Scald

#26
also for bw ou, stuff that doesn't suck which can use scald includes:

alomomola, gastrodon, jellicent, keldeo, politoed, quagsire, slowbro, starmie, tentacruel, vaporeon.

and there's a case to be made for a couple others as well. these are just the pokemon that i have seen succeed in competitive play recently.
 

PDC

when the revenant came down
is a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a defending World Cup of Pokemon champion
#28
Scald is also not ubiquitous, particularly in ORAS
keldeo, manaphy, starmie (bulky), politoed, kingdra, suicune, slowbro, slowking, quagsire, tentacruel, alomola

yeah not really a common move right. especially considering how common slowbro, starmie, manaphy, and keldeo are. also how mola was incredibly popular in xy for like a span of 3 months. scald is a common move, it isn't some rare move only 3 pokemon get.

I'm not a BW god so I don't wish to act like one. But Celebi/Chans/Bliss/Gastrodon/Jelli/MG users is not the "nothing" you're pretending it is,
getting gastrodon and jellicent toxic'd is not good. in fact politoed that are bulky and carry scald almost always have toxic. even bulky starmie carry toxic now sometimes in BW. chansey and blissey both lose to keldeo, why the hell would you switch them in? (also why are you using chansey and blissey outside of full stall) you can also ebelt hp ghost jellicent or something which after rocks can 2hko it. celebi is alright as hp bug is pretty rare, but you have to be a celebi which has access to recovery, so NP is out of the picture. also reuniclus can only switch into stuff like bulky starmie / gastrodon scalds outside of rain. under rain you will be in quite a bit of trouble if you're below the 100% mark. don't even think about swithing reuniclus in on keldeo unless you're sure that he is not pumping, or scalding in rain, or something like that. then again this thread isn't really about scald in bw, it is about it in oras.


Please stop saying this. If your "switchin to scald" is neutralized or severely impacted by a burn, then it is NOT A SWITCH-IN TO SCALD, or at least not a reliable one. The same way that a switchin to Lava Plume that can't function under a burn is not a good switchin.
guess we should cross out latios as a starmie counter then. lava plume does not compare to scald at all. distribution is different, attacking type is different, and the switches to it are far better. maybe lavos overstated the "neutralization" aspect a bit, but most checks are severely crippled once burnt.
 

jpw234

Catastrophic Event Specialist
#29
keldeo, manaphy, starmie (bulky), politoed, kingdra, suicune, slowbro, slowking, quagsire, tentacruel, alomola

yeah not really a common move right. especially considering how common slowbro, starmie, manaphy, and keldeo are. also how mola was incredibly popular in xy for like a span of 3 months. scald is a common move, it isn't some rare move only 3 pokemon get.
in ORAS you've got Keldeo/Manaphy/occasionally a SlowX using Scald offensively and about 3-4 more commonly used mons using it to chip/fish for burns (Starmie/Toed/Tenta/Suicune), that's not "everything and it's mother". And on these defensive mons, "OMG 80 BP WATER MOVE" is not a problem like you are making it out to be - like I said, it's effectively a 30% WoW, which is hardly something to write home about.
guess we should cross out latios as a starmie counter then. lava plume does not compare to scald at all. distribution is different, attacking type is different, and the switches to it are far better. maybe lavos overstated the "neutralization" aspect a bit, but most checks are severely crippled once burnt.
Offensive teams are inherently vulnerable to chip damage. This is a weakness that they knowingly accept at the teambuilding stage. Scald is just a reasonably common method of inducing this chip damage, which offensive teams have to take into account.
And, as I said before, offensive teams are no strangers to being negatively affected by the threat of chip damage, so I don't understand what makes Scald particularly scary.
Lava Plume and Scald are directly comparable in that they both have a 30% chance to burn so a switch-in to them that is crippled by burn is not a reliable switch-in, and that is the only manner in which I compared them.
 
#30
Lava Plume and Scald are directly comparable in that they both have a 30% chance to burn so a switch-in to them that is crippled by burn is not a reliable switch-in, and that is the only manner in which I compared them.
yeah except the only way your comparison makes a shred of sense is when you isolate the two moves from reality. factor in any one of the plethora of ways in which scald is a million times better than lava plume, and your entire argument falls apart.

all you're doing is manipulating parts of the whole picture to fit your bullshit, and no one's buying it
 

Clone

No more next year
is a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
#31
hi. sorry for lateness etc etc

Scald extends the number of Pokemon in OU capable of spreading status, allows some water types to bypass/wear down their counters (e.g. Keld), and breaks several defensive matchups that are effectively defensive impasses (e.g. Tenta v. Ferro).
why is this a good thing? counters are supposed to be counters. scald fucks this up by allowing a single type (water) to single handedly throw away the balancing of the type chart by being able to spam a move that has a 30, then 51, then w/e percent chance of fucking over the switch in for the rest of the game. thats not balanced. no one type should hold such an extreme advantage over the others. and others have rehashed this before (ironbullet93 said it best), scald is in no way comparable to other 30% moves / burn moves because of its wide distribution and ability to hit the one immunity it has super effectively.

if your passive team cant break another passive mon without a scald burn then thats more than likely poor teambuilding. if you have to rely on a 30% chance to win a game, or at the very least be able to break an opposing mon, then you have thrown out skill and opened the door to luck, which is not what a comeptitive game should strive for. also your example of ferro vs tentacruel is flawed because ferro wins with power whip

