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

Something that's been nagging at me: Does Gen II's random number generator behave similarly at all?
Wild encounter rate filters in Gen II wasn't actually a problem in most cases since you could always force an encounter with Sweet Scent (unless you're looking for the Roamers), or have the rate doubled by playing Pokémon March. However, encounter slots may place a stricter limitation than Gen I as all random values larger than 100 will be discarded.

Even if we take both encounter rate and slots into consideration, there are still possibilities for the game to make extra random calls before DV generations. For example, Gen II will make a random call to determine if there's an item on a wild Pokémon before generating its DVs, and if yes, an extra random call will be made to determine if it's a common or a rare item. Extra random calls like this could result in a different spread.

By the way, can we assume that "hRandomAdd and hRandomSub can be in any combination (i.e. hRandomSub could be any value regardless of hRandomAdd)" after a Random call? Since Gen I uses hRandomAdd to determine encounter and hRandomSub to determine the slot, shouldn't the DV spread be limited only by encounter rate and not the encounter slots if that assumption holds?
 
By the way, can we assume that "hRandomAdd and hRandomSub can be in any combination (i.e. hRandomSub could be any value regardless of hRandomAdd)" after a Random call? Since Gen I uses hRandomAdd to determine encounter and hRandomSub to determine the slot, shouldn't the DV spread be limited only by encounter rate and not the encounter slots if that assumption holds?
Yes, in this case the hRandomSub read is irrelevant to the DVs generated later through hRandomAdd for the reasons you're stating. It's the map's encounter rate what limits the spread.

The thing about GSC is that, as you say, the option to resort to Sweet Scent gets rid of the dependency with the encounter slot generation. Still, in GSC you have to generate held items, which happens just before generating the DVs. This affects the DV probability distribution because if the first number generated for the held item purpose is higher than 192, the game generates another random number. Definitely not as restrictive as the RBY case, but might still get rid of a small amount of possible combinations altogether, as well as being extra noise for the no static/sweet scent encounter case.

On top of that, one of the battle transitions consists on randomly filling the screen with black squares until it's fully black, which triggers a crapload of rng calls, some of which are part of variable loops. For even more hilarity, GSC battle transitions are bugged so you may be able to force that transition to either happen or not happen in most maps by generating encounters in specific areas or tiles.
 
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.

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.

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.
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but fishing allows for perfect DVs as well because it rolls for an encounter first, then waits for user input on the "Oh! It's a bite!" text box before generating DVs.
 
Hope you all didn't think this thread was dead lol =P

Building off of the pastebins posted by hashtag and my own work to determine the best encounter rates for each pokemon (which was used to determine the worst possible encounter rate to consider), I decided to go on a mission to determine exactly what DV spreads were worth examining. I used a script of my own devising, which can be found here (this is the source code, I'm too lazy to set up hosting, but you can download and run in browser?) and found the results to be as follows. Note that all encounter rates inherit from rbyAll, and each encounter rate inherits from worse rates of the same game (so rb15 inherits from rb10 and so on)

BELOW THING IS WRONG, LEAVING IT HERE FOR CONTEXT
JavaScript:
var encounters={rbyAll:[[8,15,15,13],[9,9,15,15],[11,9,11,15],[13,9,7,15],[13,15,13,13],[15,9,3,15],[15,15,9,13],[15,15,14,15]],
    rb10:[[15,15,15,1],[15,15,15,2]],
    rb15:[[8,15,15,14],[13,15,13,14],[15,15,9,14],[15,15,15,3],[15,15,15,4]],
    rb20:[[8,15,15,15],[13,15,13,15],[15,15,9,15],[15,15,15,5]],
    rb25:[[15,15,15,7]],
    rb30:[[15,15,15,9]],
    y15:[[8,15,15,14],[9,10,15,15],[13,15,13,14],[15,15,9,14],[15,15,15,3]],
    y20:[[8,15,15,15],[13,15,13,15],[15,15,9,15],[15,15,15,5]],
    y25:[[15,15,15,7]],
    y30:[[15,15,15,8]]
}
 
