• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

Competitor and Arceus

I always wonder why some people are so set about staying within "the limits of the game" but allow things that can be accessed through glitches.

Personally, I think there's a difference between "the limits of the game" (ie, what can be achieved without 3rd party software and/or hardware) and the intended limits of the game.

If you're going to make a fuss about disallowing something because it's currently unobtainable, then within reason it makes sense to disallow what wasn't meant to be accessed. The same arguments apply, just because people were able to access a glitch to use Shaymin doesn't mean that Nintendo ever intended to release it, just like Arceus.
 
The "can be obtained through a glitch" vs. "can only be obtained through an external device" distinction seems rather arbitrary. Why is this an important distinction?

Also, the glitch in the Japanese carts that allows the player to obtain Shaymin isn't available to everyone. Is the fact that SOME people have Shaymins obtained without the use of external devices by virtue of their early Japanese cartridges seems irrelevant if one really accepts the premise that Arceus being unobtainable through normal means disqualifies it from being used on Shoddy Battle. Shaymin is just as unobtainable through normal means, but by the sheerest accident of programming can be, on a limited portion of actual game cartridges, obtained without hooking the game up to an external hacking device. There's a difference, but I find it hard to believe that anyone applying significance to this difference is doing so for any reason other than a desire to exclude Shaymin from the argument against Arceus usage.

It's grasping at straws.
 
No one cares what Gamefreak intends. Let us get that out of the way from the start. Did they intend for us to have Shaymin? No. Do we care? Also no. The rule "it must be obtainable without the use of a third party device" is, in fact, the purpose upon itself. It's not a rule so that we can stay within developer intent. It's the rule because it's the rule. If you don't like it, play Extended Game.
 
I look at this and see centralization of the metagame. I mean, come on, you arent even having fun anymore, it's gotten to the point where the only thing that you guys care about is rules, rules, rules. (you guys that dont want arceus/shaymin in use yet.) And dont even hide behind your "then lets start using spore ninjask and thunderpunch poisonheal breloom" counter. You arent stupid, you guys know the difference between blatent illegality and something that has nothing wrong with it, something that as Obi himself pointed out is "easy" to counter. (iirc, he did say he beat 7 out of 8 battles against arceus). And with the other mindless arguement about "oh, what if nintendo never wanted him released? well then, isnt that more of a reason for us to stop using this rule so that this way we can actually use arceus, like ever? admittedly, the new clause is kind of a good thing, i guess people will stop complaining now, but the principle of the thing just kills me. Just because something is "semi-legit" shouldnt suddenly take the fun away from battling, because nothing changed from what it is or will be, its the same fun poke to use.
 
Amazing Ampharos said:
If you don't like it, play Extended Game.
Click to expand...

But that's not really what this discussion was about. I'm under the impression that the extended game option is new and was created to settle just this issue. Before that, "no Arceus" was not the rule previously. So unless the rule is retroactive and everyone who broke it before it existed is disqualified, it's a moot point.
 
So unless the rule is retroactive and everyone who broke it before it existed is disqualified, it's a moot point.
Click to expand...

Disqualified from what? Any tournament will have had rules on this matter, and as for rating in Shoddy Battle, rated matches don't allow ubers anyway (there is only a standard ladder).

It's also not "a moot point" because it solves the issue completely.
 
ColinJF said:
It's also not "a moot point" because it solves the issue completely.
Click to expand...

What solves the issue completely? The extended game option? Well, of course. But my comment was in regards to "if you don't like it, play extended game." It's a moot point because with the extended game option, forfeiting over Arceus would make absolutely no sense, so obviously the context of forfeiting over this distinction must be pre-extended game option (which I'm sure you know).


But this has very little to do with Shaymin anyway, which is more what my original point was about. Banning Arceus isn't something I have a particular problem with. And if the rationale is "because it has a 720 BST" or "because we want to" then fine. But if it's "because it is only available through use of an external device" that's an awkward and bizarre qualifier which only exists because of Shaymin, otherwise it could just be "because Arceus hasn't been released yet" or "because Arceus isn't obtainable through normal means."
 