Offensive teams are inherently vulnerable to chip damage. This is a weakness that they knowingly accept at the teambuilding stage. Scald is just a reasonably common method of inducing this chip damage, which offensive teams have to take into account. Bulky teams have several countermeasures available to them - Lum Berry, Natural Cure, Magic Guard, and Pokemon that simply don't care much about burn, as well as the ability to heal off any burns inflicted with the use of a cleric.
im fully aware of that. i play offense almost exclusively and know how it works. and scald is one of the things that we offense builders unfortunately have to take into account. its one of the main reasons why lum berry bisharp is even a thing (wisp mew and random t waves are the other). were it not for scald, bisharp would be able to actually switch into and (possibly) set up a swords dance against a slowbro. were it not for scald, Black Glasses could be run which are needed to ensure certain KOes. Instead, i have to sacrifice power on my offensive mon to just be able to take a hit from a defensive mon that would not be able to touch me were it not for scald. were it not for scald, alomomola would not even be a thing in ou. granted, it has a whole slew of problems, but it is the epitome of a mon that solely relies on scald to not be a passive piece of shit. were it not for scald, literally every setup sweeper in the tier would be able to switch in and boost on it, but instead the only things that can win 100% of the time are setup mons with sub. and before you say something about toxic, let me remind you that bisharp, and even fucking excadrill, could set up on it were it not for scald's burn chance.

i cant (accurately) speak for bulky teams because i dont use them that often, but i will say this: the on site mega venusaur analysis actually takes into account scald burns from keldeo for the main spread. this may not seem like an issue untill you realize that mega venusaur would be a full blown counter to keldeo were it not for scald. not even HP flying can 2HKO variants that run just a little bit of special defense investment. but instead of being a full blown counter, scald spamming can win out in the end, which again puts the fate of the game into the hands of the rng gods, which is not competitive.

what mons dont care about burns? unless youre talking about celebi, (defensive) starmie, mg clefable, or mg reuniclus, every mon in the tier cares about scald. even special attackers hate having to deal with that extra 12.5% damage because they are forced to recover more often.

I'm resistant to any claims about uncompetitiveness; a heuristic that I use is that uncompetitiveness should be relatively independent of scaling. As an example, Swagger is uncompetitive as programmed, but Swagger would likely also be uncompetitive if it only gave a +1 boost - it would be less strong, but still uncompetitive, because the move is doing something inherently unfair.
im not entirely sure what youre getting at with this because scald and swagger are completely different. the only similarity they share is that they rely on the rng gods to do their dirty work, but even thats a stretch.

I'm obviously theorymonning, but I think it very unlikely that Scald would be seeing much if any use if it has a base power of 40 or even 50 (or if the burn chance was 10%), which indicates to me that it's not doing anything inherently unfair.
the problem is that youre doing just that -- theorymonning. if scald was 40 bp or if it had only an ice beams chance of freezing for burning, then it would be a whole different can of worms. instead, its a move with a respectable 120 base power (since all relevant users of the move have STAB on it), and after two uses, the chances of it fucking over the opposong mon is over half. even 30% in one turn is still really high for a secondary effect.

If it isn't uncompetitive, then it would have to be broken to ban it, and given the fact that counterplay is reasonably available, Burn is effectively Toxic Poison on >30% of the meta (dedicated special attackers), and there are plenty of Pokemon with Scald that are not doing broken things by any reasonable standard (following the motto that a game element should be broken on all of its abusers to be considered broken), I don't see why Scald should be considered broken.
it should be considered broken because its elements of counterplay are way more limited than you make them out to be. celebi, (defensive) starmie, mg clefable, or mg reuniclus are the only mons that couldnt care less about scald. toxicroak, jellicent, and gastrodon (water absorb suicune when) are the only water immune mons that are actually ou viable. literally everything else in the ou metagame (bar certain heal bell users and rd manaphy) are crippled by scald. the only notable exception to this is defensive mega charizard x, but that cannot switch into keldeo and does nothing back to defensive waters. keep in mind that nowhere on this list do i list natural water resists that use special attacks, because all of them hate the residual damage that burns cause. offensive mons die faster and defensive mons are forced to recover a lot more often.

I mean, Scald is undeniably an incredibly powerful move, and I've lost games to untimely Scald burns like everybody else here, but to me it just seems like a centralizing element that has to be taken into account rather than a move that is clearly on a too-high power level for OU. I can't speak to UU, though.
the fact that you admit to losing games due to scald burns, which is literally losing to luck, but dont see a problem with it, is really puzzling to me.

