Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sabresite

Is a Shiny Glitch Mew Legal?

Is a Shiny Glitch Mew Legal?   21 members have voted

  1. 1. Is a shiny glitch mew in vc1 acquired by ACE considered legal?

    • Yes - I consider using bugs in the game that do not require external tools to be legal.
      5
    • No - Since this is not how Nintendo intended, it is not legal.
      16

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

39 posts in this topic

I am curious to know whether people believe acquiring an event mew in VC1, then using ACE bugs to change its DVs so it will be shiny when pokebanked, should considered legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, IMO it's not legal. Because arbitrary code execution is hacking.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

(wall of text inside)

Spoiler

Edge cases normally focus on some kind of oversight.

Shiny Jirachi - Legal, due to RNG oversight on developers part, if I'm not mistaken.
Shiny Manaphy - Legal, due to trading oversight.
(the two cases I could think of, from the top of my head)

However, I think this is closer to DP Shaymin and Darkrai territory.
Those two could be accessed and reached via surf glitch or tweaking,
however the event items were never released in Diamond and Pearl,
hence not legitimate to obtain in DP.
(plus, identification is possible, as it seems these two won't have fateful encounter tagged to them in DP)

Or something that's even closer: A Celebi obtained by Glitzer Popping glitch in Emerald, is it considered legal?
[edit: wasn't rhetorical. I don't think it is, explanation below]

I think Legal refers typically to something obtainable during normal gameplay,
and to go through such convoluted steps to obtain something, in regards to Glitzer Popping and ACE,
is far and away from the definition of normal gameplay.

It's not about being incredibly lucky (RNG) or as simple as playing with friends (a trade) or even changing dates on a device (Gamestp Celebi),
but rather, it's about taking such calculated steps to obtain something that is not obtainable during normal gameplay.
 

TL;DR
I'll be keeping my DVs ACE'd Shiny Mew, but I'm considering it illegal as it's takes abnormal gameplay to obtain it.
(results cannot be changed upon during normal gameplay)
I'll like to hear other arguments regarding this!

Edit: second wall of text, containing my potential change in answer.

Spoiler

My answer just wavered, slightly.

It is possible to soft reset until you get the correct TID, and set the wanted Trainer Name.
If we remove DV editing and ACE out of the equation for now, and look solely at using Trainer Fly Glitch to obtain a Mew,
with the correct TID and Trainer name as per mentioned above,
I'm not even sure that is considered legal or illegal

Trainer fly glitch is rather easy to do, and could be something a trainer chanced upon when regretted walking into a trainer's sight
(more of they remembered it was there last minute) and pressed start,
hoping to evade in time. (silly kids)

If you encountered a Mew in that scenario, would you NOT catch it because it'll potentially be illegal? lol

Think of this as a follow up question to my 2nd wall of text above:
If I soft reset my TID and SID to get the same TID (and OT) as a 10ANNIV event,
and nickname a 10ANNIV Pokemon, is it still considered Legal?
[repeat as above, but SID is RNG'd but TID is soft resetted]
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mew glitch isn't something that someone would just randomly accidentally do, though.

" If you encountered a Mew in that scenario, would you NOT catch it because it'll potentially be illegal? lol "

Maybe you'd still catch it, that doesn't make it any more legal though.

And of course nicknamed event Pokémon are legal, if it's legally possible to obtain the right conditions that allow nicknaming. For the record, Gen. IV only requires TID to match (SID and OT name don't even need to match.) Does Gen. III require both ID/SID and OT? Is SID of 00000 possible?

 

Asking whether GAMESTP Celebi should be considered legal or not was one thing, but here we're pretty much asking "should this Pokémon obtained via a very convoluted and obviously not intended bug/exploit of game mechanics be considered legal?"

I think the answer is obvious and shouldn't even have to be asked. Should we consider -anything- from Gen. I/II legal, just because ACE technically makes it possible in-game?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@theSLAYER: Regarding the Mew glitch... It brings us you right back to normal play.
And let's face it, normally you would not be able to catch Mew unless you exploit the glitch.
As a matter of fact, there's a reason why they blocked all other Mews at Pokemon Bank. It tells us that they don't want us to bring these Mews to Pokemon Bank. The only reason why we can still transfer ゲーフリ/GF 22796 Mews with different IVs than those who were distributed is because they forgot to add that check. We shouldn't be surprised if they might add it in the future... (I doubt they will do it... but anyway...)

Edit:
Regarding the same OTN OTG TID SID question. 
That's a more difficult question than you might think.
Well unless you can't obtain the TID/SID and have the same OTN with the same OTG it could be considered legal, right?
But you forget one important thing at this point. Even you have the same OT/OTG/TID/SID combination you are NOT the Original Trainer.
That's why in Gen 3 they added the "Secret ID" (who knows how they call it, do we know?) to prevent that scenario as much as possible.

