[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/vp/ - Pokémon



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: scald.png (92 KB, 400x234)
92 KB
92 KB PNG
When will they nerf this fucking move?
>>
2020
>>
>>34164712
why nerf it? 30% isn't as frequent as people make it out to be. in my experience at least
>>
They did in SM, retard.
>>
>>34164712
Would be interesting if they made burn like freeze, where it couldn't be applied while it was raining.
>>
>>34164712
Never ever. Surf, Ice Beam, Flamethrower and Thunderbolt on the other hand? Wow super broken, must lower base power... Gamefreak is full of stupid retards.
>>
>>34164750
>Surf, Ice Beam, Flamethrower and Thunderbolt on the other hand? Wow super broken
it is though
>>
>>34164712
>Scald has great distribution while Lava Plume does not

Kek. Oh wait, I forgot that Scald is a TM.
>>
>>34164712
water that burns the casuls
>>
>>34165630
Shut up, Giantdad.
>>
>>34164730
Scald used once = 30% chance of burn.
Used twice = 51% chance
3 times = 66%
4 times = 76%
5 times = 83%
6 times = 88%

You get the point. Most Scald users are bulky water types so they typically last long enough to spam the move and almost surely burn something. Even if it doesn't burn, it's still a 80 BP move that almost always gets STAB. And the one type immune to burn happens to be weak to water so counterplay is very limited.

The move absolutely needs to be nerfed. Either lower the burn chance to 20% or the BP to 65.
>>
>>34164732
Not enough. The loss in power compared to Surf is negligible and it has a high chance of outright ruining physical attackers, compromising walls and annoy special attackers. Even fucking Knock Off has more counterplay since most teams will have one or two members not bothered by it.
>>
>>34165938
thats not how it works you retarded monkey. its 30% chance each turn. the chances don't increase.
>>
>>34166296
A-anon...
>>
>>34166296
>what is probability
>>
>>34164712
The only nerf it needs is in PP
>>
>>34166296
Yes but the game has to check for it everytime.

All you need is one succesful check, which is more likely to happen as you spam, because that's how probability works. The more you use, the more odds of getting a burn will approach 100%, though will never reach it.
>>
>>34165938
I agree. It also makes surf 99% irrelevant, it would be more fun to see water mons actually using moves other than scald.
>>
>>34166063
It definitely has weakened in its usage a whole lot in comparison to how it was in ORAS and BW meta. Then it was used to take on both physical attackers and walls, but the negligible amount burn does makes setting up in most instances. The only Pokemon that make good use of Scald is Toaxpex and Suicune, but Pex could wall anything without it anyway
>>
>>34166305
>>34166313
>>34166325
its a one out of three chance. not a guaranteed 100% burn if you spam it. how are there this many retards in this thread?
>>
>>34166459
Nobody said it was guaranteed. It isn't a 1/3 chance from one turn. Stop.
>>
>>34166296
lean what a binomial distribution is, retard
>>
>>34166471
this idiot did retard >>34166325
>>
>>34166473
That doesn't apply you fucking grade schooler. turn 1 no burn, turn 2 no burn. turn 3? NO BURN! its a chance not an exponential factor!
>>
File: 1502038061624.png (427 KB, 800x640)
427 KB
427 KB PNG
>>34166471
>it isn't a 1/3 chance from one turn.
>literally a 30% chance of burning

what did he mean by this?
>>
>>34166501
the experiments (here it's the possibility of a burn) are independent in a binomial distribution, you are hopeless
>>
File: 1502056648511.png (228 KB, 394x370)
228 KB
228 KB PNG
>>34166555
you don't understand basic probability and you're calling me the one who's hopeless? jesus christ this board.
>>
>>34166305
>>34166313
>>34166325
>>34166473
Oh, this thing again. Expect 200+ replies.
>>
For those with a limited grasp of probability, here's how the reverse works.
Let's assume you're facing a Toxapex and it keeps spamming Scald over and over:

