(Sorry for double post but I think this warrants its own)
I know that this isn't a suspect test or anything more than an experiment, though it seems that quite a few people are in favour of pushing further for a ban.
Before any action is taken on potentially suspecting/banning scald, I suggest that we firstly test its arguably most broken user: Suicune. On all other mons Scald pretty much only helps in disruption and an extra side effect, that can often be removed by Heal Bell/Aromatherapy and I hardly ever find more game-breaking then any other move. Suicune however is the only mon I could see as pushing this to make it potentially broken, as with it its sweeping abilities are greatly increased in giving itself the support it needs to setup and seems to be the most centralising user of the move, as really no other Scald users are specifically prepared for. I'd much rather see Suicune get suspected before action is taken on Scald which just cripples a whole lot of bulky waters and has a significant impact on lower tiers as well, and I know quite a few people seem to be against Suicune anyway.
if you guys are considering taking scald away, why not do the same for will-o-wisp? Rotom-Heat and arcanine are very common and they usually carry that move, and it's as annoying (if not more) as scald
This is For several reasons.if you guys are considering taking scald away, why not do the same for will-o-wisp? Rotom-Heat and arcanine are very common and they usually carry that move, and it's as annoying (if not more) as scald
Ummm... Suicune is arguably the best pokemon in the entire tier as it is unstoppable after a even 1 calm mind boost. Most physical attackers struggle to even 2hko and none can 0hko it. It is weak before a calm mind on the specially defensive side of things but that is remedied in one turn. I would definitely be up for a suicune suspect under the reasoning that it restricts teambuilding.The radiant hero said:suicune is slow and offensively mediocre, why would it be suspected?
Umm... I agree with the first part of your post that people will get turned off by banning everything. However, your "top players dominate part" is completely off base. Most everything here is run in a democratic manner. Tiers are based on usage rates and are therefore democratic and voting is democracy. Presuming you've shown competency and that you know what you're talking about is the reason for getting reqs. We don't want idiots making decisions. That being said, those who have proven themselves only get one vote no matter who you are.The tier leaders and the randoms all have an equal say. If you are a naysayer there should be proof that you know what you're talking about and that is what reqs are for. If you are inclined to get reqs you can get them. It is nothing about top players using voting to dominate the direction of the tier. Yes they provide ideas and arguments, but we are the ones who make the decisions in vote scenarios.If the UU tier bans scald, I promise you more and more people will be turned off by showdown. I can take suspect testing a pokemon because it is over centralizing the tier but now we are going so far as to ban a move. Too many rules just limits the enjoyment of a game regardless of how you spin it.
Pokemon is an incredibly luck based game that in tails crits, chances of getting a status, chances of getting out of a status and speed ties. Yet now UU says "Ehh the other stuff isn't that bad but what is bad is getting burned by an 80 based power water move that has a 30% to burn." Cater to the top players and make the game more easier for them to maintain their rank.
Since this will probably require reqs, do you really think the naysayers will have a chance to get a fair share in this vote? The answer is no. Dominate players dictate the direction of the entire tier and the people in charge run with it.
If the UU tier bans scald, I promise you more and more people will be turned off by showdown. I can take suspect testing a pokemon because it is over centralizing the tier but now we are going so far as to ban a move. Too many rules just limits the enjoyment of a game regardless of how you spin it.
Pokemon is an incredibly luck based game that in tails crits, chances of getting a status, chances of getting out of a status and speed ties. Yet now UU says "Ehh the other stuff isn't that bad but what is bad is getting burned by an 80 based power water move that has a 30% to burn." Cater to the top players and make the game more easier for them to maintain their rank.
Since this will probably require reqs, do you really think the naysayers will have a chance to get a fair share in this vote? The answer is no. Dominate players dictate the direction of the entire tier and the people in charge run with it.
The UU tier is barely getting any activity these days, with the viability thread buried somewhere in the first page and it not being updated in god knows how long. Discussions are dead and overall excitement for the tier isn't where it used to be. I wonder how we can maintain the current level of excitement for the tier? Oh I know how about we discuss banning scald and making people further run off to OU or RU. Brilliant as always smogon.
Umm... I agree with the first part of your post that people will get turned off by banning everything. However, your "top players dominate part" is completely off base. Most everything here is run in a democratic manner. Tiers are based on usage rates and are therefore democratic and voting is democracy. Presuming you've shown competency and that you know what you're talking about is the reason for getting reqs. We don't want idiots making decisions. That being said, those who have proven themselves only get one vote no matter who you are.The tier leaders and the randoms all have an equal say. If you are a naysayer there should be proof that you know what you're talking about and that is what reqs are for. If you are inclined to get reqs you can get them. It is nothing about top players using voting to dominate the direction of the tier. Yes they provide ideas and arguments, but we are the ones who make the decisions in vote scenarios.
