a winstreak at the top of the ladder. anyway, opinion:
Most of the things I'm gonna say have already been said but I want to yap about it in my own words anyway
In regard to the similarity between gen 4 and gen 3 - They're just not close. I do not ladder 3, I just play it in the occasional roomtour or once a year in the open BUT I do follow it in the team tours and rockless gen 4 is a completely different pace. Obviously, it's slower than before, but it is not the slog that I associate gen 3 with. In my entire laddering experience for reqs, I have not run into a matchup that I felt was completely impossible in terms of unbreakable walls. I can't even remember a match that went over 100 turns to be honest (which is different from my gen 5 experience, however, "there's a time and place for everything but not now").
In regard to gen 4 BEFORE the ban - I, among many others, I'm sure, saw gen 4 as mostly a coinflip tier, whoever gets rocks is just so far ahead that it'd be pretty surprising if they lost... (and the numbers do reflect that quite clearly). They just play the game for you, you barely need to make a play, a double from the opponent just hurts them more, a prediction from you is so unnecessary because even if they make the right switch, they're getting punished, especially if their only switch-in is weak to rocks. I got top 8 of last year's gen 4 open and I even used to ladder the format when it had rocks which leads me to the next thing I want to address.
In regard to how fun the format is - This is probably the only thing I agree with, from the opinion of the pro-unban players. I DO think the format is less fun without rocks. The reason I laddered gen 4 was because it was a fun and quick format. I used to jump between 4 and mayhem because they required about the same level of thinking (which is to say, not very high) and it was just a good time. I probably won't be laddering 4 again. I think with rocks it is a very fun format for the average ladderer/casual enjoyer, BUT a much less competitive format which requires little to no actual thinking.
In regard to other hazards - spikes are solid. Tspikes have literally done nothing in my games but I know how bad they can be from other gens. Spikes are currently 1. less common and 2. less problematic than rocks ever were. I've seen Tspikes at least 10 times while getting reqs, all but one time there was at least one poison type on the opposing side (this applies both ways). I've seen spikes less than tspikes and they've been just solid. They have allowed me to stop predicting at a point and/or make midgrounds that avoided risking crits but they have not felt like the choking restriction that rocks were.
In regard to smaller, more specific problems - Shedinja is MORE of a problem when rocks are a thing. Shedinja + rocks vs no rocks is completely impossible because you get punished for switching, which this mon forces you to. Shedinja vs rocks means it's literally worse than unown, only being used as a sac, making this mon such an extreme matchup fish that I'd say it puts demon alcremie to shame. Articuno/vespiquen/whoever else stalls and is weak to rocks have not been bad to me at all, I've faced and had both, They felt strong but not impossible. Level balancing can actually keep them in check now, which it literally couldn't in a rockfull meta if you didn't get rocks.
In regard to the (probably impossible) future - In my perfect world, where anything and everything is possible, both versions of the format continue to exist with rockless being the default and rockfull being the more casual and fun version. In this perfect world the players get to decide if they want to play with or without rocks, even in high level tournaments, with rockfull only being played if both players agree to it. There are problems with this, such as the team disagreeing with a player's choice, especially if they lose that set due to it (much like gentlemanning a best of 5 instead of 3) and the fact that balancing would be more difficult with fewer games, but that is why I said it's probably impossible, which kinda sucks.
TL;DR gen 4 is still not close to gen 3. Format used to be more fun. Format is now less matchupy, requires more thinking and thus is more competitive. Hoping we can somehow have both versions with gentlemanning in tours.
I will most certainly be voting to keep rocks banned.
Most of the things I'm gonna say have already been said but I want to yap about it in my own words anyway
In regard to the similarity between gen 4 and gen 3 - They're just not close. I do not ladder 3, I just play it in the occasional roomtour or once a year in the open BUT I do follow it in the team tours and rockless gen 4 is a completely different pace. Obviously, it's slower than before, but it is not the slog that I associate gen 3 with. In my entire laddering experience for reqs, I have not run into a matchup that I felt was completely impossible in terms of unbreakable walls. I can't even remember a match that went over 100 turns to be honest (which is different from my gen 5 experience, however, "there's a time and place for everything but not now").
