One of the advantages an online simulator has over ingame play is to be able to make a team quickly and simply so that one can begin battling right away. I don't see why Shoddy (or any other simulator) should remove this "convenience" for a minor step towards making it more similar to the ingame mechanics. Seems like taking two steps backward in order to take one forward to me.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
***[VOTE] Event Moves, Legendary IVs. How "real" do we want it to be?***
- Thread starter Tangerine
- Start date
- Status
One of the advantages an online simulator has over ingame play is to be able to make a team quickly and simply so that one can begin battling right away. I don't see why Shoddy (or any other simulator) should remove this "convenience" for a minor step towards making it more similar to the ingame mechanics. Seems like taking two steps backward in order to take one forward to me.
Syberia, you seem to be confused about what "ideal" means. Ideal doesn't mean where you can do impossible things, such as use pokemon that don't exist anymore. (And almost all of your post is about saying it does, so this is a pretty succinct response.) I might write an essay at some point about what the goal of a simulator is.
There is nothing flawed here, except your poor understanding of calculus. The algorithm only completes when you get the pokemon you want, so it always produces that pokemon, even if it takes an arbitrarily long time to run. Also, there's no such thing as "infinitely small". Suppose you think you've found an infinitely small number, let's call it x. Well look at me, I've found a smaller one: x/2. Hence there's no such thing as "infinitely small". If you flip a coin forever the chance of not getting heads once is zero. Yes, it's zero. It's not infinitely small: it's zero.
Here's the proof. The chance of getting tails n times in a row is (1/2)^n. In the limit, as n->infinity, (1/2)^n -> 0. Hence the chance of getting tails forever is zero, not "infinitely small".
Syberia said:
There is nothing flawed here, except your poor understanding of calculus. The algorithm only completes when you get the pokemon you want, so it always produces that pokemon, even if it takes an arbitrarily long time to run. Also, there's no such thing as "infinitely small". Suppose you think you've found an infinitely small number, let's call it x. Well look at me, I've found a smaller one: x/2. Hence there's no such thing as "infinitely small". If you flip a coin forever the chance of not getting heads once is zero. Yes, it's zero. It's not infinitely small: it's zero.
Here's the proof. The chance of getting tails n times in a row is (1/2)^n. In the limit, as n->infinity, (1/2)^n -> 0. Hence the chance of getting tails forever is zero, not "infinitely small".
I vote for cartridge consistent IVs, as my idea of a battling sim is too simulate things that can happen in game, but to make it easier to cut down on the time needed to make that perfect team.
I am both for and against event moves.
Against event moves that we do not have a complete list on event moves/IV & Nature possibilities e.t.c
For event moves that easily accesible and common event moves such as Surf Pikachu and Extremespeed Linoone that we can find the actual IV&Nature possibilites.
I am both for and against event moves.
Against event moves that we do not have a complete list on event moves/IV & Nature possibilities e.t.c
For event moves that easily accesible and common event moves such as Surf Pikachu and Extremespeed Linoone that we can find the actual IV&Nature possibilites.
Why consider something that has no chance of happening, that doesn't have much relevance to this discussion? We have no idea of the IV/Nature restrictions of the pokemon we are discussing, we are simply assuming that it was possible that perfect IVed ideal natured ones could have been passed out. Pokemon that event collectors have found don't help this assumption at all btw. In a game where these pokemon barely exist, I think we're better simulating it without them than with them, especially since we know so little about them besides that they at least exist.
Why don't you prove to me that one doesn't exist? Why can't we assume that if 10000 were passed out, what stops us from assuming that they were normally generated thus we would have enough variety of Pokemon to use from those?
It's a difference in opinion - some people are "assume normal unless proven other wise" while some people are "prove that it exists first/it is possible"
Very much comes down to this in the end, just a matter of opinion. But I don't think it's valid to say "keep them to simulate the game", I just supported the other side with the same motive.
Colin, what's flawed about your argument about max IV Pokemon is that we don't have an infinite amount of time. You can't just continually soft-reset or breed until we "eventually" get an all-31 IV good-natured Pokemon because it's impossible to breed for an infinite amount of time, so there is in fact a chance (a very likely chance too) that we will never obtain an "ideal" Pokemon, let alone six, let alone 6 * the number of teams we made.
Therefore, there only seems one reasonable solution: take pictures of your Pokemon, upload them onto the computer, and have someone personally inspect every single Pokemon to make sure that you do in fact have them legitly. Oh, but they'll be checking for hacks too you know!
Ridiculous? Yes, but simulation is the goal, isn't it? If every single person who obtained a Darkrai smashed their game with a hammer, it wouldn't make any sense to allow Darkrai, would it?