The chance of NOT being burned after getting hit by one Scald is 70%.
The chance of NOT getting burned after being hit by 2 Scalds is 49%
After 3 it's 34%
After 4 it's 24%
After 5 it's 17%
After 6 it's 12%.
>>
>>34166486
>approach 100%, though will never reach it.
They straight up said it will never get to the point that it's guaranteed.
>>34166553
1/3 chance is 33.3'(recurring)%, not 30%.
>>
>>34166555
bionomilally distribute ur fucking lips across my ass
>>
File: 1502037892361.jpg (234 KB, 640x720)
234 KB
234 KB JPG
>>34166609
That's wrong though! it doesn't increase or decrease it remains constant

>>34166611
pic related
>>
>>34166609
In other words, a Toxapex that lived long enough to use Scald 6 times has an 88% chance of burning at least one of the opposing Pokemon.
>>
>>34166632
Oh my fucking god no it does not have a 88% chance of burning after turn 6. stop talking like you understand probability kid cause you don't.
>>
>>34164712
the same day they nerf stealth rocks.
>>
>>34166600
so he is just baiting, ok
>>
File: 1502555450861.png (213 KB, 600x496)
213 KB
213 KB PNG
>>34166611
>>34166611
>1/3 chance is 33.3'(recurring)%, not 30%.

THATS 30% RETARD
>>
God, I hate Niggers
>>
>>34166611
>30% isn't 1/3rd in the grand scheme of things
Some people
>>
>>34166609
Oh, is this kind of like that thing where if you flip a coin 5 times you have a certain chance to hit all heads that’s lower than what each independent flip of the coin’s chance to be heads is? Or some shit like that, I haven’t taken a probability course in years.
>>
>>34166609
At least explain it properly otherwise he wont get it.

Each time the 30% is taken from the remaining percentage.
The initial 30%
30+(70-30%)=30+21=51%
51+(51-30%)=51+15.3=66.3%
etc. see >>34165938
>>
>>34165938
>>34166063
What really pushes Scald over the line is it's distribution, kind like Stealth Rock.

I mean Volcanion has an improved version of Scald as its signature move but you don't really hear anyone complaining about it. Now imagine if every pokemon that learns Scald also learned Steam Eruption, that would be a very different story.
>>
File: 1502071431559.png (53 KB, 252x252)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>34166739
The chances don't increase though they remain constant through out the battle! you're not getting a burn with 51% chance by turn 2 it remains at 30%.
>>
>>34164712
>Only 10% burn
>75BP
>But won't get weakened during sun
Fixed?
>>
>>34166742
Scald should have been given to pokemon that actually have something to do with hot water. Of course by GF standards this means "giving it to ALL water types except water/ice ones because why not fuck ice types over a bit more".
>>
>>34166631
I don't think you know how probability works, anon.

The check has to succeed only once for pokemon to get burned, not every time.
>>
>>34166651
>>34166760
Not that guy but you don't know how probability works.

You're both probably related to the guy who fucking whined about not finding Metal Coat after like 20 Magnemite.
>>
>>34164712
If scald burns the opponent it should burn the user too.
>>
>>34166799
I was in that thread actually he was a retard just like you
>>
>>34166760
Exactly. This is basic probability. You are not guaranteed to get a heads when you flip a coin twice, are you?
>>
>>34166779
If we were to restrict Scald to such pokemon, would this be a reasonable list?

>Blastoise (cannons)
>Horsea line (dragon breath stuff)
>Octillery (learns fire moves)
>Castform (learns fire moves)
>Simipour (head is shaped like a geyser, also learns it naturally)
>Clauncher/Clawitzer (cannon)
>Slowpoke line (learn fire moves)
>Gyarados (learns fire moves)
>Palkia (dragon. learns fire moves)
>Rotom-W (on second thought... maybe not)
>Dragalge (dragon)