In regard to gen 4 BEFORE the ban - I, among many others, I'm sure, saw gen 4 as mostly a coinflip tier, whoever gets rocks is just so far ahead that it'd be pretty surprising if they lost... (and the numbers do reflect that quite clearly). They just play the game for you, you barely need to make a play, a double from the opponent just hurts them more, a prediction from you is so unnecessary because even if they make the right switch, they're getting punished, especially if their only switch-in is weak to rocks. I got top 8 of last year's gen 4 open and I even used to ladder the format when it had rocks which leads me to the next thing I want to address.
In regard to how fun the format is - This is probably the only thing I agree with, from the opinion of the pro-unban players. I DO think the format is less fun without rocks. The reason I laddered gen 4 was because it was a fun and quick format. I used to jump between 4 and mayhem because they required about the same level of thinking (which is to say, not very high) and it was just a good time. I probably won't be laddering 4 again. I think with rocks it is a very fun format for the average ladderer/casual enjoyer, BUT a much less competitive format which requires little to no actual thinking.
In regard to other hazards - spikes are solid. Tspikes have literally done nothing in my games but I know how bad they can be from other gens. Spikes are currently 1. less common and 2. less problematic than rocks ever were. I've seen Tspikes at least 10 times while getting reqs, all but one time there was at least one poison type on the opposing side (this applies both ways). I've seen spikes less than tspikes and they've been just solid. They have allowed me to stop predicting at a point and/or make midgrounds that avoided risking crits but they have not felt like the choking restriction that rocks were.
In regard to smaller, more specific problems - Shedinja is MORE of a problem when rocks are a thing. Shedinja + rocks vs no rocks is completely impossible because you get punished for switching, which this mon forces you to. Shedinja vs rocks means it's literally worse than unown, only being used as a sac, making this mon such an extreme matchup fish that I'd say it puts demon alcremie to shame. Articuno/vespiquen/whoever else stalls and is weak to rocks have not been bad to me at all, I've faced and had both, They felt strong but not impossible. Level balancing can actually keep them in check now, which it literally couldn't in a rockfull meta if you didn't get rocks.
In regard to the (probably impossible) future - In my perfect world, where anything and everything is possible, both versions of the format continue to exist with rockless being the default and rockfull being the more casual and fun version. In this perfect world the players get to decide if they want to play with or without rocks, even in high level tournaments, with rockfull only being played if both players agree to it. There are problems with this, such as the team disagreeing with a player's choice, especially if they lose that set due to it (much like gentlemanning a best of 5 instead of 3) and the fact that balancing would be more difficult with fewer games, but that is why I said it's probably impossible, which kinda sucks.
TL;DR gen 4 is still not close to gen 3. Format used to be more fun. Format is now less matchupy, requires more thinking and thus is more competitive. Hoping we can somehow have both versions with gentlemanning in tours.
I will most certainly be voting to keep rocks banned.
Last edited:
I first topped hit 1800 in gen 4 in 2023 and have laddered it fairly frequently since then. Since about mid-2024, I've felt that Gen 4 would be more competitive without rocks.
Consistency is essential to make a format competitive. Obviously, we can't make the format perfect, but we should seek to avoid creating massive sources of matchup variance when feasible (unless you prefer Candy Land). Outplaying unfavorable circumstances is a part of a competitive game (there's still plenty of that post-ban), but a game will always be more skill-based if matchup variance is reduced, all else equal.
Rocks are broken. Yes, it is possible to win if your opponent has them and you don't, but you usually have to be very precise. Beating a random 1500 or a less experienced tour player because they were playing too safe with rocks and didn't make any predictions, allowing you to carefully maneuver around them is consistently possible, but such tactics are not feasible against top players. They'll make one or two key, low-risk predictions/double switches (assuming the matchup even requires it, which it often doesn't) and seal your fate.
