Pokémon - The Battle Between Legitimacy and Legality

[pwsincd]

whats pokemon ?

 

[tatripp]

It should be legal because it has to be legal. There is no way to catch the people who create legal pokemon by cheating because they appear the exact same as regular pokemon.

 

[tbgtbg]

If you can't play the game it was meant to be played then you shouldn't be playing at all.

Playing games the way you want rather than how it was meant to be played long predates pokeymans. Or even video games. Have you never played Monopoly with the free parking rule? Or any version of poker other than 5 card draw? Some of the best, most fun games of Uno I've ever played involved massive amounts of cheating and collusion.

This has little to do with whether cheating in pokeymans is okay or not, just the silly notion that you have to play a game the way the creator intends rather than how you want to play.

This is like playing Monopoly, where legit players play by the rules, but others bend or break the rules, like when they don't like the amount of their monopoly money (don't like the pokemons they get legitimately), they take another whole wad of cash (legal/illegal Pokemon) from another Monopoly board (PokeSav or Pokegen).

Same Monopoly money, just from a different board.

The act of taking money from another board (assuming somebody had two sets of Monopoly board) is just like generating legal Pokemons -- they take all the hard work out. Instead of having to actually play and win the money (or grinding in Pokemon), you just go grab another board and take all the money there and "inject" that into your current game.

But hey, not judging here. Just putting that analogy out there.

Injecting money into Monopoly actually IS playing it as intended. There's a rule that the game (unlike the players) never runs out of money. If the bank runs out of bills, they suggest writing denominations on scraps of paper, but bringing in money from a 2nd set is perfectly cromulant.

 

[Parasite X]

I personally don't play the games online at all. However, I have been a fan of the series from back in the Red/Blue days. As a whole, I own and have played through...

Pokemon Blue
Pokemon Yellow
Pokemon Gold
Pokemon Emerald
Pokemon Platinum
Pokemon White
Pokemon Colosseum

I don't understand the appeal of using a hacking program to just give yourself Pokemon with perfect stats, but once I've finished the games I haven't beaten yet (Gale of Darkness, Black 2), I plan on using PokeGen/PokeSav and replicating my Pokemon across all the games into a single cart. I've been working on catching the damned things for I don't know how many freaking years, having to start over from scratch every game because I don't want to buy a second system and everything to transfer them over every single time. It's just ridiculous.

So yeah. Online play I don't really care about, but I would say that it would be best to stay within your current group. If you play with legitimate Pokemon, try to stick with playing against others who do the same. If you play with legit "artificial" ones, play with others who do so as well. If you hack your Pokemon to ridiculous lengths, leave everyone else alone and play with others who like to do the same. (If at all possible)

Excuse me namekian but when do you make the rules its obvious that you wouldn't understand the joy of either a game shark or action replay

 

[lordofthereef]

I agree with ferofax.

Lordofthereef, im not dancig around the fact that Nintendo havnt done anything about it yet.
Im just saying that it's possible that they will cause they really could and they should.
You cant expect them to have sympathy for your 400 hours of exploiting their software.
Only the cheaters would take the fall, and even for them it woulnt be a big one.
Just that it would become impossible to clone pokemon from that point forward. the damage already done cant be undone.

But you absolutely ARE doing that... Why do you think they haven't done what you are suggesting? Please, I would love to hear it. Your answer would honestly be ridiculously easy to implement. Are you suggesting nobody at GF/Nintendo has thought of it?

I have given you my reason, the reason I find most likely. They don't ban because they don't want to risk banning legitimate monsters/players. Further, they don't want to ban legitimate players who may have received an illegitimate monster. The simple fact that trading is a thing in this game makes it impossible to say one person or another has something like a clone UNLESS these clones are in active play (or in poke bank - however this would require added resources of active scanning poke bank, at least in regular intervals) simultaneously.

