Sabresite Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 (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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evandixon Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 ACE exploits go way beyond regular gameplay. You're basically ram hacking the game at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirzi Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabresite Posted February 10, 2017 Author Share Posted February 10, 2017 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KonohaDaze Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 Over-reacting much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KonohaDaze Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Ammako said: Over-reacting much? :^) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KonohaDaze Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) 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 February 11, 2017 by KonohaDaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirzi Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 (edited) @ajxpk - Right, gen 1 Pokemon with impossible DV spreads are illegal, I agree ACE wouldn't change that. Come to think of it, since wild counter gen 1 Pokemon can't be shiny, wouldn't that mean that glitch Mew couldn't be shiny even if you happened to have the proper OT and ID No to allow it to transfer? Never mind, it seems it's treated as a stationary. Anyway, in general, I think it'd be good to have legality for gen 1 DVs, even if few would ever use it given the games can only trade and battle locally. At minimum, it'd be good to have as a resource for what shinies are legal. Edited February 11, 2017 by Kirzi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 37 minutes ago, Kirzi said: @ajxpk - RIght, gen 1 Pokemon with impossible DV spreads are illegal, I agree ACE wouldn't change that. Come to think of it, since wild counter gen 1 Pokemon can't be shiny, wouldn't that mean that glitch Mew couldn't be shiny even if you happened to have the proper OT and ID No to allow it to transfer? Anyway, in general, I think it'd be good to have legality for gen 1 DVs, even if few would ever use it given the games can only trade and battle locally. At minimum, it'd be good to have as a resource for what shinies are legal. IIRC, the DVs spread only allowed static to be shiny. So based on that, you're right: even trainer fly Mew would not be encountered shiny. Which would explain why none of my Pokemon from Gen 1 long long time ago, was ever shiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirzi Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 @theSLAYER, nevermind. Looking back at the Smogon thread, it seems trainer fly glitch Pokemon are generated as a stationary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 1 minute ago, Kirzi said: @theSLAYER, nevermind. Looking back at the Smogon thread, it seems trainer fly glitch Pokemon are generated as a stationary. whoa woops, well that would mean it has a remote change of be generated shiny 0.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirzi Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, theSLAYER said: whoa woops, well that would mean it has a remote change of be generated shiny 0.o Technically true, but it's still the case that Mew cannot be shiny without the use of glitches. And glitches shouldn't change legality. Otherwise it'd be possible to get any shiny or any 15/15/15/15 Pokemon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theSLAYER Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kirzi said: Technically true, but it's still the case that Mew cannot be shiny without the use of glitches. And glitches shouldn't change legality. Otherwise it'd be possible to get any shiny or any 15/15/15/15 Pokemon. If referring to this chart, whereby Original standards of Legal refer to possible in-game, ignoring infeasibility,ACE usage can fall into both legal and illegal. Normal gameplay, Mew cannot be encountered. Yet using ACE with no external devices, Mew can be obtained + shinified. I feel like it should be amended to restrict circumstances to possible to chance upon during normal game-play. Presently, I'm leaning towards ACE and Glitzer Popping-type of scenarios of being illegal, as: 1. Not valid programmed in-game trade 2. Not valid programmed in-game encounters 3. Not valid programmed in-game gift 4. Not valid pre-programmed event that was released. Sorry for the long-about approach, but basically I'm thinking not all glitches should (and would) lead to causing illegality. Programming quirk in DPPTHGSS (Cute charm glitch, was it) allows for shinies to be encountered regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts