Breeding in DP (Ditto glitch)

[Cathy]

It is a perhaps uncommonly cited fact that through a glitch involving Ditto in the Japanese version, you can in fact breed pokemon to have any combination of their egg moves.

In general, we should only ban things if they break they game. This glitch does not break the game, because if any specific pokemon became too powerful thanks to it, we would ban those pokemon instead, rather than the mechanics that allow them to exist. I can't really come up with a good justification for not allowing this glitch to be used (i.e. having no DP illegal egg combinations in standard play), so I thought I'd float it out there.

"But newer versions of the game removed the glitch, and we should play by the latest mechanics."

This isn't an issue of choosing which version of the game to play. The glitch with Pursuit and a Choice Item is a case of this because we can only enjoy the consequences of that mechanic if we actually play on a Japanese cartridge. If we play on the latest version, we can't use the glitch.

On the other hand, with this Ditto glitch, we can breed the pokemon in an old version of the game and then trade them to a new version, and still play battles with only the new version. Playing battles on the new version makes sense; declaring that the old versions don't exist and can't be traded from does not make sense.

I suggest that we allow all combinations of egg moves on pokemon bred in DP.

[Edit: Just to clarify, I was originally under the impression (due to mistaken information) that the extent of this glitch is limited. Since it's not, I don't consider this something that should be part of standard.]

 

[Lee]

I suggest that we allow all combinations of egg moves on pokemon bred in DP.

My first thought here was Belly Drum/Aqua Jet Azumarill. I'm not overly keen on letting that pumped-up rodent loose in OU...some sets are illegal for a reason, and that would seem to be a prime example.

Your reasoning is valid though...as the programmer of a metagame, it's your job to best simulate the actual game, but I'm just not convinced that glitches are intended to be factored into our metagame. Did we allow any of the forms of Missingno in RBY? No, so why should this particular glitch be any different?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Things like this would have an enormous impact on the game. Pursuit + Fire Punch Snorlax might not sound that great, but it would make quite a big difference. Same with Sleep Powder + Spikes Roserade (which Aldaron himself had quite a bit of success with iirc). Not only is this just a glitch, it is a glitch that Nintendo acknowleged shouldn't have been a part of the game when they removed it. The creators obviously meant for some combinations of moves to be impossible.

If we allow this glitch to be standard, we should also allow Missingno into RBY, along with level 172 Snorlaxen and level 150 Rapidash etc

Although the actual question should be "what is Nintendo going to do with this?"

Edit: I forgot about BellyJet Azumarill, along with HypnoPlot Crobat etc etc. They would also be gamebreaking and fall under the "nintendo wanted to keep this out and so should you" category. Damn you Lee for taking everything I was going to post and then posting as I was typing it.

 

[Cathy]

If we allow this glitch to be standard, we should also allow Missingno into RBY, along with level 172 Snorlaxen and level 150 Rapidash etc

Presumably these things break the game and would be banned. The default state is that everything is allowed, but if something is broken, it will be banned.

If any pokemon become broken because of this we should be banning those pokemon rather than the mechanics that allow them to exist.

The creators obviously meant for some combinations of moves to be impossible.

Authorial intention doesn't matter. As a player, you shouldn't be concerned with what Nintendo intended. You should be concerned with what is actually possible in the game.

About glitches in general, I will say this: What makes something a glitch? Is it the lack of intention? Let's suppose that pokemon X can kill pokemon Y in one hit with Ice Beam. Did Nintendo intend this? Did they sit down and say "let's make the game mechanics such that pokemon X can kill pokemon Y in one hit with Ice Beam"? I doubt it. Instead, they sat down and developed a damage formula and this is merely a consequence of that. Let's consider something like this Ditto glitch. Did they sit down and say "let's make all combinations of egg moves possible"? I doubt it. But they did develop game mechanics that directly led to this being possible. In both cases what we mean by "intent" is actually indirect and irrelevant. That something is a "glitch" is a designation based purely on intuition and does not play into whether something should be banned.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Authorial intention doesn't matter. As a player, you shouldn't be concerned with what Nintendo intended. You should be concerned with what is actually possible in the game.

