Scald - only for smogon tier users

[Anti]

Lapras and Spite save the day

With all due respect, your posts show a lack of understanding for Smogon's OU metagame, which you yourself professed to not knowing much about. I don't think anyone is interested in having the philosophical discussion you are since a precedent has already been set for banning moves. It says as much in the thread title, so...why are you posting in a thread whose subject matter is a metagame you don't play?

Imo a Pokemon or strategy is uncompetitive if:
a) it maximizes the luck factor to a point where it can consistently force a game to depend on luck. This is the case with Swagger, OHKO moves, evasion, Moody and QuiverPass Veno in UU.
b) it can remove an opposing Pokemon with absolutely no support (Shadow Tag Gothitelle)
c) it can decide games right from the beginning (full BP and I'd say GeoPass too)
d) is extremely dominant, and thus, not fun to use or face. This is mostly a problem in Ubers, with Primal Groudon getting ¬70% usage.

When looking at Scald, some could say this move meets a), but I don't agree, and I will compare it to OHKO moves and Swagger. Scald has a 30% chance to burn, but Sheer Cold has a 30% chance to outright OHKO a Pokemon. Do we really want to put Scald in the same category as Sheer Cold? (then again that move is banned from ubers as well but you get it) I think not. Besides, there is absolutely nothing you can do when facing Sheer Cold. Back in the BW2 Ubers suspect test, Kyogre used this move on a defensive set to try and break through Latias. Imagine if your opponent has a 30% chance to simply break your counter. Then there's Swagger which is once again something you cannot do much against. I will just quote this (this is from an ubers thread but it applies to OU as well):

Which is something Scald can't do because burn can very well be absorbed (by a natural cure mon, something with lum berry, magic guard clef/reuniclus, or even a Fire-type with a lot of special bulk), 30% < 50%, and a chance to burn is not even comparable to a chance to OHKO the opposing mon.

About Keldeo v Azumarill, well Specs is Keldeo's most common set, which doesn't entirely depend on Scald to beat Azu. Also, AV Azu is kinda rare compared to BD and CB

Okay, this is much more substantive than the previous two posts. Let's get to it.

I think a, b, and c are all fine (though I will complicate a in a moment). d doesn't make any sense to me, but as it's not relevant to Scald, I'll ignore it.

I think Scald absolutely has games come down to luck. You're right that Sheer Cold's 30% effect--a OHKO--is far more devastating than Scald's burn. However, 70% of the time, Scald is clearly a superior attack since it doesn't do nothing when it doesn't burn: it's still a perfectly fine STAB attack. In other words, this is where the "no drawbacks" aspect comes into play. In other words, it is more consistent. Really, it's just apples and oranges, and trying to compare the two is something of a fool's errand. Even if Scald is "less broken" than Swagger or OHKO moves, so what? They are not necessarily a minimum requirement on brokenness for moves.

I think your emphasis on consistency is a little...ambiguous. What does consistency consist of? If I'm running Mega Venusaur, my effectiveness against Keldeo is consistently a coin-flip the second it enters the field. I think how luck-reliant something is will be too difficult to really determine without a lot of preconceived notions popping in, but the mountain of replays that exist where Scald's burn roll literally decides the match suggests that it does it often enough to be banned. And "often enough" is every bit as nebulous as "consistently," but I don't think the former operates on the pretense of a generalized standard but rather a case-by-case "you'll know it if you see it" ideal. Which, inexact as it is, is probably the best "measure" we have for determining what constitutes "excessive luck" in the game.

(The point about absorption is false, so I didn't address it. Swagger and OHKO moves have counterplays too, and the latter has poorer distribution than Scald, etc. The variables become difficult to keep track of and make sense of...which is why I'd prefer not to compare these moves at all.)

Lastly, with Keldeo/Azumarill, you either ignored my point completely (your counter-argument doesn't actually contradict what I said, AGAIN ~_~), or you don't know what a check is. Hnnng.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

With all due respect, your posts show a lack of understanding for Smogon's OU metagame, which you yourself professed to not knowing much about. I don't think anyone is interested in having the philosophical discussion you are since a precedent has already been set for banning moves. It says as much in the thread title, so...why are you posting in a thread whose subject matter is a metagame you don't play?



Okay, this is much more substantive than the previous two posts. Let's get to it.

I think a, b, and c are all fine (though I will complicate a in a moment). d doesn't make any sense to me, but as it's not relevant to Scald, I'll ignore it.

I think Scald absolutely has games come down to luck. You're right that Sheer Cold's 30% effect--a OHKO--is far more devastating than Scald's burn. However, 70% of the time, Scald is clearly a superior attack since it doesn't do nothing when it doesn't burn: it's still a perfectly fine STAB attack. In other words, this is where the "no drawbacks" aspect comes into play. In other words, it is more consistent. Really, it's just apples and oranges, and trying to compare the two is something of a fool's errand. Even if Scald is "less broken" than Swagger or OHKO moves, so what? They are not necessarily a minimum requirement on brokenness for moves.

I think your emphasis on consistency is a little...ambiguous. What does consistency consist of? If I'm running Mega Venusaur, my effectiveness against Keldeo is consistently a coin-flip the second it enters the field. I think how luck-reliant something is will be too difficult to really determine without a lot of preconceived notions popping in, but the mountain of replays that exist where Scald's burn roll literally decides the match suggests that it does it often enough to be banned. And "often enough" is every bit as nebulous as "consistently," but I don't think the former operates on the pretense of a generalized standard but rather a case-by-case "you'll know it if you see it" ideal. Which, inexact as it is, is probably the best "measure" we have for determining what constitutes "excessive luck" in the game.

