Sword & Shield **Official news only** DLC Crown Tundra 22nd October

74E4BFA8-BADA-49D1-B291-589DE834E2A3.png
New Max Raid event, runs until the midnight of Nov 23, and can get spooOoOky pokemon like:
-a shiny skwoevt
-cherubi
-amoonguss
-greedent
 
  • Like
Reactions: ttr
" The Pokémon Company have put out their plans to fix Pokémon that were affected by a bug in the Pokémon GO to Pokémon HOME transfer. For Alolan Form and Galarian Form Pokémon, for a short time if you transferred them, they'd have the moves of their original form. Over the coming weeks, if you have these Pokémon in Pokémon HOME, they will automatically be fixed to have their correct learnset. This will be done in waves and not all Pokémon will be fixed at the same time "


Get your Spicy Alolan Vulpixes while you can!
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
" The Pokémon Company have put out their plans to fix Pokémon that were affected by a bug in the Pokémon GO to Pokémon HOME transfer. For Alolan Form and Galarian Form Pokémon, for a short time if you transferred them, they'd have the moves of their original form. Over the coming weeks, if you have these Pokémon in Pokémon HOME, they will automatically be fixed to have their correct learnset. This will be done in waves and not all Pokémon will be fixed at the same time "

Get your Spicy Alolan Vulpixes while you can!
They never let us have any fun... :blobsad:

Hey, here's a HOME fix you can start with: let us transfer Pokemon from Bank without us having to pay an additional fee (you should have combined both services to begin with)!
 
Hey, here's a HOME fix you can start with: let us transfer Pokemon from Bank without us having to pay an additional fee (you should have combined both services to begin with)!
I mean half the Pokemon in SwSh are hidden behind a paywall as is (expansions and / or home + bank). I think that's just going to be Gamefreak's business model moving forward. Strangely Pokemon Go might actually be a decent way to get Pokemon for free depending on your luck.
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
I mean half the Pokemon in SwSh are hidden behind a paywall as is (expansions and / or home + bank). I think that's just going to be Gamefreak's business model moving forward. Strangely Pokemon Go might actually be a decent way to get Pokemon for free depending on your luck.
And my point is that is complete BS, before Gen VI transferring Pokemon was always free, and now it feels like they're nickel and diming us just because they can which is something we should never let a company get away with, or at least let us complain about it. Sword & Shield were the highest selling Switch games despite being rushed and looks like they tried to cut corners to save money whenever they could, Pokemon merch makes billions a year, Nintendo dished out the money to move GF closer to their HQ and gave them a very nice looking customized office; there is no excuse for this nickel and diming unless GF is that s*** with money and if that's the case maybe now they're closer to Nintendo they can borrow on of their financial advisers to smack them on the back end of the head.
 
text wall
Ultimately when it comes to the failures of the "3DS era" as I have dubbed it (coming as someone who actually likes Gens 6 and 7), SwSh in particular, I'm not sure if Gamefreak, TPC, or Nintendo is truly to blame for the particularly bad decisions like Dexit and whatnot.

Nintendo has been getting scorn for bad decisions around this caliber, like Switch Online's entire existence or the limited release thing most recently.

Even so I hope whoever IS responsible to receive punishment in some regard. People are saying that course correction is impossible due to the success of the games people blame for starting these questionable decisions, but honestly I'm unsure about that as well.

I'm not defending these questionable decisions of course, but I've always had difficulties bringing my concerns to a specific company or individual, since Pokemon is a multi-level food chain.
 
like Switch Online's entire existence
I'm still boggled by the fact people are still willing to flame Nintendo for this honestly, when both Sony and Microsoft have had subscription-based online in place for years, at much higher price, and noone was worried.

I guess """nintendo fans""" are naive enough to think servers run on air and require no maintenance.


That said, I do agree with the rest of your post. I wrote a similar concern somewhere else, can't remind in which thread, that TPCI has become so huge that there's too much disjointment from each side of the food chain. A issue that isn't unique to them, but lot of huge multinational companies face nowadays.
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
I'm still boggled by the fact people are still willing to flame Nintendo for this honestly, when both Sony and Microsoft have had subscription-based online in place for years, at much higher price, and noone was worried.