Really, simulation is important, but not the only goal. It's easy to say "these are impossible to obtain, these shouldn't be allowed", but what are the pros and cons of this action?
Pros: Simulating a game exactly
Cons: Hassle, Inconvenience, Confusion
Let me ask this: WHY should perfect simulation be the goal? People play Pokemon for fun, not so they can say "hey I'm playing Pokemon!". If we have an oppurtunity to make the game just a little more fun for the user without making any serious changes, why not?
Therefore, there only seems one reasonable solution: take pictures of your Pokemon, upload them onto the computer, and have someone personally inspect every single Pokemon to make sure that you do in fact have them legitly. Oh, but they'll be checking for hacks too you know!
Ridiculous? Yes, but simulation is the goal, isn't it? If every single person who obtained a Darkrai smashed their game with a hammer, it wouldn't make any sense to allow Darkrai, would it?
Really, simulation is important, but not the only goal. It's easy to say "these are impossible to obtain, these shouldn't be allowed", but what are the pros and cons of this action?
Pros: Simulating a game exactly
Cons: Hassle, Inconvenience, Confusion
Let me ask this: WHY should perfect simulation be the goal? People play Pokemon for fun, not so they can say "hey I'm playing Pokemon!". If we have an oppurtunity to make the game just a little more fun for the user without making any serious changes, why not?
I support matching real IVs, since it keeps things more inline with the actual game. I see emulating the game closely as the purpose of shoddy.
I also support event moves, but with a catch. As long as the moves existence is documented, and the nature/ivs match what it can (roughly) have. Currently, these are preserved in the form of wondercard soft resetting and wondercard saves, but for older gba event pokemon where the ones in the wild are non-existant, they should be limited to those natures that are known to exist. When not known, there's no harm than assuming the IVs just match normal wild distributions for the nature. Is it a perfect solution? No, but far better than banning event moves outright, but whenever I see issues related to some event move, it always seems to be stemming from a nature that is not known in the wild. (ALA Bold Wish Bliss or Jolly Tickle Wobb)
I also support event moves, but with a catch. As long as the moves existence is documented, and the nature/ivs match what it can (roughly) have. Currently, these are preserved in the form of wondercard soft resetting and wondercard saves, but for older gba event pokemon where the ones in the wild are non-existant, they should be limited to those natures that are known to exist. When not known, there's no harm than assuming the IVs just match normal wild distributions for the nature. Is it a perfect solution? No, but far better than banning event moves outright, but whenever I see issues related to some event move, it always seems to be stemming from a nature that is not known in the wild. (ALA Bold Wish Bliss or Jolly Tickle Wobb)
Umbarsc, what I am saying is that a simulator simulates those pokemon you could obtain by following an algorithm for an infinite amount of time (which is the "ideal" aspect that Syberia was talking about). There's no flaw here.
Also, we could make the game "more fun" by giving out a few moves here and there. I see people complain in the main chat every day about what pokemon X "should have". We could make the game "more fun" by giving out these moves. But the goal isn't to make the game "more fun", and no one seriously thinks it is, or we would not dismiss "pokemon X should have Y" out of hand.
Here's an example from just a few minutes ago:
(08:49:33) Bynine: A shuckle evo. Poison/Rock Basilisk with massive attack but dropped defenses/
Perhaps we should make the game more fun by adding this pokemon.
Also, we could make the game "more fun" by giving out a few moves here and there. I see people complain in the main chat every day about what pokemon X "should have". We could make the game "more fun" by giving out these moves. But the goal isn't to make the game "more fun", and no one seriously thinks it is, or we would not dismiss "pokemon X should have Y" out of hand.
Here's an example from just a few minutes ago:
(08:49:33) Bynine: A shuckle evo. Poison/Rock Basilisk with massive attack but dropped defenses/
Perhaps we should make the game more fun by adding this pokemon.
You seem to be missing the point that Shoddy is not attempting to simulate Pokemon, but rather is attempting to simulate one part of the game. The issue is really not, "How game-accurate should we be," but rather, "Do the PID nature/IV restrictions and Event Moves fall under the part of the game we are attempting to simulate as accurately as possible?"
Therefore it makes perfect sense to be able to draw lines in what we simulate. If we didn't, why aren't we all just playing the cartridge?
Furthermore, there is a large flaw in your infinite time objection: Namely, you don't have to breed every Pokemon you're using on your team. Shortly after their release in Japan, Diamond and Pearl combined to sell over 1.5 million units. This doesn't include later sales or any other country's releases at all. Now, certainly all of these sales didn't go to people who breed competitively online, but it does become much, much more likely to be able to find, somewhere in the world, a perfect IV version of every Pokemon out there than it does in your artificially restricted world of you.