Yes it does. Nintendo made a mistake and they fixed it so that we could not take advantage of it anymore. The fixing part is what makes the difference.

I'm sitting at a chess board, ready to play. Oh, would you look at that? My pieces are in the wrong spots! Sure, this setup is possible to obtain in a game...so should I just ignore what the creators of the game intended and play on even though I know this isn't how the actual, current rules call for the game to be played?

 

[Cathy]

I responded to why "fixing" it is irrelevant in the first post:

"But newer versions of the game removed the glitch, and we should play by the latest mechanics."

This isn't an issue of choosing which version of the game to play. The glitch with Pursuit and a Choice Item is a case of this because we can only enjoy the consequences of that mechanic if we actually play on a Japanese cartridge. If we play on the latest version, we can't use the glitch.

On the other hand, with this Ditto glitch, we can breed the pokemon in an old version of the game and then trade them to a new version, and still play battles with only the new version. Playing battles on the new version makes sense; declaring that the old versions don't exist and can't be traded from does not make sense.

I also edited the post above to discuss glitches in general.

 

[StrangerDanger]

Aldaron asked me to post this in the thread, this is how he feels on the matter:

<aldaron> the real question for this is the validity of the old gams
<aldaron> games*
<aldaron> if we allow pokemon to be traded from them
<aldaron> we are saying that game is valid
<Alper> also i like how 2v2 battles allows one to complete a battle in a single turn
<Alper> i did it once, it's fun.
<zerowing> not anymore!
<aldaron> if we accept glitches from the new cartridges (cloning), and we are saying that the old ones are valid (via trading), then we should allow the glitches in the old ones as well

<aldaron> also, saying nintendo "fixed" the glitch is simply adding our own interpretation to the matter
<aldaron> the glitch may have been corrected, but what does that mean about the validity of the old games?
<aldaron> are they suddenly invalid? in which case we cannot allow pokemon to be traded up anymore, either
<aldaron> (post that as well please :X)

 

[Bologo]

I actually agree with Colin that this should be allowed. Only the earlier japanese versions allowed for something such as the Shaymin glitch, and that was removed, so why isn't Shaymin banned right now? If anyone's going to say that it was because Shaymin isn't that good, then that's simply not a good enough reason. I'm fairly sure that Nintendo didn't intend for the Shaymin glitch to be there, but it is.

In my opinion, the new combinations for certain pokemon may actually raise diversity in OU, because you're no longer going to see the same 6 pokemon over and over, and maybe people will stop complaining about things like Garchomp when everything else gets brought up a notch.

I guess that we should do some kind of test though, but we actually NEED to do a test instead of just saying it for this kind of thing. The reason for this, is that banning/unbanning a pokemon doesn't necessarily need to be done, but game mechanics are something that actually need to be corrected as soon as possible because they not only affect several more pokemon than banning/unbanning, but they also affect how the game is actually played.

That's just my opinion on the matter.

 

[Cathy]

I'm sitting at a chess board, ready to play. Oh, would you look at that? My pieces are in the wrong spots! Sure, this setup is possible to obtain in a game...so should I just ignore what the creators of the game intended and play on even though I know this isn't how the actual, current rules call for the game to be played?

The rules of the game exist independent of what the authors intended. If a "loophole" in the rules of a board game allows you to do something that was obviously not intended, that is still a legal move, because the rules allow it.

The analogy to the rules in a video game is the game mechanics. In the case of DP, the game mechanics allow you to get any combination of egg moves in the Japanese version: this is part of the rules of the game, rather like the movement of your pieces in Chess.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I actually agree with Colin that this should be allowed. Only the earlier japanese versions allowed for something such as the Shaymin glitch, and that was removed, so why isn't Shaymin banned right now? If anyone's going to say that it was because Shaymin isn't that good, then that's simply not a good enough reason. I'm fairly sure that Nintendo didn't intend for the Shaymin glitch to be there, but it is.

Shaymin is a mediocre pokemon with awful typing and an even worse movepool. If it was something stronger that was obtained this way, such as Tyranitar or Garchomp, you might have a case. Shaymin does not break the game like allowing all possible combonations of egg moves does.

