Protect (move): Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{MoveResearch|What versions does the Generation III accuracy glitch apply to?}}
{{MoveInfobox|
{{MoveInfobox|
n=182 |
n=182 |
Line 77: Line 76:


===Generation III===
===Generation III===
Like in Generation II, the success rates of Protect, {{m|Detect}}, and {{m|Endure}} halve each time any of the three are used successfully and consecutively. In this generation, the halving was intended to cap at a 12.5% success rate on the fourth consecutive successful use, but a bug causes the cap to not work, causing the game to read garbage values and causing Protect's success rate on the fifth and future turns to follow an erratic sequence given in the table below:<ref>[http://no2.pic.bz/document/waza/each/6F.html ポケットモンスター情報センター 2号館] (Japanese)</ref><ref>[http://nicoviewer.net/sm19862416 【ポケモン】TASさんがまもるの限界に挑戦してみた【ルビー】] (Japanese)</ref>
Like in Generation II, the success rates of Protect, {{m|Detect}}, and {{m|Endure}} halve each time any of the three are used successfully and consecutively. In this generation, the halving was intended to cap at a 12.5% success rate on the fourth consecutive successful use, but a bug{{fact}} causes the cap to not work, causing the game to read garbage values and causing Protect's success rate on the fifth and future turns to follow an erratic sequence.<ref>[http://no2.pic.bz/document/waza/each/6F.html ポケットモンスター情報センター 2号館] (Japanese)</ref><ref>[http://nicoviewer.net/sm19862416 【ポケモン】TASさんがまもるの限界に挑戦してみた【ルビー】] (Japanese)</ref>


The following success rates are accurate to Ruby and Sapphire; FireRed and LeafGreen have a different sequence of values, as does Emerald<!-- meaning all three are different from each other, but members of a pair are the same --><ref>http://forums.glitchcity.info/index.php?topic=6603.0</ref>. It is currently undocumented whether these numbers represent success rates out of 65535 or out of 65536:
<!--
I double checked; the two sources in Japanese (the TAS and the HTML) contradict each other. Both are unlikely for different reasons: one means that the first Protect apparently has a chance to fail, and the other means that the still-primitive Gen III processor is doing long division by 65,535 (much slower) rather than a simple bit shift (very fast). My gut instinct is that it's by 65536, and that the game has a special condition that skips the check entirely on the first Protect, but not putting speculation here.
-->
{| style="background: #{{normal color light}}; {{roundy|1em}}; border: 3px solid #{{normal color}}"
{| style="background: #{{normal color light}}; {{roundy|1em}}; border: 3px solid #{{normal color}}"
|-
|-
Line 262: Line 265:
| style="background:#FFF; {{roundybr|5px}}" | 80
| style="background:#FFF; {{roundybr|5px}}" | 80
|}{{left clear}}
|}{{left clear}}
It is undocumented whether the above numbers represent success rates out of 65535 or out of 65536.
<!--
I double checked; the two sources in Japanese (the TAS and the HTML) contradict each other. Both are unlikely for different reasons: one means that the first Protect has a chance to fail, and the other means that the still-primitive Gen III processor is doing long division by 65,535 (very slow) rather than a simple bit shift (very fast). My gut instinct is that it's by 65536, and that the game has a special condition that skips the check entirely on the first Protect, but not putting speculation here.
-->


The following moves cannot be stopped by Protect:
The following moves cannot be stopped by Protect:
2,613

edits