Emergency Solutions for Platinum Weather Glitch

[Seven Deadly Sins]

Because those glitches have at least questionable authorial intent. This glitch is without a doubt not intended by the producers of the game, because it creates a situation in which the game becomes completely unplayable without turning it off. No self-respecting software company would do that.

When the intent of something is up for debate, it's acceptable to err on the side of caution and just accept it. The intent of this one is clearly not up for debate, and those who wish to debate it lack any form of common sense.

The "intent" of something has no bearing on whether or not it exists, and given that it exists, how is it smart to say "no it shouldnt be this way"?

Colin's got it right here. If we start assuming "author intent" then we leave ourselves open to all sorts of ridiculous arguments. Shoal Salt does nothing, wtf's up with that? The authors must not have meant it that way, so we should fix it. Fire Fang shouldn't hit through Wonder Guard unless it's SE, so let's just scratch that once and for all. Author Intent is really hard to argue, so don't even try pulling that crap here.

EDIT: There should be a fifth option in the poll: Use Shoddy as-is until the bug of weather glitch non-implementation is fixed, and then just ban Castform and Cherrim. Deal with this "bug" like any other bug, and play around it until it's fixed.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

Before anyone suggests that we "do nothing" and just play an idealistic Pokémon: Shoddy Edition, please answer the following question: Do you also support fixing other glitches in Diamond/Pearl/Platinum, such as Fire Fang hitting through Wonder Guard? If not, why should we take the liberty of fixing this glitch but not others?

I'm actually with Colin and SDS on this one. The part of the post that I quoted is a blatant contradiction of the purpose of the thread. You start by asking what we should do as a temporary solution to the lack of implementation of the weather glitch, and the first three options are consistent with that. But all of a sudden the 'do nothing' option has to be a permanent one? What's wrong with 'do nothing until the glitch is implemented'?

After all, similar cases have occurred in the past, and continue to occur now. Why didn't we ban Trick whilst it was glitched? Moves like Natural Gift and Recycle, all completely legal options, are still not implemented after nearly two years since Shoddy was launched. Where was / is the big controversy over these issues, and who's to say what's important and what isn't in this regard? One thing we need to be is consistent in our policy.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Let's be serious here guys. "Philosophical purity" is nice and all, but in this case it is completely impractical. People are arguing here for "staying true to the game" in the case of a retarded glitch but then in the ratings change formula they are arguing to alter the win condition. Give me a break.

Implementing this glitch would harm the metagame, since its unfair to one side. And since this glitch doesn't even happen all the time, what would the point even be of implementing it? It only occurs for the host of the wifi match, and since nobody hosts in shoddybattle.....

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

You know, I may have my principles, but I've always been a realist. Now that I think more of the consequences of not implementing the glitch...

Who cares?

I'm ready to just leave it as a Shoddy bug to never be fixed. The people who are going to bitch about the glitch if it's implemented >>>>> the people that will give a rat's ass about staying true to the game in the face of it. I may care about our credibility as an authority on competitive Pokemon, but I think the competitive battling community at large does not. (Tell me if I'm way off base somewhere.) No matter what we do, chances are that we will still be widely respected as an authority on competitive Pokemon--unless we implement this glitch... or, apparently, adopt the Hax Formula. Yeah, I don't like the Hax Formula, either, but I don't have any new arguments to bring to the table, so I've said nothing on the matter. I only hope that we learn more of the method behind the madness of the formula before I solidify my opinions on it.

But I'm going of on a tangent. Point is, hardly anyone is going to care if we're not true to the game here, but a bunch of people are going to care if we are.

 

[QibingZero]

Given the arguments, I only see three realistic solutions here.

The first is to implement the glitch and try to work around it somehow. I dislike all of the ideas involved with this, because they either take away significant aspects of the game (which were not broken before), or they include leaving the glitch available for use - which 'breaks' the game nearly as much as the aspects which we clause in the first place. Considering this seems to differentiate between the 'host' of a game and the other player - causing all kinds of problems - I don't think I would support this at all.