We should restrict non-breedable Pokemon's Natures and IVs to correspond with game mechanics. It falls into the category of battle-affecting things which we should be simulating in a battle simulator; albeit rarely, minor stat variations will affect winning or losing a match through lack of a speed tie, not quite enough defense/offense to avoid/get the OHKO/2HKO, etc.
We should also allow Event Moves for which we have decent knowledge of their distribution. Movepool is one of the bigger components in Pokemon viability in competitive battling, and so it is important to simulate 'real' (i.e., not the ditto glitch, but that's a whole 'nother topic) movepools whenever possible.
I think one central problem that I haven't stated clearly enough in this topic is the nature of simulation.
When you choose a pokemon with astronomically low odds of existing, that is simulating the process of following the algorithm that could obtain that pokemon (for an arbitrary long amount of time). When you choose an event pokemon with arbitrary stats, what is that simulating? Without my proposed "trustee of event moves" system, it is not simulating an actual process that would allow you to obtain the pokemon.
This topic has six pages of people saying "event moves exist in the game so they should be allowed" but that is not good enough because choosing an event move pokemon in the team builder does not correspond to an actual process allowing you to obtain that pokemon (even an infinite time process). Here's a secret: Arceus also exists in the game, you just can't ever leave once you catch him from the glitch. But we don't allow him, because choosing Arceus in the team builder does not simulate an actual process.
If the goal is actually to simulate the game -- which it is -- then choosing a pokemon in the team builder has to correspond to an actual process which is being simulated, which means that the only sensible votes in this topic are one of the following:
1. Set up a trustee of event moves system (see my earlier posts).
2. Ban event moves.
Personally I would say to say that (1) is ridiculous, leaving us with (2).
If we abandon the goal of simulation, then we also have
3. Allow event moves because they make the game more fun.
I propose that all votes of the form "event moves exist in the game so they should be allowed" not be counted because they fail to address the issue of a corresponding process to obtain the pokemon, and would also allow Arceus to be allowed, since he exists in the game. I propose also to dismiss votes of form (3) unless there is another vote on whether we want to play pokemon, or some other, "more fun", game.
When you choose a pokemon with astronomically low odds of existing, that is simulating the process of following the algorithm that could obtain that pokemon (for an arbitrary long amount of time). When you choose an event pokemon with arbitrary stats, what is that simulating? Without my proposed "trustee of event moves" system, it is not simulating an actual process that would allow you to obtain the pokemon.
This topic has six pages of people saying "event moves exist in the game so they should be allowed" but that is not good enough because choosing an event move pokemon in the team builder does not correspond to an actual process allowing you to obtain that pokemon (even an infinite time process). Here's a secret: Arceus also exists in the game, you just can't ever leave once you catch him from the glitch. But we don't allow him, because choosing Arceus in the team builder does not simulate an actual process.
If the goal is actually to simulate the game -- which it is -- then choosing a pokemon in the team builder has to correspond to an actual process which is being simulated, which means that the only sensible votes in this topic are one of the following:
1. Set up a trustee of event moves system (see my earlier posts).
2. Ban event moves.
Personally I would say to say that (1) is ridiculous, leaving us with (2).
If we abandon the goal of simulation, then we also have
3. Allow event moves because they make the game more fun.
I propose that all votes of the form "event moves exist in the game so they should be allowed" not be counted because they fail to address the issue of a corresponding process to obtain the pokemon, and would also allow Arceus to be allowed, since he exists in the game. I propose also to dismiss votes of form (3) unless there is another vote on whether we want to play pokemon, or some other, "more fun", game.
Quite a few people, though, are not just saying allow them because they exist in-game, they are saying allow them when we have fairly good knowledge of their distribution. I don't really see how making a list of event moves that we know enough about to allow is so ridiculous. There's already a Smogon member who has proved himself trustworthy to the staff (Gold Ursaring) who has a pretty detailed list already, detailing the place and time of the event and whether they are regularly catchable, distributed with any nature, distributed with a particular nature, etc..
E.g.
Code:
***************************
* POKEMON CENTER NEW YORK *
***************************
Games Eligible – Fire Red & Leaf Green
December 16, 2004 – January 2, 2005
A Wireless distribution was used for these Pokemon. This results
in the event only being available for Fire Red or Leaf Green game
paks.
