How Can Non-Technical Players Verify Legitimacy of Pokémon RNG and Detect Hacked Pokémon?

[Albert930208]

The recent Pokémon World Championship has sparked significant controversy regarding the fairness of the Random Number Generation (RNG) mechanics in Pokémon. This has also led to increased player attention towards RNG manipulation and the presence of hacked Pokémon. As a player without an engineering background, what approach should I take to ascertain the legitimacy of the RNG associated with Pokémon obtained through various channels, such as Wonder Trade or trading with friends?

Furthermore, if a user adjusts a Pokémon's RNG to make it appear legitimate and conceals the truth of it being a hacked Pokémon, is there no way to verify this deception?

[theSLAYER]

If they took the time and effort to hack somewhat competently, no.

And for RNG, you more or less can’t see them without being able to view the data.

Anyhow, even if they didn’t hack competently, well, even so, you won’t really be able to without access to viewing the team’s summary.

if you could view the team’s summary, at least *maybe* a few things will pop out, like multiple a Gen 9 Pokémon being caught on the same date with all perfect IVs (you’ll need the IV judge for that), and maybe a bunch of shinies on the same date even if they aren’t flawless in stats. Maybe they weren’t caught in the correct location.

 

It’s not gonna be easy for players with access to the data, and even in situations that people has access to the data (like event staff), they may not know what to check.

Anyhow, I believe RNG manipulations isn’t the problem that was highlighted (also I wasn’t answering to that either), but rather it was bad hacks that didn’t take legitimate RNG sequences into account, hence giving a concrete reason to show they were hacked.

[Albert930208]

6 hours ago, theSLAYER said:

If they took the time and effort to hack somewhat competently, no.

And for RNG, you more or less can’t see them without being able to view the data.

Anyhow, even if they didn’t hack competently, well, even so, you won’t really be able to without access to viewing the team’s summary.

if you could view the team’s summary, at least *maybe* a few things will pop out, like multiple a Gen 9 Pokémon being caught on the same date with all perfect IVs (you’ll need the IV judge for that), and maybe a bunch of shinies on the same date even if they aren’t flawless in stats. Maybe they weren’t caught in the correct location.

 

It’s not gonna be easy for players with access to the data, and even in situations that people has access to the data (like event staff), they may not know what to check.

Anyhow, I believe RNG manipulations isn’t the problem that was highlighted (also I wasn’t answering to that either), but rather it was bad hacks that didn’t take legitimate RNG sequences into account, hence giving a concrete reason to show they were hacked.

The methods of identification you mentioned, such as obtaining multiple perfect Individual Values (IVs) or multiple shinies in a short period, do indeed raise suspicions. However, these indicators can only be used to speculate about the possible illegitimacy of the source and cannot independently infer the legitimacy of the Pokémon.

Regarding the "mismatch between the claimed capture location and the actual capture location," I have a question. If a hacker sets an incorrect encounter location, wouldn't PKHeX not trigger a prompt, indicating that the Pokémon is illegal?

Before addressing that question further, let's assume I'm a savvy hacker. I extract a legitimate wild Pokémon using PKHeX's Encounter Database and carefully attend to details like the date, Poké Ball type, and OT information to maintain realism. Then I edit its IVs (for example, setting Attack to 0) while remaining vigilant about legitimacy. Even though PKHeX indicates that the Pokémon is legitimate, would this approach raise concerns related to RNG?

I've encountered quite a bit of one-sided information, so I'm seeking a more informed explanation. Specifically, I'm interested in the methods of identifying Pokémon through RNG manipulation. It appears to be a potential approach beyond just "legitimacy" and perhaps a more accurate way of making determinations?

[Kaphotics]

Break it down into smaller questions.

1. Is the encounter the Pokémon originated from subject to any RNG correlation or pattern?

2. Did the encounter get generated with the correct pattern straight from the database?

3. Is the correlation possible to calculate in near-realtime?

4. Is the correlation calculation implemented in the program?

Good luck answering all for every encounter available in the games.

[Albert930208]

3 hours ago, Kaphotics said:

Break it down into smaller questions.