(The point about absorption is false, so I didn't address it. Swagger and OHKO moves have counterplays too, and the latter has poorer distribution than Scald, etc. The variables become difficult to keep track of and make sense of...which is why I'd prefer not to compare these moves at all.)

Lastly, with Keldeo/Azumarill, you either ignored my point completely (your counter-argument doesn't actually contradict what I said, AGAIN ~_~), or you don't know what a check is. Hnnng.

OHKO moves force you to run something with Sturdy, and uhhhh that's the only way to beat it? Skarmory for example (this is theorymon btw) would lose to MindReader + Sheer Cold Articuno, since Ice Beam will likely 2HKO if the ice bird runs 252 SpA EVs. And in Ubers it would absolutely lose to Kyogre lol. Donphan and other obscure pokemon with Sturdy (many of which are Ground-types) lose to Articuno as well. Swagger... if we have to run Numel to beat it (and even then it loses to mega gengar or any pokemon with offensive presence)... yeah, that speaks volumes about its toxic presence in the meta.

Scald's 80BP can be a bit dissappointing at times, even compared to Surf, because depending on the prior damage your opponent has taken, you can't always try to depend on its 30% chance to burn. For example Hippo at ~75% would be able to survive one +1 Scald, but not +1 Surf, and then retaliate with Whirlwind. (of course you need better checks to crocune such as mega manectric or phazers which aren't that susceptible to scald).

When you compare Scald to Hydro Pump, you can observe Scald's 51% chance to score a burn over two turns, compared to Hydro Pump's 64% chance of hitting twice in a row. While you should be using Scald if you want to play safe, sometimes (especially with Choice Keldeo) you really need to 2HKO something quick, before it can cause big trouble to your team. And when you run some calcs, you realize Hydro Pump can 2HKO said Pokemon while with Scald you need to hope for a burn. And if that burn happens on the 2nd turn, the opponent gets one more chance to smack your Keldeo for some good damage or even OHKO it before it goes. Idk about you but I'd take HPump's 64% chance to 2HKO said Pokemon here.

Yes, I do agree Scald is a GREAT tool on long battles, especially v stall with your opponent's cleric gone, or on CM wars, since you will eventually burn your opponent and it will take 6% per turn factoring in lefties. However, such wars can be decided very well by a move with a 10% secondary effect, such as Flamethrower, while against non-Mega Sableye stall Toxic is arguably better due to its increasing damage output and its reliability, provided steels have been at least weakened before. Toxic absolutely ruins CM Slowbro, Mandibuzz, Cresselia, Porygon2, Latias, etc etc. I will concede that Scald is probably better against M-Sableye.

 

[Neo_Angelo]

With all due respect, your posts show a lack of understanding for Smogon's OU metagame, which you yourself professed to not knowing much about. I don't think anyone is interested in having the philosophical discussion you are since a precedent has already been set for banning moves. It says as much in the thread title, so...why are you posting in a thread whose subject matter is a metagame you don't play?

With the greatest of respect to you too, i posted in here to give my thoughts on the matter, sure i do not have the understanding of Smogon that you have, but are my points less valid just because i do not understand fully?

I've come up with ways to counter scald in different tiers of which surely would count towards not banning scald, since if people where so annoyed with it for being "OP" or "down to luck" then surely some of the options i've mentioned are viable alternatives to just trying to ban it because they cannot beat it?

Now i'm by no means saying i'm right in my argument, but the thread title is "Should Scald be banned for only smogon tier users", to which i've laid down my theories and opinions to defend why scald shouldn't be banned, it matters not if i actually play smogon or not (i'm just starting out). The fact is, i'm giving my opinion on counter measures to help those who perhaps missed such techniques, or overlooked them.

I fully respect that you probably think i shouldn't be in this debate due to the lack of understanding and by all means i accept that, but the best way to decide and debate is by having all other options and opinions explored right? If it was just down to "only smogon" players then surely the opinions might not be as varied?

If i've come about my posts like "why you ban it, you're all whining about it because you can't beat it" then i apologies as that is not my intention, i'm just here to give my thoughts on a matter i was quite intrigued to join in.

I hope i have not offended you in anyway nor angered you, i'm only here to give my own take. I supose what people do with my opinion is up to them but i at least hope that i might of made people think a little.

Lapras and spite save the day

Again with respect, that was not what i said, you have taken my words out of context and mocked me. I merely suggested a few ways to perhaps remove the threat of Scald and OHKO's.

 

[Anti]

With the greatest of respect to you too, i posted in here to give my thoughts on the matter, sure i do not have the understanding of Smogon that you have, but are my points less valid just because i do not understand fully?

I've come up with ways to counter scald in different tiers of which surely would count towards not banning scald, since if people where so annoyed with it for being "OP" or "down to luck" then surely some of the options i've mentioned are viable alternatives to just trying to ban it because they cannot beat it?

Now i'm by no means saying i'm right in my argument, but the thread title is "Should Scald be banned for only smogon tier users", to which i've laid down my theories and opinions to defend why scald shouldn't be banned, it matters not if i actually play smogon or not (i'm just starting out). The fact is, i'm giving my opinion on counter measures to help those who perhaps missed such techniques, or overlooked them.

I fully respect that you probably think i shouldn't be in this debate due to the lack of understanding and by all means i accept that, but the best way to decide and debate is by having all other options and opinions explored right? If it was just down to "only smogon" players then surely the opinions might not be as varied?

If i've come about my posts like "why you ban it, you're all whining about it because you can't beat it" then i apologies as that is not my intention, i'm just here to give my thoughts on a matter i was quite intrigued to join in.

