1. The moderators of this forum are Jellicent and Lutra.
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.
  3. Click here to ensure that you never miss a new SmogonU video upload!

Gen 1 15/15/15/15 DVs are impossible (in most cases)

Discussion in 'Ruins of Alph' started by Zowayix, May 24, 2016.

  1. Zowayix

    Zowayix

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Messages:
    495
    Sooo...

    http://wiki.pokemonspeedruns.com/index.php?title=Pokémon_Red/Blue_Wild_DVs

    Didn't see this mentioned here yet, but it turns out that thanks to Generation I's RNG and how random wild encounters are handled, only a small fraction (~10%) of the 65,536 theoretical sets of DVs are actually ever possible. Surprise, surprise, 15/15/15/15 isn't one of them. This is thanks to consecutive RNG outputs being highly correlated rather than independent, and the fact that the RNG has to land on an encounter in the first place (e.g. 25/256 chance for each step you take on Route 1) before it can generate any DVs. As the linked article describes, the more frequent wild encounters are in an area, the larger the range of possible DV spreads for those wild Pokemon, and vice versa.

    This is theoretically bad news for some OU Pokemon like Golem and Gengar, as the only way to obtain one is in the wild in an area(s) with particularly sparse wild encounters, namely caves (which naturally have a lower encounter rate) and Pokemon Tower (which also has a low encounter rate). In both of these areas, less than 6% of the theoretical DV spreads are actually physically possible for the RNG to generate, and they're a (proper) subset of any areas with a higher encounter rate.

    If I understand correctly, anything that isn't a random wild encounter (so gifts, Game Corner, Snorlax, legendaries, in-game trades, etc.) is not subject to this limitation, as there are no constraints on what the RNG can be immediately before the DVs are generated. This would also apply to, say, the Mew glitch, which generates a stationary encounter. I don't know if GSC's RNG works the same way, but I'm assuming tradebacks aren't being considered here.


    tl;dr: any 15/15/15/15 Golem or Gengar in pure RBY is illegal
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
    Level 51, Kaisser, Mova and 15 others like this.
  2. Ortheore

    Ortheore

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    561
    Classic. More RBY weirdness.

    And I imagine this would be a pain in the ass for sims to implement, but I don't see any reasonable way around it based on what's been established as standard for rby (all teams must be possible without glitches or tradebacks). Still not sure how this'll change things as I don't remember what encounter rates in various areas are, but even just Gol and Gar losing out is a big deal, Gar will definitely need to compromise its other stats to preserve speed, and idk what'll happen to Gol

    edit: This has info on encounter rates and what can be caught. Don't know about DVs, but if you were to work them out, this would be of use

    edit2: wait what about fishing, it's not included in that list?

    edit3: I checked the best possible encounter rates for the pokemon mentioned in the OP, based on the link I posted above. Best you can get for Haunter/Gastly is 20, but Graveler can be obtained at an encounter rate of 25- the catch is that it's a lvl 55 Graveler, which impacts on its possible moveset (not sure it'd be competitively relevant, but it's still a thing). Also we'd need to check the safari zone, as it has a higher encounter rate than anywhere else in the game (30)
    Last edited: May 24, 2016
    Oxovo and Zowayix like this.
  3. Enigami

    Enigami

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    174
    If this is accurate, (and assuming the list of possible IVs with a 25 encounter rate is too), Golem's best IV spreads are either 15/15/14/15 for best overall stats (loses 2 Special and 4 HP), or 15/15/15/7 for maximum bulk. Losing 2 Special and 4 HP affects some KOs on Golem to a small extent, but it is notable enough that Rhydon (which may still be fully capable of 15/15/15/15 via in-game Golduck for Rhydon trade in Yellow) might be more notable for its bulk. Golem can use the 15/15/15/7 spread to keep its bulk, but that causes Golem to be slower than Rhydon and 15/15/14/15 Golems.

    All Golem KO changes I've found so far (open)
    Edit: Added bold calcs. The following calcs are assuming 15/15/15/15 IVs which for some Pokemon may not be possible in the future, so I bolded any calcs that shouldn't be affected due to most likely retaining 15/15/15/15 IVs anyway.