The second solution is to admit we've made a mistake in simulating this incomplete version of Platinum we've been playing. The idea here is simple. Platinum is simply a new version of pokemon, and if we deem it to be competitively unplayable in it's current state then we 'revert' to the last playable version. This happens quite often in the gaming world, although in this case we don't have nearly as much of an idea if it the issues will ever be fixed. This is the downside to trying to meld a rather uncompetitive game into a competitive one without actually altering game mechanics or having developer support. Given the absolutely questionable changes Platinum has brought to the metagame in general (hi there move tutors), I don't view reverting back to D/P to be that big of a deal. The biggest worry with this solution is that in D/P the recent suspects might have been tiered differently, especially given the changes to Scizor.

The last solution is to say that we're willing to change game mechanics to make pokemon more competitive. This is a problem for many people, but I see no way around it. If we do decide to not implement this, and yet play with other Platinum rules, we'll have to consider other convincing arguments for changing game mechanics. I know that many of us would then argue that we should do things such as: force evasion abilities to fail, remove critical hits and random freezes/burns/drops, etc. This is an especially potent argument if we're considering not implementing it for the sake of competition (which I believe we are). We can't really argue designer intent, because then we get into a swamp of 'did they really mean to...?' questions. Also, if designer intent matters, there's little use for wi-fi, because it's pretty clear that cloning is completely opposite of designer intent.

 

[Mekkah]

Colin's got it right here. If we start assuming "author intent" then we leave ourselves open to all sorts of ridiculous arguments. Shoal Salt does nothing, wtf's up with that? The authors must not have meant it that way, so we should fix it. Fire Fang shouldn't hit through Wonder Guard unless it's SE, so let's just scratch that once and for all. Author Intent is really hard to argue, so don't even try pulling that crap here.

I personally have no issue about guessing author's intent and wouldn't mind "fixing" things like this, but since many of them are small and insignificant and there's a million things Doug could be doing with his time before changing things that don't matter, I'm not for it. And in this case, I still think that holds true, plus the fact that it will do more harm than good. Obi keeps on stating that "the goal is to simulate the game" - I don't see why we would blindly follow that principle when we are a competitive battling site, not a Pokémon simulation site. I'm not going to sit there happily between Walreins healing 25% hp per turn and say "well, this is absolutely fucked up and broken, but at least we are sticking to what Gamefreak gave us".

 

[the_artic_one]

We're a competitive pokemon site, if we aren't playing an existing version of pokemon, we aren't playing pokemon and we may as well add Fidgit to the server on the grounds that it will improve the metagame.

 

[Mekkah]

Pokemon without an unintentional weather glitch is much more like Pokemon than Pokemon with a made-up Pokemon added. Maybe not philosophical, but definitely intuitively, and as jrrrr and other people on IRC like Brain have said, philosophical purity only does so much if it also means that you're effectively destroying the metagame as we know it.

I would also love to have an answer to the question why Doug would have to dedicate several tons of hours to implement something like this into Shoddy when there is so much else he could do for us, when it's pretty clear the majority do not even want to play with this glitch to begin with.

 

[Tleilax]

The last solution is to say that we're willing to change game mechanics to make pokemon more competitive. This is a problem for many people, but I see no way around it. If we do decide to not implement this, and yet play with other Platinum rules, we'll have to consider other convincing arguments for changing game mechanics. I know that many of us would then argue that we should do things such as: force evasion abilities to fail, remove critical hits and random freezes/burns/drops, etc. This is an especially potent argument if we're considering not implementing it for the sake of competition (which I believe we are). We can't really argue designer intent, because then we get into a swamp of 'did they really mean to...?' questions. Also, if designer intent matters, there's little use for wi-fi, because it's pretty clear that cloning is completely opposite of designer intent.

Removing critical hits or making random status fail is not the same as the issue being presented. This isn't an issue as to changing game mechanics in order to make the game simply more desireable. This isn't anything like those debates. This is to decide whether or not a very damaging glitch should be implemented onto a battle simulator. We've never addressed an issue such as this and it should not be compared to the examples you gave, because they aren't remotely the same thing.

As much as I can understand the concern of assuming authorial intent, in this case I don't see how that argument stands. As had been said, I don't see how we can assume a glitch such as this is intentional, as it literally breaks the game. This isn't Shoal Salt not doing anything. This is something that crashes games. It's unpredictable, reliant on specific factors (such as host), and the game potentially ends when it happens. It's pretty obvious to me that the authors of the game had no intention of this happening.