EDIT: And now that I have thought about this a few moments longer, I think that most of their publicity, after the game is months old, which comes from tournaments, comes from people who gen monsters as well. I think they unofficially and indirectly support what these people are doing. Because "hackers" are a large segment of their customer base. Further, the hacks don't seem to be effecting their sales at all (Pokemon has been a console seller every year), so maybe it's actually not a priority to them to more strictly moderate this at all. (please note this latter statement is 100% speculative, but I can see it making sense).

 

[purpasmart96]

Well? which is real and which one is legal?

 

[Gahars]

Well? which is real and which one is legal?

WHICH ONE DO I SHOOT?

 

[ferofax]

Injecting money into Monopoly actually IS playing it as intended. There's a rule that the game (unlike the players) never runs out of money. If the bank runs out of bills, they suggest writing denominations on scraps of paper, but bringing in money from a 2nd set is perfectly cromulant.

Ah, but then you're playing by the rules, if you say the bank must never run out of money.

My analogy, however, rests on the idea that you're just not satisfied with how much money you got. Maybe you're losing, and so you grab another bundle of cash and proudly announce to the world that you've always had that much money.

"Har har, I keep landing on this tile, but I can't seem to have enough money to buy it, because all the other players are better than me and keep taking my money." So I use my manly manners to deftly dab another handful of Monopoly cash and go "Har, now I'm richer than you motherfuckers. I'm gonna buy every fucking tile I land on. YES, even the GO TO JAIL tile. I'm buying that fucker so you fuckers can pay me and go to jail at the same time."

Haha, I exaggerated a bit. Just imagine Cartman from South Park speaking those lines, and you'll see the humor in it. )

I am not sure I can follow along with that logic ferofax (money in Monopoly is not functionally identical to Pokemon in Pokemon) though it does rather nicely bring me to my general observation.

I suppose it's a very loose analogy. Let me make it clearer by presenting another analogy that's quite possibly as loose as the previous one, but also probably simpler. Probably.

Say, you're playing Poker with a friend. That makes it competitive. Oh, yeah, you got a bit of adrenaline going on, you're putting on your best poker face and all that.
You drew a hand that's an Ace short of being a Full House Aces. (Bred a Pokemon that's just a few IV's short of being perfect, also not the trait you wanted)
You know you have another similar deck within reach. You swipe an Ace from that deck. (This is the part where you Pokegen/Pokesav)
You reveal it to the world as Full House Aces, like it's always been that way. (Don't hackers always assume this part to be true?)

Same cards, same design, same back, just from another deck. That's how it's usually justified. Unfortunately, you didn't get that Ace from the draw, but instead went outside the rules of the game (because you're so beyond being tied down by rules of any sort, you little rebel). You weren't lucky enough to draw a Full House, like you weren't lucky enough to breed that perfect Pokemon you wanted.

And what if the card you swiped, your opponent also had that exact same card -- an Ace of Diamonds? This is where clones come in. Just so happened that you popped out a perfect clone as your opponent did. Now he's thinking, OMG, you cheater. Now everybody's upset at this point, because if you're not playing fair in anything competitive, well... you're not playing fair. I don't think many people like that very much.

 

[FAST6191]

Ah, but then you're playing by the rules, if you say the bank must never run out of money.

My analogy, however, rests on the idea that you're just not satisfied with how much money you got. Maybe you're losing, and so you grab another bundle of cash and proudly announce to the world that you've always had that much money.

"Har har, I keep landing on this tile, but I can't seem to have enough money to buy it, because all the other players are better than me and keep taking my money." So I use my manly manners to deftly dab another handful of Monopoly cash and go "Har, now I'm richer than you motherfuckers. I'm gonna buy every fucking tile I land on. YES, even the GO TO JAIL tile. I'm buying that fucker so you fuckers can pay me and go to jail at the same time."