I hope i have not offended you in anyway nor angered you, i'm only here to give my own take. I supose what people do with my opinion is up to them but i at least hope that i might of made people think a little.

Again with respect, that was not what i said, you have taken my words out of context and mocked me. I merely suggested a few ways to perhaps remove the threat of Scald and OHKO's.

Well, since you do in fact seem open-minded, I'll explain here, though if you have questions about this reply I do request that you PM or VM them to me and I can answer you there, so as to not derail the thread.

Most metagames are cnetralized around top threats, which you can find a rough outline of here (in OU's case). These threats rise up organically: people use what works best--and those who don't tend to, well, lose. Regardless of how you'd rank the top threats from best to worst, they're all strong and you have to prepare for them so they don't sweep you or wall your whole team. Crucially, there are A LOT of them, so being efficient with your 6 team slots and 24 move slots is critical to have success, especially since you also need to have your own strategy within that framework.

This is why, with all due respect, it actually does matter that you haven't played. It doesn't automatically invalidate your opinion (that would be an obvious fallacy), but generally, better and more experienced players make better arguments because the game is full of nuances and has a somewhat steep learning curve, at least competitively.

This is where Lapras, Marvel Scale, Facade, etc. come into play. Experienced players would never mention these things because they are not viable (and some lose to common Scald users). Lapras gets obliterated by most common Scald users (CM Mega Slowbro and any Keldeo are particularly brutal), Milotic is terrible and actually hates being burned, Facade has terrible coverage and requires being statused to be effective, Jellicent is a very niche Pokemon, there are very few even decent Guts abusers in OU (and those in UU don't prevent it from being a major problem), and so on. I appreciate the creativity--really, I do--but these are strategies that will help against Scald...and weaken you against everything else. That's a huge problem.

Also, competitive tiering has grown more complex as the game has introduced more threats and more mechanics, but we still have the same 6 Pokemon and 24 moves to deal with them. Bans are not just about banning broken strategies, but can also encompass "uncompetitive" Pokemon, moves, abilities, etc. Usually, people use this term to attempt to argue that something luck-based should be removed. This is where Scald and OHKO moves come in. In these arguments, naming counter-plays (like Spite, for OHKO moves) might convince someone that something is not broken, but the bottom line is that OHKO moves were banned because they reduce games to 70/30 coin-flips. Understanding these elements of tiering is crucial to positively contributing to a discussion thread like this.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but since many of these threads go off the rails because people who don't know what they're talking about--and are often very willfully and proudly ignorant because of unbearably self-righteous and ill-informed hatred of our metagame and tiering--we do try to at least hold the standard at "do you play and care about this metagame?" Sorry if anything I said was off-putting, but I would probably refrain from commenting until you have some experience. If you want, I can link you to some high-level replays of "Scald in action" that would demonstrate how Scald functions at the highest levels of our metagame. We're not trying to be exclusive: we just want to have a good discussion.

I hope this covers everything. We also have a ton of resources to help you learn the game and become better informed; feel free to PM me if you want more information. :)

OHKO moves force you to run something with Sturdy, and uhhhh that's the only way to beat it? Skarmory for example (this is theorymon btw) would lose to MindReader + Sheer Cold Articuno, since Ice Beam will likely 2HKO if the ice bird runs 252 SpA EVs. And in Ubers it would absolutely lose to Kyogre lol. Donphan and other obscure pokemon with Sturdy (many of which are Ground-types) lose to Articuno as well. Swagger... if we have to run Numel to beat it (and even then it loses to mega gengar or any pokemon with offensive presence)... yeah, that speaks volumes about its toxic presence in the meta.

I like how I spent a good portion of my last post talking about how comparing Scald to OHKO/Swagger is a fool's errand so that it could be ignored.

I easily counter this with "true, but Scald has advantages that these moves don't like superior abusers, greater consistency, etc." but I just spent my last post doing that, and that point was conveniently ignored.

Scald's 80BP can be a bit dissappointing at times, even compared to Surf, because depending on the prior damage your opponent has taken, you can't always try to depend on its 30% chance to burn. For example Hippo at ~75% would be able to survive one +1 Scald, but not +1 Surf, and then retaliate with Whirlwind. (of course you need better checks to crocune such as mega manectric or phazers which aren't that susceptible to scald).

This isn't relevant to the discussion at all. Presenting an opportunity cost proves nothing.

It's also an invalid point, at least in the form you've presented it in. Scald's burn chance is way more valuable than Surf's extra power for every Water-type except Manaphy, depending on the team/set. I could also present an anecdote, only one where the extra power means nothing and Scald's burn chance matters a ton, but it would be an exercise in illogic.

When you compare Scald to Hydro Pump, you can observe Scald's 51% chance to score a burn over two turns, compared to Hydro Pump's 64% chance of hitting twice in a row. While you should be using Scald if you want to play safe, sometimes (especially with Choice Keldeo) you really need to 2HKO something quick, before it can cause big trouble to your team. And when you run some calcs, you realize Hydro Pump can 2HKO said Pokemon while with Scald you need to hope for a burn. And if that burn happens on the 2nd turn, the opponent gets one more chance to smack your Keldeo for some good damage or even OHKO it before it goes. Idk about you but I'd take HPump's 64% chance to 2HKO said Pokemon here.

Shoot me.

No, really.

I don't really want to explain why these fallacies apply, but I can if you want........

Yes, I do agree Scald is a GREAT tool on long battles, especially v stall with your opponent's cleric gone, or on CM wars, since you will eventually burn your opponent and it will take 6% per turn factoring in lefties. However, such wars can be decided very well by a move with a 10% secondary effect, such as Flamethrower, while against non-Mega Sableye stall Toxic is arguably better due to its increasing damage output and its reliability, provided steels have been at least weakened before. Toxic absolutely ruins CM Slowbro, Mandibuzz, Cresselia, Porygon2, Latias, etc etc. I will concede that Scald is probably better against M-Sableye.