I think a lot of people are hyperfocused on rocks vs no rocks matchups (which are lopsided), but I think rocks vs rocks is similarly bad. All of a sudden, level balancing goes out the window because some pokemon lose half their hp on switch-in while others are unaffected. Pre-ban, Charizard was level balanced to have a 50% wr, which included games with and without rocks. Thus, Charizard is objectively too strong if your opponent doesn't roll rocks and too weak if they do - it's almost never balanced. Again, some matchup variance is unavoidable, but we don't want to create extra if it can be avoided.
I'll be voting to keep rocks banned.
Consistency is essential to make a format competitive. Obviously, we can't make the format perfect, but we should seek to avoid creating massive sources of matchup variance when feasible (unless you prefer Candy Land). Outplaying unfavorable circumstances is a part of a competitive game (there's still plenty of that post-ban), but a game will always be more skill-based if matchup variance is reduced, all else equal.
Rocks are broken. Yes, it is possible to win if your opponent has them and you don't, but you usually have to be very precise. Beating a random 1500 or a less experienced tour player because they were playing too safe with rocks and didn't make any predictions, allowing you to carefully maneuver around them is consistently possible, but such tactics are not feasible against top players. They'll make one or two key, low-risk predictions/double switches (assuming the matchup even requires it, which it often doesn't) and seal your fate.
I think a lot of people are hyperfocused on rocks vs no rocks matchups (which are lopsided), but I think rocks vs rocks is similarly bad. All of a sudden, level balancing goes out the window because some pokemon lose half their hp on switch-in while others are unaffected. Pre-ban, Charizard was level balanced to have a 50% wr, which included games with and without rocks. Thus, Charizard is objectively too strong if your opponent doesn't roll rocks and too weak if they do - it's almost never balanced. Again, some matchup variance is unavoidable, but we don't want to create extra if it can be avoided.
I'll be voting to keep rocks banned.
Last edited:
do you enter /linksmogon in the chat on showdown or what?
yep!
click yes.
https://www.smogon.com/tools/suspects/view/254 <---- Click and make sure you are on the list (if you qualify for reqs)
I will be voting to keep Stealth Rock banned. Having topped the Gen 4 ladder multiple times pre-ban, I can say with certainty that the format post-ban is vastly more interactive and competitive than it used to be. The crux of this has to do with what Drifttrick (among many other people) laid out in his post:
Now, balance aside, let's talk about fun. I've seen some people concede that Stealth Rock-less Gen 4 is more balanced, but insist that Stealth Rock was a fun mechanic to play with regardless. Frankly put, I really do not believe this is true. Most people would agree that winning is generally fun. I'm sure it probably feels fun to destroy your opponents team by clicking Stealth Rock Turn 1-3 and reaping the rewards throughout the game as a result. However, an important principle of game design in a zero-sum competitive game like Pokémon is ensuring that players have as much fun as possible even while they're losing (this was explored further by either Mortdog (former TFT lead) or Aaron Keller (Overwatch lead) one time but I don't remember which and I can't find the interview/post it was from so maybe it was somebody else; if anybody knows what I'm talking about please let me know).
From my experience with pre-ban Gen 4, there was nothing more miserable that having to play into Stealth Rock without hazard control; bear in mind that approximately 30% of the Gen 4 roster is weak to Rock, meaning you usually have at least one Rock-weak Pokémon on the team. There were many games where it felt like the result was a foregone conclusion as soon as Stealth Rock was clicked. It was a restrictive force with minimal counter-play (unless you happened to generate a rare Rapid Spinner) that significantly limited a player's options for making progress or outplaying their opponent, thereby reducing the interactivity of decision making. Games that are not interactive are not fun to play; if your decisions won't alter the outcome, there isn't much of a point in wasting time thinking about them and playing them out.
