aerobee
Pure Hackmons
Double posting to say that BahamutLagoon will be joining me as part of the BDSP Pure Hackmons council!
If this is accepted, I can't wait to play the new gen8! I think it might be really funHello!
I’m posting here because I wanted to talk about the past issues with Sword and Shield Pure Hackmons, their more far-reaching consequences, as well as a possible solution to these issues. As the current Gen 8 Hackmons hub, this thread seemed like the best place to do it. Thank you to Anubis and Lego for your insight regarding this topic.
As I’m sure everyone reading this is aware, Sword and Shield Hackmons is currently defunct because of issues including HP Editing, the Dynamax Exploit, and Eternamax that rendered the metagame essentially unplayable.
Pure Hackmons is currently defined as a metagame where you can use anything that can be hacked into the game and used in local battles. And going by this definition, Eternamax and a Pikachu with an HP stat of 65,536 should indeed be legal in PH because they can be hacked into the game and played with in local battles. However, not all hacks are created equal and to understand this better, you have to understand these different kinds of hacks to the game, and what you can accomplish with each kind of hack.
There are a variety categories of hacks possible, but to summarize a few: ROM hacking is editing the program of the game itself, RAM hacking is editing the running data of the game, Save File editing is probably what most people are familiar with when they think “hacks” (think PKHeX), and then there are patches and cheat codes.
HP Editing and Eternamax, the two main things that killed Sword and Shield Hackmons, are only possible with RAM hacking—edits to the running data of the game. (And ROM hacking in the case of Eternamax.) The issue here is that those two things just scratch the surface of what RAM hacks are capable of. For example, RAM hacks can be used to make it so your moves always crit or to make your ice beams always freeze. Take a look at this video (courtesy of Anubis)—and note that this isn’t just a local battle, it’s an online battle.
The essence of this is: if you choose to allow Eternamax, HP Editing, and the Dynamax exploit, then you also need to allow for such things as manipulation of the battle rng because they are categorically the same.
I say this not to kick the dead horse that is Sword and Shield Pure Hackmons, but to point out a deficiency in the way PH is currently defined. You can apply a cheat to your game that makes it so your moves always crit or your scalds always burn and use them in a local battle—that is something you can “hack in game” and “use in local battles.”
Obviously, things like HP Editing and the manipulation of the the battle rng render any format unplayable. And because of the way PH is currently defined, this is an issue that both exists in past generations and will continue to exist in future generations. It’s arguably even worse in past generations, where the host of a local battle can force their manipulated rng on the guest. Something needs to be changed.
One possible solution to this is to more clearly specify what kind of hacks, categorically speaking, Hackmons encompasses.
For example, we could specify that Hackmons refers only to hacks that don’t modify the program of the game itself (ROM hacks, patches, etc.) and that persist upon reboot and healing (which would exclude RAM hacks) and, of course, that are able to be played with in a local battle (so things like generation 6’s EV limit would remain). Rebooting the game flushes anything stored only in RAM and healing flushes transient party stats. With those stipulations, the hacks that persist are ones that are in the spirit of PH such as moveset and ability edits to individual Pokemon.
It could look something like this:
“Anything that can be hacked in-game, persists upon reboot and healing, and is usable in local battles is allowed, with no bans or clauses. The program of the game itself is unmodified. In other words, all existing Pokémon can use any move and any ability as long as it can be used in local matches against other players!”
What this proposed definition of PH means for Gen 8:
In short, were the new definition or a similar solution to this adopted, Sword and Shield Hackmons might actually be playable. Eternamax is only injectable through edits to the running data of the game or through ROM hacking and does not persist upon reboot and healing. Same for HP Editing and the Dynamax Exploit. Other battle-only forms hacked into the game like Zacian-Crowned and Cramorant-Gorging also do not persist upon reboot. And that’s basically it.
What this means for Gen 6 and 7 PH:
Very little to nothing would actually change for generation 6 PH as unlike the battle-only forms in generation 8, Megas and Primals hacked into the game do persist upon reboot. Similarly, for generation 7, Crystal Free Z-moves (CFZs) hacked into your Pokemon’s movesets also persist upon reboot.
What this could mean for future generations:
One benefit of adopting this or a similar solution is that it creates a consistent litmus test for what’s permitted in PH.
Say a new exploit is discovered. You then ask "Is it still there if you save, reboot the game, and heal your party ingame?"
If yes -> consider it to be added.
If no -> not eligible.
As a final aside, it’s worth noting that should this or a similar solution be adopted, nothing new needs to be added to make Sword and Shield Hackmons playable, so it shouldn’t be heavy on developer time.
However, regardless of whether or not SwSh Hackmons will be revived or not, some rework of PH’s definition needs to happen for the continued playability of both past and future generations of Hackmons.