I guess """nintendo fans""" are naive enough to think servers run on air and require no maintenance.
People aren't complaining about paying for an online service, but Nintendo's Online service isn't that good. While Sony's and Microsoft's service not only gives you access to games online features, their services also gives you free games every month! Meanwhile, all Nintendo did was take their free shaky online service and made it a paid shaky online service + Tetris 99. I think it was Jim Sterling who suggested what I think Nintendo should do and put up all the NES and SNES (and maybe select N64 & GameCube) games for free because its also BS they're still selling those for like 10 bucks (when you can find those games online for free...). Nintendo is very behind with the times when it comes to their online service, heck, you can even see that with their eShop where, instead of putting all the NES, SNES, N64, & GameCube titles they could, instead they have this bizarre trickle system where it's a limited selection of games... and between systems the eShop can have different games available (or they "restart" from the beginning instead of carrying over the games they already had on the past eShop).

Relating this back to Pokemon, I still don't get what the point of having both Bank and HOME aside charging you twice. Either upgrade Bank or merge it with HOME. Or give HOME some features which would make players want to pay for having it (and by that I don't mean cut out features that should be in the game like GTS).

It feels like they let someone in finance make these decisions to "maximize profits" and shoved their PR people in the closet so they couldn't raise any silly "anti-consumer" concerns like lack of features or redundant charges.
 
Relating this back to Pokemon, I still don't get what the point of having both Bank and HOME aside charging you twice. Either upgrade Bank or merge it with HOME. Or give HOME some features which would make players want to pay for having it (and by that I don't mean cut out features that should be in the game like GTS).
My pet theory is that GF knows that the 3DS online network will eventually be depreciated and shut down, and having HOME as a separate service keeps it cleaner rather than adding Switch connectivity to Bank and having the 3DS portion go down. The clean break between the two systems means if/when the 3DS servers go down, they don't have to worry about something breaking. Now, I don't think that the 3DS servers will go down anytime soon (probably around 10 years from now), but it could be one reason why they want it as two separate programs.

Otherwise, it looks like a pure financial decision, as they could have just created a "3DS pass" and a "Switch pass" in Bank with the Switch pass's price being higher. Home's ~$16 annual price is increased 220% from Bank's ~$5 annual price, and I don't think they would have gotten away with just having a separate pass in Bank. Personally, I don't really care about transferring Pokemon continuously forward, but I find it infuriating that they can't keep one consistent way to do so. Once Bank came around, I figured that Bank would be the one continuous thing going forward, getting ported infinitely, not dropped literally as soon as they release a game on a new console.

People aren't complaining about paying for an online service, but Nintendo's Online service isn't that good. While Sony's and Microsoft's service not only gives you access to games online features, their services also gives you free games every month! Meanwhile, all Nintendo did was take their free shaky online service and made it a paid shaky online service + Tetris 99. I think it was Jim Sterling who suggested what I think Nintendo should do and put up all the NES and SNES (and maybe select N64 & GameCube) games for free because its also BS they're still selling those for like 10 bucks (when you can find those games online for free...). Nintendo is very behind with the times when it comes to their online service, heck, you can even see that with their eShop where, instead of putting all the NES, SNES, N64, & GameCube titles they could, instead they have this bizarre trickle system where it's a limited selection of games... and between systems the eShop can have different games available (or they "restart" from the beginning instead of carrying over the games they already had on the past eShop).
This hits a lot of the issues I have with Nintendo's connectivity right on the money, they have a really unstable and frankly embarrassingly bad online service, not even being able to support voice chat on the console, something that Microsoft did back in, uhhhhhhhhhhhh 2002. Online servers are not that expensive in the grand scheme of things to run, and once people started to question Microsoft's 60 dollar a year cost / Sony attempting to start their own paid service around the Xbox 360/PS3 era, they added in the free games to make the purchase seem worth it. Nintendo now charges for a service that what, gives us a few NES / SNES games a month? Nintendo keeps on thinking that this trickle of releases keeps fans interested, but these games are pretty much worthless! Who really wants to play Baseball for the NES nowadays! Hell, they should really be porting Wii games to the Switch over anything else. But again, this is the company that released GBA / DS games on the Wii U instead of the 3DS.

