Glitched Weather in English Platinum [Part 2, Clearer Video] (Update March 18, 2009)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Er, just one thing I thought of. Can't Nintendo fix this since it's host only? I mean, maybe it has to do with their servers or something, because it doesn't work without Platinum. Haven't glitches been fixed before?

And, this is irrelevant, but maybe this glitch will make Smogon switch to UU as the preferred tier, because of the lack of Sand Stream/Sandstorm in general. :D
 
does this happen in local battles?

if you get multiple weathers going (ie acid hail vs acid rain) does it take effect the effect of the initial weather? I think so

anyway, if this is on shoddy, watch as my 31.25% per turn stallrein annihilates your team until you switch in cherrim and stall the game out...
 
betterthanbonds9 said:
does this happen in local battles?

if you get multiple weathers going (ie acid hail vs acid rain) does it take effect the effect of the initial weather? I think so

anyway, if this is on shoddy, watch as my 31.25% per turn stallrein annihilates your team until you switch in cherrim and stall the game out...
Click to expand...
it works on local
 
How can we seriously be considering adding this to the game just to be "true to the cartridge" when over in PR they're seriously considering changing the fucking win condition (of all things) just so the best players can have even better scores on the ladder?

If we're expected to abandon all common sense and embrace the implementation of a game-breaking glitch, at least provide an argument that doesn't involve reasoning that Smogon's "elite" minds apparently don't give a shit about anymore.
 
All I have to say about this topic: I can't wait for Gamefreak to accidentally put in a "every-move-in-game-is-a-OHKO" glitch, and see people insist programming the simulator that way because we "have" to. >.>
 
Not that anyone cares about my opinion, but I am STRONGLY against the implementation of this glitch into shoddy. Simulating cartridge mechanics is one thing, but I am against implementation when that mechanic is most likely unintentional and potentially game breaking. As someone earlier in this thread said, Missingno. wasn't accounted for in RBY simulations, so why should this be? Just off the top of my head, Empoleon will be glad to have the free boost in power in addition to the Sandstorm immunity.

Hell, any rain team would welcome this effect. Soften up your targets into OHKO range. It doesn't effect rain teams as much considering the massive Speed boost of Swift Swim prevents most pokemon from hitting them first.

In addition, weather changing has always been a part of the metagame. In OU, it's usually Rain Dance vs. Sand Storm. In Ubers, all over the place. The impact probably will be most felt in OU, where Sandstorm teams will be unable to counter the rain effect.

Of course, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I do have a couple of questions though. If a Tyranitar/Hippowdon (something with Sand Stream) were to switch in, does it revert back to just sandstorm?

Also, could Nintendo patch this? I seem to have a memory of Metroid Prime Hunters where Nintendo issued a patch that prevented people having names like %s and such because it would glitch the game. I can't remember if the fix was implemented cartridge side or whether the cartridge was simply barred from Wifi until the name was changed.
 
Here's my question: how the hell are we supposed to fairly implement this? The point has been made MANY times itt that ladder matches don't have a "host." There has to be a fair method of selecting one person to be able to trigger this glitch. Allowing neither player to trigger the glitch results in an inaccurate simulation. Allowing both players to trigger the glitch results in an inaccurate simulation.

The problem I have is that I don't know if there exists a fair method of allowing one player to trigger the glitch. Should the person that gets on the ladder and looks for a battle first become the host? Is that fair to the other person who's not looking to battle someone in particular (assuming no lack of activity on the ladder)? I don't have a good answer to either question, but that's the best method I can come up with. Unless someone can come up with something better, I don't see how we CAN implement this glitch; I'm not even going to get into whether we SHOULD or not, right now.
 
The only fair method that I can think of is to simply ignore the glitch, and ban Pursuit on both sides.
 
CardsOfTheHeart said:
Here's my question: how the hell are we supposed to fairly implement this? The point has been made MANY times itt that ladder matches don't have a "host." There has to be a fair method of selecting one person to be able to trigger this glitch. Allowing neither player to trigger the glitch results in an inaccurate simulation. Allowing both players to trigger the glitch results in an inaccurate simulation.