ignoring the edit for reasons
 
Last edited:
#32
I was asked to throw in my thoughts about the potential banning of scald, so ill try and present my point of view and ill tell you a little bit about why I think the move should be removed. When you honestly take a step back from the ORAS metagame and see how much this move influences the way players compensate with there team building and in game decisions, it really is silly. The fact that players are scared to send in there Physical (and even Special that lack reliable recovery or cant afford to be worn down) Water, Grass and Dragon types for the fear of being crippled or having a shortened life spam is just absurd and considering the lack of viable Pokemon that can actually avoid this immediately are small in numbers ( Alakazam, Clefable, Reuniclus, Altaria, Celebi, Chansey and Starmie), which cant fit into every team and would other wise be limiting if better options were present. Now, if we look at a meta without scald, we can see a drastic change, where Azumarill is an actually switch into Keldeo and a vast variety of Pokemon get to show there faces without the pressure of this move constricting them. In conclusion, banning this move just allows players to make the most optimal plays possible without being punished and Team Building gets a breath of fresh new air passed through it. Sorry if this wasn't the most in depth and detailed point of view, but it's all I can handle to post at 1 am.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a member of the Site Staffis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
RU Co-Leader
#33
Alright I guess I will respond to this thread. The first thing I would like to state, is that Pokemon is a strategy game in which you attempt to maximize your odds to win the game given that every single move you make has no set outcome and depends to some extent on the "roll of a die" (see damage rolls, crits, etc.). This is obvious, I know you all know this, but I'm trying to emphasize that the person that plays better doesn't always win, and that regardless of whether or not scald is removed there is going to be some semblance of luck in every game of Pokemon. Furthermore, I don't think it can be argued that Scald is an uncompetitive move, as we except plenty of moves that have equal odds of the same effect happening, and others that have approximately the same odds and arguably a worse punishment. Obviously no one would argue that Poison Jab, Sludge Bomb, Lava Plume, or Discharge are uncompetitive, in fact most would probably argue that discharge is usually a bad move, and the others are nothing special. Before someone jumps down my throat saying that Scald is different and I am stupid for comparing these moves, I am aware Scald is ~ 5x better thanks to the fact that Burn is a better status than Poison, and Scald hits the only burn immune mons by type super effectively, Scald is a fantastic move, and there is a reason that so many Pokemon with access to it run Scald (please stop talking about Scald Azumarill though, I'm not buying that's worth it for a second, lol). My point was merely to demonstrate that a 30% chance to status off of a 80 bp move is not enough (by itself) to make something uncompetitive (not defined as inherently uncompetitive, sorry mm2 D:), and that scald is no more "luck based" as the OP states than many other moves. Another move that is similar is T Wave, which has a 25% chance to make your opponent do literally nothing every turn, and given that T wave has an even wider distribution, and can be used effectively on everything from defensive mons to full on offensive mons, its not really predictable. The fact that full paralysis renders you unable to move for an entire turn, giving the opponent a free turn is also a much worse punishment than a burn in a lot of cases, so I don't really think Scald is as special of a move as people make it out to be in terms of introducing luck into the game. While its true scald can affect the outcome of games, there are certainly counter measures that can be addressed in the team building stage, just as there have to be for other commonly run moves (such as SR / Knock Off / Thunder Wave etc.). I'd also like to state that while I don't think you can claim scald is uncompetitve (unlike swagger which has a 50% chance to generate a completely free turn for the user, Scald has a 30% chance to cripple some pokemon and inconvenience some others (and do neither to a few)). However, I do understand that Scald can be unhealthy in certain meta games, if the number and diversity of users is too great to deal with adequately in the team building stage. To demonstrate a metagame in which Scald isn't really much of a problem I will quote my fellow council member EonX.

I guess I'll chime in a little bit as an RU player considering I haven't seen any post so far and someone (i think ib93) wanted input from players of other tiers.

Simply put, Scald is part of what made Slowking the literal King of RU back in BW. It nullified a lot of the Dark-types that could otherwise pefectly switch into most sets, especially Spiritomb. Even Druddigon, one of the top offensive mons in BW RU, which could switch into any attack based on resistances vs. Slowking could not reliably come in thanks to a possible Scald burn absolutely ruining Drudd for the rest of the match. Keep in mind that Druddigon resists the move, has solid natural bulk, and commonly ran a high amount of HP EVs. Even in XY / ORAS, Slowking could invalidate a lot of common responses just due to the chance of a Scald burn. Obviously, Slowking has moved on to UU, but now RU has Jellicent as its premier bulky water and it's perhaps an even worse case than Slowking when it comes to possible Scald burns fucking over many normal responses. Virizion, Rotom-C, Jolteon, Tangrowth, Scrafty, Drapion, and Meloetta are all perfectly capable of tanking hits and / or outright KOing Jellicent, but all are pretty easily worn down by Scald burns and Jellicent has reliable recovery to outlast them if this happens. It isn't confined to Jellicent either. Quagsire, Gastrodon, defensive variants of Seismitoad, Qwilfish, and Alomomola are key offenders of this as well. None moreso than perhaps Alomomola who lives off of the threat of Scald burns to keep many setup sweepers at bay. (user -Tsunami- can back me up on this one in particular lol) Now, of these cases, only Alomomola would really be hurt by Scald not being available to it as the rest have high enough special attack to make use of the damage output of Surf (or physical attack + Waterfall in Quagsire's case) in most situations. Not saying that Scald should or shouldn't be banned, but I am providing examples of Pokemon that make really good use of the move in RU and invalidate otherwise solid responses to them with the burn chance.
Lets talk about scald in RU. Molk was the one that actually pointed out EonX's post in this thread to me, and we are in absolute agreement that it is the perfect explanation for why Scald isn't unhealthy in RU. The first thing to notice is that the premier bulky water-type is Jellicent, a Pokemon with access to will-o-wisp, in fact, many people, including myself, have forgone running Scald on Jellicent, as Recover / Wisp / Taunt / Hex Jellicent is honestly just better in a lot of cases (beats Sigi, opposing Jellicent, still beats cobalion (hex breaks sub everytime), etc.). On top of this RU is swimming with Bulky Grass type attackers, water absorb Pokemon, and top threats that don't care about Scald for other reasons. Virizion (physical sets often run lum, would probably still do so without scald, Calm Mind sets are also viable and recover burn damage with giga drain), Rotom-C (vulnerable to burn, but with a lot of scald users I'd rather toxic it, which btw is a terrible argument for Scald being broken (that you can run Toxic too, lol)), Jolteon (wish bp Jolteon is viable, as is an offensive set with heal bell), Tangrowth (Regenerator, doesn't give a fuck about burns, Scalding this is a free LO or Specs Leaf Storm which is very bad for you), Scrafty (Shed Skin, bulky, has Drain Punch as well), Drapion (SD sets often run Lum, SpD sets on stall have heal bell support, only really cares if its like SpD set on balance w/ no heal bell and even then, free T spikes), and Meloetta (Sub CM if it doesn't get burned on the switch just wins, SpD w/ heal bell is also a set). On top of the Pokemon that EonX so kindly listed for me, there are also things like Sigilyph (Magic Guard, beats all of these barring T wave Waterfall Qwilfish (which doesn't run scald) and Knock off Toad (only if lacking Roost or Energy Ball), Jellicent, Gastrodon, and Seismitoad all have a water immunity. Basically RU is just saturated with answers to Scald, such that most teams end up with a couple different answers to bulky water-types with Scald just by accident. There is absolutely no reason to ban Scald in RU.