As an aside, I do think it's funny that Shedinja was brought up as a reason for Stealth Rock to be re-introduced, and I'm glad numerous people in the thread have argued against that notion. Clearly some of you haven't spent enough time in the Rands room, and thus never saw the many times people complained there about having to play a 5v6 because they generated Shedinja vs Stealth Rock. In the past, we could only respond to those complaints with, "eh, that's Rands, nothing we can do." Well, now we have done something about it. Let's keep it that way.
Replace Charizard with Articuno, Ho-oh, or any other Rock-weak Pokémon, and this statement about imbalance still holds true. This is also not an issue specific to Gen 4. Notable examples that come to mind from my format of residence are Reshiram and Mega-Beedrill in Gen 6; however, newer gens have the benefit of Defog making hazard removal more common. All Pokémon will be favourable into some teams and unfavourable into others, but Stealth Rock in Gen 4 Rands single-handedly exacerbates this issue of imbalance not just for the Rock-weak Pokémon I mentioned, but also for the Stealth Rock setters themselves. Considering R1C3M4N's data showing that Stealth Rock itself has a very high winrate, while the Stealth Rock setters are level balanced into a 50% winrate, we can conclude that the Rocks setters (specifically those for which Stealth Rock is not a forced move) are underlevelled and thus underperforming when they don't roll Stealth Rock.
Now, balance aside, let's talk about fun. I've seen some people concede that Stealth Rock-less Gen 4 is more balanced, but insist that Stealth Rock was a fun mechanic to play with regardless. Frankly put, I really do not believe this is true. Most people would agree that winning is generally fun. I'm sure it probably feels fun to destroy your opponents team by clicking Stealth Rock Turn 1-3 and reaping the rewards throughout the game as a result. However, an important principle of game design in a zero-sum competitive game like Pokémon is ensuring that players have as much fun as possible even while they're losing (this was explored further by either Mortdog (former TFT lead) or Aaron Keller (Overwatch lead) one time but I don't remember which and I can't find the interview/post it was from so maybe it was somebody else; if anybody knows what I'm talking about please let me know).
From my experience with pre-ban Gen 4, there was nothing more miserable that having to play into Stealth Rock without hazard control; bear in mind that approximately 30% of the Gen 4 roster is weak to Rock, meaning you usually have at least one Rock-weak Pokémon on the team. There were many games where it felt like the result was a foregone conclusion as soon as Stealth Rock was clicked. It was a restrictive force with minimal counter-play (unless you happened to generate a rare Rapid Spinner) that significantly limited a player's options for making progress or outplaying their opponent, thereby reducing the interactivity of decision making. Games that are not interactive are not fun to play; if your decisions won't alter the outcome, there isn't much of a point in wasting time thinking about them and playing them out.
As an aside, I do think it's funny that Shedinja was brought up as a reason for Stealth Rock to be re-introduced, and I'm glad numerous people in the thread have argued against that notion. Clearly some of you haven't spent enough time in the Rands room, and thus never saw the many times people complained there about having to play a 5v6 because they generated Shedinja vs Stealth Rock. In the past, we could only respond to those complaints with, "eh, that's Rands, nothing we can do." Well, now we have done something about it. Let's keep it that way.
Last edited:
I did not play a lot of gen 4 games over the past few years nor did i join the open. As a result it showed in the first few games that i played even exploding last mon vs last mon thinking i'd win (you do not). After getting reacquainted and reading through the above messages i started formulating my own opinion- I'm not as eloquent as the above kings and queens so i'll keep it short.
Overall, gen 4 rands feels like a very unforgiving format. More than in other formats that i've played i feel that you need to get every turn right in most of the games to not outright lose. This feeling gets worse the higher gxe your oppo is so i can only imagine what it is in tourney play - as it is games spiral out of control so fast with a suboptimal turn not helped by x2 crits. => rocks would only add to this sentiment. I won't touch the identity topic as i have too little experience here but i'll play around the format a bit longer to see if my opinion changes.
For now: keep them banned
Overall, gen 4 rands feels like a very unforgiving format. More than in other formats that i've played i feel that you need to get every turn right in most of the games to not outright lose. This feeling gets worse the higher gxe your oppo is so i can only imagine what it is in tourney play - as it is games spiral out of control so fast with a suboptimal turn not helped by x2 crits. => rocks would only add to this sentiment. I won't touch the identity topic as i have too little experience here but i'll play around the format a bit longer to see if my opinion changes.