1. Is the encounter the Pokémon originated from subject to any RNG correlation or pattern?

2. Did the encounter get generated with the correct pattern straight from the database?

3. Is the correlation possible to calculate in near-realtime?

4. Is the correlation calculation implemented in the program?

Good luck answering all for every encounter available in the games.

Thank you for helping me organize these questions. Could anyone please provide the answers to these questions?

[theSLAYER]

Read the last point. There’s too much encounter scenarios to reply for every single one of them. You’re gonna need to figure them out for yourselves based on the mons in question (if/when you encounter them)

[Albert930208]

1 hour ago, theSLAYER said:

Read the last point. There’s too much encounter scenarios to reply for every single one of them. You’re gonna need to figure them out for yourselves based on the mons in question (if/when you encounter them)

I apologize for any misunderstanding. It's possible that I haven't fully comprehended your response. It's possible that being a non-native English speaker, I might not fully grasp the intricacies. Let me clarify by providing an example. Is there a way to determine if the attached Pokémon has been fabricated? This is a Pokémon that appears highly plausible, but is entirely fictional in origin.0462 - ジバコイル - 8C3A33DCCEA0.pk9

[Kaphotics]

My message was intended to be a thought exercise for whoever wanted to investigate it.

The attachment is illegal, it only learns Thunder via TM yet it doesn't have the TM flag checked.

Regular wild Pokémon in SV do not have any RNG correlation because they use the csprng.

[Albert930208]

11 minutes ago, Kaphotics said:

My message was intended to be a thought exercise for whoever wanted to investigate it.

The attachment is illegal, it only learns Thunder via TM yet it doesn't have the TM flag checked.

Regular wild Pokémon in SV do not have any RNG correlation because they use the csprng.

csprng? So does this mean that the attached Pokémon is legitimate and normal except for me forgetting the Thunder move's TM flag? And there's absolutely no way to tell in any manner that this Pokémon is artificially created? This is a screenshot posted by @Kaphotics on Twitter, and I'm curious about how they identify Hacked Pokémon. Also, the source is Training Lowlands (wild Pokémon), and it would be detected that the Atk (IV) was edited?

[theSLAYER]

Literally same Kaphotics. Also the amoongus shown is from SWSH, not SV. SWSH overworld mons has Overworld8 RNG correlations.

Edit: I’ve been told the Amoonguss is from a raid, that has Raid correlations.

And they’ve already spelt out their thought experiment relating to analysis.

Your original question started out from a vanilla player POV, but it now seems to be going towards the “hacker trying to create legal competitive mons”. We’re not into validating legal entries for competitive use, so please steer clear from questions that can be misconstrued to have that kind of intent.

[Albert930208]

10 minutes ago, theSLAYER said:

Literally same Kaphotics. Also the amoongus shown is from SWSH, not SV. SWSH overworld mons has Overworld8 RNG correlations.

And they’ve already spelt out their thought experiment relating to analysis.

Your original question started out from a vanilla player POV, but it now seems to be going towards the “hacker trying to create legal competitive mons”. We’re not into validating legal entries for competitive use, so please steer clear from questions that can be misconstrued to have that kind of intent.

I apologize for the misunderstanding I caused. I've been working on preparing a video about "How to more accurately identify hacked Pokémon," aiming to address any unclear or mistaken points from my previous videos. Here are the links to my YouTube videos to show that I'm not attempting to disrupt the fairness of the game, but rather to convey how to differentiate hacked Pokémon.

I genuinely intend to delve into the details of identifying hacked Pokémon as thoroughly as possible and create a video to educate on this matter. While I understand this might inadvertently help hackers refine their techniques, I've stressed multiple times in the video that I do not endorse or promote any hacking methods. I've also taken precautions by masking anything associated with hacking using mosaic overlays.

I'm sincerely sorry for any confusion I caused, and I hope to receive your understanding and clarification.

Video 1:

 

[theSLAYER]

I’ve been told the Pokémon you’ve uploaded is so illegal in the latest version of PKHeX, give that a check.

Also, go back to what Kaphotics said as a thought experiment regarding the mon’s legality. Most hackers that doesn’t think things get their Pokémon caught on one of the points there. (You can still get caught even if you go through those points, but baby steps).

