Lugruf

Welcome to Reborn! Hope you enjoy the forum.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I want a hug too.

There is a way of going to Reborn city if you have 12 badges and waterfall. You need to enter Celestine mountain from Amy and Tania's house, then go to Celestine mountain BF 2 and there is an access to Route 1 in there. Take strength, as you'll need it. Then you can get Magnemite and use the same route to go back to Agate Circus. You'll get a life orb in the process btw. These are the instructions. You shouldn't get lost.

Yesterday I spent the whole day programming so I had time to listen to lots of music: English: Within temptation - The silent force (album) Nightwish - Endless form most beautiful (album) Avantasia - The metal opera part 1 (album) Spanish: Vetusta Morla - La deriva (album) Supersubmarina - Santacruz and Electroviral (albums) Other: Chopin - Nocturnes (a bunch of them in a random playlist)

Here it goes one of those books-you-MUST-read-in-your-life. I'm not sure of the category though. Next up A confederacy of dunces by John Kennedy Toole probably, if I have time. The catcher in the rye - J. D. Salinger The catcher in the rye can't be explained. You must read it. It tells the story of Holden Caulfield, a teenager that has been expelled after failing almost all of his subjects. He will tell in first person the next few days of his life, from the moment he leaves the school until he has to face his parents, wandering in the city of New York. But what is good of The catcher in the rye is not the story itself, but the main character. Holden will tell the story in first person, in an informal style, as if he was telling the story to you in person. The reader will be able to see the world with Holden's particular viewpoint and follow his train of thought. It's an amazing glimpse of the thoughts of a person, free and uncensored, giving voice to many of those things we think but we can't say. Throughout the story, Holden will leave us meny memorable phrases. Here it goes one of my favorite quotes: “I am always saying "Glad to've met you" to somebody I'm not at all glad I met. If you want to stay alive, you have to say that stuff, though.”

When talking about if eating pokemon is ethical, the same way as when talking about battling or breeding, we need to think if we consider pokemon as equals to human beings or we consider them to be inferior, as we consider animals in our world for example. It has been mentioned before that pokemon can be as sentient as human beings, or there was the example of Alakazam having a way higher IQ than any human. There are also other examples like the talking Meowth of the series, or some other pokemon able to communicate with telepathy that are practically human at a cognitive level. Taking into account all of this, pokeon should be considered to have an equal status to humans, and therefore it's not just that eating them is wrong, but even owning them is wrong. Notice that if we consider pokemon equal to humans, owning one would be comparable to slavery. Thus, the whole culture of the pokeworld built around pokemon battles, owning pokemon and breeding them is ethically wrong, not to mention eating them. I don't like the idea of not being able to ethically judge the pokeworld due to the cultural differences. I always try to build my ethical estatements on top of a premise, sort of what mathematics do with axioms. We start accepting that a is true, and therefore we reason to reach the point of b being true or false. However, the statement is not categorical, as it is subject to the premise being true. If we accept the premise as false, then the whole reasoning would be false. For example in my reasoning above, you may consider that pokemon are inferior to human beings and should not be treated as equals. Then, my conclusion, that it's wrong to own them, would be false. In general, if the idea you take as premise is correct in whatever yoy are analyzing the reasoning should be valid.

There is a main big difference between Pokemon and Undertale though. Pokemon is a game built around its game mechanics, while Undertale is built around its story. In Pokemon, you have two main mechanics: fighting and collecting; and all the world is built in order to make those two mechanics work. If you think it, in the games pokemon are little more than objects. Mechanically talking, there is not much difference between a Gyarados and a Llanowar Elf: It's an object you collect and you use to play a game, and the bond between you and it is of ownership. You own the pokemon, which is forced to obey to you. Undertale however is built around its story, and the game mechanics are there to reinforce that story. If you look at its combat, you are not supposed to fight. You are supposed to talk to the monster, listen to him, laugh at his jokes or whatever you need to become his friend. It's a completely different mood. It's also asymmetric, what implies that competitive can't exist (nobody would play competitive Undertale) and so nobody will look for the best way to win in Undertale. Even grinding is justified by the story, as you are killing all living beings on purpose. You don't need that experience, I mean, the game is pretty easy and level doesn't make much of a difference, but you grind in order to make the story advance. That's a game built around its story and where all the elements contribute to reinforcing it, and so it's obvious to feel attached to their characters and to the game itself. I know that the picture the series conveys of the relationship between pokemon and people is completely different, but I haven't watched it so I can't talk about it. I can make an analysis of the game's mechanics though, and this is what I've found. You can call it ludonarrative discordance if you want, as normally the pokeworld is presented as a happy world where humans and pokemon live together happily and all that, but the game mechanics are giving the opposite message. (By the way, does anyone know how to make an image smaller?)