For now: keep them banned
I have finally achieved the requirements to vote on this suspect test so I will share some short and sweet thoughts below.
The main thing I have learned about this format during this suspect: This format sucks regardless of rocks being around or not. This suspect was so painful to play. I haven't ever played gen 4 in a "real" tournament before, so not much high level experience in this tier. I thought the lack of rocks would make this format more enjoyable, but it really didn't. With no rocks, it really resembles gen 3 in my eyes (even though some disagree it seems). There is so much toxic stalling, but without the rest talk to deal with it (such as in gen 2). Toxic spikes seemed to be just as bad as rocks in most games, which might just be because I was unlucky and not rolling poison types but yeah tspikes are an auto gg if you don't get a poison or spinner. The once fast paced metagame has turned into a sometimes fast and sometimes painfully slow metagame.
With all of this being said, and having to never touch this tier again if I so please, I'll be voting to keep rocks banned. As much as it pained me to play these shitty games, I can't pretend that rocks somehow make this tier more competitive. It just makes shitty matchups go by faster. So at the end of the day, I'll choose the more competitive format over the more fun one. Some of you seem to still like it (or like it better) which is good, because I'll value your contributions as teammates in future tournaments by playing this. It is also important to note that these long toxic stalling matchups don't suddenly disappear once rocks are reintroduced. Rocks are not guaranteed in any game for any player. I just found there to be so many more of these than in the rocks meta. The sheer number of unenjoyable games I had to play during this suspect test was definitely startling.
Gen 4 rant aside, I will propose another point from my experience in this suspect test: The requirements to be able to vote are too strict. I have contributed to numerous suspects tests in formats that I do not play regularly, and none of them were as difficult to achieve as this one, even though I play mainly random battles. Having to effectively top the ladder with a large influx of very competent players on fresh alts with no stable gxe established yet was awful. I think just lowering this mark down to 1600 would just be so much better - 85 gxe is still quite hard to achieve and doesn't throw in the rolling of the dice of trying to get 4 playable matchups in a row once you hit the already difficult 1600. I don't know if other people who got reqs were just laddering at times when there were higher elo players on the ladder, but I consistently having to win 5 games to 2 losses just to break even. It was extremely difficult to break through this circumstance, and there were multiple alts I had to abandon because I lost a few games in a row after nearly getting to the finish line. I think I had to win like 11/12 of my final games to get from 1550 to 1650. There are other people who I have talked to who are definitely competent enough to be able to vote on this but are also having extreme difficulty getting to the 1650 mark. I have been warned by Cake that the gen 8 dynamax suspect test was very convoluted and should not be used to really argue anything, which hopefully this point isn't too much flying in the face of that because I wasn't around back then but I'm sure it's true. I just feel like more people should be able to vote on this. Now, I don't think the 250 people voting on dynamax is the right call either, but somewhere in the middle would be nice. I think it would kind of suck to only have like 10-15 people qualifying by ladder. There is still time, of course, so I hope many more can achieve the reqs. I do also recognize that there are people who qualify through tournament records, which is fine. But I don't feel like the requirements for this suspect are fair to people who are good enough to get them but may not have the time or just not good enough luck during this short span. I'm assuming it was not the intent to gatekeep the voting to such an extent, but it should be a learning experience in case of future suspects. The ladder is not magically going to increase by 100 elo because of a suspect test. The top of the ladder stayed the same throughout reqs so far, and I don't expect it to change in the second half either.