Edited by ajxpk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may not be the original trainer, but at this point this is basically the same as legit vs legal.

Only difference between a legit Pokémon and a legal Pokémon is that deep down inside your heart you know that no cheating or save editing was involved in that Pokémon's existence. As far as the game is concerned, legit and legal are identical.

Likewise, only difference here is that you technically aren't the original trainer, because you know that you weren't the one to obtain that Pokémon, but as far as the game is concerned, none of this matters. Same OT/ID/SID, you are the OT. The only difference there is to make goes beyond the game, game doesn't care about that though.

It is a clever exploit of game mechanics, not one that I would consider a bug though. Especially in Gen. IV where only ID had to match in order to nickname Pokémon. At 1/65535 there is a lot of people in the world who just randomly happened to get the same ID number as an event Pokémon.

(If they really wanted to prevent that from happening they would have used a bigger hidden personal identification number per-trainer, and made event Pokémon use a number that was specifically not obtainable through normal gameplay.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do understand that I pretty much agree with having it considered not legal,
As it's way too far out from normal typical game play to be considered legal.

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I do feel this is an important discussion to have rationally,
as this may set a precedent for future events.

Now:

14 minutes ago, ajxpk said:

And let's face it, normally you would not be able to catch Mew unless you exploit the glitch.
It tells us that they don't want us to bring these Mews to Pokemon Bank.

Thing is, I think it's dangerous to fall back to the company's intent.

If anything, they've been inconsistent, have horrible hack checking, and their executions of their intent has always been unreliable,
so I think it's unsafe to use that as a standard.
(heck, they couldn't bother to clarify their position on gamestp Celebi properly, not that I can blame them)

What happens if we use their intent as a standard:
1. Shiny Jirachi from Wishmakr stops being legal (it was blocked until Gen 6 Shiny Jirachi event came along)
2. Shiny Manaphy are all illegal (cause their original intent was to distribute the egg shiny locked)
3. Movie Arceus was once blocked for having it's movie moves, lol, so does it become legal now it's unblocked?
(it was illegal as a result, because it was blocked, tho)
4. Gen 1 Shiny VC Mew becomes Legal, as it isn't blocked. (at time of writing)
5. Hall of Fame Arceus becomes Legal, as it isn't blocked [at level 100]. (at time of writing)


I'll say their intent does matter, but it cannot be the core principle behind the argument.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Note I've only been able to transfer Hall of Origin Arceus if they were Lv. 100, sounds like Nintendo doesn't actually check game of origin, they just assume Lv. 100 Arceus with your own OT = Entree Forest Arceus.)

That was a few years ago though, no idea if they fixed or changed that in the meantime. Haven't had a Bank subscription in a long time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ammako said:

(Note I've only been able to transfer Hall of Origin Arceus if they were Lv. 100, sounds like Nintendo doesn't actually check game of origin, they just assume Lv. 100 Arceus with your own OT = Entree Forest Arceus.)

(yeah, that's why I say they've been bad at hack checking and executing their intent.
I supposedly read that HOF shiny arceus can pass bank after Gen 6 shiny arceus event, but I've yet to test it personally)

21 minutes ago, Ammako said:

For the record, Gen. IV only requires TID to match (SID and OT name don't even need to match.) Does Gen. III require both ID/SID and OT? Is SID of 00000 possible?

(Btw, I didn't know only TID had to match. SID 00000 is possible, I think. it certainly could be RNG'd, but not on RS)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's pretty easy to test too with save editing. I'm pretty sure that was only in Gen. IV though.

Also, while Glitch Mew with GF/22796 may not be legal if it doesn't have maxed out DVs like the original event, something worth noting is that the transfer to Gen. VII effectively makes it legal (as long as it doesn't have shiny DVs, ofc.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ammako said:

Also, while Glitch Mew with GF/22796 may not be legal if it doesn't have maxed out DVs like the original event, something worth noting is that the transfer to Gen. VII effectively makes it legal (as long as it doesn't have shiny DVs, ofc.)

It makes it legal simply because it's indistinguishable from legit.
(which pretty much spawned the origin story of the term legal roll credits)
Because it's possible to obtain a Mew via trade, that was distributed with non-shiny DVs.

But the moment ACE comes into picture, it's considered tomfoolery on the player's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the definition of "legal" was "it could happen in-game given the correct circumstances".

[Edit] Hmmm... this is more complicated than I thought.  I don't really know, although I don't know how to change my vote in the poll.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ACE exploits go way beyond regular gameplay. You're basically ram hacking the game at this point. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ammako Yeah, you do have a point right there.
But I mean the difference between legitimacy and legality is obvious.
And even some people might not like to hear it, but IMO as soon as Save File dumping and a Tool is involved ect. we can't talk about legitimacy anymore. For example... A classical legit Pokemon Trade is trading one Pokemon for another one, not exchanging copies ect.
That's why I find this whole discussion about the difference what's legit and what's legal so weird and confusing sometimes...
Legitimacy has no gray area. (At least in my opinion...)