I'm grateful for Shoddy, because it's there that we can ignore it. Mechanics such as host are not present within Shoddy, so I do not see how we can make it work like it does in the game, preserving faithfulness to the cartridge. Even if we do find a way to work it in accurately, we will have to deal with the question that has already some up in here, which is "comptitive or Pokemon?". Does Shoddy exist in order to provide a pure simulation of the cartridge, or an ideal comptitive environment? This needs to be solved before the issue of whether or not to include the glitch can be resolved. I err on the sound of "competitive". We are striving to make the most ideal metagame possible for Pokemon. A gamebreaking glitch is not ideal.

 

[Lemmiwinks MkII]

I would also love to have an answer to the question why Doug would have to dedicate several tons of hours to implement something like this into Shoddy when there is so much else he could do for us, when it's pretty clear the majority do not even want to play with this glitch to begin with.

Here's another question: since when did competitive battling, or Smogon's philosophy, have anything whatsoever to do with what people wanted? I'm sure Jumpman wouldn't have any of that if his previous posts are anything to go by. I mean on first impressions, I don't want to play with this glitch either, but then again I also don't want a semi-broken OU metagame dominated by Dragons and Steels. Both opinions are completely irrelevant.

If decisions really are based on what people want, why aren't the suspect tests followed up by a simple poll stating 'do you want *insert suspect* in OU?', with a majority 'no' verdict banishing the suspect back to Ubers?

The answer is obvious. We don't decide based on what people want, and no matter what happens with this issue we need to be consistent in this regard at least.

 

[Syberia]

Think about it this way, then. We have a chance to make Smogon look good by doing something intelligent and fixing Nintendo's mistake, or we have a chance to make Smogon look like it's being dumb for the sake of being dumb by implementing a stupid glitch. Which do you think is more favorable when you look at it in that light?

Like I have said before, we have never encountered a glitch that has the possibility to freeze the game before this one. This is an unprecedented situation, so I have no problem with an unprecedented solution. We all know what the smart solution is in this case, so I simply cannot understand why people are all hung up on "philosophy" over this. We are a competitive site, this glitch is uncompetitive, and there is absolute proof that it does not belong in the game. Remove it.

EDIT: Lexite and I have just sent an e-mail to Nintendo informing them of the glitch and asking if there is anything that can be done to patch/fix it.

 

[QibingZero]

Removing critical hits or making random status fail is not the same as the issue being presented. This isn't an issue as to changing game mechanics in order to make the game simply more desireable. This isn't anything like those debates. This is to decide whether or not a very damaging glitch should be implemented onto a battle simulator. We've never addressed an issue such as this and it should not be compared to the examples you gave, because they aren't remotely the same thing.

As much as I can understand the concern of assuming authorial intent, in this case I don't see how that argument stands. As had been said, I don't see how we can assume a glitch such as this is intentional, as it literally breaks the game. This isn't Shoal Salt not doing anything. This is something that crashes games. It's unpredictable, reliant on specific factors (such as host), and the game potentially ends when it happens. It's pretty obvious to me that the authors of the game had no intention of this happening.

I'm grateful for Shoddy, because it's there that we can ignore it. Mechanics such as host are not present within Shoddy, so I do not see how we can make it work like it does in the game, preserving faithfulness to the cartridge. Even if we do find a way to work it in accurately, we will have to deal with the question that has already some up in here, which is "comptitive or Pokemon?". Does Shoddy exist in order to provide a pure simulation of the cartridge, or an ideal comptitive environment? This needs to be solved before the issue of whether or not to include the glitch can be resolved. I err on the sound of "competitive". We are striving to make the most ideal metagame possible for Pokemon. A gamebreaking glitch is not ideal.

This isn't true at all. It's not about 'adding the glitch', it's about having not accurately simulated Platinum in the first place.

Look at it this way: D/P is version 4.0, and Platinum is version 4.1. We are currently playing an 'incorrect' version of 4.1. If we know about this glitch, and refuse to actually implement it, we're now playing a modded version of 4.1. We're not just modding the ruleset, we're modding the version itself. If we're okay with playing a modded version of 4.1, that opens us up to other possible mechanics changes.

Along the same lines, once we start assuming intent we also open up all kinds of issues. Yes, I agree that this glitch was probably not intended, but: I don't think it was intended to clone pokemon; I don't think it was intended that we would be battling with pokemon we did not raise ourselves or trade one of our own for; I don't think it was intended that legendary pokemon with quality hidden powers would be popular enough to be a significant force; I don't think it was intended that pokemon would ever be played at this high of a competitive level...

