-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Glitched Weather in English Platinum [Part 2, Clearer Video] (Update March 18, 2009)
- Thread starter EeveeTrainer
- Start date
- Status
Neither, I'm just suggesting this as a way to get by this dilemma here. I know that Shoddy's main goal is to accurately portray how the game goes, but one of the problems right now is that we're not even sure how to deal with this.
Or we could just leave everything as is and wait for a (hopeful) patch from Nintendo.
How is removing a mechanic not altering it?
I'll admit I probably should have said that about the moves. But you're looking at it a little too literally. Yes, maybe they do say something along the lines of this: "Hypnosis was way too accurate in DP, let's lower it back to where it was." They don't say this: "Pursuit has been working fine since we added it, but don't you think we could spice it up and make it activate glitchy weather?"
By the way, is there evidence that the U-Turn/Pursuit mechanics that were changed in Plat weren't glitches in DP?
"Deal with it" is a very effective way of correcting issues in the metagame.
I don't think programming a glitch into shoddy is maintaining game mechanics, and by extension I don't think ignoring the glitch is altering game mechanics. Who said "game mechanics" include errors in the programming?
By the way, is there evidence that the U-Turn/Pursuit mechanics that were changed in Plat weren't glitches in DP?
"Deal with it" is a very effective way of correcting issues in the metagame.
I don't think programming a glitch into shoddy is maintaining game mechanics, and by extension I don't think ignoring the glitch is altering game mechanics. Who said "game mechanics" include errors in the programming?
Ok, now explain the Pursuit > U-turn in D/P and it's abscence in Platinum. Concrete evidence that it happens (D/P), so why should we accept that change? Similarly U-turn to a choice u-turner and possibly being allowed to select a move after trick. Also, Thunder (and other no miss moves) hitting through protect (which doesn't happen in Platinum anymore).
They were in D/P. That's all the evidence needed. We didn't go "it's meant to be like so" and change it. So whether it was a glitch or not isn't the issue; it's that it's there, and that's what we play with.
You can't have a metagame if you're not playing the game.
Who said flight simulators need to be realistic? We can train pilots doing completely impossible loops and corkscrews through the unreal world just fine. They'll turn out to be fantastic pilots that way.
Does Fire Fang hit through Wonder Guard? Yes.
Should it? I think most of us (if not all) would argue no.
Do we simulate it, anyway? Yes, because it's programmed in the game.
By the way, ignoring this glitch WOULD BE altering game mechanics. Ignoring the glitch means altering existing game mechanics in Platinum so that it doesn't exist in our simulation.
uh, why can't both people be able to cause this magnificent play of field control?
seriously...i know it's not 100% true to the game, but I'd argue that this makes the glitch both more usable and more preventable, and even better NOT random.
Is there any scenario that evolves that destroys any hint of a playable game if we let this wonderful move work on both ends?
is that more altering than it is to remove the wonderfulness of acid rain? I believe not because it's still true to the game effect, it's just that it's also easier to start
seriously...i know it's not 100% true to the game, but I'd argue that this makes the glitch both more usable and more preventable, and even better NOT random.
Is there any scenario that evolves that destroys any hint of a playable game if we let this wonderful move work on both ends?
is that more altering than it is to remove the wonderfulness of acid rain? I believe not because it's still true to the game effect, it's just that it's also easier to start
if we are going to do that we should just forget the glitch entirely
So now people want to allow this glitch because it is in the game yet still want Double Team banned? Where's the consistency?
We already ban things that are "bad" for the metagame (Double Team, Garchomp, etc...) so what's stopping us from doing the same thing here?
We already ban things that are "bad" for the metagame (Double Team, Garchomp, etc...) so what's stopping us from doing the same thing here?
Since I love repeating myself:
We can restrict what people do/ are allowed to use. We can not change what happens when pokemon a uses move b on pokemon c.
Again, we don't change game mechanics. That's where we draw the line.
@RB-Golbat: Yes we can. What about sleep clause? Shoddy makes it so that when you use a move that can sleep when something's already asleep it fails, correct?
Which is why people (obi and I) believe that sleep clause is implimented wrong, just as with evasion and OHKO clauses. if you break those clauses, than instead of the move failing, the game should end right there and whoever broke the clause loses.
Freeze clause is something i have a problem with though. Currently, the only place it exists is in Pokemon Battle Revolution. I would have no problem with removing Freeze clause from the ladder since it is impossible to regulate that like the other clauses.
I'd like to ask to what end do these glitch implementations go? At what point do those in charge stop and say "maybe we should not add this?" Where does the line get drawn? It's obvious that these "Acid Weather" conditions were not meant to be triggered by Pursuit and that a Pokemon's ability was not supposed to deal damage during these conditions.
Would, for example, an instant KO invincibility glitch be added as well if it happened to be found by using Frustration with a max Happiness Pokemon during the first turn of the battle? Or would that be the line? Who makes the decision to put the breaks on this glitch implementation?
Would, for example, an instant KO invincibility glitch be added as well if it happened to be found by using Frustration with a max Happiness Pokemon during the first turn of the battle? Or would that be the line? Who makes the decision to put the breaks on this glitch implementation?
Okay, yeah. That would make sense. And with the little Pokeballs telling you that you have their Pokemon status'd, it's not really that hard to not break the clauses.
Freeze clause is pathetic. Sleep clause can be avoided unless you use Effect Spore. Freeze Clause really can't be.