As IB93 already mentioned, another example of a meta game where Scald is pretty well dealt with, is NU, as it just has so few viable users of Scald, it has: Lanturn (and I guess Quagsire). Hardly something that requires an extraordinary amount of preparation to deal with.

I realize this is pretty much a wall of text so the main points I was trying to get across were: Pokemon will always be somewhat luck based, good players are those that play trying to maximize their chances to win, if you want to remove any luck from the game, you should look into chess. Scald isn't really uncompetitive (it doesn't remove autonomy of game making decisions from the player - in this regard Swagger (obviously) and I'd argue T Wave are closer to being uncompetitive (don't think t wave is uncompetitive, just more so than scald)). However, Scald can be unhealthy for a meta game, depending on the number and diversity of the scald users, as well as the number of Pokemon in the tier that can provide an adequate counter play to most scald users. If Scald is unhealthy in OU or UU (or even NU if I'm missing something), I totally respect their right to ban Scald, but please stay away from my tier, cause barring an extreme meta game shift Scald is completely fine and something that neither Molk nor myself support a ban on in RU :).
 
#34
I'm not reading this entire thread because I am mostly uninterested in this topic, but I wanted to drop two main points here:

1. If Scald is broken in any tier, it should be suspected, regardless of a lack of precedent or how controversial it is. The same should be extended to other moves, abilities, items, etc.

2. Scald is no where close to broken in NU, so I would be strongly against suspecting it at any time unless it somehow became broken at some point in the future. Our list of viable Scald users is Carracosta, Gorebyss, Lanturn, Ludicolo, Mantine, Pelipper, Poliwrath, Prinplup, Quagsire, and Swanna. Among those, Carracosta, Lanturn, Pelipper, Prinplup, and Quagsire are both reasonably common and commonly run it, and only two get reliable recovery. The main reason why I see Scald as potentially broken is because of how many Scald users in higher tiers have reliable recovery, which in turn gives them many more options to use Scald and thus many more opportunities to burn would-be counters. It also has to do with the metagame surrounding Scald users, and we have plenty of Pokemon that don't mind taking a Scald (Roselia, Exeggutor, most Water-types, Heal Bell Lanturn and Mega Audino, for example).

Also as a slight side-note, the replay Omfuga linked is a pretty weak argument because he had to rely on not getting burned by Scald only because he misplayed mid-game and was absurdly weak to Scald anyways because his only switch-ins were Feraligatr which is useless if it gets burned and Gurdurr which isn't very difficult to beat even if it Guts is activated.
 

M Dragon

The north wind
is a Tournament Directoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnusis a Past SPL Championis the Smogon Tour Season 17 Champion
Moderator
#35
Moves with secondary effects have always been very annoying in every gens.

RBY: Body Slam paralyzing fast threats (30% of the times) such as Alakazam/Starmie/Zapdos/Jolteon (and Tauros when old mechanics) making them much less scary threats and allowing Tauros/Rocks being much more dangerous, Ice Beam / Blizzard with a 10% chance of killing a mon each turn, T-bolt paralysis (10%), Psychic special drops (33.3%) so psychics can beat other psychics with Psychic...
GSC: Body Slam is everywhere and it is even bigger than in RBY (Body Slam Snorlax can beat Miltank/Umbreon/Skarmory with the help of a BSlam paralysis, something it couldn't do otherwise), Thunder having a 30% chance of paralyzing mons (and Zapdos/Raikou with it being everywhere), Ice moves freezes (10%), Fire moves burns (10%), Rock Slide flinches (30%) giving games (Marowak getting a flinch vs Skarmory when its trying to WW or to rest for example), Psychic Sp Def drops (10%), CC having more CH chance, etc
ADV: Body Slam is less common, but its still very annoying (Lax paralyzing DDtar / Aero / Jirachi completely changes the game, and its a 30% chance), and Rock Slide is more common (Ttar and Aero). Everybody has lost to a Rock Slide flinch at the worst moment (and it is 30% as well). Jirachi has a 20% chance of paralyzing/freezing with T-bolt/Ice Punch, a 60% chance of paralyzing with Body Slam or Thunder (so the secondary effect happens more than 50% of the times), and a 20% chance of lowering the Sp Defense of the opponent, something that can let it beat things like Snorlax. Freezes (10% except in the case of Jirachi Ice Punch) are huge in ADV as well. Meteor Mash Attack rise can allow Metagross to beat Bulky Waters only with Meteor Mash.
DPP: Lava Plume was introduced. Lava plume is weaket than Flamethrower, but it has a 30% chance of burning, something that common counters to fire mons hate (think about bulky waters that are not Starmie, tyranitar and dragons). However, stronger options like Fire Blast are generally better unless you are using a defensive set. Jirachi and Togekiss have a 60% flinch rate with Iron Head / Air Slash and a 60% para chance with Thunder/Body Slam. Freeze / Paras / Burns from moves like T-bolt / Ice Beam / FT are still important. Waterfall 20% flinch chance vs things like Skamory have changed games as well, Stone Edge having an extra CH chance.
BW: The move everybody loves (Scald) was introduced. Scald is a move that allows water mons to burn mons like Ferrothorn and grasses in general who otherwise would completely wall them. It is similar to Lava Plume (weaker than Surf but with a 30% chance burn, can burn sweepers that try to set up, and is annoying for walls). However, the difference of power between Scald and Hydro Pump is huge, and sweepers like Keldeo usually prefer to hit as hard as possible and don't want to lose coverage in 2 water moves, so Scald is rarely used in sweepers. The rest is p much the same than DPP.
ORAS: The only difference is that Surf and FT are now weaker, so the difference of power between Hydro Pump / Fire blast or Surf / Flamethrower and Scald / Lava Plume is smaller, making those moves even more viable not only in defensive mons.