But, due to the nature of the game we have in front of us, all of these things are possible. So we simulate them.

On another note, what happens when the developers intent is strictly uncompetitive? What if they knew about this glitch and released the game anyway? It's not that wild of a proposition, due to the small number of players that will ever see it, and the possibility that it could be quite difficult to fix.

 

[Cathy]

The intent issue is obviously irrelevant, but I will speak to the issue of the server/client. Personally I don't think this is an issue at all, and here's why.

What you need to do is consider how this would be handled in a DS tournament. How would the TO decide who is host each round? The only fair solution is for the host to be randomly chosen before the game by the TO. To simulate this in Shoddy Battle, one side would be randomly chosen to be the host before the game begins (and informed of this). The server/client issue is not a problem at all, except insofar as it is bad game design, which we have to fix with a new rule, not by changing the game mechanics.

The crashing is also not an issue. We just need to implement rules that prevent the crash situation from coming up.

And as for this taking "Doug" hours to implement, there's no reason why you -- the reader of this post -- cannot implement this glitch right now. I might even do it myself if somebody spells out the exact mechanics of this glitch for me (admittedly, I have not been following it).

Personally, I don't think implementing this mechanic is a top priority, but it should be done at some point.

 

[obi]

The point isn't that we don't know what the developer's intent is, but rather, that it doesn't matter. We're simulating the game we were given, not the game as we think GameFreak intended to make. Even if GameFreak came out and said "Hey guys, this was a mistake, we meant X.", then I would still advocate simulating the game we have.

Imagine if GameFreak came out tomorrow and said "Oh hey guys, we actually meant for that whole thing where you can get Sketch on anything with Transform. We also meant to give Regice Recover. Oh, hey, and wouldn't it be cool if Snorlax could use Baton Pass, Slack Off, and Taunt?"

The intent of the developer isn't what is important; the product they give us is.

Also, keep in mind that we can play DP with tradebacks. There are no illegal move combinations in DP that are legal in Pt.

However, personally I don't think an emergency solution is important and instead somebody should implement the glitch and then Obi's final option can be implemented when that is done.

Any of my solutions would work. The sole reason I proposed those as solutions are because Castform and Cherrim make the game not end. All of my solutions would avoid this. I don't have any particular preference as to which one we choose.

Banning Castform and Cherrim solves nothing. This is to find a fix to make it simulate an environment where Freak Weather doesn't happen. EIither through baninng the methods it comes from, or by choosing a battle environment where it doesn't exsist

Banning them does solve the problem. The real problem is that this can lead to a game ending in a draw. There is nothing inherently wrong with the acid weather conditions. Now, if we decide that they are too gamebreaking and thus should be banned, that's another question (but this should be given the same level of testing as Stealth Rock, Double Team, and Latias should get). However, this isn't a foregone conclusion.

Removing critical hits or making random status fail is not the same as the issue being presented. This isn't an issue as to changing game mechanics in order to make the game simply more desireable. This isn't anything like those debates. This is to decide whether or not a very damaging glitch should be implemented onto a battle simulator. We've never addressed an issue such as this and it should not be compared to the examples you gave, because they aren't remotely the same thing.

How are they not the same? In both cases, the reason is "I don't like this mechanic, so let's not implement it on the server.". I don't see how they're different. Personally, I would sooner remove elements of luck than remove this glitch entirely. However, that's not the issue here. The question is whether a Pokemon simulator should accurately simulate Pokemon.

I don't want to sacrifice Platinum mechanics. I want to use Gira-O/Skymin/Rotom-A on WiFi (well not legitimately obviously but still). At the expense of not being able to record battles, as well as losing formes, I'd say no to this. Of course, this is more of opinion than anything, because I don't have any argument to back up for this. Competitively and legally this could be the best option.

Weather clause is just ridiculous. Groudon ban in ubers anyone?

We don't take ubers into account when we talk about balancing things, because ubers is by definition unbalanced. In other words, Giratina-O, Shaymin-S, and Groudon are irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, I enjoy playing ubers, too (it's my favorite tier), but as a matter of policy, it doesn't come into "balance" discussions at all. The issue of banning a Pokemon because it causes a draw is not an issue of balance so much as allowing the game to end. (this is similar to how Arceus is banned from even uber play. it's not a matter of balance in either case)

I would also love to have an answer to the question why Doug would have to dedicate several tons of hours to implement something like this into Shoddy when there is so much else he could do for us, when it's pretty clear the majority do not even want to play with this glitch to begin with.

