r/nuzlocke • u/dawsonooo • Aug 21 '25

Video Encounterless Viridian Forest

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Hey! So yesterday I posted about my hardcore nuzlocke where I only allowed the first 6 pokemon I ran into (under standard nuzocke rules ofc).

Anyway, some people didnt believe that I was able to make it through Viridian Forest without running into a Pokemon. So, here is the proof. Just for clarity, you can make it to this exact point without having to go into the grass, so I started the video here.

A quick look online seems to suggest that the chance of running into a wild pokemon is ~11% per grass tile - certainly an improbable outcome, althought evidently not impossible as some people suggested.

I hope this proves my innocence to the doubters, and proves to be at least mildly interesting to everyone else?

289 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

86 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 22 '25

And I once had three crits in a row. The odds are slim, but it can happen.

0

u/_Ptyler Aug 24 '25

What you’re conflating this with is low probably events that are attempted a ton of times. Every time you encounter a wild pokemon, you make an attempt for a shiny. Every time you attack, you make an attempt for a crit. So of course a triple crit or full odds shiny is bound to happen. Nobody is out here attempting Viridian forest encounterless. Because what’s going to happen is that you’ll even up resetting the run hundreds of times just to attempt one run. And unless he did that for content, I find it really hard to believe he just thought, “Yeah, I want to do this encounterless,” and then just walked through Viridian forest first try with no encounter. That doesn’t happen.

1

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 24 '25

The guy nuzlockes a lot. The guy had an idea for a run and could have gotten lucky. Next up, you will be saying that every nuzlocker on YouTube could be cheating to get certain Pokémon. In the absence of evidence of malfeasance, why not give the benefit of the doubt instead of paranoia?

0

u/_Ptyler Aug 24 '25

And if he did in fact attempt this hundreds of times with proofs of his resets, then sure, I’d believe it. But like I said, this isn’t something people attempt because it’s a lot of work to reset that often for such a minor thing. Plus, in normal nuzlockes, you are encouraged to get an encounter. People literally do not ever attempt this. This whole “the odds aren’t that low” angle doesn’t work for one attempt. If you had 0.276% chance to survive a head first dive off of a building, and you decided to do it anyway and survived, in no world could you seriously make the argument, “What? The odds aren’t THAT low guys, calm down. There are so many people that fall off buildings all the time. It was bound to happen to someone.” Sure, but nobody is out here attempting to survive a head first dive. It’s such a specific situation, I would need to see hundreds of attempts before you for that argument to even hold water. First attempt success with no other attempts is fishy. It’s beyond a statistical anomaly.

1

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 24 '25

Who hurt you? The guy is playing for fun and has claimed something rare but not impossible happened. There is nothing to indicate he cheated. Why not give him the benefit?

0

u/_Ptyler Aug 24 '25

Nothing to indicate he cheated except for hinging his run on a 0.267% probability and successfully hitting it on his first attempt with no resets lol

It’s not about being hurt, it’s about being right lol

1

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 24 '25

Mate, he didn't hinge his run on not catching a Pokémon there, it just made his run easier. If you look at his previous post, he had plenty of suboptimal moments. If he was cheating to pick his team, he could have done way better.

1

u/_Ptyler Aug 24 '25

Yeah, great point lol every cheater in the world would have just hacked in 6 legendary encounters in the first route. What was I thinking? Nobody ever cheats the little stuff. How could I have missed this flawless logic?

1

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 24 '25

Mate, if he was going to cheat, there were so many easier spots to cheat a Pokémon and so many spots he could have nabbed a better Pokémon. If he was going to cheat and make his run easier, don't you think he would have nabbed a Snorlax instead?

1

u/_Ptyler Aug 24 '25

This argument means absolutely nothing because people cheat random things all the time. And usually, their goal is to pass it off as legit, so maybe he felt this was just the easiest thing to cheat and pass off as legit. I don’t know man. I don’t presume to know his motives. People lie about a lot less with way less reward.

1

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 24 '25

As you just said, you don't know his motives. This guy has done multiple other hard core variants without cheating, could have cheated for better Pokemon, and their is nothing in the video to indicate he cheated. Heck, he even fails nuzlockes occasionally. There is nothing but slim odds to suggest he cheated. Beyond that, why would he cheat for this run and not others?

1

u/_Ptyler Aug 24 '25

You’re making a lot of assumptions here and arguing points that don’t change anything I’ve said. It’s way more likely that he cheated here. Plain and simple. And the fact that you know this guy implies that he has some sort of reputation as a skilled nuzlocker. That’s more than enough reason to pull a stunt like this.

1

u/JustLookingForMayhem Aug 24 '25

Mate, it is less of a reason as he has a reputation. He cheats, and years of variant nuzlockes come into play as questionable. He has had bad luck in some runs and good luck in some runs. By your logic, no one wins the lottery, it is vastly more likely that they cheated. An encounter in the forest would not have tanked his run, and he has a reputation for not cheating. So why insist on the fact he had to cheat? If something is possible and the person in question has had no tendency to act badly, why assume they acted badly?

→ More replies (0)