This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Notable Breakpoints

#491Prof_JPosted 12/5/2008 2:56:50 PM
Nope. some topics get lucky.
---
RIP, KingAtRandom -_-
#492tsanth(Topic Creator)Posted 12/5/2008 10:13:37 PM
My original intent for the definition of "legal" was to encompass battle legality. I wasn't so concerned about game legality since, admittedly, most of my research was more concerned with correlations between PVs and IVs.

That said, I am not at all opposed to the delineation between battle- and game-legal. I think that it does indeed help to define what people (evidently) are concerned about when talking about Pokemon. Clearly, those who primarily play Shoddy are more concerned about battle legality than anything else. It also follows that there exist people who insist on receiving only game-legal pokemon via trades and the like.

I guess one of the things that bothers me about the distinction is mapping out exceptions: supposing that Nintendo were to give out battle-legal pokemon at an event, on what basis should we define game-legal? That is, should we incorporate clauses which specifically outline that official event pokemon are, by definition, game-legal? I'm not sure, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of having to attach complicated addendums to definitions which I personally feel should be simple and concise. Another way of considering this is accepting the idea that Nintendo is allowed to distribute non-legit/legal pokemon, but I imagine people in general won't like that line of thought.

Regarding your last points:
* My understanding is indeed that breeding battle-legal pokemon would result in game-legal pokemon.
* I agree that cloning legit/legal pokemon will result in game-legal pokemon.
* I agree that using hacked item on a legit pokemon would make it game-legal.
---
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
#493kasuto13Posted 12/6/2008 7:42:12 AM
I've never been this close to a 500 post.
---
Arcanine is blatantly a tiger, he's orange with black stripes. - Shady_MrPockets
The only thing worse than finding a worm in your apple, is finding half a worm
#494tsanth(Topic Creator)Posted 12/6/2008 6:33:07 PM
In the event that this topic gets blitzed all the way to 500, I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who's contributed to this topic. I won't name names, but I trust that you all know who you are. I'm sorry that I never got around to knocking more items off my todo list, but confident that things will get done, one way or another.

I am happy to see that people are still interested in how Pokemon makes its magic random numbers, and I am happier still to know that though I have not had as much of a hand in research as of late, research continues without me (as it obviously went on before I got here).

So, in closing... keep the fire.

Learn more, educate the masses, and (most importantly, IMO,) stay consistent.
---
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
#495MLBloomyPosted 12/6/2008 9:45:03 PM
And many thanks to you for the topic itself, and a lot of the insight it provided.

For the definitions, I know you were going for battling legality, but the "[b]eing able to naturally exist in the game" phrase technically excludes wrong location encounters. I thought that the line between battle legal and game legal would only really come into play with Nintendo tournaments, but it appears that Smogon's Wi-Fi forum rules require any and all hacking to be divulged. I haven't gone through any Wi-Fi battling topics yet, so I don't know if anyone took a stand between battle legal and game legal. Though I think the only way to tell would be the Pokeball used, unless players check each other's teams after battling. Someone is on their Wi-Fi blacklist for "using legal hacks without informing opponent," though.

I would actually count anything obtained from a Nintendo event, or transferred in from another game like PBR and Ranger, as legit. The source is Nintendo, it's good. You could even consider it a patch of sorts. The set of legit Pokemon possibilities is increased, just as when a new game updates move pools (e.g., tutors, Formes). Not sure how it could be considered non-legit. If the competitive scene bans an event move (I remember reading Wish Blissey isn't allowed on one of the Shoddy servers), I'd consider that more of a competitive clause than a matter of legal / legit.

Thanks again for the topic. Here's to Notable Breakpoints, Episode V : The EV Strikes Back.

---
2008 Philadelphia Philles
"World champions! World ****ing champions!" - Chase Utley
#496darkcelebi251Posted 12/7/2008 3:24:18 AM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#497Prof_JPosted 12/7/2008 6:56:48 AM
You will get modded for disruptive posting if you continue DarkCelebi....
---
The Return Of KingAtRandom has failed. Now going to Plan B.....
Wait, we actually have a Plan B?~KingAtRandom
#498kasuto13Posted 12/7/2008 11:46:21 AM
498 is Arceus plus 5.
---
Arcanine is blatantly a tiger, he's orange with black stripes. - Shady_MrPockets
The only thing worse than finding a worm in your apple, is finding half a worm
#499tsanth(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2008 2:42:04 PM
After thinking about it, I guess that the phrasing "[b]eing able to exist naturally in the game" is indeed unnecessarily exclusive of Nintendo events and the like, while simultaneously allowing glitched pokemon to be considered legal. As has been mentioned, I do consider such pokemon to be legal, if only to be consistent with what I personally consider to be legal (e.g.: IMO, Bellyjet Azumarill should be legal if created on a first-run JP DP cart). I'm always open to new suggestions for wording.

My thinking was that if Nintendo is arbitrarily the standard by which legitimacy is established, the rules for legality/legitimacy would likely be written as: "Criteria for legality are a, a^2, ... , a^(n-1), a^n. Criteria for legitimacy are m, m^2, ... , m^(n-1), m^n. Exceptions are q, q^2, ... , q^(n-1), q^n." While I don't have a problem with that kind of logic per se, I'd really like something more concise than that.

I remember seeing some people insist that something is not legit "because Smogon said so," referring to DT, Brightpowder, or something. I agree with the differentiation between legal/legit and competitive clauses.
---
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
#500tsanth(Topic Creator)Posted 12/7/2008 2:42:29 PM
Thanks again, everyone. It's good to know that discussion continues.

See y'all next time!
---
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.