Cool your jets and lay off the sodium. First of all this isn't a suspect test but an experiment to prove whether or not it's even worth talking about similar to a ladder without Stealth Rock. Also, the "your kingdom will burn under the hubris of your rule" tone would be irritating if wasn't so common in suspect threads, metagame threads, youtube comments sections, gamefaqs threads, /vp/ threads, and probably sticky notes on your fridge. If you want to see things go your way in UU, play it, understand it, and convince people of your opinions when suspects do happen. It isn't some evil Smogon conspiracy that the people who PLAY THE FUCKING TIER talk about and influence the metagame.If the UU tier bans scald, I promise you more and more people will be turned off by showdown. I can take suspect testing a pokemon because it is over centralizing the tier but now we are going so far as to ban a move. Too many rules just limits the enjoyment of a game regardless of how you spin it.
Pokemon is an incredibly luck based game that in tails crits, chances of getting a status, chances of getting out of a status and speed ties. Yet now UU says "Ehh the other stuff isn't that bad but what is bad is getting burned by an 80 based power water move that has a 30% to burn." Cater to the top players and make the game more easier for them to maintain their rank.
Since this will probably require reqs, do you really think the naysayers will have a chance to get a fair share in this vote? The answer is no. Dominate players dictate the direction of the entire tier and the people in charge run with it.
The UU tier is barely getting any activity these days, with the viability thread buried somewhere in the first page and it not being updated in god knows how long. Discussions are dead and overall excitement for the tier isn't where it used to be. I wonder how we can maintain the current level of excitement for the tier? Oh I know how about we discuss banning scald and making people further run off to OU or RU. Brilliant as always smogon.
I want to highlight this because of how incredibly wrong it is. On the Suspect ladder, everyone starts out fresh. Everyone begins with 1000 Elo and no COIL. So the only reason anyone would need 150+ games is because they struggle to ladder in the first place, such as myself. Our former tier leader Kokoloko (who easily knows as much if not more about UU than the rest of us combined) took nearly 80 games to get reqs for the Serperior test. EVERY PLAYER HAS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A MARK. If we instigated ranking in the middle of the ladder, yeah, players at the top would barely have to do any more laddering, but even we'd be better off, because they clearly understand the ladder better than someone who struggles to break 1200. In short, I would prefer a small pool of dedicated knowledgeable votes rather than a large pool diluted by players who didn't know the tier as well.Eh, it kinda depends. Due to how the suspect testing is done, the mid-ladder players are often disuaded from getting reqs when they see they need ~150 games contra the top player's ~30.
I want to highlight this because of how incredibly wrong it is. On the Suspect ladder, everyone starts out fresh. Everyone begins with 1000 Elo and no COIL. So the only reason anyone would need 150+ games is because they struggle to ladder in the first place, such as myself. Our former tier leader Kokoloko (who easily knows as much if not more about UU than the rest of us combined) took nearly 80 games to get reqs for the Serperior test. EVERY PLAYER HAS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A MARK. If we instigated ranking in the middle of the ladder, yeah, players at the top would barely have to do any more laddering, but even we'd be better off, because they clearly understand the ladder better than someone who struggles to break 1200. In short, I would prefer a small pool of dedicated knowledgeable votes rather than a large pool diluted by players who didn't know the tier as well.
1) it discourages direct switch-ins, but so does hazards, roar, toxic, etc, which are stall tools that are actually more effective than scald 70% of the time. if you need chip damage, surf is also there and does more damage than scald (again, 70% of the time). scald-less water types are a thorn in momentum? don't use them, simple as that. as for the dynamicpunch/discharge comparison, lets take a look at the viability rankings: there is 1 viable mon that commonly runs dpunch (machamp), located at B+; there are NONE viable mons that commonly run discharge; as for scald, there is 1 S rank mon (cune), 3 A rank mons (tentacruel, pert, mega toise), 3 A- rank mons (empoleon, slowking, vaporeon). im not even gonna look at lower ranks.1) I never said that it was countering it. The main thing is that it discourages direct switchins to it so that I can punish the physical attackers coming in against it. You shouldn't be relying on burning it by staying in to constantly Scald until you manage to grab a burn while it sets up unless there are literally no other options. It doesn't help it to counter it, but helps punish switchins well. This is the big blow to defensive teams, when you can switchin to wall something but water-types tend to be a thorn in momentum, as they just find that they aren't threatening enough. Granted it is relying on chance a bit, but so is Dynamic Punch Machamp, Discharge users and many other factors of Pokemon. Pokemon is a game of chance.
2) I like how some of you are talking about how you shouldn't be relying on what you call a shitty 30% burn chance, but at the same time claim it to be broken? (O_o)
3) "suicune is slow and offensively mediocre, why would it be suspected?" Well firstly I wouldn't necessarily call 85 speed slow as it sort of makes it one of the faster defensive mons in the tier. And although yeah its initial offences aren't that great, I'm pretty sure everyone knows how it can snowball into an unkillable monster if there is no counter.