Anyway been on this tangent for way too long now and my sentences are probably devolving into shitty English. The main points are in bold. goodnight
The main thing I have learned about this format during this suspect: This format sucks regardless of rocks being around or not. This suspect was so painful to play. I haven't ever played gen 4 in a "real" tournament before, so not much high level experience in this tier. I thought the lack of rocks would make this format more enjoyable, but it really didn't. With no rocks, it really resembles gen 3 in my eyes (even though some disagree it seems). There is so much toxic stalling, but without the rest talk to deal with it (such as in gen 2). Toxic spikes seemed to be just as bad as rocks in most games, which might just be because I was unlucky and not rolling poison types but yeah tspikes are an auto gg if you don't get a poison or spinner. The once fast paced metagame has turned into a sometimes fast and sometimes painfully slow metagame.
With all of this being said, and having to never touch this tier again if I so please, I'll be voting to keep rocks banned. As much as it pained me to play these shitty games, I can't pretend that rocks somehow make this tier more competitive. It just makes shitty matchups go by faster. So at the end of the day, I'll choose the more competitive format over the more fun one. Some of you seem to still like it (or like it better) which is good, because I'll value your contributions as teammates in future tournaments by playing this. It is also important to note that these long toxic stalling matchups don't suddenly disappear once rocks are reintroduced. Rocks are not guaranteed in any game for any player. I just found there to be so many more of these than in the rocks meta. The sheer number of unenjoyable games I had to play during this suspect test was definitely startling.
Gen 4 rant aside, I will propose another point from my experience in this suspect test: The requirements to be able to vote are too strict. I have contributed to numerous suspects tests in formats that I do not play regularly, and none of them were as difficult to achieve as this one, even though I play mainly random battles. Having to effectively top the ladder with a large influx of very competent players on fresh alts with no stable gxe established yet was awful. I think just lowering this mark down to 1600 would just be so much better - 85 gxe is still quite hard to achieve and doesn't throw in the rolling of the dice of trying to get 4 playable matchups in a row once you hit the already difficult 1600. I don't know if other people who got reqs were just laddering at times when there were higher elo players on the ladder, but I consistently having to win 5 games to 2 losses just to break even. It was extremely difficult to break through this circumstance, and there were multiple alts I had to abandon because I lost a few games in a row after nearly getting to the finish line. I think I had to win like 11/12 of my final games to get from 1550 to 1650. There are other people who I have talked to who are definitely competent enough to be able to vote on this but are also having extreme difficulty getting to the 1650 mark. I have been warned by Cake that the gen 8 dynamax suspect test was very convoluted and should not be used to really argue anything, which hopefully this point isn't too much flying in the face of that because I wasn't around back then but I'm sure it's true. I just feel like more people should be able to vote on this. Now, I don't think the 250 people voting on dynamax is the right call either, but somewhere in the middle would be nice. I think it would kind of suck to only have like 10-15 people qualifying by ladder. There is still time, of course, so I hope many more can achieve the reqs. I do also recognize that there are people who qualify through tournament records, which is fine. But I don't feel like the requirements for this suspect are fair to people who are good enough to get them but may not have the time or just not good enough luck during this short span. I'm assuming it was not the intent to gatekeep the voting to such an extent, but it should be a learning experience in case of future suspects. The ladder is not magically going to increase by 100 elo because of a suspect test. The top of the ladder stayed the same throughout reqs so far, and I don't expect it to change in the second half either.
Anyway been on this tangent for way too long now and my sentences are probably devolving into shitty English. The main points are in bold. goodnight
Yeah we thought the ladder ratings would inflate more throughout the suspect. That's our bad. Can't really change it now.
That was my b, I said 1650/85 GXE should be the lower end of suspect reqs. I did not expect literally all of the top ladderers to stop playing lol
GMT + 2 drowsy69 where you at my guy?
Also was close to being able to vote in the suspect but my daughter picked up something and passed it onto me so I was in the bed for the past 4-5 days with like 39 degrees contemplating is life really worth it. Hopefully gonna grind it by today since the next 10 days I'll be more or less not able to play.
What time does the suspect window close on Sunday?
(Give or take a little, I have to close it manually)
I play gen 6 and 7 rands, so excuse me when my analogies are more suited to those tiers than gen 4.