However the damage has been done now, kinda like Toxic being an universal TM.
>>
>>34166860
Great now you can't toxic the opponent's bulky waters anymore.
>>
File: masuda (2).png (236 KB, 336x418)
236 KB
236 KB PNG
>Masuda
>nerfing a move from his favorite type
>>
>>34166888
Yes finally someone who also has a brain in this thread
>>
>>34166920
Don't forget Volcanion.
I wouldn't be opposed to a few more pokemon getting it.
>>
>>34166946
what do you think the chance of getting heads at least once is if you flip a coin twice?
>>
If you're complaining about Scald then you aren't a good player. Scald is extremely easy to play around.
>>
>>34166459
They're not saying the chance to burn goes up, they're saying as the match progresses the chance of it having scored at least one burn goes up.
Turn 1: One scald used, 30% chance a burn happened.
Turn 2: Two scalds used. if a burn happened first turn, then a burn happened, else a 30% roll on the 70% it didn't is added (21% added to running total, meaning a 51% chance a burn has happened).
Turn 3: Three scalds used. A 30% chance is rolled against the 49% chance a burn didn't happen in turn 1 or 2 combined. If true 14.7% is added to the 51% running total so there is now a 65.7% chance a burn has happened at least once in turn 1, 2 or 3.
>>
>>34166459
So this is the power of American education
>>
>>34166296
>american education
>>
>>34166920
They could just change it in gen 8 so pokemon don't learn the tm anymore. It wouldn't affect smogon, but VGC has a "born in this generation" clause so it would fix it there.
>>
>>34164712
They did, Burn status now deals less damage, which means you can't "burn stall" anymore with Leftovers/BlackSludge compensing the damage.h
>>
>tfw Water types are better at burning than Fire types are
why is this allowed
>>
>>34166920
Honestly I'd like a total moveset overhaul for every Pokémon.
>>
>>34166296
Is the fear to >get shot in murica what makes you guy not paying attention in school?
>>
>>34166920
Emboar
>>
>All these brainlets that don't understand basic probability.

If you weren't burned in the first turn then you have 30% chance of being burned in the second obviously. But your chance of not getting burned on both turns is 49%.
It's a simple 70 x 70 / 100 x 100 calc
>>
What bothers me is that it's an extremely common water move, the best water move in the game, and it has more chance to burn than most fire moves.

Is Water Gamefreak's favorite type or something? Every time they bring a water legendary out, it's better than whatever other legendary is weak to it. And every generation, they add something that makes water better.

We need a new type in Gen 8, something that somehow beats water. Maybe a Sun Type, supereffective on Water and immune to Water attacks, designed to bridge the gap between fire and grass sun teams and how shit they are compared to modern hail and especially sandstorm teams.
>>
>>34167322
1 out of 2
>>
>>34167879
Not that guy, but actually, it's 3 in 4.

AT LEAST once.
>>
>>34167875
Steel first
>>
>>34167875
Gen 4 and 6 broke these trends. Gen 7 didn’t really care about it either.
>>
>>34167875
>ywn use a 600bst Sun/Dark mon with a natural 50% special attack bonus and an ability that doubles speed in the sun not named Chlorophyl to defeat your opponent's mostly-steel sandstorm team
>>
>>34167925
But you’re only flipping the coin twice?
>>
>All the brainlets itt
Christ.
>>
>>34167960
Are you retarded? 3/4 means 75%
>>
>>34164712
When it’s an issue in doubles, so never
>>
>>34167960
Yeah, but there are four possible outcomes.

You can have two heads, one head and one tail, one tail and one head, and two tails.
>>
>>34167992
Well show your work genius
>>
>>34168010
But it’s still a 1 out of 2 chances because that’s how many times you’re flipping the coin
>>
>>34167698
>Water-types are better at burning than Fire-types are
>Water-types are better at freezing than Ice-types are
>Water-types get Ice Beam to deal with Grass-types
>Water-types are better at tanking hits than Rock-types are
>Water-types are better at dealing with Dragon-types than Ice-types are
>Water-types get an arguably better version of Ingrain than Grass-types do
>>34167875
>Is Water Gamefreak's favorite type or something? Every time they bring a water legendary out, it's better than whatever other legendary is weak to it. And every generation, they add something that makes water better.
Water is Masuda's favorite type. We don't need more types, though - we need to rebalance the type chart.

Make Water weak to Poison. This both buffs Poison and nerfs certain problematic Water-types like Wash Rotom.
>>
>>34168033
He didn't ask "what are the chances of getting heads when flipping a coin."

He asked "what are the chances of getting heads at least once if you flip a coin twice."