I think what Daylight is getting at is that we should change the definition of PH to anything that is playable and local battles and persists upon reboot. In this case, since things like Eternamax do not persist upon reboot, they would not be in the gen8 PH scene. Arbitrary code execution is a form of RAM hacking (I think), and so it would not persist upon reboot. As a result, it wouldn't be allowed in the gen1 PH scene if this definition were to be adopted.My personal recollection is that Gens 1-2 PH are unplayable due to arbitrary code execution, which allows you to edit the Gameboy games in pretty much any way you want, from RNG manipulation to even adding new mons to the game (if you're really skilled). You can even stick SpongeBob footage in a Gen 1 game if you're good enough!
As a result, I think sorting out a definition of PH that results in more playable generations will be harder to do than we might think, and I suspect we are working with a baseline assumption that anything allowable in local battles must remain allowed in PH, regardless of how unplayable the meta gets as a result.
I like the idea of disallowing RAM hacks broadly, but I disagree that your given examples are categorically the same. It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference between RAM hacking during the battle, and RAM hacking before the battle. My understanding with the battle RNG mad haccs Anubis has done in the past is that it's all during the battle itself. Now, I may be wrong on that and you can just manipulate everything in advance of the battle (or at least enough to make us hate it). I think it'd be a shame, for example, not to have hackable Cramorant or Zacian forms available just because after rebooting the game or completing a battle, the forms get sanitized back to normal, when they would otherwise function perfectly fine. Perhaps it's a worthy trade-off policy-wise.The essence of this is: if you choose to allow Eternamax, HP Editing, and the Dynamax exploit, then you also need to allow for such things as manipulation of the battle rng because they are categorically the same.
I think accepting the proposed definition would solve the issues discussed in the second paragraph. Pre-Dynamx doesn't persist upon reboot+heal, so you wouldn't be able to use it. It is a shame you wouldn't be able to use things like zac-c or zygarde-complete (or maybe thats better for the metagame), but I personally think it's a good trade-off.I like the idea of disallowing RAM hacks broadly, but I disagree that your given examples are categorically the same. It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference between RAM hacking during the battle, and RAM hacking before the battle. My understanding with the battle RNG mad haccs Anubis has done in the past is that it's all during the battle itself. Now, I may be wrong on that and you can just manipulate everything in advance of the battle (or at least enough to make us hate it). I think it'd be a shame, for example, not to have hackable Cramorant or Zacian forms available just because after rebooting the game or completing a battle, the forms get sanitized back to normal, when they would otherwise function perfectly fine. Perhaps it's a worthy trade-off policy-wise.
Another point that I don't know if we've got policy on is how to handle effects that when hacked in, crash the game. I would think that things that allow the player to crash the game should either be unusable or else cause the player to lose the game. For example, using Substitute with Eternamax crashes the game (or Sub with any pre-Dynamaxed Pokemon), because there's no Dynamaxed Substitute model. You can similarly cause crashes with spread moves or exclusive animations with pre-Dynamaxed Pokemon, or by Transforming into Eternamax incorrectly. Pre-Dynamaxed Pokemon, for example, don't require RAM hacking, so you've still got that to deal with that policy-wise even if you ban RAM hacking.
That’s why my proposed solution is not to say “RAM hacking is banned” but to tighten the definition of what’s permissible with a stipulation like “does it persist after you save, reboot, and heal your party?” From what Anubis showed me, Pre-Dynamaxed Pokemon do not persist as Pre-Dynamaced mons after reboot and healing.Pre-Dynamaxed Pokemon, for example, don't require RAM hacking, so you've still got that to deal with that policy-wise even if you ban RAM hacking.
I actually am not sure about your first point. I don’t know whether the rng has to be manipulated during the battle, if it’s set up before it, or if it's possible either way. Regardless, the current PH definition of anything that can be hacked and “used in local battles” has enough ambiguity that either way it’s problematic.I like the idea of disallowing RAM hacks broadly, but I disagree that your given examples are categorically the same. It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference between RAM hacking during the battle, and RAM hacking before the battle. My understanding with the battle RNG mad haccs Anubis has done in the past is that it's all during the battle itself. Now, I may be wrong on that and you can just manipulate everything in advance of the battle (or at least enough to make us hate it). I think it'd be a shame, for example, not to have hackable Cramorant or Zacian forms available just because after rebooting the game or completing a battle, the forms get sanitized back to normal, when they would otherwise function perfectly fine. Perhaps it's a worthy trade-off policy-wise.
I think the point should not to be focusing on the categories, because categories of hacking are not as clean as anyone wants to make them out to be, and nitpicking the method makes it harder to sustain for users who are not as technically knowledgeable.I like the idea of disallowing RAM hacks broadly, but I disagree that your given examples are categorically the same. It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference between RAM hacking during the battle, and RAM hacking before the battle. My understanding with the battle RNG mad haccs Anubis has done in the past is that it's all during the battle itself. Now, I may be wrong on that and you can just manipulate everything in advance of the battle (or at least enough to make us hate it). I think it'd be a shame, for example, not to have hackable Cramorant or Zacian forms available just because after rebooting the game or completing a battle, the forms get sanitized back to normal, when they would otherwise function perfectly fine. Perhaps it's a worthy trade-off policy-wise.