    Snorlax Surf vs. Golem: 306-360 (85.2 - 100.2%) -- 2.6% chance to OHKO (was 2HKO)
    Tauros Earthquake vs. Golem: 120-142 (33.4 - 39.5%) -- guaranteed 3HKO (was '100%', could fail to 3HKO with constant min rolls)
    Exeggutor Psychic vs. Golem: 165-195 (45.9 - 54.3%) -- 54.8% chance to 2HKO (was 25.9%)
    Alakazam Psychic vs. Golem: 176-207 (49 - 57.6%) -- 96.8% chance to 2HKO (was 77.8%)
    Zapdos Drill Peck vs. Golem: 34-40 (9.4 - 11.1%) -- possible 9HKO (was 10HKO)

    Slowbro Psychic vs. Golem: 122-144 (33.9 - 40.1%) -- guaranteed 3HKO (was '100%', also has a tiny chance to KO with max roll > Spc drop > max roll)
    Lapras Blizzard vs. Golem: 405-476 (112.8 - 132.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO (was 92.3%)
    Jynx Blizzard vs. Golem: 405-476 (112.8 - 132.5%) -- guaranteed OHKO (was 92.3%)

    Gengar Psychic vs. Golem: 113-133 (31.4 - 37%) -- 81% chance to 3HKO (was 49%)
    Jolteon Double Kick (2 hits) vs. Golem: 60-72 (16.7 - 20%) -- possible 5HKO (was possible 6HKO)
    Cloyster Blizzard vs. Golem: 342-402 (95.2 - 111.9%) -- 71.8% chance to OHKO (was 48.7%)
    Hypno Psychic vs. Golem: 156-184 (43.4 - 51.2%) -- 5.5% chance to 2HKO (was 3HKO)
    Victreebel (non-crit) Razor Leaf vs. Golem: 350-412 (97.4 - 114.7%) -- 84.6% chance to OHKO (was 61.5%)
    Sandslash Earthquake vs. Golem: 180-212 (50.1 - 59%) -- guaranteed 2HKO (was 99.5%)
    +2 Sandslash Earthquake vs. Golem: 362-426 (100.8 - 118.6%) -- guaranteed OHKO (was 97.4%)
    Moltres Fire Blast vs. Golem: 109-129 (30.3 - 35.9%) -- 41.6% chance to 3HKO (was 14.3%)
    Articuno Ice Beam vs. Golem: 352-414 (98 - 115.3%) -- 87.2% chance to OHKO (was 66.7%)
    Dugtrio Earthquake vs. Golem: 158-186 (44 - 51.8%) -- 10.8% chance to 2HKO (was 5.4%)
    Pinsir Submission vs. Golem: 114-134 (31.7 - 37.3%) -- 87.7% chance to 3HKO (was 77.7%)


    Also, assuming this only affects Pokemon encountered 'in the wild/safari zone', here's a list of Pokemon that should be unaffected by this.

    15/15/15/15 Pokemon (open)

    Note: Pokemon marked with * are only guaranteed 15/15/15/15 IVs (assuming again things like in-game trades can supply 15/15/15/15 IVs) via in-game trades in the Japanese Pokemon Blue or Japanese-only events. Gameboy Pokemon games can only trade with games from their own region, which means they cannot be traded to international cartridges. This is significant because most simulators including Showdown use international mechanics, which changed Blizzard from a 30% chance to freeze to 10%. This means those Pokemon marked with * might not be legal except in Japanese metas with the proper 30% freeze chance for Blizzard.

    Abra
    Aerodactyl
    Alakazam
    Articuno
    Blastoise
    Bulbasaur
    Charmander
    Charmeleon
    Charizard
    Clefable
    Clefairy
    Dragonair
    Dragonite
    Dratini
    Dewgong
    Dugtrio
    Eevee
    Electrode
    Farfetch'd
    Fearow*
    Flareon
    Golem*
    Gengar*
    Golduck
    Hitmonchan
    Hitmonlee
    Horsea
    Ivysaur
    Jolteon
    Jynx
    Kadabra
    Kangaskhan*
    Kingler*
    Krabby*
    Lapras
    Lickitung
    Machamp
    Mew
    Mewtwo
    Moltres
    Mr. Mime
    Muk
    Nidoking
    Nidoqueen
    Nidoran-F
    Nidoran-M
    Nidorina
    Nidorino
    Ninetales
    Omanyte
    Omastar
    Parasect
    Pikachu
    Pinsir
    Poliwag*
    Poliwhirl*
    Poliwrath*
    Porygon
    Psyduck
    Raichu
    Rapidash*
    Rhydon
    Scyther
    Seadra
    Seel
    Slowbro*
    Slowpoke*
    Snorlax
    Squirtle
    Tangela
    Tauros*
    Vaporeon
    Venusaur
    Vuplix
    Wartortle
    Wigglytuff
    Zapdos