To Obi:

Are you against Manaphy? According to your argument, you should be. Manaphy is only obtainable through "outside forces", aka the Toys 'R' Us giveaway or Pokemon Ranger. I don't see how that is different from using an Action Replay or GameShark, both are outside forces that put things into the game that are unacceptable otherwise. Same goes for Wish Blissey/Hypno, Leech Seed Oddish, Baton Pass Zapdos, Heal Bell Articuno, and every other NYPC/XD -obtainable move combination.

You're right, I have been vague on my stance. That's because I have not thought it through a lot. But as far as I'm concerned, Arceus is perfectly legal on the battle simulators, for the simple reason that simulators intend to simulate the battling experience, not the game itself. As far as anyone knows, Arceus is perfectly legitimate and is intended to be a Pokemon created by Nintendo. And I find it hard to believe that no one has tested Arceus at all in-game.

If it's proven to be sitting there, waiting for us to use an item to battle it, why should we wait and twiddle our thumbs and wait for Nintendo to give us the thumbs up? If its stats, moveset, sprite, etc. are all programmed into the game, it should be acceptable. The 'Hypnosis + Brave Bird Crobat' argument doesn't fully apply here, as we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence that Nintendo will plan to give us this option, while there is certainly evidence (though no proof) that Nintendo will continue to milk the cash cow and give us an Azure Flute giveaway.

Also, in your own Rate My Team thread, you used a Calm Blissey, which you probably gave perfect IVs on Shoddy. Have YOU proven that such a Blissey exists? Have you tracked down every single WishBliss ever given out and made sure that one of them had these traits? If not, you haven't proven its legitimacy, and thus you are acting hypocritical. For all we know, there might not be a Calm max IV Wish Blissey, and thus it shouldn't be allowed on simulators.

I haven't been on Smogon for a while, and I was suprised to see that this had reached 5 pages. Thanks for discussing, everyone.
 
I believe to do this justice, I won't answer for a a lot of things you addressed. I should note that Colin apparently added the clause in the game, so there really shouldn't be any complaint anyway. This makes both your post and my post moot, but I'm willing to go forward anyway.

However, I need to address one particular point because it applies directly to my argument if you don't mind. >_> This is simply a rehash of earlier arguments just in case you didn't read every post in this thread.

If it's proven to be sitting there, waiting for us to use an item to battle it, why should we wait and twiddle our thumbs and wait for Nintendo to give us the thumbs up? If its stats, moveset, sprite, etc. are all programmed into the game, it should be acceptable. The 'Hypnosis + Brave Bird Crobat' argument doesn't fully apply here, as we have ABSOLUTELY no evidence that Nintendo will plan to give us this option, while there is certainly evidence (though no proof) that Nintendo will continue to milk the cash cow and give us an Azure Flute giveaway.
Click to expand...

There is no proof, and at the same time I hope I have laid down an argument that shows that Nintendo might not even release Arceus. If it is a debug pokemon they have no reason to release it in the first place and the flute would serve as a mechanism to prevent the typical person from using it.

There was also another point a few pages back that even if Nintendo planned to release Arceus, they have reason not to do so. Religious tension is very high worldwide and to quote the absurd example again, a woman was jailed for naming a Teddy Bear Mohammad. (with a link this time, so no one is insulted) Considering that Arceus is a god in Pokemon world, it would do them some PR to simply never release anything associated with Arceus. I mean hell, does Nintendo want to send the message that humans can not only capture a god, but bend his will to your will?

Both of these viewpoints are compadible with "milking the cash cow" conjecture you laid out. In the debug theory, Arceus already saved Nintendo tons of cash by lowering the amount of development time, and in the PR theory, not releasing Arceus will allow Pokemon to last perhaps another generation or so without people complaining about Religious connotations trapped in the series.

Either way, we won't know until Nintendo releases Arceus. Only then will we know that Arceus is canon like Manaphy, XD moves, and NYPC giveaways.
 
I don't think it should be religious groups' decisions whether or not a certain video game character is allowed on a battle simulator. The fact that they created Arceus, for whatever reason, should be enough to allow us to use it on simulator environments. If they decide not to release Arceus at all, it shouldn't matter, because they already created it in a game Shoddy is trying to simulate. If they wanted it to be a surprise giveaway, a debug tool, a way to pass the time, or whatever, they created Arceus, and I feel that should be enough.
 
