Not sure where the sentiment that Scald has a downside came from, but it is incredibly off base
When a Pokemon opts to use Surf, they are doing 2 things
-They are (typically) threatening a Pokemon to switch out
-Applying offensive pressure
Scald is also able to do these things. In addition:
-There is a 30% chance of crippling any opposing Pokemon
Hence, it is myopic to claim that there is downside to using this move because it is able to perform its job perfectly. When you are using Scald, you are applying offensive pressure with a % chance of achieving a burn that could potentially change the tide of a given match. There is no opportunity cost to using this move, and it's inherently difficult to exploit due to it's burn chance. That's why, posting a list of switch-ins indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of why Scald is problematic. The issue at hand isn't the lack of switch-ins, it's the fact that virtually all of those switch-ins risks being crippled for the remainder off the match.
I'm not sure why people try to push this narrative that Scald can backfire on players, because it's simply not true. Top level players aren't dumb; they're using Scald exactly as intended, with the implicit expectation that it can burn opponents and potentially secure a win, which is why it's nearly exclusively used over Surf on competitive teams.
To me, Scald is an example of a move that is negative. Perhaps not as overt as evasion boosting moves or Swagger (though even Swagger took some time to get banned...), but Scald is just as problematic as those moves, but on a more subtle, insidious level. It is restrictive, pervasive and lazy—it rewards players who play safe and in a one dimensional manner (ie: opting to use Scald on the switch as a catch all option). The game would be much better if Scald wasn't around; the likes of Ferrothorn/staple grass-type would be a cold hard stop to Starmie/staple water-type without risking its usefulness in the long run. Water-types wouldn't have a hail mary option against sweepers. Players would no longer have the option of relying on Scald to ease prediction. They'd be forced to consider more options, rather than rely on the same optimal choice every time. All of that sounds very beneficial to me.
The way you are using the term "no downside" is very confusing. Scald is 100% accurate and reasonably powerful, so by that metric in could be said
in a vacuum to have "no downside", but that would be a metric that was entirely non-contextual (amusing given the repeated insistence that people against a Scald ban aren't viewing the move in context). There are plenty of moves, by this metric, that have no downside, including Iron Head, Moonblast, and Flamethrower - all completely reasonable moves - it is a useless descriptor. Unless you are going to claim that these moves have the downside of "not having a 30% chance to burn" (which is hopefully self-evidently ridiculous), I don't understand what your point is.
The way that you nonchalantly trot out quotes like
There is no opportunity cost to using this move
I'm not sure why people try to push this narrative that Scald can backfire on players, because it's simply not true
makes me think that you actually believe that there is
no downside to ever clicking Scald, which is insane. To say that there is
no opportunity-cost to using a move betrays a complete misunderstanding of the term; if there was actually no opportunity-cost to using Scald, no Keldeo would ever click Secret Sword. The opportunity-cost of using
any move is that you:
- can't use your other three moves
- can't switch
This opportunity cost becomes
relevant if there are Pokemon who can switch into your move safely and take advantage of that matchup, forcing you to the back foot. So we're back to where we started, with the fact that there appear to me to be a multitude of good switchins for Scald that can cause the use of the move to "backfire on the user".
posting a list of switch-ins indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of why Scald is problematic. The issue at hand isn't the lack of switch-ins, it's the fact that virtually all of those switch-ins risks being crippled for the remainder off the match.
And here you appear to have not read anything that anybody who disagrees with you has said (a troublingly common occurrence in this thread), because that list specifically broke down into Pokemon that weren't crippled by burns, resists with cleric support, Lum Berry mons, etc. It's disrespectful to pretend to be interested in having a discussion and then ignore everything the other person involved says.
The listed Pokemon
can turn clicking Scald into a disadvantage for the user in a variety of ways. Scalding a Celebi switchin can lead to you allowing a free NastyPass and losing. Scalding a Starmie can allow a crucial Rapid Spin. These are all downsides
if we take context into account. Your position will be much more convincing if you can take into account these objections and explain why the existing disadvantages to using Scald are overcome by the strength of the move, rather than myopically repeating that "Scald has no downsides".
----------------
Moving away from just PK Gaming for a moment. The current case against Scald appears to be something approaching the following:
- Scald inflicts a burn while being super-effective against the type immune to burn (a unique characteristic), limiting the number of viable switchins
- Scald is overly luck-based, a lucky burn can swing a match
- Scald is overly centralizing, or some variation of an argument that says that Scald is always the right choice/"too easy to spam"
All of these arguments revolve around the premise that there are not enough solid checks/counters/switch-ins for Scald (since even the luck point is not relevant if there are enough switch-ins that aren't crippled by burn). I (and apparently others) believe that there are, in fact, enough viable ways of dealing with Scald to resolve the above concerns (a non-exhaustive list of such methods is provided in my earlier comment). With that in mind, in order to advance this discussion in a meaningful fashion, will somebody who is pro-ban please respond to the following:
Why is the given list of switch-ins to Scald not sufficient to resolve your concerns?
Sub-point - if you believe that there are specifically not enough
offensive switch-ins for Scald, please explain why this is an important concern, given that offensive teams
must accept a weakness to chip damage and secondary effects based on how they are constructed?
In order to properly evaluate the repeatedly made and unsubstantiated claim that there is "not enough counterplay" for Scald, can you explain what
"enough counterplay" would look like? It is impossible to evaluate the claim "not enough" without having some idea of what "enough" would be.