    Edit: Misread the IV list for 25 encounter rate as Atk/Def/Spc/Spe when it's actually Atk/Def/Spe/Spc. This means 15/15/14/15 reduces Speed by 2 and HP by 4, which affects it considerably less as its bulk would be almost the same and could still outspeed Rhydon.
    Last edited: May 25, 2016
  4. CrapAtRBY

    CrapAtRBY

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    53
    Can't Golem and Gengar be obtained via the Mew Glitch? Or am I missing something?
  5. xJoelituh

    xJoelituh
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    279
    Of course you can

    Also with this glitch you can get any Pokémon Maxed out no matter what:

  6. Crystal_

    Crystal_
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,155
    I'm skeptical about having this become a thing. It's delicate and complex. We already don't account for RNG limitations during a battle anyway; we draw a new near perfect random number every single time while in actual hardware they are all correlated. Random example: let's say we're doing the accuracy check of whatever move. If an Ice Beam caused a freeze exactly 10 random numbers ago, then there's no way that we draw a random number causing a move with above 50% accuracy to miss during the current check. If that Ice Beam hadn't scored a freeze during those 10 random numbers ago, the effective accuracy of our current move will probably be a couple of points lower. But we don't follow any of this; we just draw another uniformly distributed random number instead.

    These RNG limitations extend to generation 2 as well and applies to every aspect of the games rather than just battle related things. You just don't have enough sources to grab random numbers from if you need them consecutively. Granted, the wild DV distributions in Gen 2 are going to be different and depending on what goes on in the gen 2 games it might be even possible that all combinations are drawable, albeit with different odds. But the limitation is still there and applies to everything. Ever found a Mantine in Gold or Crystal in Route 41? Bet it was at either level 20 or 22, even though they are coded to appear at any level between 20 and 24. Now guess why you could only ever find it at those two levels. The more restrictions involved in some event happening, the more restrictive the RNG limitations are bound to be.
    sedertz, Slurmz, Star and 21 others like this.
  7. froggy25

    froggy25 Bye RNGmon
    is a Pokemon Researcher

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    391
    I asked ExtraTricky about that a while ago, while talking about how they could check Pokémon legality with Gen I => Gen VII Poké Bank. Didn't want to talk about this here because I thought it would be irrelevant, but heh, Shoddy Battle did implement IVs checking on Gen IV Method 1 Pokémon, so why not.

    Btw, that would exclude Bulbasaur, Charmander, Squirtle, Psyduck, Hitmonlee, Hitmonchan, Eevee, Omanyte, Kabuto, and their evolutions, as Stadium allows for all 65,536 IVs combinations afaik.

    On the other hand, I think it would be nice at some point to find a way to implement the restriction to [0;252] for the 9 first pseudo-random numbers (at least that would prevent the T1 miss in most cases).
    Or ideally the entire PRNG function making sure the 9 first pseudo-random numbers are correctly initialized with possible outputs from a Game Boy. But that would probably be a waste of time, even though I really like the idea.
    Last edited: May 26, 2016
    Theorymon and Zowayix like this.
  8. Theorymon

    Theorymon Let's a do the truffle shuffle!
    is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Server Moderatoris a CAP Contributor Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,790
    Personally I feel like the 8F glitch is fine to use as justification for having perfect Pokemon in RBY. I mean we abuse RBY glitches all the time with stuff like Hyper Beam's mechanics, and its not like we haven't used the game's programming against itself to get good Pokemon before (like say, RNGing). I guess its a bit more complicated because RNGing is more a mechanic than a glitch, while 8F was clearly not intended, but at the same time, competitive games make use of glitches all the time.

    The biggest reason why glitch Pokemon aren't allowed is because of tradition, and some of them do actually crash / corrupt the game. Also, I imagine if glitch Pokemon WERE allowed, a lot of them such as PokeWTrainer would be immediately banned to Ubers lol. There's even some glitch Pokemon that are basically clones of others, such as a glitch Pokemon that's basically Starmie with Softboiled and Explosion.