I started laddering with the intention of voting to unban stealth rock. The SR removal looked like a huge and unnecessary disruption to a 20 year old format that aims to be more serious than CC, but more funny than battle factory (citation needed). I think we have gone a bit too far in optimising randbats when we give gyro ball and trick room users 0 speed IVs and EVs. These pokemon like these adjustments just as Alakazam likes running timid, but both seem to be against the spirit of rands.
Part of the charm of randbats is getting obliterated in seven turns bySD mega Blaziken nasty plop Raichu, just to turn around and slow roast your next opponent with lead Dustox while they complain that none of their 15 discharges paralysed you (man I swear Dustox is luckE). You get given a random team and do your best, and sometimes you get rocks. Sometimes maybe good, sometimes maybe shit.
Now let’s pit that against Riceman’s post, where he reveals that if you roll rocks and your opponent doesn’t, and you are of approximately equal skill level, you will win 70% of the time. This is completely damning. It isn’t worth keeping a blatantly unbalanced move in the tier to preserve the ‘sanctity of randbats’, even though I do care about this. For the record, I think the devs have done a great job optimising randbats through setgen and teamgen rules. The randbats tiers that I play are way more fun and balanced now than they were when I played them like 10 years ago (guh).
go ahead n get modelated
I started laddering with the intention of voting to unban stealth rock. The SR removal looked like a huge and unnecessary disruption to a 20 year old format that aims to be more serious than CC, but more funny than battle factory (citation needed). I think we have gone a bit too far in optimising randbats when we give gyro ball and trick room users 0 speed IVs and EVs. These pokemon like these adjustments just as Alakazam likes running timid, but both seem to be against the spirit of rands.
Part of the charm of randbats is getting obliterated in seven turns by
Now let’s pit that against Riceman’s post, where he reveals that if you roll rocks and your opponent doesn’t, and you are of approximately equal skill level, you will win 70% of the time. This is completely damning. It isn’t worth keeping a blatantly unbalanced move in the tier to preserve the ‘sanctity of randbats’, even though I do care about this. For the record, I think the devs have done a great job optimising randbats through setgen and teamgen rules. The randbats tiers that I play are way more fun and balanced now than they were when I played them like 10 years ago (guh).
go ahead n get modelated
I really appreciate all of the discourse about this topic. It makes me happy to know that the community takes decisions so seriously. A thought I want to pose here is just about the experience of playing rands in general. I personally think about rands as an invitation to anyone who has ever been interested in playing Pokemon. It doesn't require intimate knowledge of the game for you to pick it up and play. It lets you utilize Pokemon that you never could in a serious competitive scene. To me, rands is the welcome to the community that everyone can have: it lets you love the game and the Pokemon in it.
I have no data to support my thinking here, but here's how I feel: I think rocks makes the game more accessible to the typical player. I think it's good for the casual ladder player. I think it is the one of the main reasons I learned how to play Gen 4 rands: I could pick it up and occasionally have some success even before I was a decent player, which motivated me to become a decent player.
This is the first suspect test I'm ever voting in and I don't know how others have gone, but it's tough for me to think that the top level players are the only ones with a voice in what could happen and are mainly using high level play to help make their decision. As someone who enjoys the casual game just as much as the competitive one, I want to make sure that both casual and competitive sides are considered as you think about how you'll vote.
Thanks again for all of the time and thought that you're all putting into the conversation and decision.
I have no data to support my thinking here, but here's how I feel: I think rocks makes the game more accessible to the typical player. I think it's good for the casual ladder player. I think it is the one of the main reasons I learned how to play Gen 4 rands: I could pick it up and occasionally have some success even before I was a decent player, which motivated me to become a decent player.
This is the first suspect test I'm ever voting in and I don't know how others have gone, but it's tough for me to think that the top level players are the only ones with a voice in what could happen and are mainly using high level play to help make their decision. As someone who enjoys the casual game just as much as the competitive one, I want to make sure that both casual and competitive sides are considered as you think about how you'll vote.
Thanks again for all of the time and thought that you're all putting into the conversation and decision.