[Albert930208]

9 hours ago, theSLAYER said:

I’ve been told the Pokémon you’ve uploaded is so illegal in the latest version of PKHeX, give that a check.

Also, go back to what Kaphotics said as a thought experiment regarding the mon’s legality. Most hackers that doesn’t think things get their Pokémon caught on one of the points there. (You can still get caught even if you go through those points, but baby steps).

The conversation above seems to have deviated from the focus due to the discussion about Magnezone, which was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that.

Returning to the initial and only question I had: Is there any way, apart from speculation and guesswork, to "accurately" determine whether a wild-caught Pokémon is a hacked one, regardless of whether it involves RNG or any other method? If such a method exists, what is it?

[Nuren]

2 hours ago, Albert930208 said:

Returning to the initial and only question I had: Is there any way, apart from speculation and guesswork, to "accurately" determine whether a wild-caught Pokémon is a hacked one, regardless of whether it involves RNG or any other method? If such a method exists, what is it?

The only way to tell that a Pokémon is 100% hacked is to find a trait that is 100% impossible.

If you do not have access to the data and can only view in-game summary screens, that will limit your ability to see impossible traits. Even with access to PKHeX, there are some traits that are highly improbable but still legal.

As others have said before, knowing what is an impossible trait or an improbable trait requires knowledge about the game and encounter. That kind of information could fill textbooks. An impossible trait might be easily visible, such as an impossible Poké Ball or a shiny-locked Pokémon that is shiny. Likewise, an impossible trait may require you to have the data, such as calculating the RNG correlation for SWSH Pokemon which requires hidden values such as PID and EC. Many users use common streamer OTs as a sign that a Pokémon is very likely to be hacked, even if the Pokémon is fully legal. The chance of a random wild Pokémon in SV with no fixed IVs to be shiny and 6 IV is at best 1 in (512 x 32^6) and it's very common for people to use these kind of odds as reason to find a mon suspicious.

You're looking for something like this page, but there isn't a resource with every tell possible for every game. That requires the user to do the research. I believe that page is also not completely up-to-date, so some of the information on there has since changed due to new mechanics.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Nuren

[Albert930208]

1 hour ago, Nuren said:

The only way to tell that a Pokémon is 100% hacked is to find a trait that is 100% impossible.

If you do not have access to the data and can only view in-game summary screens, that will limit your ability to see impossible traits. Even with access to PKHeX, there are some traits that are highly improbable but still legal.

As others have said before, knowing what is an impossible trait or an improbable trait requires knowledge about the game and encounter. That kind of information could fill textbooks. An impossible trait might be easily visible, such as an impossible Poké Ball or a shiny-locked Pokémon that is shiny. Likewise, an impossible trait may require you to have the data, such as calculating the RNG correlation for SWSH Pokemon which requires hidden values such as PID and EC. Many users use common streamer OTs as a sign that a Pokémon is very likely to be hacked, even if the Pokémon is fully legal. The chance of a random wild Pokémon in SV with no fixed IVs to be shiny and 6 IV is at best 1 in (512 x 32^6) and it's very common for people to use these kind of odds as reason to find a mon suspicious.

You're looking for something like this page, but there isn't a resource with every tell possible for every game. That requires the user to do the research. I believe that page is also not completely up-to-date, so some of the information on there has since changed due to new mechanics.

Thank you for your information, and I can also understand what you're saying. As long as an event's probability isn't 0%, then it can't be considered impossible, even if some hacked Pokémon seem extremely unlikely (like being 6IV, shiny, and Legendary all at once).

However, when it comes to Pokémon encounter methods, shiny locks, and event distributions, you can use PKHeX or online resources to verify the legitimacy of a Pokémon. This is also the most common way of determining legitimacy.

If we judge the rationality of a Pokémon's legitimacy based on "logic," we encounter a challenge: hacked Pokémon are not like counterfeit money where any detail can reveal its authenticity. Hacked Pokémon are more like items produced by original printing machines, indistinguishable unless the printer (hacker) makes a mistake.