    (That being said I would be totally game for glitch Pokemon being implemented on PS, would be a very interesting metagame to explore imo!)
    The Idealistic, A, WreckDra and 5 others like this.
  9. Golden Gyarados

    Golden Gyarados
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    363
    Yeah I think it's easy enough to allow perfect Pokemon through any number of rationalizations you want. Here's my favorite, so let's just go with this: you can catch or breed them in GSC and trade them back with any DV distribution. Think about what the tradebacks meta means for a second, in real, practical terms: no tradebacks means Pokemon who obtain moves exclusively in GSC cannot use those moves in RBY. If you and I got together with a link cable and Red and Blue cartridges, and I said "no tradebacks," you would with 100% certainty understand that I'm talking about move distribution, and that I'm *not* saying that if you trained up and hatched Pokemon in GSC to get the best stats for the battle that you can't use those Pokemon in the match. So ... so what's the issue, right? I mean, whenever we use a Jynx not nicknamed Lola or a Mr. Mime not nicknamed Marcel, we technically would have had to catch it wild or breed it in GSC and trade it back to RBY (because in pure RBY cartridges, those Pokemon are only available via trade with NPCs who locked in those nicknames). So when you think about it, we're already playing in a simulated environment where perfect DVs are possible, because "no tradebacks" only refers to move distribution, NOT to where the Pokemon you're battling was obtained. The Jynx I use as a lead in a given match was traded back from GSC because it's not nicknamed Lola. The Gengar I use as a lead in a given match was traded back from GSC and that's why it has perfect DVs. Easy.
  10. Ortheore

    Ortheore

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    561
    Yeah, I've kinda revised my position on implementing this kind of thing. I guess the main thing is that the original RBY games are known for being a glitch-riddled mess and it's impossible to isolate those glitches from the intended game, so I would say just roll with it. The flip side of this perspective would be to say "why not make hackmons (or even worse, something like glitchmons) the meta, given that RBY's glitches basically allow for that?" (correct me if I'm wrong btw). Here it becomes a little arbitrary as to where we draw the line, but I think we can all agree that potential stats are very subtle compared to something ridiculous like Spore Electrode. While being arbitrary isn't great, it's not as though we're wading into some grey area, given that it's so easy to distinguish between what's permissible or not. So moveset changes and glitchmons are very clear and obvious departures from the intended game and stats aren't so that's a good enough place to draw the line. Not to mention that as theorymon said, if we don't draw the line somewhere glitchmons make an absolute mess out of everything

    Also there's the fact that if we were to actually play on cart, even if we limited ourselves to legal DV spreads, (I think) none of us would create a team "as intended" as it's just far more practical to abuse glitches so...

    edit: I mean it's probably a little inconsistent with modern gens, but that's a poor argument imo since old gens are just different
  11. RBYer

    RBYer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    On one hand you are saying it is impossible to isolate the glitches from the intended game, but on the other hand you are saying that it is easy to tell what is "ridiculous" or not.

    If anything is obvious, it is what methods of obtaining Pokemon are "glitches" or not. If you catch an "M" with the Old Man glitch, and teach it Swords Dance and evolve it into Kangaskhan, that's a glitch. If you catch a Pokemon and then change all their DVs to max, that is a glitch.

    It is perfectly possible to avoid glitches outside of battle, or to save them for creating Pokemon that would eventually be obtained in an infinite glitch-free play time. When the player can make a conscious decision to avoid glitch-only Pokemon, they should do it, and that should define the boundary around what Pokemon should be simulated or not.

    It's solid, practical, and I can't think of one situation where it would be open to interpretation.
    Zowayix likes this.
  12. Ortheore

    Ortheore

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2013
    Messages:
    561
    Firstly, I don't see how those two statements contradict each other? Certainly you've done nothing to elaborate on the latter.

    It really isn't obvious what's a glitch and what isn't- I'd argue that the mechanics described in the OP constitute a glitch, as they're inconsistent with the expected game rules and probably aren't what the developer intended. The latter point is nothing more than a wild guess (there's some reasoning, but all of it's subjective) and ultimately holds no validity one way or the other, but the former point I think is significant. There is literally no indication in any way that randomly encountered pokemon should be different from static encounters, and to limit those pokemon flies in the face of the systems that determine a pokemon's stats, arbitrarily placing hidden discriminatory limitations on certain pokemon where the player expects a perfectly predictable and coherent system.