Haha, I exaggerated a bit. Just imagine Cartman from South Park speaking those lines, and you'll see the humor in it. )

Money in monopoly is an entirely different mechanic to mons in pokemon. Money in monopoly is designed to come into play at a somewhat limited (start money, salary, cards) and broadly predictable rate as well as leave (property, fines, cards) at a given rate as well (from a game design perspective I have issues with the rates of both but that is besides the point), any money I have is the result of dice rolls in my favour and skilled play and beyond that the money can and will leave me. Pokemon represent unskilled time grinding at best and will not tend to leave me, this is then a fundamentally different concept in gameplay and your analogy breaks down. There is still room for debate, which is what people are having here, but that analogy does not fit in it beyond some broad philosophical stuff.

Also "I keep landing on this tile, but I can't seem to have enough money to buy it" would seem to indicate you are not playing with the auction system and thus are actually playing a modified version of monopoly. Granted you are probably playing modded rules with the consent of all players which possibly changes things but hey.

 

[ferofax]

Haha, I edited my previous post. I posited a "better" analogy! It's the POKER ANALOGY! Try that one on for size. XD

ALSO: My analogies, if you observe, rest not in the inherent mechanics or rules of the game, but in the behavior of the player. Yes, it's actually a rather nasty potshot at cheaters. Although, "cheater" is a very broad and rather derogatory term. I mean, if you're enjoying yourself, by all means! But if you're enjoying yourself at the expense of another person's disappointment, and rather unfairly at that, then something's wrong.

Ergo, cheat all you want, but keep it offline. (not specifically talking about you when I say "you").

 

[FAST6191]

But if you're enjoying yourself at the expense of another person's disappointment, and rather unfairly at that, then something's wrong.

Ergo, cheat all you want, but keep it offline. (not specifically talking about you when I say "you").

But if I am playing with legal mons that can be obtained without any real skill or massive time investment then what does it matter (past the first couple of days since release of the the game anyway)? Is the person that claims to be disappointed just being irrational?

As for your poker one I still hold it fails for much the same reasons-- poker is a probability game of sorts against selection of cards.

 

[ferofax]

But if I am playing with legal mons that can be obtained without any real skill or massive time investment then what does it matter (past the first couple of days since release of the the game anyway)? Is the person that claims to be disappointed just being irrational?

As for your poker one I still hold it fails for much the same reasons-- poker is a probability game of sorts against selection of cards.

And getting perfect Pokemons legitimately is also a probability game of sorts against a selection of possible IV/trait combinations, more so than the odds involved in a single deck of cards.

Losing is always generally disappointing -- it does not need to be claimed as such. But if you knew that your hard-bred pokemon lost against a manipulated pokemon, dude that sucks big-time. That's just like losing Four Aces against a cheated Royal Flush, because the odds that you beat to get that hand just became irrelevant against a hand that never really had any odds in the first place. Just beating the odds in itself is awesome, but you are deprived of that, and that's what ultimately sucks.

 

[FAST6191]

And getting perfect Pokemons legitimately is also a probability game of sorts against a selection of possible IV/trait combinations, more so than the odds involved in a single deck of cards.

Losing is always generally disappointing -- it does not need to be claimed as such. But if you knew that your hard-bred pokemon lost against a manipulated pokemon, dude that sucks big-time. That's just like losing Four Aces against a cheated Royal Flush, because the odds that you beat to get that hand just became irrelevant against a hand that never really had any odds in the first place. Just beating the odds in itself is awesome, but you are deprived of that, and that's what ultimately sucks.

But if the pokemon breeding/training probability game has zero cost but a somewhat short amount of time and has a tendency towards perfection anyway I am not so much seeing it.

Likewise I am still not seeing the bred vs manipulated thing. Absolutely if they are manipulated beyond what is possible or if getting what is possible might still take far longer than the game has been out (something that does not really happen, or if it does then you are very much on the losing end of the probability scale anyway). Otherwise at best it just seems like you opted to downplay the battle game aspect.