In my opinion, the new combinations for certain pokemon may actually raise diversity in OU, because you're no longer going to see the same 6 pokemon over and over, and maybe people will stop complaining about things like Garchomp when everything else gets brought up a notch.

You're right, Garchomp might look less broken if we allow more uncounterable things into the game.

I guess that we should do some kind of test though, but we actually NEED to do a test instead of just saying it for this kind of thing. The reason for this, is that banning/unbanning a pokemon doesn't necessarily need to be done, but game mechanics are something that actually need to be corrected as soon as possible because they not only affect several more pokemon than banning/unbanning, but they also affect how the game is actually played.

"they also affect how the game is actually played". If we start allowing things like this, we aren't playing pokemon anymore.

The rules of the game exist independent of what the authors intended. If a "loophole" in the rules of a board game allows you to do something that was obviously not intended, that is still a legal move, because the rules allow it.

The analogy to the rules in a video game is the game mechanics. In the case of DP, the game mechanics allow you to get any combination of egg moves in the Japanese version: this is part of the rules of the game, rather like the movement of your pieces in Chess.

So what if one week later, the board game making company re-released a new version of the rules that fixed this loophole? If we keep playing the updated game with this loophole allowed, we are no longer playing the game that the manufacturers made.

 

[Jibaku]

If we allow this glitch to be used, then we should allow 99% of the 3rd gen Pokemon, Chatot, Mime, Jr, to learn every move in the game, because there's a Japanese glitch that involves Mimic -> Transform -> KO = Learn whatever moves you want

 

[Cathy]

So what if one week later, the board game making company re-released a new version of the rules that fixed this loophole? If we keep playing the updated game with this loophole allowed, we are no longer playing the game that the manufacturers made.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that this isn't the issue? I already responded to this in the original post. Let me quote it again:

"But newer versions of the game removed the glitch, and we should play by the latest mechanics."

This isn't an issue of choosing which version of the game to play. The glitch with Pursuit and a Choice Item is a case of this because we can only enjoy the consequences of that mechanic if we actually play on a Japanese cartridge. If we play on the latest version, we can't use the glitch.

On the other hand, with this Ditto glitch, we can breed the pokemon in an old version of the game and then trade them to a new version, and still play battles with only the new version. Playing battles on the new version makes sense; declaring that the old versions don't exist and can't be traded from does not make sense.

This is not an issue of choosing the version to play. So long as the old versions exist, you can't make them disappear; you can trade from them.

If we allow this glitch to be used, then we should allow 99% of the 3rd gen Pokemon, Chatot, Mime, Jr, to learn every move in the game, because there's a Japanese glitch that involves Mimic -> Transform -> KO = Learn whatever moves you want

This is probably broken. As I said, if something is broken, it will be banned. I am not saying "allow everything". I am saying "allow everything that is not broken".

 

[Judgement]

So what if one week later, the board game making company re-released a new version of the rules that fixed this loophole? If we keep playing the updated game with this loophole allowed, we are no longer playing the game that the manufacturers made.

Then why shouldn't we have both? If we don't allow the glitch regarding the egg moves then we aren't playing the game that the manufacturers made. Basically, your argument is easily turned back in upon itself.

Allowing Shaymin and banning all possible combinations of egg moves is a double standard since both are obtained by glitches and unintended by the creators yet Shaymin stays because it "does not break the game," as you put it. Either you have both or you have none. The point is to allow things that are obtainable in the game. In that case, we should definitely have both since, techinically, both are "legal" by the rules (or mechanics) of the game.

Furthermore, you can't say that having all of the possible combinations of egg moves is broken until it's tested because all of the theorymoning in the world doesn't mean anything until it's put into practice.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Presumably these things break the game and would be banned. The default state is that everything is allowed, but if something is broken, it will be banned.

If any pokemon become broken because of this we should be banning those pokemon rather than the mechanics that allow them to exist.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that this isn't the issue? I already responded to this in the original post. Let me quote it again:

This is not an issue of choosing the version to play. So long as the old versions exist, you can't make them disappear; you can trade from them.

This is probably broken. As I said, if something is broken, it will be banned. I am not saying "allow everything". I am saying "allow everything that is not broken".

Wow, a whole lot of pokemon are about to be banned.