    Working with my point in the above paragraph, it is then reasonable to allow players to use pokemon that conform with the game's rules, including max DVs. To adhere to this glitch while disallowing others is quite inconsistent imo. It's also the reason it's easy to draw the line between this and glitchmons and moveset changes and stuff- those kinds of things are blatantly outside the rules of the game.
    xJoelituh likes this.
  13. Crystal_

    Crystal_
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,155
    As far as I know, the way we've always been placing the line is: if it's a battle glitch that doesn't completely break the game then we allow it, but if it's an out of battle glitch we don't allow it to be exploited. I think it's natural that we took this route unintentionally, because it's sane. If we allowed out of battle glitches we would be potentially playing with plenty of glitch Pokemon and every move available on every Pokemon. Now that would make placing the line really difficult and arbitrary. On the other hand, it's hard to oppose to something like focus energy cutting your crit ratio.

    That being said, I wouldn't consider this RNG limitation a glitch. It's, as it sounds, a limitation in the hardware or in the design. That's not to say that they couldn't have made the DVs almost perfectly random if they had cared a little more, but just put yourself in the developers position. Is the fact that you can't draw all the 65535 possible combinations something to lose sleep over? They most likely didn't even thought that people would figure out what DVs are, but then Pokemon became a global phenomenon to their surprise.

    I don't really mind if we account for this limitation or not, because I can understand both sides. What however wouldn't make sense to me is to account for RNG limitations on DV generation while we aren't any close to emulating the RNG correctly during battles. What I do know is that I myself am not particularly interested in researching the RNG usage in battles for now.
    Last edited: May 29, 2016
    avocado, Karxrida, NixHex and 2 others like this.
  14. RBYer

    RBYer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    They don’t blatantly contradict but they also don’t intuitively make sense together to me.

    The problem here is our general policy to these kind of glitches. We have a precedent of being mechanically accurate, and either simulate them while allowing their use, or simulate them while banning their use. We accept the mechanics of the game as is, and put the limits on what the player can do within the framework of the game based on intended gameplay.


    Here is what I think would be reasonable to ask.


    “How are you supposed to obtain the DVs of your Golem?”


    The answer is through a wild battle encounter and catching it. There is no intended DV increasing mechanism built into the game. Using one is outside of intended gameplay, and gives one an otherwise unobtainable Pokemon, which qualifies as cheating.


    The “glitch” is a negative glitch which limits possibilities rather than adding them, so there is no point of saying you can’t use the Pokemon caught with this imperfect RNG and banning Golem. However, the imperfect RNG is the intended route of obtaining your Geodude, so we should only accept the outputs of the imperfect RNG as legitimate Pokemon.


    There is no reason for a lot of things, namely most of the things that are “fixed” in Stadium. If some hack move increased critical hit ratio like Focus Energy was supposed to do, would we suggest hacking that move onto Pokemon that learn Focus Energy?


    The first basic rule of any game is not to cheat. There is no rule anywhere expressed in the game anywhere about max DVs. However, the game does not produce certain Pokemon with max DVs and if you use max DVs you are a cheater.


    It’s a negative glitch, not a positive glitch. There are no inconsistencies. Positive glitches are abused to make Pokemon that aren’t otherwise obtainable using the intended gameplay, and can be exploited to make superpowered Pokemon that offer advantages over legitimately obtainable ones. Like perhaps a Golem with max DVs.



    There is only one intended way of obtaining Golem, and the engine just happens to not produce max DV variations. That is part of the game, and attempting to work around that is cheating. Whether or not you want to start allowing various methods of exploiting positive glitches based on your personal desires is something that is out of my control. However, for the sake of my sanity, I would hope that we don’t do such a thing.
    NixHex and Zowayix like this.
  15. RBYer

    RBYer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    I really, really don't understand this line of reasoning at all.

    It isn't like we are rejecting true battle RNG when the information is right in front of us. We simply don't understand it. Once someone documents how it actually works, we can have the same discussion we are having in this thread.

    Generally, as we start to understand things better, we improve our simulation of them. That is a common process when improving simulators.

    However, for the time being we don't have an understanding of the process, so it makes sense to keep our placeholder as there are no other immediate options except shutting down RBY from being simulated.
    Zowayix likes this.
  16. xJoelituh

    xJoelituh
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    279
    What's the improvement of making some Pokemon worst because of the RNG of the game is messed up?