They have not learned the lesson of the streaming age, where your service needs to be better than just pirating the game / media. There is not much concern about pirating movies nowadays, because pretty much any movie is accessible to stream / rent easily. Having NES / SNES core library available on the Switch should be the bare minimum, not something drawn out over years. woo, thanks for adding Donkey Kong Country™ 2: Diddy’s Kong Quest for the SNES in September 2020, but come on now, give us something worthwhile for a change. Nintendo has billions and billions of dollars, would it really be too much work to create a online system worth something for once.
 
A big problem with the whole "why isn't X on the Switch eShop when its a decade old?" is that a lot of the iconic games (Banjo-Kazooie and Golden Eye are both Rare titles for example, which is now owned by Microsoft) are developed in part by third party studios who have been bought by other companies or no longer exist, which creates a headache when it comes to licensing issues. Even if the company still exists, it might not want the games to be available on the eShop or Online Console for whatever reason.

With that said, Nintendo does have a lot of titles that they outright own that they refuse to make available for whatever mad and backwards reason. That whole news cycle with the Super Smash Melee Tournament a week or two ago would have gone down easier with fans if the game was available on the eShop. Same for some of the older versions of Mario Party, Kart, Tennis, etc.

It is really frustrating that the only Pokemon games we have gotten for the Switch are SwSh and Let's Go...when the 3DS had Gen I and Gen II available (for $10 each, but that's another story). Like, can the switch not run a Gameboy game? I would love to have Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 available on the Switch at some point, even if its in a bundle like Super Mario All-Stars. It almost feels like Nintendo does not understand that older games have their own character and value, and that not everyone wants the latest version of the same 5 franchises.
 
It is really frustrating that the only Pokemon games we have gotten for the Switch are SwSh and Let's Go...when the 3DS had Gen I and Gen II available (for $10 each, but that's another story). Like, can the switch not run a Gameboy game? I would love to have Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 available on the Switch at some point, even if its in a bundle like Super Mario All-Stars. It almost feels like Nintendo does not understand that older games have their own character and value, and that not everyone wants the latest version of the same 5 franchises.
To be a little fair on the comparison, we didn't get Pokémon 3DS Virtual Console games until 2016, five years after the 3DS was released, and on a milestone year for the series.

If there is a chance for Virtual Console or ports, it could be next year... or 2026.
 
To be a little fair on the comparison, we didn't get Pokémon 3DS Virtual Console games until 2016, five years after the 3DS was released, and on a milestone year for the series.

If there is a chance for Virtual Console or ports, it could be next year... or 2026.
Which is a very bad plan from any angle you look at it! Going by this logic, if a console debuts the year of or after an anniversary for some franchise, its going to be at least 4-5 years for a port of an older game to appear on it. And then the process repeats when every console is released? So if we do get Gen I/II ports in 2021, and then Switch 2 debuts in late 2026, we have to wait till 2031 to play those same games again on Switch 2?

This wouldn't be that frustrating if third party ports didn't appear whenever the devs got around to formatting them for the Switch. I mean, Skyrim just dropped out of thin air, as do many other games, with no need for fanfare or an anniversary. That Nintendo is treating games that are decades old as artificially scarce (its not like they are making money from someone selling Pokemon Gold on eBay) leaves people with no other choice besides piracy. I still have my original Blue version and a GameBoy Pocket that I've played through dozens of times. But sooner or later the hardware is going to fail.
 