So basically we can divide moves with secondary effects in 2 big groups:
a) Moves than have a chance of freezing / burning / paralyzing the opponent, affecting it in the long term. Scald, Lava Plume, Body Slam and Thunder are the main moves here (30% chance). Then you can argue about whats worse: paralysis (makes fast sweepers nearly useless, and they have a 25% chance of getting FP each turn) or Burn (makes physical sweepers nearly useless, and adds residual damage)
b) Moves with a secondary effect that benefits the user in that turn (for example a flinch or an attack raise). A ton of games are won or lost because for example, Excadrill got a key flinch with Iron Head that allowed it to beat Hippowdon. In same cases, this is much worse than a Scald burn or a Body slam para.

Ok, so moves with secondary effects have been a huge factor in every gen. What makes Scald different? Why should we ban Scald now? From what I have seen in this thread, the reasons are:
a) There are a lot of viable users of Scald (not a big fan of this, because there have always been a lot of body slam users. You can argue about paralysis vs burn and what has a bigger impact, but I dont think this makes Scald different. However it is true than in ORAS, and this is about ORAS, scald is the most common move, so discussing about Scald in ORAS instead of other moves with secondary effects makes sense)
b) Scald is super effective vs the type that is inmune to its secondary effect unlike Lava Plume (ok, fair point, although the most common Lava Plume user also has Earth Power to beat Fire mons)

So please, don't say things like:
Just a small thing, here's one SPL replay where I can remember scald changed the outcome of the game.
It has always happened in Pokemon. Secondary effects change games, it is not a Scald problem

You can argue that Scald adds luck to the game, but... luck is already huge in pokemon, although you can limit the most obv luck based cases, such as OHKO moves ban (30% of getting a free kill is definitely something nobody wants) or moves like Double Team that makes this game much worse for example.
So the question is: is Scald really that big compared with other moves with secondary effects (not only status, also things like Iron Head Jirachi that can flinch mons to death)?

I believe that the ultimate result of tiering is to create a better metagame. I define the characteristics which make a metagame good or bad along these lines: A good metagame is one in which moves, Pokemon, abilities, ETC, tend away from creating circumstances where a heavy element of luck is involved. A good metagame also bans moves, Pokemon, abilities, ETC, which are overpowering.
And I completely agree with Bad Ass here. However there is a problem: there are a lot of moves that have a "heavy element of luck involved", Scald is just probably the most common of them in ORAS. In Pokemon luck is everywhere in fact: there are CHs, moves that have a chance (from 10% to 30% depending on the move, or 60% in the case of Jirachi and Togekiss) of having a secondary effect, moves can miss, pokemons are slept a random number of turns (unless rest), paralyzed mons wont attack a 25% of the times, and confused mons wont attack 50% of the times.
Ok, a lot of luck there. So what to do? The best thing you can do is trying to mitigate luck and weighting the probabilities and going with the route that gives you a bigger chance of winning while avoiding luck (yes triple scald burn crit can happen, but thats unlikely).

Going back to Scald, every player should know that Scald is huge in ORAS, and that they should be prepared for it. Defensive and balanced teams have a lot of weapons to easily beat Scald: Magic guard users, Rest (in ORAS is viable again), Natural Cure (Starmie and Celebi especially good), Water Absorb (although Toxic hurts), Refresh (Altaria, Latias...), Heal Bell/Aromatherapy, Poison Heal users when being Toxiced (Loom and even SpDef Gliscor will beat bulky waters with Scald), Regenerator mons (Amoonguss, Tangrowth) that don't like burns but can deal with them or Fire mons that are not weak to Scald (MCharizard X). Offensive teams have a harder time vs Scald, because they have fewer options, but offensive team also fear a lot Body Slam para (especially from Jirachi) even Lava Plume (Scald is more common, but does that not mean that BSlam and Lava Plume are uncommon, especially with Heatran being everywhere). In fact I would say that Offensive teams fear more a well timed flinch (from something like Gyarados or Excadrill).


To sum it up, Scald is very annoying, and it changes games, but would the game really be better without it? Is Scald that broken when compared with other moves with similar effects? Is Scald that good and that game breaking with so few possible answers that deserves a ban?

If we are talking about older gens (like BW), what about Body Slam and Lava Plume? They were huge in older gens, especially Body Slam (Wish Protect BSlam IHead Jirachi being able to beat offensive teams with 2 luck based moves in both BW and DPP for example).
 