These are not equal statements.
>>
>>34168041
Oh my mistake, that is correct
>>
You'd think /vp/ would be one of the best at basic probability, but then you have some new Einsteins in this thread
>>
File: TF.jpg (10 KB, 251x201)
10 KB
10 KB JPG
ITT: Morons who doesnt understand how basic probability works or Americans.
>>
>>34168070
I've seen a guy who seems to have legitimately thought that you get a Shiny every 8192 encounters.

running into at least one Shiny at that point is about 63 in 100 odds
>>
FOR ANY CONFUSED BRAINLETS I WILL EXPLAIN SIMPLY:

Flip one coin: (50% chance of heads)
H=50%
T=50%

Two coins: (75% change of heads)
HT/TH=50%
HH=25%
TT=25%

Three coins: (87.5% of heads)
HTH/HHT/THH=37.5%
TTH/THT/HTT=37.%
TTT= 12.5%
HHH=12.5%

If you don't believe me count them, I laid of all the possibliltes.

You have to count the possibilities not individual flips.
>>
>>34166296
>Take 3 balls (1 red, and 2 black) and put them in a box
>Randomly take one ball out and put them back in.
>Do it consecutively until you get a red ball.

Congrats, you just learnt the chances if getting burned from Scald. If this is STILL too hard for you to understand, maybe you should come back when you are not underaged.
>>
>>34168106
What if the coin lands on the side though?
>>
>>34166296
Imagine being this retarded.
>>
>>34168195
What are the odds of that though? 0.000001%?
>>
>>34168065
>You'd think /vp/ would be one of the best at basic probability
no, this is a board full of children
>>
File: D I S G U S T.jpg (3 KB, 125x125)
3 KB
3 KB JPG
>>34168106
Pretty sure they are confused over 'Base Chance' of getting burned, over 'Cummulative Chance' of getting burned

>>34166760
>What are normal distribution??
>>
>>34168235
Yeah I keep forgetting whatever you think of 4chan, this is STILL a board about a kids game.
>>
>>34168256
>Pretty sure they are confused over 'Base Chance' of getting burned, over 'Cummulative Chance' of getting burned

Yeah I forgot to explain.

Heads=burn
Flip=Scald used

ANY combination that contains "heads" is a burn. Now all they have to do is replace 50% with 30%, it's the same formula.
>>
>>34168228
Well the more you do it, the closer to 100% it gets.
>>
File: 1491325861976.png (171 KB, 311x335)
171 KB
171 KB PNG
How to nerf Scald (but give it an entirely new purpose so it is still viable):

Let Ice resist Water.
Buff Freeze Dry's Base Power to 75.
Make Scald super-effective against Ice types.
Give it 75 Base Power, 20 PP, and a 10% chance to burn.
>>
>>34168357
Oh, and don't let every Water type learn it, jesus christ.
>>
>>34164712
Drop its base power by 20 but to compensate raise its chance to burn by 20 too
>>
File: puffledjigglies.png (278 KB, 800x888)
278 KB
278 KB PNG
>>34168558
>50% chance to burn
'no'
>>
>>34168357
Fuck ice types
>>
>>34168155
they're saying that chance increases each time you draw a red ball read the fucking thread
>>
>>34166693
Sorry to tell you this anon, but
33.3~ is greater than (>) 30
>>
>>34168887
or black ball I mean
>>
>>34168899
its rounded down to 30% though.
>>
File: 1502079276747.png (79 KB, 589x589)
79 KB
79 KB PNG
Scald chances are not cumulative where are people getting off thinking that it is?
>>
>>34168930
Flip a coin twice. What are the chances you get heads for each flip? On the first flip it’s 50% to get a heads. The second flip is another 50% to get heads.
.5 * .5 = .25, or a 25% chance to get two heads in a row. It’s similar to Scald in that your chances of escaping without a Burn goes down as you get hit by more Scalds.
>>
>>34168968
yes but you have more of a chance to not get burned then you do burning. a coin is two sides. scald is a one out of three move. even if you're spamming scald you have a stronger chance of not seeing a burn on the opposing attacker.
>>
>>34169005
No, because on the second burn the probability (not the individual chance) becomes 51% and so on.
>>
Ok, since /vp/ is retarded at statistics:
On each individual chance, scald has a 30% chance of burning.
However, when you use it consecutively, the chances to burn the opponent at least once in a series increases.
A seriess being No Burn to No Burn to Burn or any other combination.
In a series where you use Scald once, you have a 30% chance to burn the opponent.
In a series where you use Scald twice (Scald into Scald), the chance of getting a burn off of those 2 scalds at least once is 51% (which can be seen by doing the chance of not getting burned 70x.7=49 and then subtracting 100).
You can keep doing this and see that the chances of not getting burned in a series gets reduced.
>>
>>34169005
Not after getting hit by two Scalds. At that point you’re tempting fate.
>>
>>34169017
>>34169005
>>34169022
ok I think we should ditch the coin and use a three sectioned spinner to get a better understanding of this. you don't have an increased chance of hitting a three on the spinner its all equal parts with one being picked at random when executing a spin. there's no telling when you'll hit a 3 just that there's a 1/3 of a chance of landing on it.
>>
>>34169065
>ok I think we should ditch the coin