The problem I have is that I don't know if there exists a fair method of allowing one player to trigger the glitch. Should the person that gets on the ladder and looks for a battle first become the host? Is that fair to the other person who's not looking to battle someone in particular (assuming no lack of activity on the ladder)? I don't have a good answer to either question, but that's the best method I can come up with. Unless someone can come up with something better, I don't see how we CAN implement this glitch; I'm not even going to get into whether we SHOULD or not, right now.
Click to expand...

What i think we should do is make the person who would activate the glitch last be the host, that will minimize the effects of the glitch while still keeping perfect simulation

actually i think we shouldn't implement it at all but apparently that's against our philosophy
 
latios315 said:
actually i think we shouldn't implement it at all but apparently that's against our philosophy
Click to expand...
If the same philosophy includes altering another game mechanic (win condition), then it is nothing more than a giant contradiction. Such a precedent would surely imply that it is acceptable to change the game in an effort to make it more competitive, which removing a useless glitch that doesn't benefit anyone and hurts both players instead would certainly do.
 
latios315 said:
What i think we should do is make the person who would activate the glitch last be the host, that will minimize the effects of the glitch while still keeping perfect simulation
Click to expand...
That's NOT keeping perfect simulation. In a local battle, if the person that creates the right conditions for triggering the glitch (the Pursuit user) first is the host, the glitch will be triggered. What you're suggesting contradicts that.

latios315 said:
actually i think we shouldn't implement it at all but apparently that's against our philosophy
Click to expand...
It's against our philosophy to alter game mechanics, despite the fact that we aren't using an alternative method for enforcing Sleep Clause, but Sleep Clause in its current form originated with Nintendo, thus it's arguably okay. That's a debate for another thread.

We could just choose to ignore the glitch indirectly by banning Pursuit, but I would rather have that be the last option on the table.
 
CardsOfTheHeart said:
It's against our philosophy to alter game mechanics, despite the fact that we aren't using an alternative method for enforcing Sleep Clause, but Sleep Clause in its current form originated with Nintendo, thus it's arguably okay. That's a debate for another thread.
Click to expand...
If you're going to make that argument, then "Pursuit, in a form that does not activate the weather glitch, originated from Nintendo in D/P."

I also think that Smogon's philosophy deserves to be re-examined, because a fundamentally uncompetitive glitch of this magnitude has never existed before.
 
I'm not going to make that argument, but I'm sure someone else could / would / already has. I would rather have a violation of Sleep Clause result in an automatic loss. Again, though, this isn't the place to discuss that.
Syberia said:
I also think that Smogon's philosophy deserves to be re-examined, because a fundamentally uncompetitive glitch of this magnitude has never existed before.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this:

What should we be trying to simulate: Pokemon as it was given to us, or Pokemon as it should be?
 
If a glitch as fundamentally bad for the game as this one is "given to us," then clearly "pokemon as it should be." We've been following the game exactly this far because a major gamebreaking glitch like this simply has not occurred before. It's simple common sense, honestly.

EDIT: And this glitch differs from other "glitches" that occur (such as those that Obi attempted to define as glitches earlier in this thread) in that it can be concluded 100% without a doubt that this is a glitch and not "authorial intent" because it renders two pokemon completely unusable because they freeze the game.
 
Why is there all this talk about banning Pursuit? Why don't we just do what any person in any game would do when given this situation. "Ban" the glitch. In SSBM there were game altering glitches like the Ice Climber's freeze glitch. It was in the game, but they banned it because it was unfair. Why not "ban" this glitch?

Besides, banning Pursuit does 2 things for us.

1) Gets rid of damaging rain
2) Gets rid of a very useful move.

Or, we could do this. Treat this as a glitch and not even think about implementing it! It's a GLITCH. It's not meant to be in the game so why should we implement it. This reasoning is amazingly futile and retarded. Screw the glitch, and play the game how it's s'posed to be played.

