40,934
edits
Talk:Shuckle (Pokémon): Difference between revisions
→Snake Wine
Force Fire (talk | contribs) |
|||
| (30 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Berry Juice == | == Berry Juice == | ||
| Line 263: | Line 257: | ||
And Im not sure if I missed anything, or messed up the calculations, but I got 365,462,440.4 damage. Which would be the most, although Im not sure I did everything correct, and it involves a huge amount of chance and preporation and would never happen. If you're interested in what I did, it's basically a combination of everything, but with flower gift, the sun, flash fire, huge power, metronome, a lot more. [[User:Exultade|Exultade]] ([[User talk:Exultade|talk]]) 16:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC) | And Im not sure if I missed anything, or messed up the calculations, but I got 365,462,440.4 damage. Which would be the most, although Im not sure I did everything correct, and it involves a huge amount of chance and preporation and would never happen. If you're interested in what I did, it's basically a combination of everything, but with flower gift, the sun, flash fire, huge power, metronome, a lot more. [[User:Exultade|Exultade]] ([[User talk:Exultade|talk]]) 16:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC) | ||
== Why does it have to be Ice Ball for the trivia thing? == | |||
What's wrong with Rollout? [[User:Unowninator|Unowninator]] ([[User talk:Unowninator|talk]]) 05:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Rollout can only hit for x4 damage (super-effective on both of the target's types). Ice Ball can hit for x8 (supereffective on Dragon and Flying, plus the target is affected by Forest's Curse). [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Ah. [[User:Unowninator|Unowninator]] ([[User talk:Unowninator|talk]]) 15:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Shuckle can't learn Ice Ball, so it's a moot point. {{unsigned|El shendee}} | |||
::::It can use it via Mimic, which it gets via Move Tutor in Generation III. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Damage trivium: is it worth keeping? == | |||
If you look through the talk page of this article, it becomes apparent quite quickly that there are a ''lot'' of theories (some credible, some not so much) on what Pokemon and move might produce the highest damage, and very few of them appear to have had anybody try to do the math. Even when folks try to do the math, arguments arise as to how game mechanics work (I remember vividly a discussion about whether Helping Hand stacks or not, and I'm sure there's been more). In a theoretical context like this, it's also quite easy to make obvious mechanical mistakes (I saw a theory try to give Shuckle Huge Power and Flash Fire at the same time, for instance). | |||
My point is: are we really confident enough in this trivium's truth that we can include it on this page or any other? Have any of us ''actually'' calculated out all these scenarios? And even if both of the above were true... we're not a strategy guide or online battling sim, so our mission statement only sort of tangentially includes such esoteric numbers. Is there a convincing reason to include a trivium we're not 100% sure on the validity of, beyond "people seem vaguely interested by it"? [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 16:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:I believe you're mixing two largely independent topics here. I will share my thoughts on both of them: | |||
:* On notability: I believe Trivia doesn't need to be as ''notable'' (or whatever you wanna call it) as information at any other section, so to say. I wouldn't necessarily have ''included'' the damage information myself, but I see no reason to remove it ''based on lacking notability''. I believe it might be ''notable trivia'' (or more accurately, I wouldn't wanna call it ''unnotable trivia''). | |||
:* On reliability/accuracy: I guess if you question the reliability of that statement, you should be able to state why, to prove it wrong; if you can't do that (or don't want to), you need to treat it as reliable. | |||
:And another (personal?) note: You (Pumpkinking) recently [[Special:Diff/2521545|removed]] a calculation at {{m|Ice Beam}}, quoting {{u|Force Fire}} who removed it here at Shuckle [[Special:Diff/2445690|once]], saying "We are not a strategy guide. This is all that needs to be said." I definitely agree to the first sentence, and I {{tt|possibly agree|read: I'm unsure myself, but someone else is/was sure}} to the second one ''for the Shuckle article''. If you remove the calculation from Bulbapedia entirely, you basically refuse to give readers an explanation (which basically makes some kind of unsourced claim, causing Unowninator and possibly others to be confused); someone (apparently) "did the math", you just removed it. (And that was actually the point why I included the link to Ice Ball, cause at the time I did that, the whole calculation was there.) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Yes, I believe giving the whole calculation is too strategy guide-ish for our pages, and that without the calculation it's too easy to accidentally be wrong for us to retain in good conscience. I think it should go altogether. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 15:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Do you see any reason why restoring the calculation (''anywhere'') would be bad (i.e., worse than the current state)? Or rather, do you (personally) have a reason why you removed the calculation in the first place (but of course not the entire thing)? From what I can tell, you ''seemingly'' agree that notability and reliability are largely independent issues, and that the (''complete'') removal didn't solve the notability issue but at the same time introduced/worsened the reliability issue. | |||
:::Regarding "it should go altogether": I don't heavily disagree, but I also don't really agree. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::When something gets so complicated that accurately describing it takes a solid (and dense) paragraph, it's not really worth including as trivia. Furthermore, the "max damage" situation just requires so much complicity from all battlers that it's not even a practical feat; it's ''very'' much contrived. IMO that hurts its worth as trivia. Mostly, though, IMO it just inspires too much quibbling and is too complicated to be confident of a correct answer to be worth including, period. | |||