    Yea sure you are probably right about some max DVs Pokemon are impossible to get in the Wild but RNG abuse is a game mechanic and if that means using glitches to get these Pokemon you will. It isn't considered cheating because you are only abusing what the game allows you to do. Cheating would be using external devices to directly modify this, like it would be Gamegenie, SAVs editors and other things.

    If you want to play RBY Glitchless, try to get TMs for a whole team per example, you will need at least 2 games and reset one to get more TMs. Or a more hardcore one. Play RBY Ubers without Mew, because you won't be able to get it.

    In RBY we have a lot of glitches in ordet to get the teams and items we need.
    In GSC we have the awfull Breeding, Coin case glitch abuse and some Pokemon literally imposible to get now (all PCNY events)
    In ADV, breeding, RNG abuse and Pomeg Glitch(and everything related to that) in order to get Pokemon(plus more PCNY events)
    And DPP and BW, it's all about RNG abuse which are still used these days + Breeding + events.

    What I'm saying with this is that every generation has some sort of game mechanic that we learned to abuse and it isn't only in RBY that we have that.

    TL;DR: Glitches are game mechs exploits, not cheating
  17. Crystal_

    Crystal_
    is a Pokemon Researcheris a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,155
    I do see your point. But I mantain that it would be incoherent to me to emulate or account for only some of the side effects of the in-game RNG. The way I see it, when we discover a new glitch, we make sure first that we know exactly all the details behind it before going ahead to implement it.

    You are right on that we don't wait until all the existing glitches are discovered to implement the first one, but that's because 1., we can never know with absolute certainty how many more glitches are still to be found if any, and 2., the glitches are not necessarily related to each other. When someone is suggesting to follow the game's RNG to generate the DVs of a wild Pokemon but not during battle, it feels as though we knew only half the details of a certain glitch, yet still wanted to implement it despite knowing for a fact that the result will be inaccurate.
  18. Golden Gyarados

    Golden Gyarados
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    363
    Just don't talk about it as a glitch then guys. We can easily just officially define "No Tradebacks" as specifically an issue of Pokemon/move legality and that's it. All other rules of typical RBY stand (no glitch Pokemon, no impossible movesets), the generally understood meaning of No Tradebacks stands (no new Pokemon or moves/move combinations), but it allows for Pokemon to be bred or caught in GSC and traded back, and the ONLY thing that would affect would officially allow any DV combination (and nicknameless Jynx/Mr. Mime) ... which, again, is the meta we technically play right now. I feel that's the easiest/least stressful way to rationalize it (if you hate the "You can Ditto Glitch them in RBY" rationalization), because in real, practical terms, that is exactly how RBY was played after GSC came out, even with the "No Tradebacks" rule.
    Linkin Karp and Blightbringer like this.
  19. Enigami

    Enigami

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    174
    Very much disagree with this. If 'abusing what the game allows you to do' is legal, then it is fully legal to run virtually any moveset you want for any Pokemon in RBY or GSC. When glitches have been allowed to be abused, it is for quickly obtaining something that is or was obtainable legally. And it's not like this is some tiny change, like 2 less Attack or Special or HP. For Pokemon that can only be obtained in the wild with an encounter rate of 25, they can only have optimal spreads of 15/15/14/15 or 15/15/15/7 Atk/Def/Spe/Spc, which means those Pokemon either suffer a loss of 2 Speed or 16 Special. That is quite significant and not something that can be swept under the rug.

    Golden Gyarados' argument runs into the same issue as xJoelituh, like using glitches, using GSC to obtain Pokemon or moves is perfectly fine as long as they match up to obtainable RBY Pokemon. But if you allow illegal stats through Tradebacks, that means you are essentially now playing Tradebacks with a whole load of complex bans instead of 'RBY as it was before GSC'.
    NixHex likes this.
  20. Golden Gyarados

    Golden Gyarados
    is a Pre-Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2011
    Messages:
    363
    But, in the game itself, you can't tell what DVs your Pokemon has. There's no seer or whatever to tell you. So if you caught a Pokemon in Gold to trade back to Blue to play with, you have no way of knowing if that particular Pokemon's stat spread was obtainable in RBY. But, and this is the important part, you would bring it over anyway and no one would care. Say it's 2001 and you and I are getting together to have a tournament in RBY. We both have the full Pokemon ecosystem available - all carts, Stadium 1 and 2, transfer paks, game link cables, multiple game boys, the works. If I say "no tradebacks," there is no doubt at all I'm talking about move legality. BUT if you popped your Snorlax over to Gold for a second because you had an extra Rest TM there and it's easier than resetting one of your cartridges and playing through to get a fresh one, you would do it. If you wanted a Jynx not named Lola, you'd catch one in Silver and pop it back. If you had a level 100 Eggy with great stats already but you wanted to give it Sleep Powder and its current moveset doesn't have it, you'd bring it to Stadium 2 to use the move relearner there. You would do all of those things and then pop the Pokemon back into your copy of Blue and battle me and neither of us would think anything of it.