I like how, every time I make a point like "the variety in Scald users makes blanket checking them extremely difficult," it immediately gets railroaded into irrelevancy by "counter-points" like "CM Mega Slowbro has trouble with Toxic."

Please stay on-topic instead of talking about all of the stuff that isn't interesting and often doesn't matter: the minutiae of examples I use to demonstrate a point, even if the details you choose to nitpick don't actually apply to the context in which the point was made.

Please.

 

[Neo_Angelo]

Well, since you do in fact seem open-minded, I'll explain here, though if you have questions about this reply I do request that you PM or VM them to me and I can answer you there, so as to not derail the thread.

Most metagames are cnetralized around top threats, which you can find a rough outline of here (in OU's case). These threats rise up organically: people use what works best--and those who don't tend to, well, lose. Regardless of how you'd rank the top threats from best to worst, they're all strong and you have to prepare for them so they don't sweep you or wall your whole team. Crucially, there are A LOT of them, so being efficient with your 6 team slots and 24 move slots is critical to have success, especially since you also need to have your own strategy within that framework.

This is why, with all due respect, it actually does matter that you haven't played. It doesn't automatically invalidate your opinion (that would be an obvious fallacy), but generally, better and more experienced players make better arguments because the game is full of nuances and has a somewhat steep learning curve, at least competitively.

This is where Lapras, Marvel Scale, Facade, etc. come into play. Experienced players would never mention these things because they are not viable (and some lose to common Scald users). Lapras gets obliterated by most common Scald users (CM Mega Slowbro and any Keldeo are particularly brutal), Milotic is terrible and actually hates being burned, Facade has terrible coverage and requires being statused to be effective, Jellicent is a very niche Pokemon, there are very few even decent Guts abusers in OU (and those in UU don't prevent it from being a major problem), and so on. I appreciate the creativity--really, I do--but these are strategies that will help against Scald...and weaken you against everything else. That's a huge problem.

Also, competitive tiering has grown more complex as the game has introduced more threats and more mechanics, but we still have the same 6 Pokemon and 24 moves to deal with them. Bans are not just about banning broken strategies, but can also encompass "uncompetitive" Pokemon, moves, abilities, etc. Usually, people use this term to attempt to argue that something luck-based should be removed. This is where Scald and OHKO moves come in. In these arguments, naming counter-plays (like Spite, for OHKO moves) might convince someone that something is not broken, but the bottom line is that OHKO moves were banned because they reduce games to 70/30 coin-flips. Understanding these elements of tiering is crucial to positively contributing to a discussion thread like this.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but since many of these threads go off the rails because people who don't know what they're talking about--and are often very willfully and proudly ignorant because of unbearably self-righteous and ill-informed hatred of our metagame and tiering--we do try to at least hold the standard at "do you play and care about this metagame?" Sorry if anything I said was off-putting, but I would probably refrain from commenting until you have some experience. If you want, I can link you to some high-level replays of "Scald in action" that would demonstrate how Scald functions at the highest levels of our metagame. We're not trying to be exclusive: we just want to have a good discussion.

I hope this covers everything. We also have a ton of resources to help you learn the game and become better informed; feel free to PM me if you want more information. :)



I like how I spent a good portion of my last post talking about how comparing Scald to OHKO/Swagger is a fool's errand so that it could be ignored.

I easily counter this with "true, but Scald has advantages that these moves don't like superior abusers, greater consistency, etc." but I just spent my last post doing that, and that point was conveniently ignored.



This isn't relevant to the discussion at all. Presenting an opportunity cost proves nothing.

It's also an invalid point, at least in the form you've presented it in. Scald's burn chance is way more valuable than Surf's extra power for every Water-type except Manaphy, depending on the team/set. I could also present an anecdote, only one where the extra power means nothing and Scald's burn chance matters a ton, but it would be an exercise in illogic.



Shoot me.

No, really.

I don't really want to explain why these fallacies apply, but I can if you want........



I like how, every time I make a point like "the variety in Scald users makes blanket checking them extremely difficult," it immediately gets railroaded into irrelevancy by "counter-points" like "CM Mega Slowbro has trouble with Toxic."

Please stay on-topic instead of talking about all of the stuff that isn't interesting and often doesn't matter: the minutiae of examples I use to demonstrate a point, even if the details you choose to nitpick don't actually apply to the context in which the point was made.

Please.

Thank you for the information, you provided, i'll have a good read as part of my "Meta-game Homework" :D I do see your point with needing a bit more knowledge to make a more compelling case.

I hope i did not come across as "ignorant" as that wasn't what i wanted to portray. I had a quick look at the OU list for Smogon, and there really isn't much choice to go with is there? My theories for Guts is basically Conkledurr, some of my other theories don't even exist to be used in OU.

Once i've read up on the stuff you've shown me, i might come back with a better structured arguement or agreement with why it should/shouldn't be banned. Who knows, i might be able to come up with a viable strategy that covers Scald but also gives you options against other threats too. :D

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

Well, since you do in fact seem open-minded, I'll explain here, though if you have questions about this reply I do request that you PM or VM them to me and I can answer you there, so as to not derail the thread.

Most metagames are cnetralized around top threats, which you can find a rough outline of here (in OU's case). These threats rise up organically: people use what works best--and those who don't tend to, well, lose. Regardless of how you'd rank the top threats from best to worst, they're all strong and you have to prepare for them so they don't sweep you or wall your whole team. Crucially, there are A LOT of them, so being efficient with your 6 team slots and 24 move slots is critical to have success, especially since you also need to have your own strategy within that framework.