Well you could still play the board game by the old rules too. But what happens when you go to a tournament for that board game? They're sure as hell not going to let you play by the old rules. So basically the question comes down to whether or not Nintendo allows these traded pokemon to be used in official events, something I alluded to in my first post. In terms of simulating the game, we should be simulating what exists currently and not be looking back. If Nintendo decided to remove something from the game, there was probably a good reason for it.

 

[Cathy]

Wow, a whole lot of pokemon are about to be banned.

I did make a slight mistake in what I said here. What I meant is that if the number of pokemon to be banned is small we should ban them rather than the glitch. If the number of large then obviously we can't ban them all.

Well you could still play the board game by the old rules too.

This is nothing like the trading mechanic that exists in pokemon.

In order to be consistent, we would have to disallow all trades from older versions, including RSE. Trading should obviously be allowed.

 

[Bologo]

Shaymin is a mediocre pokemon with awful typing and an even worse movepool. If it was something stronger that was obtained this way, such as Tyranitar or Garchomp, you might have a case. Shaymin does not break the game like allowing all possible combonations of egg moves does.

Ok, seriously dude, did you not read how I just said that saying "Shaymin isn't very good" is an idiotic reason? Why allow a certain glitch but not another? They're both in the game's mechanics, so it should be that you either allow them both, or ban them both. I'm pretty sure we're at a stage in this metagame where we're not supposed to just assume that a glitch will be broken unless it's actually been used in competitive battle. Like I said in my post before, it needs testing.

You're right, Garchomp might look less broken if we allow more uncounterable things into the game.

Well, how do you know that those things are going to be uncounterable anyway? How many of the illegal sets have you actually tried out?

"they also affect how the game is actually played". If we start allowing things like this, we aren't playing pokemon anymore.

How? The glitch may only happen in one version, but they trade over to the english versions just fine. You can't do that with Missingno in RBY because that messes up the game severely.

Whatever, IMO, at this point, if this is an issue in smogon, there needs to be some kind of testing, unless a huge majority of people are completely opposed to it I guess. This is a test, however, that would actually require a separate ladder, because it affects way too many pokemon to be tested in a tournament.

 

[Cathy]

Shaymin does not break the game like allowing all possible combonations of egg moves does.

If it does break the game then it shouldn't be allowed.

But up until now I haven't seen any discussion on this. Most people reject the glitch simply because it's a glitch rather than actually analysing whether it's broken. As I said though, if we agree it's broken, it should be banned.

This topic is a place to discuss whether it is broken It might very well be broken but I haven't seen any arguments to that effect so far (before I posted this topic).

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Then why shouldn't we have both? If we don't allow the glitch regarding the egg moves then we aren't playing the game that the manufacturers made.

Allowing Shaymin and banning all possible combinations of egg moves is a double standard since both are obtained by glitches and unintended by the creators yet Shaymin stays because it "does not break the game," as you put it. Either you have both or you have none. The point is to allow things that are obtainable in the game. In that case, we should definitely have both since, techinically, both are "legal" by the rules (or mechanics) of the game.

Shaymin was put in the game and then was made inaccessible by being hidden away in a place you couldnt walk to. The egg move combinations were completely removed from the code. That is quite the difference. Nintendo wanted Shaymin to be accessible to the user at some point, whereas this wasn't. If Nintendo actually puts out an official statement regarding this issue, then I will back off. But until that happens, I don't see why the creators of the game would fix a glitch and then still allow players to benefit from it. This is crossing the line between "we need to simulate the game as best as possible" and "can we please stay sane for two seconds"

Ok, seriously dude, did you not read how I just said that saying "Shaymin isn't very good" is an idiotic reason? Why allow a certain glitch but not another? They're both in the game's mechanics, so it should be that you either allow them both, or ban them both. I'm pretty sure we're at a stage in this metagame where we're not supposed to just assume that a glitch will be broken unless it's actually been used in competitive battle. Like I said in my post before, it needs testing.

Shaymin being a bad pokemon is NOT an idiotic reason. If something is to become an issue, it actually has to be important to people. This is not a double standard because if the movesets became this drastically altered, everything that we already know about D/P OU would be thrown out the window.