Last edited:

xJoelituh

is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
Moderator
So did we ever figure out what impact this has on later gens, considering how DVs don't carry over?
None, since breeding is a thing in gen 2 and every mon can be transferred between 1-2 bar the obvious exceptions and the same applies for Virtual console releases.
The only impact this may have is with vanilla RBY with no transfers(tradebacks)
 

TheMantyke

Sentient Movepool Trivia
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Team Rater Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
So did we ever figure out what impact this has on later gens, considering how DVs don't carry over?
This use to have some small effects on Gen 7 Pokemon legality, but those are mostly gone now.

The only real influence that DVs cause for future games is shininess. Previously thanks to this, some Pokemon transferred from RBY to SM couldn't be shiny. Now, since Gen II Pokemon can be sent to Gen 1 games with the VC releases of GSC, you can get any of the original 251 legally shiny from Gen I and II, barring Mew who was an event with DVs set to 15/15/15/15.

Small aside: Gen I and II can't track the Pokemon's game origin like in later games. This means that Pokemon will show up as having come from whatever version they're sent from through Poketransfer, even if they can't be found in that game. For example, my Zapdos I transferred from my Pokemon Blue to my Pokemon Silver reads as having come from Johto when transferred. This means you can legally have a shiny Pokemon from a Gen 1 game even if it can't have shiny IVs in gen 1. This renders the info I collected here useless now.
 
Shininess seems like the only case where this could affect things, but I don't believe there are any shiny-locked move combinations within the context of VC Gen 2.

In other words: for a level 100 Pokemon originating from VC that isn't Mew or possibly Unown, its shininess has no bearing on legality. (And of course, it's rather pointless to use a Gen 2 Unown in Gen 7 competitive play! Or to use an Unown at all, for that matter.)
 
So I reviewed my data because I was looking to see whether ignoring attack did anything (I don't think it does, unless I overlooked something) and realised I made a glaring error in how I went about this. A more accurate list is below

JavaScript:
var encounters={rbyAll:[[8,15,15,13],[9,9,15,15],[11,9,11,15],[13,9,7,15],[13,15,13,13],[15,9,3,15],[15,15,9,13],[15,15,14,15]],
    rb10:[[15,15,15,1],[15,15,15,2]],
    rb15:[[8,15,15,13],[8,15,15,14],[11,9,11,15],[13,9,7,15],[13,15,13,13],[13,15,13,14],[15,9,3,15],[15,15,9,13],[15,15,9,14],[15,15,15,3],[15,15,15,4]],
    rb20:[[8,15,15,15],[13,15,13,15],[15,15,9,15],[15,15,15,5]],
    rb25:[[15,15,15,7]],
    rb30:[[15,15,15,9]],
    y15:[[8,15,15,14],[9,10,15,15],[13,15,13,14],[15,15,9,14],[15,15,15,3]],
    y20:[[8,15,15,15],[13,15,13,15],[15,15,9,15],[15,15,15,5]],
    y25:[[15,15,15,7]],
    y30:[[15,15,15,8]],
    allNoATK:[[0,15,15,13],[1,9,15,15],[5,15,13,13],[7,15,14,15]],
    rb10NoATK:[[7,15,15,1],[7,15,15,2]],
    rb15NoATK:[[0,15,15,14],[5,15,13,14],[7,15,15,3],[7,15,15,4]],
    rb20NoATK:[[0,15,15,15],[5,15,13,15],[7,15,15,5]],
    rb25NoATK:[[7,15,15,7]],
    rb30NoATK:[[7,15,15,9]],
    y15NoATK:[[0,15,15,14],[5,15,13,14],[7,15,15,3]],
    y20NoATK:[[0,15,15,15],[5,15,13,15],[7,15,15,5]],
    y25NoATK:[[7,15,15,7]],
    y30NoATK:[[7,15,15,8]]
}
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top