In the case we are talking about now however it's more about legality and what they (Nintendo/Game Freak) consider legal and what's in fact legal.
As we see in our discussion here and this is very interesting... Both things aren't necessarily the same. 
But I think you might agree with me that one thing is clear, legal is (in terms of Event Pokemon) what was in fact distributed.
Because that's the whole point about "Event Pokemon"...

Yeah, we all know they messed up on some stuff here and there...
And this is also why we should take this very serious. Sometimes they miss things, sometimes they overdo it.
Some may call it laziness or maybe they just didn't cared. And some other cases they cared a little bit too much.
Let's take Shiny Wishmkr Jirachi which is really an unfortunate case.
It is downloadable even in a legit way, yet it is blocked and we have to accept it.
 


About the OTN/OTG/TID/SID and wether it is technical possible...
The chance to get the same TID/SID combination is actually 1:‭4294967295‬.
 I don't wanna stretch this Topic too much...

Spoiler

I personally prefer to differenciate between what's technically possible and what's potentially realistic.
Mathematically viewed the chances are so ridiculous low that everyone with common sense would find it suspicious if it happens... 
And I mean... having the same OTN/OTG/TID/SID combination as the Event and then get the idea to just nickname the Event Pokemon.
Through normal play? Sounds actually too adventurous in my opinion. If I ever would see such a Pokemon I would believe the chances that it is a hack are higher than the coincidence. Even it might be possible on the technical side...

In terms of "legality" however the case is clear, since the message they give us adding SIDs in Gen 3 as I said before...
We aren't supposed to nickname Pokemon from other Trainers/Event Pokemon. 
Even they haven't really prevented it in a perfect way.



 

Edited by ajxpk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp that glitches are legal as long as they produce legal Pokemon.

If you want to ACE glitch yourself a shiny Charizard, go for it, I'd call it fully legal (not legit, but that's a separate argument).

But there were only two event Mew in gen 1, and both have fixed DVs of 15/15/15/15, and cannot be shiny. So shiny gen 1 Mew is illegal. Other non-shiny glitch Mews would be legal after transfer, but not the shiny, because it cannot be shiny without using a glitch to literally modify its DVs after catching it. It's still hacking, with or without external modification.

I don't think it's fair to say that all glitches are legal just because they don't use external means. Otherwise you'd have to consider level 1 Nidokings legal, Rage-glitched Fly Flareon legal, tweaked DP Shaymin/Darkrai legal, etc. ACE shiny Mew is along the same lines. And I wouldn't consider Transporter a valid way to distinguish legal glitches from illegal glitches given how basic (bad) its legality checks are. 

So no, it's not legal, but not because it's "not how Nintendo intended" - it's because shiny gen 1 Mew is impossible unless you modify it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kirzi IV combinations from Gen 1 that translate to shininess in Gen 2 (or even Pokemon Bank) are illegal for the most part.
The same goes for 15/15/15/15 IVs. The reason for this is because it's because legal IV combinations are limited in Gen 1.
It's because of the nature of how the games generates Pokemon which makes this spreads unaccessible in a legal way.
However it's not be the case with Charizard since it is a starter and a shiny IVs Gen 1 Charizard can be received in legal way.
But it is the case with wild Pokemon. Their IVs are generated after their Encounter Slot gets called.

Here for everyone who's interested in it:

http://wiki.pokemonspeedruns.com/index.php?title=Pokémon_Red/Blue_Wild_DVs

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/15-15-15-15-dvs-are-impossible-in-most-cases.3573219/
 

Spoiler

 


I know it's very popular to hack the IVs to be perfect by arbitrary code execution.
I personally have nothing against ACE and I even think it is a cool thing as long as it's for private use and I did it myself and had fun with it too.
But when it comes to legality, that's a whole different story and I'm taking the term legality seriously.
If we take it too lightly we would justify for example that someone who used ACE to get a perfect IV Pokemon in Gen 1 has an unfair advantage over people who play their games normally, because they might not be able to get the same Pokemon in a legal way.

Edited by ajxpk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never realized that the rng was so severely broken.  I suppose we could add IV legality checking into Gen 1, but not sure if anyone would care.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably wouldn't be a big deal, no-one really trades between Gen. I on a large scale and any Pokémon sent over to Gen. VII has its stats re-calculated anyway.

While several shiny DV combinations may be impossible, there's gotta be at least one which -is- possible, so even if someone had an impossible shiny DV set it wouldn't matter anymore once sent to Gen. VII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ammako said:

It probably wouldn't be a big deal, no-one really trades between Gen. I on a large scale and any Pokémon sent over to Gen. VII has its stats re-calculated anyway.