Well, how do you know that those things are going to be uncounterable anyway? How many of the illegal sets have you actually tried out?

Belly. Drum. Plus. Aqua. Jet. Azumar-ILL. If you want to let me use this set against you because you don't think it's gamebreaking, I would be more than happy to. Even things like Sleep Powder + Spikes Roserade, which seems insignificant, has a gigantic impact on the game (just ask Aldaron).

Whatever, IMO, at this point, if this is an issue in smogon, there needs to be some kind of testing, unless a huge majority of people are completely opposed to it I guess. This is a test, however, that would actually require a separate ladder, because it affects way too many pokemon to be tested in a tournament.

That is exactly my point: this would change so much that we wouldn't even know where to start. Even when these illegal movesets were possible to use on Shoddy, people complained about them being used. What makes you think this needs another test?

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

This topic is a place to discuss whether it is broken, rather than bothering with the poor arguments I have been dealing with so far (about intention and trading and so on). It might very well be broken but I haven't seen any arguments to that effect so far.

How is intention a poor argument? It's almost definitely the most important one. We're trying to play Pokemon here. As a player of a game you should be concerned with playing the game the way it was meant to be played. The glitch was taken out because it was not supposed to be part of the game. Nintendo does not wish for the game to be played in that fashion, therefore why would any player wish to do so?

I've been talking with jrrrrr about this extensively and I really agree with everything he's said so far, especially the latest point concerning official Nintendo events. I know we don't adhere to the rules of Nintendo events in any way, but this is about game mechanics. We should play the game the way it is played on an official level. So if Nintendo disallows these glitched pokemon, so should we. If they dont? Well then neither should we.

 

[Cathy]

How is intention a poor argument? It's almost definitely the most important one. We're trying to play Pokemon here. As a player of a game you should be concerned with playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

Absolutely not. You should be concerned with playing the game, not worrying about "how it was meant to be played". Your statement here is so anti-competitive that I am blown away by it. I might as well just link to Playing to Win:

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/intermediates-guide/how-far-should-you-go-to-win

As for the actual topic though, if it's broken, that's what I'd like to discuss. I don't know if it is and seeing as this is a "Policy Review" forum that is the sort of thing we should be discussing.

 

[Judgement]

How is intention a poor argument? It's almost definitely the most important one. We're trying to play Pokemon here. As a player of a game you should be concerned with playing the game the way it was meant to be played. The glitch was taken out because it was not supposed to be part of the game. Nintendo does not wish for the game to be played in that fashion, therefore why would any player wish to do so?

I've been talking with jrrrrr about this extensively and I really agree with everything he's said so far, especially the latest point concerning official Nintendo events. I know we don't adhere to the rules of Nintendo events in any way, but this is about game mechanics. We should play the game the way it is played on an official level. So if Nintendo disallows these glitched pokemon, so should we. If they dont? Well then neither should we.

I disagree with the arguments regarding the events. It doesn't matter because what Nintendo uses as "rules" in their events and the rules used on the simulator are very different anyway. If they disallow certain things or fix certain bugs and one has the Pokemon that was obtained via glitch or bug, then don't have that Pokemon on your cartridge when you go to the event; just don't use them. What happens in Nintendo events is different than what happens in the DP OU metagame.

 

[JabbaTheGriffin]

I don't see how that makes me anti-competitive, but oh well.

On to your other point, I don't think it'd be as much broken as it would completely stir up a metagame that has already settled down and is now still attempting to settle down after the unbanning of Wobbuffet and Deoxys-e and may once again be stirred up by the possible banning of Garchomp (a man can dream right?). If you're completely set on unbanning this game mechanic based on if people don't believe it to be broken (which in most cases it isn't) I'd at least wait several months before doing so. That's just my 2 cents on what I judge to be a lost cause.

I disagree with the arguments regarding the events. It doesn't matter because what Nintendo uses as "rules" in their events and the rules used on the simulator are very different anyway. If they disallow certain things or fix certain bugs and one has the Pokemon that was obtained via glitch or bug, then don't have that Pokemon on your cartridge when you go to the event; just don't use them. What happens in Nintendo events is different than what happens in the DP OU metagame.

