Deleted User 465389
Banned deucer.
-a shiny skwoevt
-cherubi
-amoonguss
-greedent
Guess they couldn't think of any good Pokemon for November?View attachment 292746New Max Raid event, runs until the midnight of Nov 23, and can get spooOoOky pokemon like:
-a shiny skwoevt
-cherubi
-amoonguss
-greedent
They never let us have any fun..." The Pokémon Company have put out their plans to fix Pokémon that were affected by a bug in the Pokémon GO to Pokémon HOME transfer. For Alolan Form and Galarian Form Pokémon, for a short time if you transferred them, they'd have the moves of their original form. Over the coming weeks, if you have these Pokémon in Pokémon HOME, they will automatically be fixed to have their correct learnset. This will be done in waves and not all Pokémon will be fixed at the same time "
Get your Spicy Alolan Vulpixes while you can!
I mean half the Pokemon in SwSh are hidden behind a paywall as is (expansions and / or home + bank). I think that's just going to be Gamefreak's business model moving forward. Strangely Pokemon Go might actually be a decent way to get Pokemon for free depending on your luck.Hey, here's a HOME fix you can start with: let us transfer Pokemon from Bank without us having to pay an additional fee (you should have combined both services to begin with)!
And my point is that is complete BS, before Gen VI transferring Pokemon was always free, and now it feels like they're nickel and diming us just because they can which is something we should never let a company get away with, or at least let us complain about it. Sword & Shield were the highest selling Switch games despite being rushed and looks like they tried to cut corners to save money whenever they could, Pokemon merch makes billions a year, Nintendo dished out the money to move GF closer to their HQ and gave them a very nice looking customized office; there is no excuse for this nickel and diming unless GF is that s*** with money and if that's the case maybe now they're closer to Nintendo they can borrow on of their financial advisers to smack them on the back end of the head.I mean half the Pokemon in SwSh are hidden behind a paywall as is (expansions and / or home + bank). I think that's just going to be Gamefreak's business model moving forward. Strangely Pokemon Go might actually be a decent way to get Pokemon for free depending on your luck.
Ultimately when it comes to the failures of the "3DS era" as I have dubbed it (coming as someone who actually likes Gens 6 and 7), SwSh in particular, I'm not sure if Gamefreak, TPC, or Nintendo is truly to blame for the particularly bad decisions like Dexit and whatnot.text wall
I'm still boggled by the fact people are still willing to flame Nintendo for this honestly, when both Sony and Microsoft have had subscription-based online in place for years, at much higher price, and noone was worried.like Switch Online's entire existence
People aren't complaining about paying for an online service, but Nintendo's Online service isn't that good. While Sony's and Microsoft's service not only gives you access to games online features, their services also gives you free games every month! Meanwhile, all Nintendo did was take their free shaky online service and made it a paid shaky online service + Tetris 99. I think it was Jim Sterling who suggested what I think Nintendo should do and put up all the NES and SNES (and maybe select N64 & GameCube) games for free because its also BS they're still selling those for like 10 bucks (when you can find those games online for free...). Nintendo is very behind with the times when it comes to their online service, heck, you can even see that with their eShop where, instead of putting all the NES, SNES, N64, & GameCube titles they could, instead they have this bizarre trickle system where it's a limited selection of games... and between systems the eShop can have different games available (or they "restart" from the beginning instead of carrying over the games they already had on the past eShop).I'm still boggled by the fact people are still willing to flame Nintendo for this honestly, when both Sony and Microsoft have had subscription-based online in place for years, at much higher price, and noone was worried.
I guess """nintendo fans""" are naive enough to think servers run on air and require no maintenance.
My pet theory is that GF knows that the 3DS online network will eventually be depreciated and shut down, and having HOME as a separate service keeps it cleaner rather than adding Switch connectivity to Bank and having the 3DS portion go down. The clean break between the two systems means if/when the 3DS servers go down, they don't have to worry about something breaking. Now, I don't think that the 3DS servers will go down anytime soon (probably around 10 years from now), but it could be one reason why they want it as two separate programs.Relating this back to Pokemon, I still don't get what the point of having both Bank and HOME aside charging you twice. Either upgrade Bank or merge it with HOME. Or give HOME some features which would make players want to pay for having it (and by that I don't mean cut out features that should be in the game like GTS).