In the Platinum Battle Tower, my Flygon still got hit with Pursuit even though it used U-turn first.
In RBY Focus Energy said that it was supposed to increase the chance of Critical Hits, instead, it stopped them from happening all together. This is obviously not something that was supposed to happen, but if we fixed it then we no longer are playing RBY, we're playing RBY: Smogon Edition. Guys you also have to remember Acid Weather is just as bad for your opponent as it is for you.
How many people play Shoddy to enjoy a 100%-accurate Pokémon DPP battle simulation, truthful to the cartridge in every way?
How many people play Shoddy to enjoy a balanced, strategic, competetively-viable Pokémon metagame?
With the glitch in the equation, the two have become mutually exclusive.
Implementation of the glitch will turn the metagame on its head, not to mention slashing competetive viability by giving one player a distinct advantage from the get-go. Of course we could ban Pursuit, or (since move bans are practically unprecedented) ban all Pursuit users, or revert back to D/P - any of which would still result in a massive metagame stir-up.
Not implementing the glitch will mean we aren't playing Pokémon, but rather a strange look-alike that's almost the same, except it happens to be competetively viable as well.
Give the masses the choice between two ladders. One is a Pokémon simulator, pure and complete to the letter, faithful to the cartridges. The other is a fake, modded, glitchless copy - a competetively-viable, made-up game that's fun to play. Let the people who are using the simulator decide which simulation they better enjoy. Majority really should rule on this one.
Of course, no purist will ever agree to such a test - after all, the Smogon community will want what Smogon's philosophy tells them they want, right?
How many people play Shoddy to enjoy a balanced, strategic, competetively-viable Pokémon metagame?
With the glitch in the equation, the two have become mutually exclusive.
Implementation of the glitch will turn the metagame on its head, not to mention slashing competetive viability by giving one player a distinct advantage from the get-go. Of course we could ban Pursuit, or (since move bans are practically unprecedented) ban all Pursuit users, or revert back to D/P - any of which would still result in a massive metagame stir-up.
Not implementing the glitch will mean we aren't playing Pokémon, but rather a strange look-alike that's almost the same, except it happens to be competetively viable as well.
Give the masses the choice between two ladders. One is a Pokémon simulator, pure and complete to the letter, faithful to the cartridges. The other is a fake, modded, glitchless copy - a competetively-viable, made-up game that's fun to play. Let the people who are using the simulator decide which simulation they better enjoy. Majority really should rule on this one.
Of course, no purist will ever agree to such a test - after all, the Smogon community will want what Smogon's philosophy tells them they want, right?
No, I was using a Scarf Flygon. I don't remember what I faced exactly, but it was nothing that could possibly outspeed me.
Okay, earlier itt, one person made a reference to the Ice Climbers freeze glitch from SSBM...
This got me thinking. Why can't we just clause the glitch?
Let's add a clause that makes anyone that triggers the glitch automatically lose. We won't need to simulate what happens during the glitch; all we have to do is establish the conditions for triggering the glitch, and if those conditions are satisfied, the Pursuit user loses. That way we can save some work in implementing the glitch, avoid banning moves/Pokemon, not have to deal with the harmful side-effects, and still stay true to the mechanics.
Of course, there's still the issue of selecting the "host," or the battler to impose those conditions on. Whomever is selected as the host for the battle could be at a disadvantage. Is there a fair way of selecting the host? Should it be random? Should it be based on who clicks the "Find Match" button first? Should it be based on something else?
...and another person brought up just banning Pursuit when it would cause the glitch.
This got me thinking. Why can't we just clause the glitch?
Let's add a clause that makes anyone that triggers the glitch automatically lose. We won't need to simulate what happens during the glitch; all we have to do is establish the conditions for triggering the glitch, and if those conditions are satisfied, the Pursuit user loses. That way we can save some work in implementing the glitch, avoid banning moves/Pokemon, not have to deal with the harmful side-effects, and still stay true to the mechanics.
Of course, there's still the issue of selecting the "host," or the battler to impose those conditions on. Whomever is selected as the host for the battle could be at a disadvantage. Is there a fair way of selecting the host? Should it be random? Should it be based on who clicks the "Find Match" button first? Should it be based on something else?
Well quick claw is a possibility (it IS the battle tower) but that isn't for this thread.
I just want to say that I disapprove of any form of "do this and you lose." Be it sleep 2 pokemon (just fucking fail it) or activate the glitch (seriously?), it's really stupid. But that discussion isn't for this thread, I'm just saying I'm against "activate the weather and you lose." If that's the case, just ban pursuit damn it -_-
You're missing the point, not implementing this would make the cartridge metagame so drastically different from the shoddy metagame that none of the sets in the strategy dex or even the banlists we create would be relevant.
I had this idea for dealing with the glitch on the bottom of the last page. For those who didn't see it:
The lack of a "host" is still an issue, though. The best I can come up with is to have the host decided by who clicks the "Find Match" button first. Maybe there's a better way?
I've had a back and forth with Veedrock on this since he's not into the "do this and you lose" method of clause enforcement. Instead of enforcing the clause this way, what if we just had Pursuit fail when it would trigger the glitch? Yes, it conflicts with my desire to change Sleep Clause's enforcement, but at least it's another option.
The lack of a "host" is still an issue, though. The best I can come up with is to have the host decided by who clicks the "Find Match" button first. Maybe there's a better way?
- Status