User talk:Suic12-

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to navigationJump to search
Welcome to Bulbapedia, Suic12-!
Bulbapedia bulb.png

By creating your account you are now able to edit pages, join discussions, and expand the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia. Before you jump in, here are some ground rules:

  • Be nice to everyone. It's in the code of conduct.
  • Make good edits. Preview them before you save to make sure they're perfect the first time around.
  • Use wikicode and link templates when adding content to a page.
  • Use proper grammar and spelling, and read the manual of style.
  • You can't create a userpage until you've added to the encyclopedia. It's a privilege. See the userspace policy.
  • Use talk pages to resolve editing disputes. Don't "edit war," or constantly re-edit/undo the same thing on a page.
  • If you have a question about something, be proactive. Take a look at our FAQ. If you're still stuck, ask for help. The staff won't bite.
  • Sign all talk page posts with four tildes (~~~~). This will turn into your name and the time you wrote the comment.
  • For more handy links, see the welcome portal.
Thank you, and have a good time editing here!
  ✔Poké.geek✔ 20:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)  
 

New templates

Hey, you need to check with an admin before you implement a new template. We need to check that it'll work properly and that it's actually needed. In this case, I'm not sure it's needed - there's no real point in replacing some raw code on a page with a template designed to look identical. Werdnae (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Pain Split

Let me start by saying that it's always nice to see someone reliably do the research articles ask for. (For me at least, if only because I asked for it.)

Anyway, regarding Pain Split, my intention really was for someone to test Generation III specifically (and if Shell Bell does trigger there, maybe GenIV). It is known that it doesn't trigger in recent generations, know even confirmed once more. (I'm almost sure I also tested in FRLG not too long ago, though I couldn't find it in my notes, so I guess I'd be interested in RSE specifically.)

I've removed your Shell Bell statement for now because we still can't be too sure on RSE, but would imply otherwise (and also because I'm not too sure whether it would need an explicit mention if it only ever was unaffected, and because I'm really iffy on linking Pain Split and "damage"). But if Pain Split was affected by Shell Bell, I would argue that, due to Shell Bell's effects and in-game descriptions, it was the only known instance of a damage-dealing status move. Nescientist (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I don't have any Generation III games, but I have games from IV to VII, so I might test for some of those at least.
Anyway, in order to not lead anyone to do redundant tests, it think it's a good idea to say somewhere in which games it was already tested. If not in the main article (since, as you say, it might not be worth mentioning if it doesn't trigger Shell Bell), at least in the talk page of Pain Split. Suic12- (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Safeguard (move)‎

About your latest edit here, I hope you have verified the abilities you listed. Otherwise some know-it-all will blank out the entire statement if he finds that one of the abilities is incorrect. Eastern Goldfinch (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

So far I have tested Static, Flame Body and Poison Point for generation IV. I cannot test for generation III vecause I don't have those games. I have plans to keep testing for consecutive generations as well. The point is that I noticed the abilities were all working the same way, plus I had the information already on the page (and the talk page). If you think we should test them individualy in generation III as well, we can change the page accordingly. Suic12- (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I have Emerald. I checked Static and Flame Body. Yes Safeguard does not stop them in the same way as it does not stop Effect Spore. I think I don't have any enemy Pokémon with Poison Point in Emerald. Eastern Goldfinch (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Good to know you could test them. I also confirmed Effect Spore isn't blocked in gen IV. Interestingly, in generation V all these abilities didn't activate after lots of tests, so the behavior probably changed.
On a different subject, since you have generation III game(s), maybe you would be interested in helping research the moves in this list. I've been testing lots of the effects, but there is not much I can do about generation III games, so I could use some help for those. Suic12- (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Which of them is Gen 3? Do you know? Eastern Goldfinch (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Among them we have Assist, Bide, Conversion 2, Mimic and Pain Split, to name a few. There are others, but you can always go to the move's page and check the research template, it will say which generations need tests (and if it doesn't say, it means it may need tests for all generations). Suic12- (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Run Away

In your edit summary, you mentioned that you had tested some of the mechanics. Just wondering whether you specifically tested both the player's Pokémon and the wild Pokémon having Run Away. In Gen V only, the Smoke Ball does not allow a wild Pokémon to flee with Teleport (but it does allow the player's Pokémon to do so), so I would expect Run Away to exhibit similar behavior.