This is why, with all due respect, it actually does matter that you haven't played. It doesn't automatically invalidate your opinion (that would be an obvious fallacy), but generally, better and more experienced players make better arguments because the game is full of nuances and has a somewhat steep learning curve, at least competitively.

This is where Lapras, Marvel Scale, Facade, etc. come into play. Experienced players would never mention these things because they are not viable (and some lose to common Scald users). Lapras gets obliterated by most common Scald users (CM Mega Slowbro and any Keldeo are particularly brutal), Milotic is terrible and actually hates being burned, Facade has terrible coverage and requires being statused to be effective, Jellicent is a very niche Pokemon, there are very few even decent Guts abusers in OU (and those in UU don't prevent it from being a major problem), and so on. I appreciate the creativity--really, I do--but these are strategies that will help against Scald...and weaken you against everything else. That's a huge problem.

Also, competitive tiering has grown more complex as the game has introduced more threats and more mechanics, but we still have the same 6 Pokemon and 24 moves to deal with them. Bans are not just about banning broken strategies, but can also encompass "uncompetitive" Pokemon, moves, abilities, etc. Usually, people use this term to attempt to argue that something luck-based should be removed. This is where Scald and OHKO moves come in. In these arguments, naming counter-plays (like Spite, for OHKO moves) might convince someone that something is not broken, but the bottom line is that OHKO moves were banned because they reduce games to 70/30 coin-flips. Understanding these elements of tiering is crucial to positively contributing to a discussion thread like this.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but since many of these threads go off the rails because people who don't know what they're talking about--and are often very willfully and proudly ignorant because of unbearably self-righteous and ill-informed hatred of our metagame and tiering--we do try to at least hold the standard at "do you play and care about this metagame?" Sorry if anything I said was off-putting, but I would probably refrain from commenting until you have some experience. If you want, I can link you to some high-level replays of "Scald in action" that would demonstrate how Scald functions at the highest levels of our metagame. We're not trying to be exclusive: we just want to have a good discussion.

I hope this covers everything. We also have a ton of resources to help you learn the game and become better informed; feel free to PM me if you want more information. :)



I like how I spent a good portion of my last post talking about how comparing Scald to OHKO/Swagger is a fool's errand so that it could be ignored.

I easily counter this with "true, but Scald has advantages that these moves don't like superior abusers, greater consistency, etc." but I just spent my last post doing that, and that point was conveniently ignored.



This isn't relevant to the discussion at all. Presenting an opportunity cost proves nothing.

It's also an invalid point, at least in the form you've presented it in. Scald's burn chance is way more valuable than Surf's extra power for every Water-type except Manaphy, depending on the team/set. I could also present an anecdote, only one where the extra power means nothing and Scald's burn chance matters a ton, but it would be an exercise in illogic.



Shoot me.

No, really.

I don't really want to explain why these fallacies apply, but I can if you want........



I like how, every time I make a point like "the variety in Scald users makes blanket checking them extremely difficult," it immediately gets railroaded into irrelevancy by "counter-points" like "CM Mega Slowbro has trouble with Toxic."

Please stay on-topic instead of talking about all of the stuff that isn't interesting and often doesn't matter: the minutiae of examples I use to demonstrate a point, even if the details you choose to nitpick don't actually apply to the context in which the point was made.

Please.

I'd really know how is that a texas sharpshooter/red herring considering in practice you'll need to choose between Scald and Hydro Pump quite often.

What I'm trying to say and you keep saying it's irrelevant is that scald, unlike swagger/ohko moves, is way easier to play around to a point where it's manageable enough. The number of countermeasures against scald (even though some presented by neo_angelo are indeed bad such as milotic and trevenant) is enough to keep this move uncompetitive and honestly it's not very hard to fit one of these even on a HO team. hell you can just use a special attacker to absorb scald, or just set up on something else other than the bulky water-type, and KO it when it comes in without being afraid of the 30% chance to burn.

Is Scald spammable? It depends on the user.

Scald is not something you can throw around and expect to get an instant win. Most good teams usually include something that deals with it. If they want to ban it because it changes a lot of high-level games, well... they could very well ban critical hits. Now Scald, as explained before, MAYBE should be banned from UU, considering so many bulky water-types reside there. But they aren't as common in OU. This is what I'm not getting - Pokemon can be compared to chess, but it'd be much more fun if decent luck came into play as well, and this is the case with Sacred Fire and Seed Flare - they are rare, but can change the outcome of a battle. So does Scald, except it's common - and thus the meta has adapted to it.

Ultimately, I'd be fine and still enjoy the game with or without Scald. Imo, before taking a hard look at Scald, we should at least take care of Shadow Tag and Baton Pass.

With that said, I'm done with this thread.

 

[Anti]

I'd really know how is that a texas sharpshooter/red herring considering in practice you'll need to choose between Scald and Hydro Pump quite often.

To my dismay, I will break this down in gory detail.

The original point I made was this:

Scald [...] severely limits counterplays to Water-types. Azumarill would be a great Keldeo check, but it isn't. You can't switch physical attackers into Scald users, period.

This is a very simple point, and at the risk of being pompous, it's pretty obviously correct. Whether that constitutes Scald being broken is a more difficult question to answer, but we never really got there, because instead of addressing that, you nitpicked the Azumarill example:

keldeo can run HP Electric if it wants to remove azu (and ohko gyara) considering the 4th slot is so flexible. not to mention this:
252 SpA Choice Specs Keldeo Hydro Pump vs. 88 HP / 0 SpD Azumarill: 161-190 (44.3 - 52.3%) -- guaranteed 2HKO after Stealth Rock
so azu can't switch into keldeo all day, and if rocks are up, it fails unless hydro miss decides to be a rattata.