" A fix has been pushed to the Nintendo Switch version of Pokémon HOME. This fix will allow for the correction of movesets for Alolan Form and Galarian Form Pokémon that were sent from Pokémon GO to Pokémon HOME froim November 11th to 16th. That bug gave those Pokémon the movesets of its standard learnset. Now, if you connect to the game on the Nintendo Switch and connect to a Sword & Shield save file, it'll automatically fix those Pokémon's learnsets "
~ Serebii


Party's over, people. Everyone go home.
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
" A fix has been pushed to the Nintendo Switch version of Pokémon HOME. This fix will allow for the correction of movesets for Alolan Form and Galarian Form Pokémon that were sent from Pokémon GO to Pokémon HOME froim November 11th to 16th. That bug gave those Pokémon the movesets of its standard learnset. Now, if you connect to the game on the Nintendo Switch and connect to a Sword & Shield save file, it'll automatically fix those Pokémon's learnsets "
~ Serebii


Party's over, people. Everyone go home.
BTW Nidorina and Nidoqueen still can't breed. Don't know why that jumped into my head when I read this, just you'd think with the complicted lengths they would go to correct this glitch, a simple correction to a glitch over 20 years old would have been fixed by now.
 
BTW Nidorina and Nidoqueen still can't breed. Don't know why that jumped into my head when I read this, just you'd think with the complicted lengths they would go to correct this glitch, a simple correction to a glitch over 20 years old would have been fixed by now.
You sure this is a bug?

Because if it was kept for this long, even since gen 2, then it wouldn't seem as if it was a bug.

Sure it's weird, but this looks intentional for whatever reason.
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
You sure this is a bug?

Because if it was kept for this long, even since gen 2, then it wouldn't seem as if it was a bug.

Sure it's weird, but this looks intentional for whatever reason.
It was no doubt a glitch in Gen II they never caught, then I wouldn't be surprised for Gen III & IV kept it for "tradition". But after that? I don't know, feels like they honestly don't think its a problem since Nidoran (f) can breed and so as long as they always make it available to catch in the wild somewhere there's no need to change anything/remember they should probably fix this.
 
It was no doubt a glitch in Gen II they never caught, then I wouldn't be surprised for Gen III & IV kept it for "tradition". But after that? I don't know, feels like they honestly don't think its a problem since Nidoran (f) can breed and so as long as they always make it available to catch in the wild somewhere there's no need to change anything/remember they should probably fix this.
I'm confident at this point it's a intended feature, because in 8 generations if they wanted them to breed they would have done it.

Now, whenever this was actually a glitch and they just decided to stick with it, I can't tell, but there's that.
 
It was no doubt a glitch in Gen II they never caught, then I wouldn't be surprised for Gen III & IV kept it for "tradition". But after that? I don't know, feels like they honestly don't think its a problem since Nidoran (f) can breed and so as long as they always make it available to catch in the wild somewhere there's no need to change anything/remember they should probably fix this.
They had to pretty much rewrite code from scratch when they made Gen 3, and yet they didn't bother to change this.

That it was a glitch in Gen 2... well, that's what pretty much everyone thinks. Game Freak probably noticed it and, instead of fixing it, went with "sure, let's go with that", as it took until Gen 6 to dare make changes to old Pokémon.
 
Out of curiosity, with all our years of looking at pokemon data, what does the egg group association look like internally. It's something we're able to easily pull out and ID, but is it like a list of egg groups that point at pokemon, or pokemon data has little pointers to the egg groups, or....?
 
Out of curiosity, with all our years of looking at pokemon data, what does the egg group association look like internally. It's something we're able to easily pull out and ID, but is it like a list of egg groups that point at pokemon, or pokemon data has little pointers to the egg groups, or....?
The logical and most efficient assumption would be that the Pokémon has a pointer to the egg group.

Otherwise, it would be like asking "Is X car made by Y brand?" and, instead of looking at X's brand, you look at Y's list of cars and see if X is there.
 
OK so I was actually able to look it up! Thank you years of pokemon code dissection
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pokémon_base_stats_data_structure_in_Generation_II

Basically each species block of code has a bit set aside for its egg groups, and it always lists 2 egg groups. If you're only in one egg group, you have it listed twice.

That list part, to me, feels like this was never a glitch. They would have to specifically enter the undiscovered/no egg grouping twice for both nidorina AND nidoqueen on accident.

Entering it once on accident for either of them, sure, I could see that. Typos happen. Fast Ball doesn't traverse the Flee list enough so it literally only works on 3 pokemon. I am assuming the Love Ball only working on same gendered Pokemon was also a typo.
But this doesnt feel like that situation.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 4)

Top