Welcome to Reborn! Hope you like the forum.

I think that the first thing we need to ask ourselves is whether forcing pokemon to fight is ethical or not (notice that if there weren't pokemon fights there would be no breeding for the perfect fighting pokemon). The thing is that we need to take into account that pokemon is first a videogame, and then a world. Even more, its game mechanics were designed 20 years ago, when the gameplay aspect of the game was cosidered more important when designing than storytelling or building the world. Thus, the Pokeworld is a world built around a videogame mechanic: pokemon fights. The problem is the followong. As long as there are fights, and so there's a reason to compete, there will be people willing to find the most efficient way of competing. That's why almost all competitive games end up having a metagame. There will always be people who will see EV training and IV breeding not as something unethical over sentient or semi-sentient beings, but as the most viable strategy to win on the game. For example, I don't feel any attachment for the pokemon I play in showdown, as they are teams I can build in 5 minutes and discard at will. For me, changing a value in the EVs of a pokemon is modifying a variable, not altering a living creature. So, there's no real point in discussing if breeding is ethical or not. We should discuss if pokemon fights are ethical. However, we then reach to another problem: if you remove fights, then there is no game. So, we need to decide if we give more importance to the gameplay aspect of pokemon, and then fights and everything they involve are correct, as pokemon would be then just a sprite with a bunch of variables; or if we give more importance to the lore and the world where the game is built, and then discuss about the ethics of pokemon fights.

Welcome to Reborn HYCROX. Hope you like the forum

I actually managed to do it. I can only have an object of each type in the container, but it's okay for what I wanted to do. I was looking for a way to build a component system for a game object, where all components would derive form a generic component class. And I managed to do it with a template variadic add function and a template gettor. It looks like this: And the output: Basically now I'm able to create any object into the map and initialize it with the variables it needs, and I can also access with a pointer to the child class instead of the parent class. The only drawback is that I'm limited to a single object of each type, but that's not really a problem as I mentioned before, because a game object should never have more than one component of the same type.

I know that. I already mention it in the explanation of the problem: "I know that I could access the foo() functions of the children by making the foo() function of the parent virtual and then overriding it, but what I'm looking for is a way of accessing the public interface of the children that is not available in the parent class." I'm not sure if you understood the problem. The function that I want to change is the gettor, so that it automatically changes the type of the pointer. Doing the casts manually each time I need to access something from the container would be tedious and something I would want to avoid if possible. Still, thank you for your help. I will look for more information on dynamic casts and see if I can manage to do something with it.

Code: Output: I was testing some stuff relating inheritance and I came across the following problem. If I have a container of pointers to parents (a map in this case), I can store child objects in them, as a pointer or a reference to a parent can take a pointer or reference to any child deriving from that parent. However, when using the gettor, I get a pointer to a parent instead of a pointer to a child no matter the type of the object I'm retrieving. This means that I don't have access to the methods and data of the children that are not in the public interface of the parent. For example, the bar() function in Child_1 is completely unaccessible for me. I know that I could access the foo() functions of the children by making the foo() function of the parent virtual and then overriding it, but what I'm looking for is a way of accessing the public interface of the children that is not available in the parent class. I've thought about different solutions, such as a template gettor where I specify the type of the object I want to retrieve. Someting like template <typename T> T * get(std::string key) { return (T *) Pointers[key]; } And explicitly call the type: test.get<Child_1> ("Test 2")->bar(); The problem with this is that the chances of screwing everything up and the compiler not telling me are high. For example if I did: test.get<Child_1> ("Test 3")->bar(); // This would be accessing memory I don't own Do you have any idea of how could I do this? Ideally the gettor would check the object's type at runtime and return a pointer of the specific type, but I don't know if that's even possile.

Welcome to the forum. Nice to see another prog rock fan. Have you listened to Dream theater? They sound great, although it takes a bit to get used to the sound and style.

I was about to make the same joke... Well, whatever.Welcome to the forum Arekah Solair! Hope you like it and you enjoy your stay.

Destiny knot makes the pokemon inherit 5 random stats instead of 3. It affects both pokemon. I prefer to use power items to breed as they ensure a certain IV will be inherited. For example, suppose you had a ditto with 31 in speed. If you breed with a power anklet on ditto, the egg will have 31 in speed always. Also you can use everstone to inherit natures I think.

Another new face. Welcome to Reborn RedKessel! Hope you enjoy the forum. You'll see that the community is great in here.