He doesn't have to. Shoddy isn't held hostage to the whim or personal constraints of any one developer. Imagine the following scenario: someone else fixes the bug (the bug being that Shoddy doesn't accurately simulate game mechanics). This should be added to the Smogon server no differently from any other bug fix: at the next server restart.

 

[Syberia]

The point isn't that we don't know what the developer's intent is, but rather, that it doesn't matter. We're simulating the game we were given, not the game as we think GameFreak intended to make. Even if GameFreak came out and said "Hey guys, this was a mistake, we meant X.", then I would still advocate simulating the game we have.

Imagine if GameFreak came out tomorrow and said "Oh hey guys, we actually meant for that whole thing where you can get Sketch on anything with Transform. We also meant to give Regice Recover. Oh, hey, and wouldn't it be cool if Snorlax could use Baton Pass, Slack Off, and Taunt?"

If they seriously said that, I would advocate for making all of those changes, because their intent is 100% clear. Just as it is 100% clear that they did not mean to include a glitch that can make the game freeze.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

The point isn't that we don't know what the developer's intent is, but rather, that it doesn't matter. We're simulating the game we were given, not the game as we think GameFreak intended to make. Even if GameFreak came out and said "Hey guys, this was a mistake, we meant X.", then I would still advocate simulating the game we have.

Judging by your defense of the formula that alters the win condition of the game, I don't see how you can "advocate simulating the game we have". Last time I checked, if the Battle Tower haxes the shit out of me, there is a 0% chance that I will get the win no matter how much "I deserved it". There are plenty of things that the Smogon community does that are in no way consistent with the games. Drawing the line here is absurd.

 

[TAY]

<@TAY> I don't see what the problem is with just making pursuit work properly
<@TAY> it is obvious what it is "supposed to do"
<@TAY> if we can fix gamefreak's error, then why not?

This pretty much sums up my position on this. I don't see how other glitches are relevant at all - we know for a fact that this is wrong, and we are fixing it. This does not imply either a duty or an intent to seek out and fix every other glitch. This does not imply that we are going to be unfaithful to cartridge play in other areas. All we are doing is fixing something that we know for sure to be wrong with the game.

I'm not sure why people would think we have some odd duty to simulate the exact game that we are given. If platinum was glitched so that every water move would cause the game to crash, would we really stay faithful to that game? Short of simply not playing platinum, the only solution would be to ban water moves, which is obviously unacceptable. The obvious move in that case would be to just make water moves work on our simulator. Of course, this is not a great example since Platinum is playable with or without the pursuit glitch in place, I am just suggesting that a need for cartridge consistency should not get in the way of having a playable game. And even though this glitch certainly does not make the game unplayable, it is sufficiently stupid and gamebreaking that it should probably be removed at the expense of cartridge consistency.

The point isn't that we don't know what the developer's intent is, but rather, that it doesn't matter. We're simulating the game we were given, not the game as we think GameFreak intended to make.

Is this a fact or an opinion? Because I disagree...

Imagine if GameFreak came out tomorrow and said "Oh hey guys, we actually meant for that whole thing where you can get Sketch on anything with Transform. We also meant to give Regice Recover. Oh, hey, and wouldn't it be cool if Snorlax could use Baton Pass, Slack Off, and Taunt?"

When this happens we can deal with it. I don't see why we need to have a blanket opinion for every glitch - it makes much more sense to simply look at each relevant glitch on a case-by-case basis.

Before anyone suggests that we "do nothing" and just play an idealistic Pokémon: Shoddy Edition, please answer the following question: Do you also support fixing other glitches in Diamond/Pearl/Platinum, such as Fire Fang hitting through Wonder Guard? If not, why should we take the liberty of fixing this glitch but not others?

Yes, I would support fixing it at our convenience, but really this is such an irrelevant glitch that "who cares". This is why I said we should just do it on a case by case basis; I am confident that this glitch has never once come up in any of the hundreds of thousands of battles on shoddy (except maybe by people who were specifically testing for it).

 

[obi]

TAY, your position is logically inconsistent. As soon as we say "OK, we want to change the mechanics of this part" we are no longer simulating the game. As soon as we do that, why couldn't we 'fix' other glitches? There then ceases to be any reason not to.