::::But ''if'' this belongs anywhere, as far as I'm concerned, it ''really'' only belongs on the [[damage]] page, because that's very much the core. Shuckle is otherwise pretty much equally as important to the trivia as {{a|Flash Fire}} or {{m|Ice Ball}} or just about any other part of the situation is; but it's not really sensible to put it on all those pages, nor is it any more sensible really to only have it on ''Shuckle'''s page. This is about damage; IMO that's where it belongs. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 17:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Very persuasive, Tiddlywinks; your first paragraph pretty much summed up my opinion but more eloquently, and your second one won me over. I've added the point to [[damage]], but as long as discussion is ongoing here I'm not removing it here yet (although I agree it should go). [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 17:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::I agree to the complicated argument in general, but I guess there shouldn't really be a character limit per se. In this case, I think the trivium itself isn't really long ("Shuckle can deal the most potential virtual damage / The most potential virtual damage than can be dealt is 721,899,685"). It's just the explanation backing up this ''claim'' that is. I think I would be against keeping the trivium without having the explanation anywhere on Bulbapedia — that's pretty much like saying "Joe Montana is the best quarterback of all time", then running away. And again, if you doubt the trivium is correct, I believe that's a different issue. | |||
::::::My idea would have been to only include it in all needed detail once. And in my opinion, the most adequate places seem to be damage or Shuckle. If there's consensus on not keeping it anywhere (because it's too contrived etc.), that's also fine to me; I don't want to cast my vote for or against that. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::::For reasons mentioned above, I would still like to "restore" the calculation somewhere. In case nobody says they're okay with that being as part of the trivium within an article (damage, I guess), I would be doing it at least as a hidden comment. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 19:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Trivia section - Lowest base HP comparison == | |||
Currently it reads - "Shuckle has the lowest base HP stat of all Rock-type Pokémon, with '''only two other''' Pokémon having lower base HP." | |||
However, there are 5 Pokémon with lower base HP: Shedinja, Diglett, Diglett (Alolan), Magikarp & Pichu. | |||
Source: [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon_by_base_stats_(Generation_VII-present)] | |||
{[[User:AnexasBlack|AnexasBlack]] ([[User talk:AnexasBlack|talk]]) 22:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)} | |||
:Removed the false information; thanks for pointing it out. --[[User:Carmenstar97|<span style="color:#95EB5C">Carmen<small>★</small></span>]] <small>''[[User talk:Carmenstar97|<span style="color:#FEBEE8">(Talk |</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Carmenstar97|<span style="color:#A6DAFC">contribs)</span>]]''</small> 22:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The info is not false or anything. | |||
::In point of fact, Shuckle has 20 base HP. Magikarp and Pichu have 20 base HP. That is not "lower" than Shuckle. | |||
::I don't entirely know if it's worth trying to distinguish Diglett and Alolan Diglett either and saying there's "three", since that would imply there were Pokemon with something like 8, 9, and 10 base HP, rather than two of them being tied. Jumping through hoops just to note "Alolan" Diglett isn't worth it IMO. [[User:Tiddlywinks|Tiddlywinks]] ([[User talk:Tiddlywinks|talk]]) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::For what it's worth, we've always consistently considered different forms of a Pokémon to be just one Pokémon, and including regional variants on their normal counterparts' species pages sets the precedent that they are just forms and not anything more. So it wouldn't just be "jumping through hoops" to distinguish Diglett from Alolan Diglett; it would outright be false to consider them two separate Pokémon. [[User:Pumpkinking0192|Pumpkinking0192]] ([[User talk:Pumpkinking0192|talk]]) 05:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Suckle's real world equivilent == | |||
Currently the article suggests that Shuckle is a turtle I don't think that is correct. I think it would be more correct to say that it has similarities with both scale insects and barnacles. I edited the main page to add this information but I would also like to remove the mention of it being a turtle since I don't think that is right. However I am new to editing Bulbapedia so I didn't want to make a larger change without community ascent. Are there any objections to me removing the world turtle from the shuckle biology section? {{unsigned|Geoteridar}} | |||
:I do see some resemblance to turtles. There's the classic shell and the way the flippers stick out of it. It is vague, though, and more emphasis should probably be made on the scale insects and barnacles. But do not remove the turtle part. [[User:GrammarFreak01|GrammarFreak01]] ([[User talk:GrammarFreak01|talk]]) 20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Fair enough I will leave it be. [[User:Geoteridar|Geoteridar]] ([[User talk:Geoteridar|talk]]) 20:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::It already mentions scale insects in the origins section. The biology section is for describing the Pokémon's appearance (among other things).--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#EBC600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#EBC600">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#D8B600">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D8B600">ire</span>]] 05:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Snake Wine == | |||
This website: https://bogleech.com/pokemon/pbetashuckle.html | |||
makes what I believe is a fairly good case--based on the design of Shuckle's beta Gen II design-- that it was based, not on a scale insect or a slime mold, as is commonly believed, but on Okinawan snake wine. This would explain its snake-like head, its ability to ferment things in its flask-like shell, and its lack of a Bug-type in the beta game. Should we edit the article to reflect what may have been Shuckle's ultimate inspiration? | |||
[[User:ElSqiubbonator|ElSqiubbonator]] ([[User talk:ElSqiubbonator|talk]]) 16:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)ElSquibbonator | |||
:Information regarding the beta are currently being put aside until we feel it is safe to create articles on them.--[[User:Force Fire|<span style="color:#00A1E9">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#59C2F1">orce</span>]][[User talk:Force Fire|<span style="color:#BF004F">'''F'''</span><span style="color:#D5598C">ire</span>]] 16:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC) | |||