 

[Veho]

Likewise I am still not seeing the bred vs manipulated thing. [...] it just seems like you opted to downplay the battle game aspect.

At a certain skill level, the battle aspect really is the least significant part. Optimal moves for every situation can be determined mathematically (and players know them by heart), and providing both players play a perfect game (and it's not a long shot at this level) the most important thing affecting the outcome of a battle are the Pokemons' stats, i.e. the amount of grinding the player had put into training/raising the team. At a certain point the grinding is the most important aspect of the game, and if someone skips it with a simple hack, it's natural that the other player would be pissed.

 

[FAST6191]

At a certain skill level, the battle aspect really is the least significant part. Optimal moves for every situation can be determined mathematically (and players know them by heart), and providing both players play a perfect game (and it's not a long shot at this level) the most important thing affecting the outcome of a battle are the Pokemons' stats, i.e. the amount of grinding the player had put into training/raising the team. At a certain point the grinding is the most important aspect of the game, and if someone skips it with a simple hack, it's natural that the other player would be pissed.

Perhaps but if grinding to the max level is not a truly significant time investment (time to do it / time since game's launch is nearer 0 than not and the numerator is not especially high) I am not especially inclined to note it, especially if the skill component is non existent beyond "ability to stave off boredom". About the only time it gets to be interesting there is if you need a 50 mon team to cater to all combinations and reducing the move options tree (which is typically not the longest) by only pursuing viable strategies would probably cut it off somewhat before then.
By all means consider it distasteful and have it not be something you are inclined to do but there is a difference between distasteful and "should be banned".

All that said if every level then depends upon the grind I am inclined to call pokemon a shit game for me and leave it alone.

 

[KazoWAR]

if you dont want to grind, play on simulators

 

[ferofax]

But if the pokemon breeding/training probability game has zero cost but a somewhat short amount of time and has a tendency towards perfection anyway I am not so much seeing it.

Likewise I am still not seeing the bred vs manipulated thing. Absolutely if they are manipulated beyond what is possible or if getting what is possible might still take far longer than the game has been out (something that does not really happen, or if it does then you are very much on the losing end of the probability scale anyway). Otherwise at best it just seems like you opted to downplay the battle game aspect.

Again, my main gripe here is the behavior and not exactly the mechanics involved, which is why I keep bringing up seemingly unrelated analogies -- I took away the complexities of the game mechanics so I can highlight the behavior behind it.

 

[VLTN]

In my opinion, with pokemon either trained legit or created via programs, it's all going to come down to the team build and your overall strategy. Sure the player spent tons of hours building their team and another person just used a program, but in the end it's how you use your pokemon and planning a strategy against your opponent during battle when and if the tide changes

 

[FAST6191]

Which I suppose brings us back to the literal vs interpreted, spirit of the law vs letter of the law, actual damage vs some nebulous unfairness,..... thing. In this instance it appears that as we approach the problem from different starting positions it makes it somewhat more difficult to come to an agreement on things.

 

[purpasmart96]

And how is even possible for Nintendo to see if it's legit or RNG abused?

And getting perfect Pokemons legitimately is also a probability game of sorts against a selection of possible IV/trait combinations, more so than the odds involved in a single deck of cards.

Losing is always generally disappointing -- it does not need to be claimed as such. But if you knew that your hard-bred pokemon lost against a manipulated pokemon, dude that sucks big-time. That's just like losing Four Aces against a cheated Royal Flush, because the odds that you beat to get that hand just became irrelevant against a hand that never really had any odds in the first place. Just beating the odds in itself is awesome, but you are deprived of that, and that's what ultimately sucks.

I think your trying to compare the12 year old kids that have 6 shiny level 200 Arceus hacks with people that gen pokemon that are legal and have realistic stats for competitive aesthetics, People don't wanna spend months breading pokemon, when they can be battling instead. Cry all you want about being "real", but you probably can't or will tell the difference between "real" pokemon and "legal" pokemon.