In PKHeX, setting aside a few vulnerabilities or bugs, does a system prompt that a Pokémon is "legitimate" necessarily mean it's truly legitimate? Is there a possibility that PKHeX could label a Pokémon as legitimate, but it's because of PKHeX and Nintendo's scrutiny might both miss that it's actually illegal?

Assuming a Pokémon is made up from scratch but logically and legitimately, beyond the "speculation and guesswork" you mentioned earlier, is there any way to "accurately" determine whether a hacked wild Pokémon is hacked, and if so, what method would that be?

[Kaphotics]

legality, not legitimacy.

just because the odds aren't 0% doesn't mean it's not an immediate red flag. a 6IV shiny wild pokemon in S/V that has a mark has absurd odds, or things like having a specific Height/Weight value for multiple pokemon in the party.

just because pkhex says an individual pokemon is "legal" does not mean it will always be viewed as "legal" or truly is. see the latest release, which now flags modified raids.

there are a ton of things that pkhex doesn't look at in detail, as they are not currently implemented.

only way to know for sure is to know everything there ever is about the intricacies of every single game, or write a program to do it for you.

[theSLAYER]

Statistics. When you stack multiple improbabilities, the odds in the end is practically impossible. Check out Matt Parker’s breakdown on Dream’s cheated Minecraft run.

There are some cut and dry cases, then there are some that requires nuance and context and tons of research, then there are those are legal and indistinguishable from the real deal but hacked in the hearts of the players.

It’s going to be a lot to unpack and you’re gonna need to read it all up.

[Albert930208]

1 hour ago, Kaphotics said:

legality, not legitimacy.

I am using ChatGPT to help me translate Chinese into English. I apologize for any inaccuracies in the translation. 

1 hour ago, theSLAYER said:

Statistics. When you stack multiple improbabilities, the odds in the end is practically impossible. Check out Matt Parker’s breakdown on Dream’s cheated Minecraft run.

There are some cut and dry cases, then there are some that requires nuance and context and tons of research, then there are those are legal and indistinguishable from the real deal but hacked in the hearts of the players.

It’s going to be a lot to unpack and you’re gonna need to read it all up.

Thank you both for your responses. If my understanding is correct...

Currently, there isn't an absolutely accurate method to determine the legality of a wild-caught Pokémon. This means that as long as hackers carefully edit every detail to make the Pokémon appear legitimate, even using software to analyze the Pokémon might not provide certainty about its legitimacy.

It's important not to blindly trust the indications given by PKHeX, as those indications can have a certain level of inaccuracy.

Is the above content accurate?

[Nuren]

5 hours ago, Albert930208 said:

Currently, there isn't an absolutely accurate method to determine the legality of a wild-caught Pokémon. This means that as long as hackers carefully edit every detail to make the Pokémon appear legitimate, even using software to analyze the Pokémon might not provide certainty about its legitimacy.

It's important not to blindly trust the indications given by PKHeX, as those indications can have a certain level of inaccuracy.

Is the above content accurate?

No, this is not fully accurate. I think you are confusing legality and legitimacy. This is probably a problem with translators giving the same word in other languages, but the two words are used differently when discussing hacked Pokémon.

Again, it will depend on the encounter. Some encounters are more thoroughly checked by PKHeX, others are not. When knowledge is fully known, yes it is possible to fully determine the legality of a wild-caught Pokémon. Legality checks are always improving, so something that is currently not flagged may be flagged in the future. If you rely on a program like PKHeX and want to know how good each check is, that would still require you to do research into the encounter and the program.

Remember that legality is not legitimacy. PKHeX does not do legitimacy checks. It does legality checks. Legality is whether it is possible to obtain a Pokémon that has those details. A legitimate Pokémon was obtained properly through the correct methods in-game. Fully determining legality does not fully determine legitimacy. A hacked Pokémon can be legal, but a hacked Pokémon is by definition not legitimate. The only way to know that something is fully legitimate is to know the exact circumstances used to capture the Pokémon. Otherwise, without knowing how it was obtained, the best you can do is compare to what is known to be possible.

As I said before, it is possible to prove something is 100% hacked if it has 100% impossible features. Otherwise, you should take into account how likely that Pokémon is. It would be wrong to say that a 6 IV wild shiny Pokémon with 1/549755813888 chance is equally likely as a random IV, nonshiny Pokémon with nothing outstanding, simply because there are no strictly illegal features. PKHeX does not rate whether one Pokémon is more likely than another; that is for the user to research and understand.