Chansey
Special Moves – Sweet Scent/Wish
Drowzee
Special Moves – Belly Drum/Wish
Exeggcute
Special Moves – Sweet Scent/Wish
Farfetch’d
Special Moves – Yawn/Wish
Kangaskan
Special Moves – Yawn/Wish
Lickitung
Special Moves – Heal Bell/Wish
These Pokemon were distributed as eggs, containing only the two
moves mentioned. Eggs hatched at level 5 in the Advance
Generation. Eggs must be hatched to be transferred in Pal Park.
OT – Hatcher
ID - Hatcher
These Pokemon are some of the only promotional Pokemon that
should have come from Kanto. It is possible that an egg was
distributed and later traded over, but highly unlikely.Having a knowledge of the distribution is not good enough. Let's suppose that you want to use a Wish Blissey with Careful nature and 12/13/15/13/13/31 IVs and this is hypothetically legal under the distribution rules. However, when you choose this pokemon in the team builder, what process does it actually correspond to? There's nothing you can do to get this pokemon unless it actually exists today and the person who has it is willing to distribute it. Obviously hinging on existence today and willingness to distribute is impractical, which is why a trustee is required.
Whether the trustee is required will depend on the nature of the event (it might not be required for ones that are eggs). It is certainly required for the ever-popular Wish Blissey, however.
Note that the trustee system is more than just a list of IV-Nature combinations that existed at some point (see my earlier posts). The trustee is an actual person with actual copies of the event pokemon in question, with proven provenance, who distributes them upon request.
No matter how much you like Wish Blissey, we cannot overcome the issue with choosing one not corresponding to an actual process without a trustee of event moves system. Either the trustee system should be set up, which is a lot of work, or these event pokemon must be banned. It is the only way to make the simulator logically consistent. The metagame has no role in this. It might stimulate the game to give Regigigas Rest, but doing so does not correspond to any actual process, so our reason for rejecting it is out of the philosophy of what a simulator is.
Whether the trustee is required will depend on the nature of the event (it might not be required for ones that are eggs). It is certainly required for the ever-popular Wish Blissey, however.
Note that the trustee system is more than just a list of IV-Nature combinations that existed at some point (see my earlier posts). The trustee is an actual person with actual copies of the event pokemon in question, with proven provenance, who distributes them upon request.
No matter how much you like Wish Blissey, we cannot overcome the issue with choosing one not corresponding to an actual process without a trustee of event moves system. Either the trustee system should be set up, which is a lot of work, or these event pokemon must be banned. It is the only way to make the simulator logically consistent. The metagame has no role in this. It might stimulate the game to give Regigigas Rest, but doing so does not correspond to any actual process, so our reason for rejecting it is out of the philosophy of what a simulator is.
Except, of course, that would be confusing, arbitrary, and wouldn't make the game any better. I'm not saying "fun" is the answer.
I am for event moves 100%. I think that if it is possible to get event moves on the Pokemon games at all it should be allowed in normal OU play. They have event moves on Netbattle which makes it unique from the normal battling experience battling on Wi-fi. I think if we make a Smogon server, we should make it different from the normal shoddy battle server that is hosted by Colin and others. There is really no point to making a new server in the first place in my opinion.
What you are really saying Colin, is that YOU do not trust the record keeping of the pokemon community up until now or until someone YOU find trustworthy begins to officially track these things.
During past generations, pokemon events were not so common and the distribution of event pokemon not so easy. Not many players could get to these events and far, far fewer could obtain these event Pokemon through trades without online trading. The simulators of that time added pokemon from those events to their databases with the intent of opening up ALL of Nintendo's approved pokemon for all players to use. That was important because players wanted a chance to simulate the game closely without the restrictions of region or opportunity.
So the precedent for allowing these event pokemon into the simulated competitive game already exists. It's a long-standing part of competitive pokemon and pokemon simulators. The players want and expect these things to be included and there are relatively good arguments for why they SHOULD be allowed. It is still possible that older event pokemon from the Advance generation can make their way to D/P cartridges and be used legitimately. Further, with the information about these pokes readily available and hacking devices that can generate undetectable hacks, players do actually encounter these "event pokemon" (in one form or another) on the cartridges. That's not to say that we should allow ANYTHING because hacks let you make ridiculous combinations of pokes, moves, abilities, etc... The point is that reliable information is available and these pokes have been a legitimate part of the competitive game in a big way on sims of the past and in small ways on the carts as well. So why not allow them?
So I guess the question is, is the information available for event pokemon from the Advance generation good enough to warrant allowing these pokemon to continue to be a part of the simulated game? Based on the precedent set and the possibility of these things existing in one form or another on the carts, I would argue yes. It seems like the majority of voters and policy reviewers agree.
Just because you cannot be 100% sure of all of the information, doesn't mean we can't be reasonably sure that these event pokemon are desired, fair and reasonable additions to the simulated game.