This is where both fallacies come into play. I complained about it immediately, but my protest obviously fell on deaf ears. So let me be as clear as possible.

This is basically just a form of an anecdotal fallacy, where you pick a select counterexample to my claim, but it doesn't actually refute the claim I made. For example, if I wanted to use AV Azumarill to check Mega Gyarados and Keldeo and it fit into my team perfectly, I'd be out of luck because Scald effectively invalidates Azumarill as a check. Whenever someone says "Altaria is my Zard Y check," I don't spam them with "it can rip it up with Dragon Pulse on the switch!" Because not only is that incredibly annoying, but it misunderstands what a check even is (and ANY Azumarill is a soft check to ANY Keldeo without Scald, period--it's just a fact) and is nitpicking a worst-case scenario that will rarely play out in practice. Hydro Pump is a terrible play when your opponent has a full-health Azumarill in the back, and the fact that you act like Scald and Hydro Pump are equal plays is a major red flag. I'm not interested in debating this point either since it should be obvious. Anyway, since you could theoretically choose AV Azumarill as a physical Keldeo check, but Scald invalidates it, focusing exclusively on the scenario you described is pretty much a textbook example of the fallacy. Snipe!

I was just using an example to demonstrate a wider point. I could have easily said "Taunt DD Mega Gyarados sets up all over Alomomola, but Scald invalidates this play because of the burn chance." Nitpicking the anecdote (REPEATEDLY) is a red herring because, uh, even if your counterargument against my example was valid, it wouldn't actually prove anything? You have to address the point itself, not the example. This is why your replies are so frustrating. The examples are there to make a point more clear or intuitive, not to serve as a be-all end-all for the point itself. Like I said originally in reply to this, this kind of off-topic nitpicking is what gets threads derailed.

And here we are.

Every time we have a thread like this, you post like this. It's almost like, instead of actually considering the point someone else is making, you instantly jump to some rebuttal whether or not it matters. I don't want to have to grind this topic to a pulp like I did with your Salamence thread to demonstrate this point. And since the rest of your post repeats arguments you made earlier without addressing any of the counterpoints I made, and since I'm sure repeating myself would get ignored again, I won't bother with the rest of your post. You can leave the thread if you want, but if you participate in another one, please debate in a way that isn't immensely frustrating. Railroading threads with pointless details is what makes them this grueling.

 

[Zeffy]

Instead of nitpicking each other's counter-argument, I propose that we get back to the topic at hand.

I think Scald is borderline uncompetitive but definitely unhealthy for the metagame. Although it's gotta be asked, is Scald is more of an immediate problem than, let's say, GeoPass or Shadow Tag Gothitelle? Personally, I think the metagame right now is "fine" with Scald, and people are more aware of who runs Scald and what they should switch into it, making Scald easier to prepare for. Of course, I would be lying if I said that I didn't want Scald to be suspected (does Smogon actually suspect test moves?), but there's many other problems out there that are more immediate.

 

[Nah]

Of course, I would be lying if I said that I didn't want Scald to be suspected (does Smogon actually suspect test moves?),

Swagger and Baton Pass, remember?

 

[Zeffy]

Oh, right. I've always assumed that they've quickbanned Swagger and Baton Pass was handled by the OU Council haha

 

[srinator]

Wait there was a suspect test for swagger? Rofl what time waste

 

[Anti]

Wait there was a suspect test for swagger? Rofl what time waste

yeah. i think scald would be an interesting test, albeit not a hugely useful one. i think people would really understand its profoundly negative impact better if they didn't have to worry about it anymore...and not just in some random tour, but in a more formalized environment.

 

[Polar Spectrum]

I'm against the banning of scald. I'm aware of the imbalance due to its offensive typing, viability / spammability on defensive mons, distribution, etc - but I seriously don't see it as broken. Especially not enough to warrant a ban. At least in OU. If you're talking a lower tier; yeah it makes a lot more sense to me - even to where I'd flat out agree it should be banned.

There's some relativity between scald and focus blast in the claim that luck reliant moves ruin 'the ideal metagame [of singles OU]". Buuut I'm also seeing this is a 'smogon tier users only' thread... sooo I'll see myself out I suppose.

 

[srinator]

I'm against the banning of scald. I'm aware of the imbalance due to its offensive typing, viability / spammability on defensive mons, distribution, etc - but I seriously don't see it as broken. Especially not enough to warrant a ban. At least in OU. If you're talking a lower tier; yeah it makes a lot more sense to me - even to where I'd flat out agree it should be banned.

There's some relativity between scald and focus blast in the claim that luck reliant moves ruin 'the ideal metagame [of singles OU]". Buuut I'm also seeing this is a 'smogon tier users only' thread... sooo I'll see myself out I suppose.

I only added to keep out people who would start smogon sucks, swagger should not have been banned, the in game is better. Cause honestly I am tired of every such thread being a home to such posts. You are welcome to post your views if you have aspects that are not smogon sucks related.

 

[Anti]

There's some relativity between scald and focus blast in the claim that luck reliant moves ruin 'the ideal metagame [of singles OU]".

Just to briefly address this point, Scald is a move that has luck as a bonus, where Focus Blast is a move that has luck as a deficiency. When you use Scald, you are transferring the risk from that luck onto the opponent, while Focus Blast is a move where the risk is entirely on the user. (Put differently, one can choose to take on the risk of Focus Blast or not, but one cannot choose to avoid the risk of Scald burns in a given battle.)