#36
Responding mainly to M Dragon here (I basically echo the sentiments of bad ass and lavos on the subject), I feel like the main difference between stuff like flinches and burns is that you have to stay in and risk being KOed (suppose the Hippo vs. Exca example you gave). Paralysis is a fair point but its distribution in BW is pretty limited (can't think of much besides the jirachi you mentioned, which is basically really the only common user), and idt the distribution is much higher in ORAS. Aero in ADV is a decent lax check and body slam does kinda invalidate that but most other lax checks (rachi, metagross) don't really mind it very much (although it is annoying), so I feel like that lessens the impact of para from BSlam there, as well as w/ RBY Tauros as most of its checks aren't invalidated with para. Heatran could really annoy stuff like keld/chomp w/ burns which makes it like Scald in that aspect, but with really only Heatran using it the distribution argument doesn't apply there. Scald is a luck-based move like many others, but it is also pretty widespread, has a decent chance to burn, and most common switch-ins to it are really annoyed by a burn.

This is responding to a previous post but if something gets crippled by a burn/worn down by it very fast it isn't really a counter (ferro, etc.), but by that logic there's basically defensive starmie, blobs, and celebi as counters to it!

I will say overall (@ the topic) that Scald should be banned in BW and current UU (w/ there being no transitivity here); idrk about ORAS in this regard.

(sorry if this post was a bit skimpy/rehashed some earlier stuff)
 

idiotfrommars

HODOR HODOR HODOR
is a Tournament Directoris a Forum Moderatoris a Tiering Contributoris a Tutor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a defending World Cup of Pokemon champion
Moderator
#37
Hello, I'd like to spark a discussion on a universally despised move whose ban has been wanted by great players for years and it's not hard to see why; Rock Slide is a luck-based attack with incredible distribution that ruins games. I don't need to write a thesis about why it does so because anyone who has played since GSC came out knows how fucking retarded it is and there are a billion tournament replays floating all over the place to prove this point for those who don't play and would like to see how it works. I'm sure there will be a ton of WCoP battles in the coming month+ that will further demonstrate how ridiculous this move is. Most of the tournament replays posted lately sum up my thought, especially: http://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/smogtours-gen3ou-70668

I wouldn't mind this extending to GSC, DPP, BW, and ORAS as well but that's another discussion
 
Last edited:

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
#38
Thread originally written by Stratos; slightly altered for posting by me.

Losing a match to the wonderful Landorus-T and his Scarf Rock Slides sucks a lot of ass. We've all been there. It is possibly the most infuriating way to lose a match. But we should pride ourselves on playing the game of Pokemon as best as we can. The way we treat Rock Slide is a glaring inconsistency here. Rock Slide's flinch chance seems stupidly, ridiculously high, but that means that a lot of the time it is going to be your best chance to win. But when someone tries to play to their outs by using the move to fish for flinches, we jump down their throats. I won't name him, but there was a user who was about to win a seasonal match thanks to Rock Slide, and the chat was being so vicious to him about it that he chose to throw the set rather than deal with their verbal abuse. I will name names here because it's no secret: Tricking is a really nice guy and a legitimately good player, but because he lucked his way through some matches, people shunned him for a long time. Fortunately that's in the past now, and I think people are being better about luck than they used to be, but we want to just say it publicly: if your opponent won through luck, it's not his fault. We need to stop hating the player for playing the game.
 

Kink

www.soundcloud.com/keylontix
is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#41
If the decision to ban Scald wasn't so controversial, it'd probably already be done. One of the things I noticed during the No Scald UU suspect was the offensive approach many bulky Water-types were taking, but it always seemed like an underwhelming substitute, bar Mega Blastoise. It seems as if the meta has settled on being able to work around Scald; in UU alone, there are two Natural Cure users (Shaymin and Roserade), one Water Absorb user (Vaporeon, but three more if you count Jellicent, Gastrodon, and Seismitoad), and a plethora of Heal Bell and Aromatherapy users that prepare for all types of status, not just Scald burns, and let's not forget about Heracross, who has access to the very useful Guts to take advantage of Scald users.

Frankly, the argument of whether or not Scald is broken is quite subjective, and almost to a fault, for there are people that have been screwed and saved by this move, myself to be included in both categories. So my question is what exactly does the meta have to gain from the removal of Scald? I played the ladder, I watched other people play the ladder, the game seemed no more interesting, defensive water types just seemed nerfed... that's really how I'd put it.

What use is a defensive Swampert if it can't pressure both offensively and defensively with its perfect stat distribution and movepool which turn it into a threat. And no, Scald is not the crux of this set, but nor is it unimportant, however, defensive Empoleon relies on Scald for its ability to put pressure on offensive teams, as its Steel typing simply invites Fighting types to take advantage of momentum and score of a free (and sometimes crushing) hit. Vaporeon relies on Scald to maintain its defensive pressure as it wishes to its teammates, evening out its poor stat distribution in defense, and assists it in being a usable UU mon. I don't feel like scoring a burn on a Machamp is broken if the Machamp wanted a free switch-in for a free Dynamic Punch which is also arguably cheap; at least now Vaporeon has a chance to not lose 50% AND be confused. My point is, people can easily pick their battles, and if someone loses to a Scald burn, it happens, cry me a Stone Edge.