No, please just stop trying to help them. When they reach high school hopefully they will pay attention when/if they teach this stuff.
>>
File: 1502085747180.png (95 KB, 265x278)
95 KB
95 KB PNG
>>34169124
you're absolutely right. this is hopeless. thank you I'm gonna go do something better with my time.
>>
Lower the fucking burn chance. Why does this move burn at a higher rate than Flamethrower/Fire Blast? Even fucking Ember has the same burn chance as those two moves
>>
Honestly Scald isn't good enough of a move. I feel like in order to fit the theme of burning-hot water more closely it should also deal SE damage to Ice types. I mean hot water melts ice, right?
>>
>>34169267
Running water in general melts Ice, but Ice doesn't need any more weaknesses.
>>
>>34169065
The thing is about a series anon and at least hitting it *ONCE*.
Let's make each third 1, 2, 3 and spin it twice. Here are all the combinations you can get.
1 > 1 (Get)
1 > 2 (Get)
1 > 3 (Get)
2 > 1 (Get)
2 > 2
2 > 3
3 > 1 (Get)
3 > 2
3 > 3
In this, there are 9 total combinations, 5 of which have at least got a 1 once.
Although the chance of getting a 1 while spinning is 1/3rd, the chance of getting atleast a 1 ONCE after spinning it twice gives us a 5/9 chance. Getting the 1 TWICE in a row is a 1/9 chance.
>>
>>34169286
Well ok how about Scald is also super-effective against Bug-types since bugs would probably just die in boiling water?
>>
>>34169311
Birds would die in boiling water too. Scald is already a really good move, why are you trying to buff it again?
>>
>>34166334
Not in Double battles.
>>
>>34169344
Good idea, make it SE against Flying too
>>
>>34166779
If you want to go by that logic then a whole bunch of Pokemon need moveset changes. Mewtwo is one example.
>>
The issue with Scald is that the type immune to it's secondary effect is weak to water.

Moves like Scald are why stall will always be a popular playstyle.
>>
>>34166942
>Masuda
>Still in charge

Kek.

>>34169212
>Brainlet American doesn't know about heat transfer coefficient

Scald's burn chance makes perfect sense if you retards would just not be retards.
>>
>>34169412
Pretty sure most Stallmons don't even learn Scald. And Chansey/Blissey and Skarmory is why Stall is "popular." Kill those two and stall likely can't recover.
>>
>>34169459
Toxapex.

But my point is that getting burned BY scald barely matters, whereas a Toxapex burning something on BO means you're fucked.
>>
>>34169442
This isn't about making sense you tit. It's about balancing a game. Also go put your hand in a flamethrower's jet and see if it doesn't literally get burnt off your arm and then talk about sense
>>
>>34168930
>Scald chances are not cumulative where are people getting off thinking that it is?
>playing russian roulette once is just as dangerous as playing russian roulette two, three or 100 times with the same gun! I mean, you only have a 16% chance of blowing your brains out anyway!




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.