Also, I haven't tested how roaming Pokémon and the Aether Paradise Nihilego interact with Run Away/Smoke Ball, and that would be worth investigating as well. Did you look into any of these? --SnorlaxMonster 10:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The part I tested was whether the player's Pokémon having Run Away would guarantee escape when it fainted and the player was given the option to flee. And from what I saw it did guarantee in generation IV, but not anymore in generation V. When I looked at Escape's page, it seemed to me that everything asked in Run Away's page was already answered there. It honestly didn't occur to me that there could be a difference using Teleport if it the user was the player's Pokémon or a wild one, but now that you said so I have an idea on how to test it, so I'll let you know when I find out.
About the roaming Pokémon and Nihilego, no, I didn't test for them. I'm already past those points in the games. I'm keeping a list of things I'll test when I decide to reset some of the games, so I'll add those to the list (although I'm not sure that I'll reset anytime soon). Suic (talk) 13:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Synchronize in SOS Battles

I would've used the Synchronize talk page if I could make sure you saw it, but regarding your recent edit there, would you have a source for the 50% (and, by extension, for the bug), for I believe it should probably be referenced within the article!? The text now reads as if the 50% chance either always applies, or never. Are you sure it is not a case-by-case coin flip? And while I'm here, would you maybe like to edit the SOS page appropriately? Thanks. Nescientist (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, in that edit I was just transcribing what the article already said, or at least what I understood from what was written. But it did get me curious, so I later tested that bug in the conditions described.
I had a Pokémon with Synchronize in the second slot of my party and a Pokémon with a different nature in the first slot. When entering a wild battle I would switch to the Pokémon with Synchronize and wait for the wild Pokémon to call an ally, and after that capture the ally. I repeated that until I had caught six allies, four of which had the same nature as the Pokémon that was originally in the first slot of my party, and the other two had random natures. Although this is not a high enough number of tests to determine the odds precisely, there is definitely a chance lower than 100% and higher than 0% that Synchronize will force the ally to have the nature of the first Pokémon, and that makes me believe it works with the same percentage as the out of battle effect.
I still intend to test what would be an ally's nature if the Pokémon with Synchronize was in the first slot all along, but that's what I have for now. I may edit the SOS page after I finish this other test. Suic (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I just thought for a moment you knew of a Smogon post or something where someone explained technicalities.
But when you say you just transcribed what you thought was there, that means you didn't intentionally say there's a 50% chance all subsequent allies in that battle will synchronize and a 50% chance that none will? That's what I came here for, the rest makes sense, but this one had me wonder. I mean, you could theoretically test it (such as by battling Elgyem in USUM with Lax or Gentle nature Pokémon in the first slot and switching between Download Pokémon, probably there's even an easier setup), but if you didn't mean to say that, it's so unlikely that I guess noone needs to really. Nescientist (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't really mean that subsequent allies would either all have the Synchronized nature or all have a random nature, I was imagining each ally having an independent chance of having a Synchronized nature or not. As you said, it seems unlikely for it to be the first way, but I may end up testing it eventually. Meanwhile, if you think it would be better, you could change the wording of the Synchronize page to make it more clear that (theoretically) each ally has an independent chance of having a Synchronized nature. Suic (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm satisfied with the new wording you appear to have introduced, it's certainly way better in my opinion, yes. Nescientist (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I made a mistake

I got confused on this, my apologies. -- Genoskill (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Color Change

I tested the dual-type properties of Color Change in White 2, I gave Color Change to Cobalion and used Circle Throw twice. The first time it didn't activate, and the second time was still super-effective meaning it didn't silently activate either. I didn't test in generation 4, so it's still possible that it also doesn't affect dual-types in generation 4. - unsigned comment from Kermalis (talkcontribs)

Well, that is interesting. Since we can't yet be sure at which generations this is the case, I slightly changed the wording at the Color Change page and put a research template. I'll see if I can get to test this effect in some other generations in the following days. Suic (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pain Split

Hey, I just wanna ask whether you have tested the Color Change interaction in different generations (or otherwise have solid knowledge about it)? It wasn't clear based on your edit summary; if you haven't, I might try to do some tests some time later. I think asking whether it triggers Color Change (in any generation) is a valid research question, it's not like there's an inherent universal rule that says "status moves cannot do damage". And whatever the result may be (I admit there's a high chance it is what we all think it is), I personally believe both pages should reflect it. Nescientist (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I tested it in Generations VI and VII, and it seems that [[::User:Kermalis|Kermalis]] ([[::User talk:Kermalis|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kermalis|contribs]]) tested in Generation V. I also have tested Color Change and Pain Split separetly in some other ocasions in Ganeration IV, and everything so far indicates that Color Change activates from damage-dealing moves and that Pain Split doesn't directly deal damage, which is why I concluded that this is the general pattern. If you think it still deserves to be tested in the Generations left, then we can put back the research template, but I see no reason to believe it would be different.
About having the information in both pages, I don't really oppose to it, but I saw that even pages of moves like Future Sight and Doom Desire, that have changed whether they trigger Color Change or not, don't say so in their own pages, instead leaving it to the Color Change page, so I didn't think that a move that (supposedly) didn't change that mechanic would need to mention it. Suic (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, thanks.
What I was trying to argue is that there's a tautologic aspect, "dealing damage" is not particularly well defined (AFAIK), it's basically defined like "damage triggers <X/Y/Z>, so if <X/Y/Z> isn't triggered, it's not damage" (that might be equivalent to "damage is what uses some routine"). But that's based on observation, it's not law or something; it shouldn't be an axiom you base your deductions on. So yeah, I believe it would need to be proven independently (even though, as I said, it probably isn't different).
Fair enough (although I think symmetry for interactions is generally a good thing). Nescientist (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I finally managed to test this for generations III and IV, and indeed Pain Split still didn't activate Color Change. Since Kecleon isn't in generation VIII (at least yet), that pretty much settles it for now. I'll leave it up to you if you want to mention it in Pain Split's page, but if you decide to do so, I think it would be a good idea to also mention in Future Sight's and Doom Desire's pages in which generations they do/don't activate Color Change. Suic (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Nescientist (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on the Pierce page