It seems like you're completely mixing up rules and game mechanics.

 

[Judgement]

I don't see how that makes me anti-competitive, but oh well.

On to your other point, I don't think it'd be as much broken as it would completely stir up a metagame that has already settled down and is now still attempting to settle down after the unbanning of Wobbuffet and Deoxys-e and may once again be stirred up by the possible banning of Garchomp (a man can dream right?). If you're completely set on unbanning this game mechanic based if people don't believe it to be broken (which in most cases it isn't) I'd at least wait several months before doing so. That's just my 2 cents on what I judge to be a lost cause.



It seems like you're completely mixing up rules and game mechanics.

No, in this case it's basically the same, because it still has to do with the "loopholes" that jrrrrrr talked about. Nintendo not allowing them in its events is the same because they're changing the rules after the fact.

As for the metagame, it probably would stir it up, but that doesn't mean that its breaking it, but that remains the be seen through testing (even though it probably won't be broken anyway).

 

[Bologo]

That is exactly my point: this would change so much that we wouldn't even know where to start. Even when these illegal movesets were possible to use on Shoddy, people complained about them being used. What makes you think this needs another test?

I think it deserves another test, because frankly, the "testing" it got when illegal sets were allowed on the ladder was just unfair.

In my opinion, people were complaining about illegal movesets simply because they were labelled as "illegal". However, on a separate ladder where these movesets are actually legal now, people won't be able to simply go nuts whenever they see an illegal moveset, because the only illegal movesets will be the DP Egg move + ADV Move Tutor ones.

Bleh, if anything, I guess it's still a good tournament idea if no one supports this being implimented into regular play.

P.S. Sorry, but I don't think you can use BellyJet Azumarill against me on shoddy anyway since all the legal movesets are banned. I do agree that this is a tough moveset, but it's still extremely risky like Bellyzard. Most of the time, if you set up a Belly Drum with anything that's not Marowak (way too slow), the game is probably going to end. It also requires a ton of prediction to pull off correctly, just like any other Belly Drummer, since it loses 50%. Yeah, I know it can Encore to help it set up, but it has to predict with that too, and make sure it doesn't Encore an attacking move. Also, making sure it doesn't accidentally Aqua Jet a Vaporeon switch-in (though Return can still OHKO anyway), because Vaporeon can Haze all of Azumarill's hard work away, being faster than it. It also has to make sure it doesn't Return a Ghost switch-in, because they'll either burn it or put it to sleep.

I don't doubt you for one second that BellyJet Azumarill is a killer moveset, but it's not as foolproof as something like YacheChomp since the boost is hard to get. Also, Azumarill, Crobat and Roserade shouldn't be the only reasons to halt any kind of testing.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Absolutely not. You should be concerned with playing the game, not worrying about "how it was meant to be played". Your statement here is so anti-competitive that I am blown away by it.

In the nature of competition, this glitch puts the players who have access to the glitched cartridges at a huge advantage in battles (assuming that this becomes legal). Since I can't get a glitched egg without relying on someone else or because I didn't know about it, I am now at a competitive disadvantage over other people. This disadvantage extends to both not being able to use the sets and not expecting them when they pop up against me. Why should this unfair advantage be given to those people that happen to stumble upon a glitched copy of the game? Allowing those pokemon in the game is akin to allowing hacked pokemon in the game, everyone CAN hack, but it removes an important part of the game and this shouldnt just be ignored like you are doing.

Also, how do you justify allowing glitch moves while banning event moves?

I think it deserves another test, because frankly, the "testing" it got when illegal sets were allowed on the ladder was just unfair.

In my opinion, people were complaining about illegal movesets simply because they were labelled as "illegal". However, on a separate ladder where these movesets are actually legal now, people won't be able to simply go nuts whenever they see an illegal moveset, because the only illegal movesets will be the DP Egg move + ADV Move Tutor ones.

Whether or not it was unfair by your standards really doesnt matter. The illegal movesets were allowed and nobody wanted them.

If someone puts up a separate ladder with these allowed, what exactly would this be trying to prove? How would it be proven? What evidence would we need to determine whether or not some moveset is broken or not? These are things we should determine beforehand to prevent even more arguments from coming up.