In essence, what I notice is that Scald actually gives life to Water-types that otherwise seem too tame for the meta. Now I know this is just one opinion that lies in one tier, but I think something must be said for the fact that without Scald, Water-types lose a significant edge in a meta that has developed and prepared for Water-types. It's like declawing a kitty, except kitties are actually cute. And trust me, I don't like the fact that I hold this opinion .-.

edit: it's almost as if scald is the industry standard in "get fukd it's pokemon". Also lets not forget Chandelure that survives nearly every Scald attack but not Surf haha
 
Last edited:

ginganinja

It's all coming back to me now
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
#42
In essence, what I notice is that Scald actually gives life to Water-types that otherwise seem too tame for the meta. Now I know this is just one opinion that lies in one tier, but I think something must be said for the fact that without Scald, Water-types lose a significant edge in a meta that has developed and prepared for Water-types.
Not entirely going to get into why Scald is/isn't unhealthy at this time, but just wanted to respond to the above argument and why it unfortunately doesn't apply to OU.

In OU, it wouldn't really matter if "water types lose an edge", because if (and only if) Scald was proven to be unhealthy, then Scald doesn't stay in the metagame. Sure, water types get nerfed, but who really cares? Its not a reason to keep an unhealthy element in the game. When Baton Pass was unhealthy in OU, it was immediately hit with a clause (maybe not enough, but I digress...). Did that suck for Baton Pass teams? Yes. Did such teams get nerfed? Yes. No-one really cares though, because it was deemed unhealthy toward the meta and thus, the Council stepped in. So really, its immaterial whether Scald "gives water types an edge", because if its unhealthy, then it goes, and if not, it stays.
 

Kink

www.soundcloud.com/keylontix
is a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Tutor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
#43
Not entirely going to get into why Scald is/isn't unhealthy at this time, but just wanted to respond to the above argument and why it unfortunately doesn't apply to OU.

In OU, it wouldn't really matter if "water types lose an edge", because if (and only if) Scald was proven to be unhealthy, then Scald doesn't stay in the metagame. Sure, water types get nerfed, but who really cares? Its not a reason to keep an unhealthy element in the game. When Baton Pass was unhealthy in OU, it was immediately hit with a clause (maybe not enough, but I digress...). Did that suck for Baton Pass teams? Yes. Did such teams get nerfed? Yes. No-one really cares though, because it was deemed unhealthy toward the meta and thus, the Council stepped in. So really, its immaterial whether Scald "gives water types an edge", because if its unhealthy, then it goes, and if not, it stays.
When I say nerfed, I mean by comparison to tier viability. I was also strictly speaking UU, and I don't know OU well enough to agree or contend.
 
#44
I think the comparison between scald and other moves like rock slide/lava plume/etc is flawed not only because the former's distribution is much greater, but also because we could ban Scald without compromising movesets. If Scald was banned, pretty much everything that runs it could simply replace it with Surf. But if we banned Rock Slide in ADV, for example, pokemon like ttar/aero would have to use either hp rock (meaning they'd miss out on hp bug/flying), or... rock tomb. As for lava plume/body slam, they're not as nearly as much used as scald, are they really that problematic? Also, in my opinion, the question we should be asking is not "why should scald be banned". Rather, it is "why should scald NOT be banned?".
 
#48
I could talk about this move for hours, but I'll refrain from doing so for now. Instead, I want to give a reason for banning Scald that hasn't been covered sufficiently thus far. Some people claim that because there are answers to Scald, it can be prepared for, and therefore should not be banned. In this argument, however, I find a good reason why we should ban Scald. Never did I, while building a team, notice that my team was weak to Lava Plume, or Body Slam, or Sludge Bomb, etc. Simply having a Pokemon that resists the type of one of these moves is everything you generally need in order to be "prepared" for these moves. This is where Scald differentiates itself from any other move with a decently high chance of hax. During teambuilding, any decent team builder has to keep in mind that his team has a good switchin for Scald, exactly because of its 30% chance to burn. Simply slapping a Water resist on your team and calling it a day can result in you losing the battle due to some unfortunate Scald burns. The fundamental difference between preparing for other influential moves in the meta, such as Knock Off or Earthquake, is that you have to prepare for Scald, keeping the RNG part of it in mind.

In a healthy metagame, and I consider this to be an axiom, we shouldn't have to prepare for hax. Luck management during a battle is one thing, but having to build your teams in such a way that you're prepared for the 30% chance of hax that comes with a particular move is simply not right. You can keep all your "Scald isn't inherently broken or uncompetitive" arguments to yourself for all I care, I'm talking about the concrete, palpable effect that Scald has on the metagame, an effect that causes players to consciously prepare for a factor that is outside of anyone's control, an effect that causes important tour battles to result in a war of "who's the first one to be lucky", an effect that is undeniably harmful for the metagame overall. I advise the anti-ban side to look at the way Scald works in practice, rather than in theory, and reconsider what it takes for a move to be bannable.

I hope this was coherent enough. If not, please do tell me and I'll try to clarify further, but I assume that nothing I said here sounds strange to anyone's ears.
 
#49
I could talk about this move for hours, but I'll refrain from doing so for now. Instead, I want to give a reason for banning Scald that hasn't been covered sufficiently thus far. Some people claim that because there are answers to Scald, it can be prepared for, and therefore should not be banned. In this argument, however, I find a good reason why we should ban Scald. Never did I, while building a team, notice that my team was weak to Lava Plume, or Body Slam, or Sludge Bomb, etc. Simply having a Pokemon that resists the type of one of these moves is everything you generally need in order to be "prepared" for these moves. This is where Scald differentiates itself from any other move with a decently high chance of hax. During teambuilding, any decent team builder has to keep in mind that his team has a good switchin for Scald, exactly because of its 30% chance to burn. Simply slapping a Water resist on your team and calling it a day can result in you losing the battle due to some unfortunate Scald burns. The fundamental difference between preparing for other influential moves in the meta, such as Knock Off or Earthquake, is that you have to prepare for Scald, keeping the RNG part of it in mind.