    And this is a really important point: I don't know if anyone has ever stopped and said out loud "RBY is 'RBY as it was before GSC.'" They've said "RBY is 'RBY without allowing for new move/Pokemon combinations from GSC,'" absolutely. But as I've explained above, when GSC came out people used them to catch and train Pokemon and trade them back to RBY. It's still possible today - I have the entire ecosystem in my living room right now, so this isn't archaic or theoretical. You made up a definition just now - "RBY as it was before GSC" - but that's not written down anywhere. What I'm saying is, right here and now, let's officially define RBY as "RBY without allowing for new move/Pokemon combinations from GSC." That's the point that actually matters, and that's really the understanding a lot of us have had from the beginning, and it still allows for using RBY as part of the real, legal, actual ecosystem of the time period - RBY, GSC, Stadium 1 and 2, N64s, Game Boys, and Transfer Paks. Getting a perfect DV Gengar and trading it back to RBY and using it, so long as that Gengar doesn't know Ice Punch, is and always has been 100% compatible with playing legal RBY. So if there's confusion about the issue, let's just "officially" define it that way and we can wash our hands of the issue entirely.
    Last edited: May 29, 2016
  21. Enigami

    Enigami

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    174
    You ignored the whole thing about "using GSC to obtain Pokemon or moves is perfectly fine as long as they match up to obtainable RBY Pokemon", which popping a Snorlax over to Gold to get Rest satisfies. Obtaining a Jynx not named Lola is perfectly fine because all it changes is a name, which does not affect competitive gameplay in any way. If you wanted to use the Stadium 2 move relearner on an Exeggutor with great stats, that's fine too because while it'd take more time, you could get another Exeggutor with the same DVs. Even obtaining Mew for RBY Ubers isn't that big of a deal, there were event distributions so using Mew Glitch to get one shouldn't really matter. But that goes out the window when you use GSC or glitches to obtain things that you could never have, like a Lovely Kiss Snorlax, or 15/15/15/15 DV Golem.

    And technically, if you knew what the maximum possible stats of each Pokemon were you'd be able to determine whether someone is using an illegal Pokemon by checking the stats of both player's teams.
    Mirabel_ likes this.
  22. froggy25

    froggy25 Bye RNGmon
    is a Pokemon Researcher

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Messages:
    391
    2 Speed and 4 HP, or 16 Special*
    Enigami likes this.
  23. Pika Xreme

    Pika Xreme

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    863
    I mean, for sanity's sake, there would need to be some restrictions. No glitches that would allow for infinite movepools, nothing that actually breaks the game, no PC4SH clones, etc.

    Another interesting thing about that would be that due to the fact that plenty of Glitch Pokemon can evolve into regular Pokemon, several Pokemon get good movepool boosts. For example, Exeggutor (like it wasn't good enough already) gets Snorlax's entire TM movepool (including Blizzard) as well as Mist thanks to [​IMG] . I feel like if we tried, there could be a whole thread for this (wink wink).
  24. latios777

    latios777

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    50
    Hasty/Naive latios with Defog is probably ilegal with 6 iv 31 and people are using it in showdown.

    No seeds with this natures and full iv 31 exist in RNG 4 generation and probably don't exist in 3 generation too.

    There are more examples too. I think is better to allow full iv 31 pokémon in simulator even if are impossible to obtain in games.
    If the two players can use the same pokémon with same ivs....what is the problem?
  25. RBYer

    RBYer

    Joined:
    May 28, 2016
    Messages:
    43
    The problem is that you can't get them in games, so you are simulating something that isn't really legitimate Pokemon. It's fine and all if you prefer that to legitimate Pokemon, but it shouldn't be that hard to see the "problem".
    Linkin Karp and Mirabel_ like this.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)