Yes, it is possible for a hacker to completely copy the details of a legitimate Pokémon. But you are not likely to see people hacking Pokémon that are exactly the same as random wild Pokémon. You have to look at the Pokémon yourself, research to know what is possible to figure out the chance of it occurring, and make the decision based on that knowledge. PKHeX can tell you that the values are possible, but that does not mean a sensible human should believe that odds of 1 in billions is as reasonable as a random Pokémon.

Most trade communities do not expect casual users to have full access to the Pokémon data and research, so that is why they use methods such as listing known hacker OTs and general tells that are more associated with hacked than legitimate Pokémon. For example, Mitsuki.TV is a known streamer who distributes hacks. Yes, it's possible that someone innocent might pick Mitsuki.TV as their name. But do you really think an innocent user picked the same name as a streamer, found a legitimate shiny 6 IV legendary, and then gave it to you for free?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Nuren

[Albert930208]

54 minutes ago, Nuren said:

No, this is not fully accurate. I think you are confusing legality and legitimacy. This is probably a problem with translators giving the same word in other languages, but the two words are used differently when discussing hacked Pokémon.

Again, it will depend on the encounter. Some encounters are more thoroughly checked by PKHeX, others are not. When knowledge is fully known, yes it is possible to fully determine the legality of a wild-caught Pokémon. Legality checks are always improving, so something that is currently not flagged may be flagged in the future. If you rely on a program like PKHeX and want to know how good each check is, that would still require you to do research into the encounter and the program.

Remember that legality is not legitimacy. PKHeX does not do legitimacy checks. It does legality checks. Legality is whether it is possible to obtain a Pokémon that has those details. A legitimate Pokémon was obtained properly through the correct methods in-game. Fully determining legality does not fully determine legitimacy. A hacked Pokémon can be legal, but a hacked Pokémon is by definition not legitimate. The only way to know that something is fully legitimate is to know the exact circumstances used to capture the Pokémon. Otherwise, without knowing how it was obtained, the best you can do is compare to what is known to be possible.

As I said before, it is possible to prove something is 100% hacked if it has 100% impossible features. Otherwise, you should take into account how likely that Pokémon is. It would be wrong to say that a 6 IV wild shiny Pokémon with 1/549755813888 chance is equally likely as a random IV, nonshiny Pokémon with nothing outstanding, simply because there are no strictly illegal features. PKHeX does not rate whether one Pokémon is more likely than another; that is for the user to research and understand.

Yes, it is possible for a hacker to completely copy the details of a legitimate Pokémon. But you are not likely to see people hacking Pokémon that are exactly the same as random wild Pokémon. You have to look at the Pokémon yourself, research to know what is possible to figure out the chance of it occurring, and make the decision based on that knowledge. PKHeX can tell you that the values are possible, but that does not mean a sensible human should believe that odds of 1 in billions is as reasonable as a random Pokémon.

Most trade communities do not expect casual users to have full access to the Pokémon data and research, so that is why they use methods such as listing known hacker OTs and general tells that are more associated with hacked than legitimate Pokémon. For example, Mitsuki.TV is a known streamer who distributes hacks. Yes, it's possible that someone innocent might pick Mitsuki.TV as their name. But do you really think an innocent user picked the same name as a streamer, found a legitimate shiny 6 IV legendary, and then gave it to you for free?

Thank you for your response, and my understanding aligns completely with what you mentioned, including your example of Mitsuki.TV. This current Chat GPT has clearly distinguished between "legality" and "legitimacy" in translation, which makes me more confident in my understanding.

I'm curious about a scenario: If a morally ambiguous player were to have the same reasons as Pokémon World Championship participant Brady Smith, that is, not wanting to spend time on Pokémon breeding and opting for hacked Pokémon, and they modify a Pokémon to be extremely "legitimacy" (for example, non-shiny, low IVs for Hyper Training, not maximum/minimum size, no special marks), would I still have a means to expose them using any third-party tools (such as pkhex)? Do I have a method to identify the source of a Pokémon that possesses both reasonability and legality, and determine whether it's fabricated?