In a healthy metagame, and I consider this to be an axiom, we shouldn't have to prepare for hax. Luck management during a battle is one thing, but having to build your teams in such a way that you're prepared for the 30% chance of hax that comes with a particular move is simply not right. You can keep all your "Scald isn't inherently broken or uncompetitive" arguments to yourself for all I care, I'm talking about the concrete, palpable effect that Scald has on the metagame, an effect that causes players to consciously prepare for a factor that is outside of anyone's control, an effect that causes important tour battles to result in a war of "who's the first one to be lucky", an effect that is undeniably harmful for the metagame overall. I advise the anti-ban side to look at the way Scald works in practice, rather than in theory, and reconsider what it takes for a move to be bannable.

I hope this was coherent enough. If not, please do tell me and I'll try to clarify further, but I assume that nothing I said here sounds strange to anyone's ears.
So having a resist to scald is not sufficient to prepare for scald. But having a resist for body slam is?

I only mention this because your argument is that we shouldn't have to prepare for hax, but these moves all have a 30% chance of inflicting a status condition too. You basically said "I'm not weak to lava plume, but everyone is weak to scald because hax". Is lava plume not literally just as haxy? lol

Maybe you meant that these aren't a big deal because of immunities (ghosts can get hit by body slam, fire types can't be burned, steel types are immune to poison), but how many ghosts are actually viable in ou? How many fire types can you slap on a team with the ubiquity of stealth rocks (and the fact that the best ones are megas)? Celebi, starmie, chansey,heal bell, keldeo and co (don't care about burn), rest talk waters, water absorb users exist, and they are definitely in great quantity than mons immune to body slam. From the pure 'hax is bad' standpoint that you are taking, these moves are equally as bad as scald.

I'm pro-ban, but your post made no sense, and you completely disregard the fact that there are plenty of common ways to avoid scald hax. It's not centralizing the metagame. These mons wouldn't fall out of usage if scald were to be banned. Every good team builder needs a status absorber to begin with.

Again, scald is obviously different from all of these other moves, but your argument as to why is incorrect.
 

IronBullet

Astronomy Domine
is a Tutoris a member of the Site Staffis an official Team Rateris a Battle Server Administratoris a Community Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis an Administratoris a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
RMT Co-Leader
#50
Perhaps Robert hasn't backed up the point in the first part of his post too well, but I think his second paragraph makes a lot of sense. What he says is that it's all good talking in theory about how moves like Body Slam, Lava Plume and Thunder are similar to Scald, but in practice Scald is a lot more worthy of a ban because it has a much more of a concrete impact on the metagame.

Scald is always going to be in the backs of a player's mind when building a team because nearly every single Water-type Pokemon is going to carry that move. There is only one Pokemon in OU (both BW and ORAS) that uses Lava Plume effectively, and that is Heatran. Furthermore, Scald hits the only type immune to it super effectively. The same can't be said of Lava Plume. Finch summed it up really well on the previous page - "It gets less distribution among Fire-types, is often not used in favour of alternatives (like Fire Blast), and doesn't have the same niche as a Water-type move inflicting a burn". It's really no comparison; Scald has way more of an impact on the metagame than Lava Plume does. Regarding Body Slam, there is also only one Pokemon in OU that commonly uses it, and that is Jirachi. Body Slam also has terrible coverage and power, and so has pretty much no use outside of the 30% chance of paralysis. Scald has excellent distribution, decent power boosted by STAB, and can even be boosted by Rain. Not much comparison here either.

Lava Plume and Body Slam are not a big deal not because of immunities or how many Fire-types there are, but it's simply because there are 2 Pokemon in the whole of BW and ORAS OU that commonly carry those moves. Even if you look at ORAS UU, the only Pokemon that uses Body Slam is Snorlax, and there are absolutely none that use Lava Plume. Scald is used by nearly every single Water-type out there. Even not keeping in mind the other factors I mentioned, isn't it reasonable to say that it has a far bigger impact than the other two moves simply because of its sheer usage? And once you consider the points that do make Scald superior, you can see why it's considered more ban-worthy than other similar moves.

Also, I think people are vastly overrating how easily Scald is to take in practice, even by Natural Cure and Heal Bell users. If Pokemon having such abilities and moves get burned by Scald, they are still put under significant pressure. The likes of Celebi and Starmie can be weakened to the point that the burn could potentially put them in range of a KO, or it could force them to Recover which results in a loss of momentum. For Heal Bell users too, Pokemon like Chansey and Blissey are so passive offensively as it is, and taking up a turn to use Heal Bell can again prove quite detrimental in terms of momentum. As for Water Absorb users, there are none that are actually in the OU tier in ORAS which says a lot about their usage.

Really, it just comes down to how crippling people assess Scald and its secondary effect to be in the tier in question. Looking at posts from other tiers, RU and NU players don't really feel it's broken at all. However in UU, and maybe in ORAS and BW OU as well, Scald is surely significant enough to be controversial. radiant also brought up a good point in that banning Scald would not make most bulky Water-types any less viable due to their access to Surf. It isn't much of an argument for banning Scald in itself, but it's definitely something to keep in mind if any tiering action is going to be considered.