While several shiny DV combinations may be impossible, there's gotta be at least one which -is- possible, so even if someone had an impossible shiny DV set it wouldn't matter anymore once sent to Gen. VII.

This line of thinking is toxic and is probably the reason why the PPorg community is infested with cheaters despite there being clear rules against them doing so, back when I asked for legality help in Gen 4/5 for events it was extremely common for the more prominent members on this board to just resort to hackusations instead of actually helping with anything.

No one has even bothered to make a collaboration of data for those gens anymore because as far as I know xfr just disappeared from the face of the planet, taking PokeCheck's files with them. It's very assuring when we have actually productive threads on here like the ones concerning the legality process of 3rd gen events.

That being said, it's not really necessary for Pkhex to have added DV checking because the information is readily available to anyone if they're willing to search for it, but at the same time it just drives me insane when some of you dismiss it as not a big deal because cheaters are less likely to use it to their advantage and then turn around and lynch anyone that gives the notion they might be doing so, it's almost hypocritical.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... as a lover of the original Pokemon Games and for the completeness I would love to have this...  
And I know I'm not alone with this, even tho' I can imagine there are not many people like me.
I mean some people like Gen 1 battling with the added rule of not allowing trade backs.

Also I must say that things changing a bit when you consider Gen 2 as well.
Gen 2 is a Game changer and I also say this in case a VC release of Gold, Silver & Crystal happens.
Because IIRC its breeding mechanics basically allow us to get all the Spreads.
But there needs to be some further research regarding the Pokemon that can't be bred...
Like the roamers for example and wether all 65536 IV Spreads are accessible for Stationary Pokemon ect.
I think it should be like it's in Gen 1, but who knows... 

Anyways I personally would find it pretty cool to have it. 
+ Some legality checking aspects in term of Gen 1 definitely need to be in consideration because it affects Gen 7 as well.
For example, the fact that only a few Pokemon from Gen 1 VC can become Shiny. 
Most Pokemon can't be shiny at all, it's not about IV spreads but species in general.

Edited by ajxpk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ammako said:

Over-reacting much?

:^)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, KonohaDaze said:

:^)

Gen I and II literally don't matter, everything sent over to newer Gens. (VII) gets recalculated entirely.

The only thing that can still remain illegal where it matters is shinies, due to certain DV spreads being impossible. That's it.

Everything since Gen. III matters because a lot of data is preserved as-is no matter which Gen. you transfer it to. PID will never change, IVs and nature will always have to match the PID, that's all checkable and it all matters.

Gen. I and II are so simplistic that literally the only thing that could possibly matter is DVs where impossible DV combinations exist (and things like Pokémon that can't be found in the wild.) There are no official tournaments being held for Gen. I, there is no online connectivity, any online connectivity goes through Gen. VII which again recalculates pretty much everything and rendering the vast majority of what would be illegal, legal.

I and II stopped being relevant a long time ago. It literally does not matter, calling me out on it for being "toxic" is uncalled for. Yeah of course, because I have good reasons to think Gen. I legality doesn't matter means I'm part of the reason why PP.org is lenient on hacking in Gen. VI/VII. It's completely unrelated.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


@Ammako. I already said this but the Shiny factor doesn't only affects IV Spreads but whole Species.
Most of the Species can't be Shiny. If you want to know more about it, check this post at Smorgon.

http://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/15-15-15-15-dvs-are-impossible-in-most-cases.3573219/page-2#post-7206138

I hope you will understand why it in fact does matter.
Gen 1 became relevant again since the VC Release and the connectivity to Pokemon Bank.
This way Gen 1 affects Gen 7.

Even tho' I think the words @KonohaDaze were a bit harsh and I do respect other's opinions...
I agree with what he essentially means. Not torwards Ammako. But when it comes to legality in general.
There should be no excuses.

To be honest, I personally don't like the idea to say... well...
"If I transfer a clearly hacked Pokemon and transferring gets rid of the information that says it is a hack it becomes legal..."
You're right when you say it will be detected legal but it still was originally a bad hack.
And If we advise people to just do like this I think we are sending a wrong message.
If someone is doing this for own private use, no problem... go for it... but for legal use?
Just my opinion and maybe I'm alone with this...

What I just try to say is KonohaDaze is right when he says PPorg has a "bad reputation". (At least some people think so...)
Because we are the Hackers who make all the Tools and spread all the hacks.
If you know what I mean...

Edited by ajxpk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajxpk said:

Even tho' I think the words @KonohaDaze were a bit harsh and I do respect other's opinions...
I agree with what he essentially means. Not torwards Ammako. 

Yes, it was a harsh statement, I can understand why they'd be butthurt, I just thought it was something that PPorg as a whole should consider.

I never meant to imply that I was singling out Ammako specifically, it was more general.

Edited by KonohaDaze
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0