This hits a lot of the issues I have with Nintendo's connectivity right on the money, they have a really unstable and frankly embarrassingly bad online service, not even being able to support voice chat on the console, something that Microsoft did back in, uhhhhhhhhhhhh 2002. Online servers are not that expensive in the grand scheme of things to run, and once people started to question Microsoft's 60 dollar a year cost / Sony attempting to start their own paid service around the Xbox 360/PS3 era, they added in the free games to make the purchase seem worth it. Nintendo now charges for a service that what, gives us a few NES / SNES games a month? Nintendo keeps on thinking that this trickle of releases keeps fans interested, but these games are pretty much worthless! Who really wants to play Baseball for the NES nowadays! Hell, they should really be porting Wii games to the Switch over anything else. But again, this is the company that released GBA / DS games on the Wii U instead of the 3DS.People aren't complaining about paying for an online service, but Nintendo's Online service isn't that good. While Sony's and Microsoft's service not only gives you access to games online features, their services also gives you free games every month! Meanwhile, all Nintendo did was take their free shaky online service and made it a paid shaky online service + Tetris 99. I think it was Jim Sterling who suggested what I think Nintendo should do and put up all the NES and SNES (and maybe select N64 & GameCube) games for free because its also BS they're still selling those for like 10 bucks (when you can find those games online for free...). Nintendo is very behind with the times when it comes to their online service, heck, you can even see that with their eShop where, instead of putting all the NES, SNES, N64, & GameCube titles they could, instead they have this bizarre trickle system where it's a limited selection of games... and between systems the eShop can have different games available (or they "restart" from the beginning instead of carrying over the games they already had on the past eShop).
To be a little fair on the comparison, we didn't get Pokémon 3DS Virtual Console games until 2016, five years after the 3DS was released, and on a milestone year for the series.It is really frustrating that the only Pokemon games we have gotten for the Switch are SwSh and Let's Go...when the 3DS had Gen I and Gen II available (for $10 each, but that's another story). Like, can the switch not run a Gameboy game? I would love to have Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 available on the Switch at some point, even if its in a bundle like Super Mario All-Stars. It almost feels like Nintendo does not understand that older games have their own character and value, and that not everyone wants the latest version of the same 5 franchises.
Which is a very bad plan from any angle you look at it! Going by this logic, if a console debuts the year of or after an anniversary for some franchise, its going to be at least 4-5 years for a port of an older game to appear on it. And then the process repeats when every console is released? So if we do get Gen I/II ports in 2021, and then Switch 2 debuts in late 2026, we have to wait till 2031 to play those same games again on Switch 2?To be a little fair on the comparison, we didn't get Pokémon 3DS Virtual Console games until 2016, five years after the 3DS was released, and on a milestone year for the series.
If there is a chance for Virtual Console or ports, it could be next year... or 2026.
BTW Nidorina and Nidoqueen still can't breed. Don't know why that jumped into my head when I read this, just you'd think with the complicted lengths they would go to correct this glitch, a simple correction to a glitch over 20 years old would have been fixed by now." A fix has been pushed to the Nintendo Switch version of Pokémon HOME. This fix will allow for the correction of movesets for Alolan Form and Galarian Form Pokémon that were sent from Pokémon GO to Pokémon HOME froim November 11th to 16th. That bug gave those Pokémon the movesets of its standard learnset. Now, if you connect to the game on the Nintendo Switch and connect to a Sword & Shield save file, it'll automatically fix those Pokémon's learnsets "
~ Serebii
Party's over, people. Everyone go home.
You sure this is a bug?BTW Nidorina and Nidoqueen still can't breed. Don't know why that jumped into my head when I read this, just you'd think with the complicted lengths they would go to correct this glitch, a simple correction to a glitch over 20 years old would have been fixed by now.
It was no doubt a glitch in Gen II they never caught, then I wouldn't be surprised for Gen III & IV kept it for "tradition". But after that? I don't know, feels like they honestly don't think its a problem since Nidoran (f) can breed and so as long as they always make it available to catch in the wild somewhere there's no need to change anything/remember they should probably fix this.You sure this is a bug?
Because if it was kept for this long, even since gen 2, then it wouldn't seem as if it was a bug.
Sure it's weird, but this looks intentional for whatever reason.
I'm confident at this point it's a intended feature, because in 8 generations if they wanted them to breed they would have done it.It was no doubt a glitch in Gen II they never caught, then I wouldn't be surprised for Gen III & IV kept it for "tradition". But after that? I don't know, feels like they honestly don't think its a problem since Nidoran (f) can breed and so as long as they always make it available to catch in the wild somewhere there's no need to change anything/remember they should probably fix this.
They had to pretty much rewrite code from scratch when they made Gen 3, and yet they didn't bother to change this.It was no doubt a glitch in Gen II they never caught, then I wouldn't be surprised for Gen III & IV kept it for "tradition". But after that? I don't know, feels like they honestly don't think its a problem since Nidoran (f) can breed and so as long as they always make it available to catch in the wild somewhere there's no need to change anything/remember they should probably fix this.
The logical and most efficient assumption would be that the Pokémon has a pointer to the egg group.Out of curiosity, with all our years of looking at pokemon data, what does the egg group association look like internally. It's something we're able to easily pull out and ID, but is it like a list of egg groups that point at pokemon, or pokemon data has little pointers to the egg groups, or....?
Look its gen 2 and it had massive rewrites to its everything I'm not ruling it out.The logical and most efficient assumption would be that the Pokémon has a pointer to the egg group.
Otherwise, it would be like asking "Is X car made by Y brand?" and, instead of looking at X's brand, you look at Y's list of cars and see if X is there.