By the way, for an event-gifted Pokémon with all fixed values (such as PID, IVs, Shiny, Height and Weight), is it impossible to distinguish whether it originated from a Mystery Gift, was duplicated, or was fabricated from scratch?

[Nuren]

24 minutes ago, Albert930208 said:

Thank you for your response, and my understanding aligns completely with what you mentioned, including your example of Mitsuki.TV. This current Chat GPT has clearly distinguished between "legality" and "legitimacy" in translation, which makes me more confident in my understanding.

I'm curious about a scenario: If a morally ambiguous player were to have the same reasons as Pokémon World Championship participant Brady Smith, that is, not wanting to spend time on Pokémon breeding and opting for hacked Pokémon, and they modify a Pokémon to be extremely "legitimacy" (for example, non-shiny, low IVs for Hyper Training, not maximum/minimum size, no special marks), would I still have a means to expose them using any third-party tools (such as pkhex)? Do I have a method to identify the source of a Pokémon that possesses both reasonability and legality, and determine whether it's fabricated?

By the way, for an event-gifted Pokémon with all fixed values (such as PID, IVs, Shiny, Height and Weight), is it impossible to distinguish whether it originated from a Mystery Gift, was duplicated, or was fabricated from scratch?

If a user perfectly recreates a legitimate Pokémon, then there is no way you can tell. Most people who gen Pokémon do not perfectly recreate legitimate Pokémon. I am not going to go into this in more detail because that would be straight up telling people how to create better hacks in order to fool other people.

If you are asking about clones, the only way to verify a clone is to see another copy of it, assuming the Pokémon is not a natural clone.

This is like asking "Is it possible to commit a perfect crime and never be caught?" It may be easier to think of hack checking like a court case. You must look at the suspect, the circumstances of the crime, any evidence that is available, and what any witnesses can tell you.

The only ways to know if a Pokémon is legitimate is for you to either catch it yourself (and know all the circumstances of capture), or observe someone else do it and then check their console/setup to ensure no cheats are active. That means for most cases of Pokémon you receive from others, you cannot be 100% sure that it is legitimate. In the same way, the suspect knows 100% whether they committed the crime or not, but the jury may not know. Everything else is going to be a level of suspicion depending on the user and the mon. Here are some examples to think about:

If your best friend says "I caught a shiny Pikachu legitimately with no cheats/hacks" do you believe them?
What if your best friend's Pikachu was Timid 31/0/31/31/31/31 on top of being shiny, do you still believe them?

What if a random stranger on the internet told you the two above, do you believe them?
What if a user with a known hacker OT/TID on the internet told you the two things above, do you still believe them?

Edited August 24, 2023 by Nuren

[Albert930208]

24 minutes ago, Nuren said:

If a user perfectly recreates a legitimate Pokémon, then there is no way you can tell. Most people who gen Pokémon do not perfectly recreate legitimate Pokémon. I am not going to go into this in more detail because that would be straight up telling people how to create better hacks in order to fool other people.

If you are asking about clones, the only way to verify a clone is to see another copy of it, assuming the Pokémon is not a natural clone.

This is like asking "Is it possible to commit a perfect crime and never be caught?" It may be easier to think of hack checking like a court case. You must look at the suspect, the circumstances of the crime, any evidence that is available, and what any witnesses can tell you.

The only ways to know if a Pokémon is legitimate is for you to either catch it yourself (and know all the circumstances of capture), or observe someone else do it and then check their console/setup to ensure no cheats are active. That means for most cases of Pokémon you receive from others, you cannot be 100% sure that it is legitimate. In the same way, the suspect knows 100% whether they committed the crime or not, but the jury may not know. Everything else is going to be a level of suspicion depending on the user and the mon. Here are some examples to think about:

If your best friend says "I caught a shiny Pikachu legitimately with no cheats/hacks" do you believe them?
What if your best friend's Pikachu was Timid 31/0/31/31/31/31 on top of being shiny, do you still believe them?

What if a random stranger on the internet told you the two above, do you believe them?
What if a user with a known hacker OT/TID on the internet told you the two things above, do you still believe them?