When this happens we can deal with it. I don't see why we need to have a blanket opinion for every glitch - it makes much more sense to simply look at each relevant glitch on a case-by-case basis.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we can't have an answer for it. You gain no new information by them doing it in actuality compared to in theory, so I don't see why you can't answer that question. If your argument is logically sound, you should be able to apply it to things in general.



Jrrrrrrrrr, if you want, you can think of it this way. As a tournament organizer, you can determine the winner however you want. The tournament's rules are rules beyond the rules of the game. On the ladder, we as a community can decide how changes in rating are determined. This is also beyond the game. There is no change to the game mechanics to say "sometimes, even if you faint all of the opponent's Pokemon, your rating won't increase." because the rating isn't something within the game that we are simulating. It's beyond the game.

 

[TAY]

TAY, your position is logically inconsistent. As soon as we say "OK, we want to change the mechanics of this part" we are no longer simulating the game. As soon as we do that, why couldn't we 'fix' other glitches? There then ceases to be any reason not to.

Again, is it a fact or your opinion that we are trying to simulate "Cartridge Pokemon Battles" as closely as possible? I admit that my position makes no sense logically if that is the case, but I do not believe that the point of Pokemon simulators is to mimic the game as faithfully as possible. I do not see any practical difference between a "Simulator of Pokemon" and a "Simulator of a game that extremely closely resembles Pokemon"; and in fact I would say that the latter is preferable, knowing that the differences are almost exclusively considered to be beneficial. I admit it would be a bit presumptuous of us to insert rules / effects with no prompting, but this is a case where the intent of the creator is extremely clear, and I would wager that at least 90% of players would agree that shoddybattle Pokemon would much better off competitively without this glitch in place.

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean we can't have an answer for it. You gain no new information by them doing it in actuality compared to in theory, so I don't see why you can't answer that question. If your argument is logically sound, you should be able to apply it to things in general.

That is true, but my point with bringing up the handling of glitches and such on a case-by-case basis was to suggest that the outcome of one situation should not necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on the basis of another. So while we can speculate all we want on what we would do if gamefreak did indeed say what their intentions were, our action in some hypothetical scenario should not play a part in our action in this actual scenario. (I am aware that I used my own example in my last post =P though I did give a couple disclaimers with it).


I admit that if A.) our simulators are trying to imitate cartridge battles as closely as possible, and B.) we care about consistency in all cases, then your arguments regarding consistency provide the only solution to the problem of glitches. However, I don't agree with either of those conditions - which actually makes this discussion rather pointless (as it is an argument of beliefs and not of logic).

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

After some further thinking, I've come around a bit on this issue. No longer will I blindly follow the cartridge and say "If it's in the game, then we have to simulate it no matter what." For me, it's a 100% intent issue. At the same time, however, I'm not going to look at each possible bug and say "Well, I don't think that was meant to be in there, so let's change it." If there is ANY question as to whether something was intended or not, then I'm leaving the matter alone and going along with what is in the game. Only when intent is 100% clear and obvious would I depart from what is in the game. If intent isn't 100% clear, though, then "what is in the game" is my default definition of intent. I believe it irresponsible to try and define intent any other way.

That is now what I believe. You'll have to work hard to convince me to believe something different.

Now I will apply these beliefs to two particular cases (one being the topic at hand).

--Acid Weather

In this case of bugged weather (and now Gravity, Trick Room, and Uproar, apparently; yes, I'm including Fog), it is 100% obvious to me what was intended--or more accurately, what was not intended. Why in the world would Game Freak intend to put in something that created a condition that rendered two Pokemon completely unplayable? In a "Gotta catch 'em all!" world, such a thing goes against the very notion of what Pokemon is all about. Why would we want to catch Castform and Cherrim if we couldn't even use them whenever we wanted to? Pokemon at its core is about the freedom to choose the Pokemon that you send into battle. Didn't Karen of the Johto Elite Four encourage trainers to play with "their favorites?" In Acid Weather, you can't even choose to play with two otherwise perfectly good Pokemon. (You can, but the game would loop endlessly.) As much as people want to be faithful to the game of Pokemon, to me, that's not Pokemon! That's not being faithful to the game of Pokemon and what it's all about!

Based on all that, I would conclude that the Acid Weather is not intentional, and thus should be excluded.

--Fire Fang vs. Wonder Guard

'But what about Fire Fang and Wonder Guard? Wonder Guard is only supposed to allow super effective hits, but Fire Fang will always hit through it, anyway, regardless of whether it would be super effective. Clearly Game Freak didn't intend that to be the case.'

Is that really true? Show me the official statement from Nintendo or Game Freak that says that that wasn't their intention. How do we otherwise know that Game Freak did NOT want Fire Fang to be an exception? We don't actually KNOW what Game Freak wanted in this case because they don't TELL US anything! Until I get clear evidence from Nintendo or Game Freak about their intent on this matter, then I have my doubts about what was intended.

Therefore, I would conclude that the Fire Fang / Wonder Guard interaction is intentional because it is in the game (even if it doesn't make Pokemon sense) and intent isn't otherwise 100% clear.

 

[lilyhollow]

Based on all that, I would conclude that the Acid Weather is not intentional, and thus should be excluded.

How does that 100% prove that Acid Weather is not intentional anyway? Theoretically it could have been an intentional mechanic with an unintentional effect (the Castform/Cherrim nonsense), right? I mean, I already agree with Obi with regard to intention in the first place, but even from the perspective of "we should care about GameFreak's intention," I don't see how you've literally 100% proven anything.

 

[CardsOfTheHeart]

How does that 100% prove that Acid Weather is not intentional anyway? Theoretically it could have been an intentional mechanic with an unintentional effect (the Castform/Cherrim nonsense), right? I mean, I already agree with Obi with regard to intention in the first place, but even from the perspective of "we should care about GameFreak's intention," I don't see how you've literally 100% proven anything.

You're ASSUMING that it could have been intentional. Either it is or it isn't. Either we know for 100% certain or we don't. Whether it could have been intentional or not doesn't matter to me. For me, the glitch is unfaithful to the game of Pokemon. I may be hasty in saying that it is not intentional, but I still believe that it should not be implemented. You can say all you want that not implementing the glitch is not staying true to the game, but IMO the glitch itself is not true to the game. Why do something that is not true to the game?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Jrrrrrrrrr, if you want, you can think of it this way. As a tournament organizer, you can determine the winner however you want. The tournament's rules are rules beyond the rules of the game. On the ladder, we as a community can decide how changes in rating are determined. This is also beyond the game. There is no change to the game mechanics to say "sometimes, even if you faint all of the opponent's Pokemon, your rating won't increase." because the rating isn't something within the game that we are simulating. It's beyond the game.

So why don't we just acknowledge that our competitive metagame is already beyond the game and use that to decide on this? We have evasion clause, what would be the problem with making a "no stupid weather glitch" clause as well? You have said this yourself already, this is a competitive pokemon site. If there is a glitch that takes competitive aspects out of the game (in this case, it renders certain pokemon unusable), why would we not seek to remove the bad side effects from this glitch? You haven't really explained why emulating the game 100% should be a concern to us, as far as I've seen you just assumed this to be true.

And besides, the ratings formula overturns wins. It doesn't matter if they are punishing the player's rating or not, it is still altering the most basic mechanic of the game lol.

 

[Syberia]

How does that 100% prove that Acid Weather is not intentional anyway? Theoretically it could have been an intentional mechanic with an unintentional effect (the Castform/Cherrim nonsense), right? I mean, I already agree with Obi with regard to intention in the first place, but even from the perspective of "we should care about GameFreak's intention," I don't see how you've literally 100% proven anything.

You're grasping at straws; you cannot honestly believe this yourself.

 

[lilyhollow]

Well that's kind of why I threw the word "theoretically" in there, yes. My post was based on this:

If there is ANY question as to whether something was intended or not, then I'm leaving the matter alone and going along with what is in the game. Only when intent is 100% clear and obvious would I depart from what is in the game. If intent isn't 100% clear, though, then "what is in the game" is my default definition of intent. I believe it irresponsible to try and define intent any other way.

and the fact that Cards takes "game mechanic that causes a 100% obviously unintentional side-effect" as "an unintentional game mechanic." I'm just saying that there is no logical reason for that to be considered the case based on his own assumptions.

that said, I don't really understand how he went from what he said in the above quote to his latest response, but none of this really matters that much to me anyway because I agree with Obi that we should not care about GameFreak's supposed intent either way.