Oh, and on the note of the Missingno glitch. An even better analogy would be allowing people to use level 256 (or w/e the cap was) Pokemon in a simulator because it could be obtained in game.
 
Syberia said:
If a glitch as fundamentally bad for the game as this one is "given to us," then clearly "pokemon as it should be." We've been following the game exactly this far because a major gamebreaking glitch like this simply has not occurred before. It's simple common sense, honestly.
Click to expand...

Then we may as well change the rules of chess and dub that "it's meant to be that way."
 
Chess doesn't have glitches. Read my edit.

If chess were to become a DS game and suddenly because I was the host, I could take out your king turn 1 with my pawn, would you insist that this is the correct way to play the game?
 
Syberia said:
Chess doesn't have glitches. Read my edit.

If chess were to become a DS game and suddenly because I was the host, I could take out your king turn 1 with my pawn, would you insist that this is the correct way to play the game?
Click to expand...

Excellent analogy. I hope people can see that this sort of thing is being thrown around here and people are SUPPORTING it of all things... >.>
 
If we're going to play "Pokemon as it should be," then we have to analyze the authorial intent of every single perceived "glitch" in the game. We'll have to take a long, hard look at every "glitch;" we can't just choose to look at this one and ignore the others. Of course, then we risk changing the game to something that isn't "Pokemon," and if that happens, we can't call ourselves a "competitive Pokemon battling community."
 
Pink said:
Why is there all this talk about banning Pursuit? Why don't we just do what any person in any game would do when given this situation. "Ban" the glitch. In SSBM there were game altering glitches like the Ice Climber's freeze glitch. It was in the game, but they banned it because it was unfair. Why not "ban" this glitch?

Besides, banning Pursuit does 2 things for us.

1) Gets rid of damaging rain
2) Gets rid of a very useful move.

Or, we could do this. Treat this as a glitch and not even think about implementing it! It's a GLITCH. It's not meant to be in the game so why should we implement it. This reasoning is amazingly futile and retarded. Screw the glitch, and play the game how it's s'posed to be played.

Oh, and on the note of the Missingno glitch. An even better analogy would be allowing people to use level 256 (or w/e the cap was) Pokemon in a simulator because it could be obtained in game.
Click to expand...

There is a difference, though. You can ban Level 254 Marowak, Water Gun/Water Gun/Sky Attack Rhydon and Spore Ninjask because they don't "happen" in battle, but outside. Not simulating this glitch would be like U-Turn not making the user switch-out after doing damage.
 
There haven't been glitches that severely or even minorly hinder the course of battle >.> This does. It would rip apart our Tiers, and change the metagame. And, certainly, not for the better.
 
People are forgetting the fact that Missigno glitch occurs out of battle while this glitch occurs in battle. The only way you're preventing this, should you have control, is to not kill a fleeing Pokemon with Pursuit. In the Missingno. case, just don't bring Missingno. into battle and that's all really.

The game IMO should be played as it is and not the way it's supposed to be, because for one WiFi/local would be able to abuse this glitch. I think it's unfair that one platform gets to do it (don't bring up the perfect IVs analogy...) and the other doesn't. The huge problem of course is implementing it.

I don't understand why they didn't take it out though (though I actually like the glitch, I can see why mnany people oppose). The glitch was pretty clear and they had the chance to take it out. However, they didn't. It is their final results that count IMO.
 
So, I can catch a T-Tar in the wild and chose to bring that to battle to. Should we ban that because it is a choice to bring it? Just don't bring weather into the battle. Case closed.

The game shouldn't be played how it is. The way it is, is broken. And when things are broken, we fix them. The way the game is s'posed to be played is with Double teaming sand attacking newbs and Wobb. being a total bitch all over your face. That didn't stop us from changing it so we could enjoy it better.

Look, why don't we think of the glitch as a "move" and ban the move?! Not Pursuit. Pursuit is a very useful move. This glitch, on the other hand, isn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top