I completely understand your example regarding the 6IV shiny Pikachu. This is how most players nowadays judge whether a Pokémon is hacked based on common sense, but these judgments are made on the "legitimacy" level.

I sought information about Pkhex to gain a deeper understanding on the "legality" aspect. I've learned the basic functionalities of Pkhex. Now, I'm working on understanding more and planning to convey the information I've gathered in a simpler and more understandable way to players who don't use any third-party hacking software. My goal is to engage the audience and improve the gaming environment, even if the impact is minimal – every bit of change matters.

I understand if you're hesitant to provide detailed instructions on distinguishing hacks, as I've also considered the risks associated with that.

I just want a straightforward answer to a question. I believe the answer to this question won't lead to the concerns you mentioned earlier. My question is, if I only use the default six categories in Pkhex (Main, Met, Stats, Moves, Cosmetic, OT/Misc) for editing, along with the information from the Mystery Gift/Encounter Database, without altering any other settings or using any third-party tools beyond Pkhex (such as RNG calculators), can I create a Pokémon that is both legitimate and reasonable?

If this is possible, it would indicate that there might not be a simple method to discern more sophisticated fabricated Pokémon. If it's not possible, then it suggests that there are hidden data that can be manipulated and more advanced ways to expose them. I'm hoping to get an answer to this question.

 

[Nuren]

8 minutes ago, Albert930208 said:

 

I understand if you're hesitant to provide detailed instructions on distinguishing hacks, as I've also considered the risks associated with that.

I just want a straightforward answer to a question. I believe the answer to this question won't lead to the concerns you mentioned earlier. My question is, if I only use the default six categories in Pkhex (Main, Met, Stats, Moves, Cosmetic, OT/Misc) for editing, along with the information from the Mystery Gift/Encounter Database, without altering any other settings or using any third-party tools beyond Pkhex (such as RNG calculators), can I create a Pokémon that is both legitimate and reasonable?

If this is possible, it would indicate that there might not be a simple method to discern more sophisticated fabricated Pokémon. If it's not possible, then it suggests that there are hidden data that can be manipulated and more advanced ways to expose them. I'm hoping to get an answer to this question.

Your question does not make sense.

If someone makes a Pokémon that is exactly the same as a legitimate Pokémon, then there is no difference. Every single byte will be the same.

If someone makes a Pokémon that is not perfectly the same as a legitimate Pokémon, then the differences are what need to be analyzed. There is no easy answer for how suspicious every single detail is. That requires you to research the specific Pokémon encounter and the specific detail. It is impossible to answer this question for every single possible Pokémon, because there are too many details and years later, there may be new findings that change the analysis.

> can I create a Pokémon that is both legitimate and reasonable?
Created Pokémon are never legitimate. They can be legal and reasonable.

If you are asking whether using the default tabs in PKHeX to edit Pokémon can create a legal and reasonable Pokémon, again, the answer is yes, depending on what you change.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Nuren

[Albert930208]

7 minutes ago, Nuren said:

> can I create a Pokémon that is both legitimate and reasonable?
Created Pokémon are never legitimate. They can be legal and reasonable.

That's exactly what I meant. A Pokémon that might comply with the game's rules but wasn't naturally obtained – can I distinguish it by any way? I simply need a yes or no.

[Nuren]

7 minutes ago, Albert930208 said:

That's exactly what I meant. A Pokémon that might comply with the game's rules but wasn't naturally obtained – can I distinguish it by any way? I simply need a yes or no.

I cannot provide a better answer than what I have already provided. The answer is "It depends."

  

15 minutes ago, Nuren said:

If someone makes a Pokémon that is not perfectly the same as a legitimate Pokémon, then the differences are what need to be analyzed. There is no easy answer for how suspicious every single detail is. That requires you to research the specific Pokémon encounter and the specific detail. It is impossible to answer this question for every single possible Pokémon, because there are too many details and years later, there may be new findings that change the analysis.

You must research the specific encounter, the specific details that are different from a legitimate Pokémon, and make the decision yourself. Both "yes" and "no" are wrong answers depending on the case.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Nuren