I don't think it should be religious groups' decisions whether or not a certain video game character is allowed on a battle simulator.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument applies from a purely Public Relations point of view.

The fact that they created Arceus, for whatever reason, should be enough to allow us to use it on simulator environments. If they decide not to release Arceus at all, it shouldn't matter, because they already created it in a game Shoddy is trying to simulate. If they wanted it to be a surprise giveaway, a debug tool, a way to pass the time, or whatever, they created Arceus, and I feel that should be enough.
Click to expand...

Would you allow Kangaskan, the evolved form of MissingNo, with 2 water guns and Sky Attack in Red/Blue and Gold / Silver games? MissingNo is clearly (without a doubt) a debug pokemon that evolves into Kangaskan and with the logic above it should be included in an simulator for RBY.

It has also been proven that MissingNo exists in D/P as well by Mario with Lasers in this post. Should shoddybattle be programmed with MissingNo. in?
 
You said that a reason we wouldn't use Arceus is that Nintendo might not release it, due to these religious groups. That's essentially saying that the religious groups are making decisions for the gaming community about online simulators.

With Obi's argument, MissingNo definitely should be allowed on simulators. If Shaymin is legal because it is obtainable via a glitch, why shouldn't MissingNo?
 
EDIT: In hindsight. There is no need to go down this path. Colin already implemented
the clause and everyone ought to be happy now. I'll withdraw from this debate. I am interested in continuing, but I don't think it is a good move on my part to continue this dieing thread on a point that no longer has relevance to the general community. Ick... didn't want to make it sound like that but thats really how it is >_>

You do make a good point with the glitch thing Blaziken. So don't take this as an offense, but really, we really shouldn't be debating this dead topic any longer.
 
Dragontamer said:
That has nothing to do with my argument. My argument applies from a purely Public Relations point of view.
Click to expand...
And your response to his post has nothing to do with his argument as he was discussing the Shoddy Battle Simulator and not in-games public relation shenanigans. As far as I know, Nintendo did not create, release, or sanction Shoddybattle, therefore I don't believe they suffer any fallout from religious controversy over simulating the Pokemon Arceus over Shoddy.

Dragontamer said:
Would you allow Kangaskan, the evolved form of MissingNo, with 2 water guns and Sky Attack in Red/Blue and Gold / Silver games?
Click to expand...
Based on your, Obi, and your supporters' arguments posted in this thread, the Pokemon is available through an in-game glitch and is perfectly acceptable for use in battle. This includes Missingno, who is also available through in-game glitch.
Dragontamer said:
It has also been proven that MissingNo exists in D/P as well by Mario with Lasers in this post. Should shoddybattle be programmed with MissingNo. in?
Click to expand...
If it's available in game through a glitch, then it should not be held to a double standard or your argument for disallowing Arceus would be pretty much a waste of 4 pages, no?
 
Don't misrepresent my position. My position is that things which are impossible to obtain are automatically unacceptable. From that, you cannot conclude that all things which are possible to obtain are automatically acceptable. It would be like me saying that all cups made of glass are breakable, and from that you state my position as being that all cups not made of glass are unbreakable.

For instance, I'm entirely for banning OHKOs, despite the fact that you can, in fact, use them in game. This is not a contradiction of my position because it's possible to actually enforce this ban (unlike, say, a ban on critical hits). If a Pokemon is obtainable, then it's up for consideration as to whether it's allowed.
 
Obi said:
Don't misrepresent my position. My position is that things which are impossible to obtain are automatically unacceptable. From that, you cannot conclude that all things which are possible to obtain are automatically acceptable. It would be like me saying that all cups made of glass are breakable, and from that you state my position as being that all cups not made of glass are unbreakable.

For instance, I'm entirely for banning OHKOs, despite the fact that you can, in fact, use them in game. This is not a contradiction of my position because it's possible to actually enforce this ban (unlike, say, a ban on critical hits). If a Pokemon is obtainable, then it's up for consideration as to whether it's allowed.
Click to expand...
My statement was not specifically directed at you, but more because I have seen mention from people that things obtainable via glitches were acceptable when that is contradictory to the argument of not allowing things that are not meant to be obtained.
 
