Glitch City Laboratories Archives

Glitch City Laboratories closed on 1 September 2020 (announcement). This is an archived copy of a thread from Glitch City Laboratories Forums.

You can join Glitch City Research Institute to ask questions or discuss current developments.

You may also download the archive of this forum in .tar.gz, .sql.gz, or .sqlite.gz formats.

General Discussion

Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles - Page 1

Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: TheZZAZZGlitch
Date: 2013-10-25 10:12:54
Sometimes I look into Bulbapedia's articles regarding Pokemon glitches, and I feel like they are extremely outdated. So I'm thinking about updating Bulbapedia to include the most recent discoveries in glitchology. However, I have two questions I can't answer by myself, and I want the users to help me find the answers:

1. Is it OK for the GCL community to use/copy (and modify) research notes published by other users?
2. What do you think: Should Bulbapedia articles regarding glitches be updated?

Re: Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: camper
Date: 2013-10-25 12:22:22
I'd be happy if anyone copy/use my work (if I had any to begin with).

Bulbapedia should definitely be updated. Not only to include recent discoveries, but to correct the critical mistakes as well.

Re: Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: OwnageMuch
Date: 2013-10-25 23:56:18
I'm in favour, it seems that editing was unlocked again yesterday,  I had been planning to add that berry selling glitch in… but it's been added now anyway.

Re: Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: Torchickens
Date: 2013-10-26 08:42:59
I support this. As for research notes, I feel they should be sourced as references.

Re: Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: OwnageMuch
Date: 2013-11-09 17:48:24
Nice job on the Super Glitch article! It's much better.

Re: Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: camper
Date: 2013-11-09 22:53:54
Where can you find the move data? (the accuracy, power, PP etc.)

Some problems:
Move B1 is Electric type, not glitch type. (or is it different between versions?) If the attack doesn't faint the target, the game crashes. (just like Move 00)
Move AB always attacks a second time if the first hit connects. Only if both hits connect will the target's evasion be lowered 2 stages.
Move 00 should also be included as a super glitch move, as it has the exact memory-corruption effect despite its name won't show up.

Super Glitch index A6 is especially dangerous, since its invalid name points to a constant memory location, which always causes memory corruption.

I don't notice any corruption when seeing this move's name at the safe spot. Which location does it point to?

Re: Updating Bulbapedia's glitch articles

Posted by: TheZZAZZGlitch
Date: 2013-11-12 10:36:04
1. Move data is located at $38000.

2. In the "effect" row I only entered the effects which are existent from game code's perspective. B1 and AB have invalid effect bytes - they're not defined, and my rule is, whenever something has undefined behavior, I should not treat it as "always happening" unless it's proven to be happening in all situations.

3. About the types - that's true, I absolutely forgot to fill them in. Thanks for pointing that out!

4. I actually think the Cooltrainer move and Super Glitch moves should be considered as different beings, just like 'M and Missingno. Move 00 actually has some special properties:
- It can be learned by any Pokemon, through mimicking Transform.
- Unlike Super Glitches, its memory corruption potential depends on the amount of Pokemon stored in the box.
- In battle it will only corrupt battle variables, and will leave current Pokemon, player's name etc. unaffected

5. In the safe spot every Super Glitch move is safe. What I meant by 'always' was 'everywhere outside the safe spot'. :P
As it is the next move after Struggle, it's name pointer is just after the move table ends, after Struggle. After the move table are tons of constant zero bytes, and they obviously always fail to terminate the name, causing this Super Glitch index to be luck independent, working 100% of the time.