And lastly I'd just like to add I think I saw some arguments relating Scald to be as unhealthy as things such as Swagger which as we know was banned. But the difference in parafusion and flinch confusion strategies was the odds were actually in the favour of the Swagger user rather than the Scald user, which was why it was ultimately considered to be rather unhealthy.
LOL^If the UU tier bans scald, I promise you more and more people will be turned off by showdown. I can take suspect testing a pokemon because it is over centralizing the tier but now we are going so far as to ban a move. Too many rules just limits the enjoyment of a game regardless of how you spin it.
Pokemon is an incredibly luck based game that in tails crits, chances of getting a status, chances of getting out of a status and speed ties. Yet now UU says "Ehh the other stuff isn't that bad but what is bad is getting burned by an 80 based power water move that has a 30% to burn." Cater to the top players and make the game more easier for them to maintain their rank.
Since this will probably require reqs, do you really think the naysayers will have a chance to get a fair share in this vote? The answer is no. Dominate players dictate the direction of the entire tier and the people in charge run with it.
The UU tier is barely getting any activity these days, with the viability thread buried somewhere in the first page and it not being updated in god knows how long. Discussions are dead and overall excitement for the tier isn't where it used to be. I wonder how we can maintain the current level of excitement for the tier? Oh I know how about we discuss banning scald and making people further run off to OU or RU. Brilliant as always smogon.
the only difference is that i can chose not to use focus blast, but not being scalded is up to my opponent. also, by the same logic ohko moves can be checked by pkmn with sturdy, and swagger can be checked by pkmn with own tempo/magic bounce/lum berry! as i said above, those mons you mentioned aren't good scald counters. and what do you mean by banning scald disallows defensive playstyles? what kind of defensive team is this that relies on a 30% rate to counter relevant threats?? a team consisting of maggron/defog mence/aromatisse/shedinja/curse lax/roserade can pretty much cover every relevant threat a HO team can throw vs it, without resorting to scald. in fact, scald gone only makes that team better since now mence/lax switch-in freely against mono attacking bulky waters!
edit: lol i'm not offended or anything, this is just supposed to be a debate!
So an interesting thing I'm noticing on this ladder is that without Scald, Haxorus is rising to become almost as useful as Salamence. Without needing Lum anymore it can now use Life Orb, which means it does considerably more damage from the get-go, and with bulky Waters often packing Ice Beam to deal with Dragon switch-ins since they can no longer rely on the burn threat to keep them at bay, the fact that it can survive an IB is pretty significant. It also gets Taunt, which Mence would kill to have.
Not saying it outclasses Mence, because Mence is still one of the most versatile and powerful mons in the tier. Just saying that whereas previously I rarely found a good reason to use Hax over Mence, now it's actually pretty decent.
I agree, while it is quite centralizing, SO MANY CHECKS here's a list.Suicine loses to most of the grass types, such as Shaymin and Roserade. Idk why ppl are crying. With things like banded heracross, any non-scarfed variant of mence, SD Lucario, SD Toxicroak, roar vapoeron, and SD aboma I don't see suicine being a suspect worthy mon. I think suicine is a mon that everyone should prepare for. Any team that is unable to deal with suicine is probably going to lose, but the same can be said about moxiemence, moxiehera, SD luc...
i think ppl are just jumping on the bandwagon because they find suicine annoying, not actually broken. it's a meta defining mon, like florges and hyredgion and nidoqueen. the role of suicine is usually a bulky slow sweeper (often times mono attacking). considering that is the main set, and that the other sets are mostly used in tournament play (offensive cm, tailwind + 2 attacks), i find it hard to believe everyone is having such a problem with it.
Ummm... Suicune is arguably the best pokemon in the entire tier as it is unstoppable after a even 1 calm mind boost. Most physical attackers struggle to even 2hko and none can 0hko it. It is weak before a calm mind on the specially defensive side of things but that is remedied in one turn. I would definitely be up for a suicune suspect under the reasoning that it restricts teambuilding.
However scald is not a big deal in my opinion. From what I've seen scald is just a deterrent to physical mons setting up. Anyone who banks on getting the scald burn to win matches is just asking to get exposed. A good player will find a way to deal with scald just as a good player finds a way to deal with any threat. Threats are meant to be countered not banned. We don't counter dynamicpunch, we find a way to beat it instead. We don't ban Sacred Fire, we play through it. I understand the point that scald's wide distribution is what makes it so dangerous, more so then a dynamic punch or sacred fire. But at the end of the day it's only 30% and a good player should have a way to beat bulky waters regardless.
Scald is just another part of the game, you either deal with it and its low 30% odds with a plethora of options including heal bell, dry skin, and water absorb, or you don't deal with it and get annoyed.