I think it's easy to try to over-apply the "competitive players hate luck based moves" thing, but the vast majority of competitive players understand that luck is in the game, there's nothing we can do about it within the tiering framework we have adopted, and we should only ban particularly egregious luck-based elements. Whether Scald is egregious or broken is up to interpretation, but since this came up earlier with some garbage about Seed Flare, this seems like a relevant point to make.

tl;dr: Not all luck-based moves are create equal!

 

[Polar Spectrum]

I only added to keep out people who would start smogon sucks, swagger should not have been banned, the in game is better. Cause honestly I am tired of every such thread being a home to such posts. You are welcome to post your views if you have aspects that are not smogon sucks related.

Oh yay, I was gonna say that's an awfully exclusive thread hahah. I'm quite past that drivel though; so nah - just wantin' to get in on the conversation. Definitely an interesting topic too -

I'd have to summarize by saying if anything I'd say ban it from the lower tiers, but in the powerhouse of powerhouses of OU, I think it's fair play.

Just to briefly address this point, Scald is a move that has luck as a bonus, where Focus Blast is a move that has luck as a deficiency. When you use Scald, you are transferring the risk from that luck onto the opponent, while Focus Blast is a move where the risk is entirely on the user. (Put differently, one can choose to take on the risk of Focus Blast or not, but one cannot choose to avoid the risk of Scald burns in a given battle.)

I think it's easy to try to over-apply the "competitive players hate luck based moves" thing, but the vast majority of competitive players understand that luck is in the game, there's nothing we can do about it within the tiering framework we have adopted, and we should only ban particularly egregious luck-based elements. Whether Scald is egregious or broken is up to interpretation, but since this came up earlier with some garbage about Seed Flare, this seems like a relevant point to make.

tl;dr: Not all luck-based moves are create equal!

^ Definitely agree with that last bit especially. I well understand the concept of choosing your own risks in a battle, versus having them thrust upon you too. And again if anything, I'd say it should be disallowed in lower tiers due to its weight in deciding battles being compounded there.

And my disagreement with banning Scald in standard gameplay may stem from a difference of native format, or difference of medium being played in - but I just really don't see it (obnoxious as it is) as game changing enough to warrant a ban. *Especially* in OU. The strongest counterpoint to my opinion I can't deny here- and agree with; is the fact that nothing else that's currently allowed is as regular as a scald burn considering secondary RNG related effects. I understand Swagger's ban, since confusion checks are a 50%, pranksters, and foul play - but Scalds 30% burn just doesn't scream 'ban' next to the 80 base power. Not to say I'd be terribly upset if some mechanics were changed next generation or anything - but I reeeeeally don't see it as a need for removal from the game.

This is an unfair comparison, and you can chastise me for it as I know it's warranted - and I apologize as well for the lack of relativity to Scald -but to me, Pixellate Hyper Voice seems more borked. Be it by doubles, be it by not liking Heatran (only thing in the game to 4x resist fairy... come on Game Freak) - even without the luck factor that move seems more disruptive to competitive play to me than Scald.

 

[KorpiklaaniVodka]

Well I feel like I need to make one more post so here goes:

I've noticed that most high-level players who post in the smogon thread are mainly "giving their 2 cents" instead of taking action, to see if Scald is truly broken or not. (This applies to BP as well). A good idea would be, for example, to organize some tourneys where this move is banned, or maybe copy UU's idea and instate a OU (no Scald) ladder. Who knows, this could change the stance of those people, including me, who oppose a ban on Scald. (Not trying to attack them, aka using ad hominem)

I also like how only one replay showing Scald's so-called brokenness was posted in the whole thread. And that was RU.

 

[Anti]

Well I feel like I need to make one more post so here goes:

I've noticed that most high-level players who post in the smogon thread are mainly "giving their 2 cents" instead of taking action, to see if Scald is truly broken or not. (This applies to BP as well). A good idea would be, for example, to organize some tourneys where this move is banned, or maybe copy UU's idea and instate a OU (no Scald) ladder. Who knows, this could change the stance of those people, including me, who oppose a ban on Scald. (Not trying to attack them, aka using ad hominem)

I also like how only one replay showing Scald's so-called brokenness was posted in the whole thread. And that was RU.

yeah, smogon can be pretty slow with actually getting things done with tiering sometimes. i think most of the players "giving their two cents" don't actually have the power to dictate policy though. and just speaking from a pro ban side, even i would concede that a scald ban would be fairly radical even given the precedents in place now, and i think that has a lot to do with the slowness. dp garchomp was like that a bit too: that train took a looooong time to get rolling.

the lack of replays proves nothing. it certainly isn't evidence that there isn't evidence to support a pro-ban argument.

 

[Dark Azelf]

I actually think removing Scald from the metagame has some serious negative effects after ive been thinking a while about this.