You got exactly what I was trying to make happen to work, so thank you! I was trying to put the line in exactly the way you did but for whatever reason, it wasn't working. Thank you for fixing that. The Great Butler (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! Suic (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Weather Ball

Hey, it's me again. I just noticed that you tested Weather Ball in XD not too long ago. Could you have a look at Talk:??? (type), and/or answer whether there is any in-game evidence that it's "???"? Without such evidence, as I said, I believe it's typeless but Normal type (plus I'd have zero reason to favor "???" over "Shadow" type). Nescientist (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It would also help if you had some damage comparisons. Does the move actually double in power, is there still STAB, is the power increased by shadowy aura, etc.? Nescientist (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hey there. For what I saw so far, there wasn't really any way to distinguish it being a ???-type move or a typeless Normal move. I hadn't thought about it this way before, but it actually makes some sense, given that we know that in those conditions it is a physical move that turns a Pokémon with Color Change into the Normal type (this last bit I didn't test, I'm going by what we've got on the articles here). At the time I tested it I ended up not even testing type effectiviness; even though it was normally effective every time, it didn't hit any Rock, Steel or Ghost type Pokémon. For what it's worth (and it's probably not a lot), it seems that the game programmers really wanted to show off Weather Ball's properties under a shadowy aura, because besides it having a unique animation for the situation, the very first time there is a battle against a Pokémon that knows Shadow Sky, that Pokémon's ally is a Castform with Weather Ball (all trainer battles are double battles).
I believe calling it a Shadow type move wouldn't be very accurate, because in XD shadow moves are super effective against all non shadow Pokémon, and not very effective against all shadow Pokémon, while Weather Ball is normally effective regardless.
About doing some damage comparisons, I can sure try to test some of these, but it's likely going to take a while. Past that first battle, the setup is very hard to put together, due to the limited variety of Pokémon available in XD, and considering it's kind of complicated to trade in emulators. All I can say form the tests I already performed is that it deals qualitatively more damage under shadowy aura than in clear weather. Anyway, I'll let you know when I test anything more about all this. Suic (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I didn't consider that shadow moves are super effective (I never played XD tbh).
It's Snattle, right? There's a second battle against him, as far as I can tell!? I watched some playthroughs, but the majority just OHKOs Castform, so that didn't help at all. Comparing numbers shouldn't be that hard, I think we're talking ×1.33 vs. ×2 (double power,no more STAB vs. double power,STAB) here, right? Nescientist (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's Snattle. I imaagined there would be another battle against him, but I didn't realize he would have another Pokémon with Shadow Sky. And I haven't yet gone to Citadark Isle to battle him again, so that's good news. Once I get there it may take a couple of tries, but it shouldn't be too hard after all. Suic (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, I finally got to the battle. I managed to get Castform to hit the same Pokémon with Weather Ball four times, two in clear weather and two in shadowy aura. For clear weather the damage was 21 HP both times, and for shadowy aura was 30 HP and 33 HP. The numbers don't exatly match either scenario (x1.333 or x2), but they are much closer to x1.333, and I believe they are within the error from the random component of the damage formula. As a side note, I also confirmed that Weather Ball in shadowy aura is normally effective against Rock-type Pokémon, so no surprise here. Suic (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! It could be ×1.33 and just random variance, yes (although it appears to be ×1.5). Anyway, I think I'm gonna edit the pages some time soon (unless you want to). Nescientist (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome! I think I'll leave the edits for you, I'm not sure what exactly I would change to reflect these results. Suic (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Finally done. Feel free to improve wherever you feel necessary. Nescientist (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Silva disguised

Thank you again for your extensive work on the Colosseum/XD models. I am curious if you are able to obtain the model of Silva in his Realgam Tower security guard disguise from the end of Colosseum, so that image can be updated to no longer be a screenshot. The Great Butler (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/User_talk:Suic12-
bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-40
50851
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:V7TP6G43GBLIY2XKHSNMRPATHFP62EHD
<urn:uuid:7181d39c-7d9f-4147-a718-e441191bee64>
2022-10-06T07:00:43Z
104.26.2.79
text/html
sha1:PET6PRQY6Z6CJ5GUWS4EBX2RXBEKMDMN
<urn:uuid:9f3af487-e1d9-49be-aa9d-8e65d634a838>
https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/User_talk:Suic12-
response
<urn:uuid:51b6de13-34bb-4441-866f-e7cce268861d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September/October 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-251
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/