During past generations, pokemon events were not so common and the distribution of event pokemon not so easy. Not many players could get to these events and far, far fewer could obtain these event Pokemon through trades without online trading. The simulators of that time added pokemon from those events to their databases with the intent of opening up ALL of Nintendo's approved pokemon for all players to use. That was important because players wanted a chance to simulate the game closely without the restrictions of region or opportunity.
So the precedent for allowing these event pokemon into the simulated competitive game already exists. It's a long-standing part of competitive pokemon and pokemon simulators. The players want and expect these things to be included and there are relatively good arguments for why they SHOULD be allowed. It is still possible that older event pokemon from the Advance generation can make their way to D/P cartridges and be used legitimately. Further, with the information about these pokes readily available and hacking devices that can generate undetectable hacks, players do actually encounter these "event pokemon" (in one form or another) on the cartridges. That's not to say that we should allow ANYTHING because hacks let you make ridiculous combinations of pokes, moves, abilities, etc... The point is that reliable information is available and these pokes have been a legitimate part of the competitive game in a big way on sims of the past and in small ways on the carts as well. So why not allow them?
So I guess the question is, is the information available for event pokemon from the Advance generation good enough to warrant allowing these pokemon to continue to be a part of the simulated game? Based on the precedent set and the possibility of these things existing in one form or another on the carts, I would argue yes. It seems like the majority of voters and policy reviewers agree.
Just because you cannot be 100% sure of all of the information, doesn't mean we can't be reasonably sure that these event pokemon are desired, fair and reasonable additions to the simulated game.
My (main) argument is not based on not being sure of information, so your post is largely irrelevant.
It is based on the idea of associating selections in the team builder with actual simulated processes. (See above.) The majority of voters have failed to address the philosophical issues at work here. I am the only one who has even explored them. Precedent is never a justification for anything.
It is based on the idea of associating selections in the team builder with actual simulated processes. (See above.) The majority of voters have failed to address the philosophical issues at work here. I am the only one who has even explored them. Precedent is never a justification for anything.
Actually, in matters of law, precedent is a justification for a LOT of things. In fact, it's foolish to ignore it. As far as pokemon goes, you implemented things like Sleep Clause or Evasion Clause based on precedent and philosophy. You never did a sweeping test of those things and yet you added them to the game. So clearly even YOU, the almighty and ever-knowledgeable Colin use precedent to justify some things.
As for simulating a process, how about simulating the process of attended events and obtaining pokemon approved by Nintendo? If the simulator is allowed to be selective about what is simulates (battles, damage formulas) and what it doesn't (breeding, leveling up), then why not allow it to simulate that particular part of the pokemon software? Wondercards exist within the game and are utilized by Nintendo to distribute pokemon. The Pal Park exists within the game and is utilized to move GBA pokes, normally obtained or through events, up to the new cart.
So yes, using event pokes does simulate an actual process. Just because this process isn't entirely self-contained within the cart doesn't mean its not an actual, Nintendo-approved, used by players on the carts process that can be simulated by your software.
As for simulating a process, how about simulating the process of attended events and obtaining pokemon approved by Nintendo? If the simulator is allowed to be selective about what is simulates (battles, damage formulas) and what it doesn't (breeding, leveling up), then why not allow it to simulate that particular part of the pokemon software? Wondercards exist within the game and are utilized by Nintendo to distribute pokemon. The Pal Park exists within the game and is utilized to move GBA pokes, normally obtained or through events, up to the new cart.
So yes, using event pokes does simulate an actual process. Just because this process isn't entirely self-contained within the cart doesn't mean its not an actual, Nintendo-approved, used by players on the carts process that can be simulated by your software.
I don't feel like explaining what I mean by associated processes again so you can just read the above post. It does not hinge on things being "within" the cartridge so clearly you did not read it too carefully.
As for precedent, I don't use it to justify things like Evasion Clause. In fact I figure Evasion Clause ought to be off. We're only going with the precedent to avoid controversy, not because it's an actual justification.
As for precedent in law, note that this is just in common law legal systems, not in civil law legal systems (as in France). And the idea is to decide cases consistently, not to use it as a "justification". The original case that set the precedent includes real reasoning which can later be overturned.
As for precedent, I don't use it to justify things like Evasion Clause. In fact I figure Evasion Clause ought to be off. We're only going with the precedent to avoid controversy, not because it's an actual justification.
As for precedent in law, note that this is just in common law legal systems, not in civil law legal systems (as in France). And the idea is to decide cases consistently, not to use it as a "justification". The original case that set the precedent includes real reasoning which can later be overturned.
- Status