If you're all for banning Arceus due to the fact that Nintendo might not have any intention of releasing it, why shouldn't Shaymin be banned? The general public might not like the fact that Shaymin looks like a Chia pet, so they might pressure Nintendo into not releasing it. Shaymin could be a debug tool for Nintendo, or it might be something else entirely. I don't see how that is more legal than Arceus, just because it is obtainable via a glitch Nintendo never intended, according to your argument.
 
Jumpman16 said:
You two are going to have to define "meant to be obtained" and "intended", as far as the scope of this argument is concerned. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Is there more than one definition? If Nintendo created it with the intention of releasing it, it was "meant to be obtained" and "intended" to be obtained, and thus should be allowed on simulators. Of course this is impossible to prove until they actually release it, but it's a safe bet to say that if they referenced it several times in-game, bothered to create sprites, a movepool, ability, and stats, it was their intention to release it.

Besides, (and this is a big point), what's the harm in using it? No one is being placed at a disadvantage here.
 
I'm going to say this again because it bares repeating and seems to go over people's heads:

In light of the fact that Competitor does not exist and will in a world with both Shoddy and WiFi battling, what is so difficult about asking your opponent before a match to not use X Pokemon? You already establish "OHKO, DT, Sleep, etc etc etc etc" clauses. If you wanted to test OU/Standard without Tyranitar to see if the format would be more balanced, you would ask others not to use Tyranitar before the battle or ask if others were testing the same. I don't understand where there is a disconnect between doing that and doing the exact same fucking thing for the use of Arceus.

By asking ahead of a battle, WiFi, Shoddy, Competitor, or with d100, pen and paper, you eliminate any hurt feelings, misconceptions, or mid-battle disconnects. It takes 2 words of text more and it's something you're already doing.

Any argument over what Nintendo did/didn't intend is irrelevant. Maybe Nintendo didn't intend for you to be able to clone Pokemon. Maybe they didn't intend for you to have more than one Master Ball except through Lottery winning. Maybe Shaymin was supposed to be a Fire type, but the coding got messed up and he was grass by accident and the game shipped out with a grass Shaymin. You don't know. You're not Nintendo of Japan or Game Freak. Stop using irrelevant jargon to justify how you play your game, as it may not reflect how everyone else, including Nintendo, wants their game played.

This thread is a circle jerk. One side is just posting something outlandish enough to warrant a response from the other side until the other snowballs back into the others mouth in some disgusting Pokemon-related sexual metaphor. The thread itself has strayed far from the OP's intention, and every post since Obi was identified as the disconnecter has more or less been off topic.

How this thread is still open and how people in it still have anything to talk about is completely beyond me. Sometimes people, even on the internet, amaze me.
 
"Disconnecter" has such a negative connotation. It makes it sound like I'm DCing from rated battles, stealing people's well-deserved wins. Arceus is only allowed in unrated matches, anyway, so I just quit the battle. I leave, I forfeit, I whatever. I completely ignore the match as far as considering how well I am doing that day, but if the person I'm fighting wants to count it as a win, more power to them. Please don't use the term "disconnecter", because it really makes me sound like something I'm not.
 
Obi, you should stop taking the game so seriously and let people make their own decisions on what they think is right or wrong. It is like the hacking argument, some people believe that it is morally wrong, and others believe it is for people who have a life. (Bad example) Although I do agree with you on the argument, sometimes you just have to let stuff that you don't believe in fly. It isn't all about you...
 
Um, maybe it's half about him cause he's half of the battle, lol. And he doesn't have to "let it fly at all", he can ignore his battle all he wants.
 
Jumpman16 said:
You two are going to have to define "meant to be obtained" and "intended", as far as the scope of this argument is concerned. Good luck.
Click to expand...
Well, my personal definition is: Pokemon, items and features currently available through normal usage of the game, ie, things that can be assumed to be a deliberately included part of the game. Things are are only obtainable through glitches or 3rd party devices are currently unintended until there is an official release of them, even if they are common practice and considered acceptable by the majority of the community.

Of course, there are some things that may not be intended and are accessible through the course of normal gameplay but there has to be some assumptions made unless Game Freak feels the urge to make a list of every last thing that they intended to have available in D/P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top