• This ban greatly limits water types usefulness and alot of them will probably plummet in usage because of this. You can argue against this but Surf Starmie, Surf Slowbro etc are a whole lose less useful than the Scald counterparts. This gives alot of shit a free switch ins if they are no longer be able to threaten switch ins with a burn.
• Yeah a burn "sucks" but alot of teams have ways of dealing with it and it SHOULD be a priority when teambuilding. Good natural cure users exist, magic guard clefable exist, clerics and status absorbers exist and more importantly can fit on every team style. I can argue this further thanks to it even to extending to other moves such as Healing Wish.
• I think the burn chance is actually healthy, alot more than people think. Looking to set up DD X6 on that Slowbro and got burned? Your own fault you got wasted. Even more so that you have nothing to deal with status. I think this is healthy and discourages a HO metagame, something i dont think anyone wants.
• To extend on this, i feel threatening, otherwise free switch ins, is also positive aspect of the move. I think the risk/reward of the burn 30/70 chance is worth it and balanced. Even more so thanks to things like Ferothorn and Pursuit users being cripped by it on the switch so they dont get in scott free (which is good considering how bs and strong everything is now). I dont see how this is any different than in RBY when everything packed Body Slam but adapted to it or more passive play styles having to adapt to Taunt or <insert bullshit mega here> etc. And all the aforementioned did, in ridiculous ways.
• Passive teams and styles suffer without this move a great deal. This also extends to bulkier offensive teams etc.
• Other threats such as MSableye become alot more prominent. Before when it hated staying in on waters because of Scald, with Scald banned it can just set up on them.

tL;dr the metagame is alot more shit without this move than with it see: Stealth Rock.

 

[Anti]

I actually think removing Scald from the metagame has some serious negative effects after ive been thinking a while about this.

• [1] This ban greatly limits water types usefulness and alot of them will probably plummet in usage because of this. You can argue against this but Surf Starmie, Surf Slowbro etc are a whole lose less useful than the Scald counterparts. This gives alot of muk a free switch ins if they are no longer be able to threaten switch ins with a burn.
• [2] Yeah a burn "sucks" but alot of teams have ways of dealing with it and it SHOULD be a priority when teambuilding. Good natural cure users exist, magic guard clefable exist, clerics and status absorbers exist and more importantly can fit on every team style. I can argue this further thanks to it even to extending to other moves such as Healing Wish.
• [3] I think the burn chance is actually healthy, alot more than people think. Looking to set up DD X6 on that Slowbro and got burned? Your own fault you got wasted. Even more so that you have nothing to deal with status. I think this is healthy and discourages a HO metagame, something i dont think anyone wants.
• [4] To extend on this, i feel threatening, otherwise free switch ins, is also positive aspect of the move. I think the risk/reward of the burn 30/70 chance is worth it and balanced. Even more so thanks to things like Ferothorn and Pursuit users being cripped by it on the switch so they dont get in scott free (which is good considering how bs and strong everything is now). I dont see how this is any different than in RBY when everything packed Body Slam but adapted to it or more passive play styles having to adapt to Taunt or <insert bullmuk mega here> etc. And all the aforementioned did, in ridiculous ways.
• [5] Passive teams and styles suffer without this move a great deal. This also extends to bulkier offensive teams etc.
• [6] Other threats such as MSableye become alot more prominent. Before when it hated staying in on waters because of Scald, with Scald banned it can just set up on them.

tL;dr the metagame is alot more muk without this move than with it see: Stealth Rock.

first off, i edited numbers into the points for easier reference.

i don't like points 1, 5, and 6 because i don't think they should be relevant to tiering. i'm curious if you disagree with the general point i'm about to present: i don't think we should be tiering to try to tweak type balance, playstyle viability, or preventing the rise in certain threats.

- i think point 1 is intensely speculative anyway and water was a fantastic type before scald lol, but i don't think the power of the water type matters at all.

- point 5 seems pretty valid to me (though i would add the caveat that offenses who use keldeo as a breaker really appreciate those burns against defensive teams), but i also question its relevance? like, who cares? isn't it a dangerous precedent to explicitly try to doctor the metagame to bolster or nerf playstyles? playstyle versatility is obviously important, but i think it makes more sense to only really tier to that when a suspect actively reduces the viability of a certain style. some people might this claim for mega lopunny and hyper offense, for example. but, like, banning greninja hurt offense. who cares? if something is broken, it's broken. i think you need to expand more on why this should matter.

- point 6 is silly the same way "don't ban mmeta, fairies will be op" was silly. the metagame has adapted very well to sableye, and i think you need way more compelling proof that it'd be broken or even problematic without the scald in the meta.


points 2, 3, and 4 seem much more, well, relevant, so i'll address them below:

- i feel like counterplays to scald (point 2) are being overstated. magic guard clefable "checks" scald, but it gets mowed down by specs keldeo, cm mega slowbro, and manaphy...which are only, like, the most dangerous users of the move in the tier lol. altaria is pretty much in the same boat. put differently, scald does not exist in a vacuum. ohko moves are broken in a vacuum--they're just luck-based bs. swagger (and i would argue scald) are broken when their users are taken into account. i think the list of "checks" gets a lot smaller in practice. it's also worth mentioning that even stuff like cleric support forces you to waste turns healing your pokes, which means that scald is still giving you an advantage.

- since 3 and 4 are basically the same point, but i guess i don't get your argument? i'm honestly not trying to nitpick at what you're saying, but when i read it, i guess it just didn't make much sense to me? like, "it was fine in rby," for example, is kind of a joke since rby tournaments are played bo3 because the gen 1 game is such a glitchy haxy shitfest. you seemed to suggest (correct me if i'm wrong) that scald is healthy because it counteracts the power creep, but ferrothorn struck me as a weird example since it's an example of scald crippling defensive pokes? if you want to argue that scald is a "blanket check" to the physical side of the power creep in the ou metagame, i'd concede that that's an interesting point in terms of metagame balance, but that's also not the only effect the move has and burn rolls deciding games or restricting physically-based defensive counterplay (azumarill on keldeo, ferrothorn on slowbro/manaphy, etc.) in team building are negative impacts and, at the very least, those are negative impacts that hurt the metagame too. i think cherrypicking which ones "matter more" is a fool's errand, but the point is that they all matter and depicting scald as healthy needs to acknowledge negative impacts it causes as well.