YES, Generation VI is confirmed. PLEASE DO NOT ADD SPECULATION TO PAGES. As soon as information is confirmed by a reliable source, it will be added.
Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times. Check and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the or irc channel #bulbapedia.
DynamicPunch and No Guard versus Protect
My original edit concerning DynamicPunch + No Guard vs. Protect was very specific because I tested with other moves and only DynamicPunch broke through Protect. Have the edits since then been tested? If not, the Effects section should be changed again so the DynamicPunch + No Guard combo is explicitly mentioned. I can do this, or someone else can if he or she wishes. If they have been tested, then the article may be left as-is.
Furthermore, I'd like to add the other effect I recently discovered concerning DynamicPunch + No Guard, but not until the previous conflict has been resolved. The newly discovered effect is as follows: DynamicPunch + No Guard will not ignore Protect if the move priorities have been altered. I have duplicated this effect twice. Both times, Quick Claw activated, which altered the move priorities. Subsequently, DynamicPunch did not ignore Protect. When I took the Quick Claw off the Pokémon with No Guard, DynamicPunch did ignore Protect every time. (I have already added this information to the DynamicPunch page.) bubicus 05:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard a rumor that before Gen IV was going to be introduced, the developers were considering making Protect block only Special moves and Detect only Physical moves. Because it is a rumor...
Please only submit information you know to be accurate, and adhere to a neutral point of view. Do not misrepresent rumors, misconceptions or opinions as fact.
- It's probably nothing more then a rumor; people have always wondered about those two skills, I think, as it seems strange to have doubles of the same thing like that. Probably, when the split between special and physical was annouced, this rumor sprung up as a result. I can't imagine the developers would entertain the option of making these two skills so conditional, not to mention, they would need to buff the PP on Detect, as well as let more Pokémon learn it (to be fair and balanced). Just my opinion though. -- Jioruji Derako.> 20:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's always a chance it could have been "officially" mentioned somewhere, but I highly doubt it. -- Jioruji Derako.> 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
When I play Pokémon Colosseum, I've been able to break Protect by using a Ghost type and having it use Curse. I'm not sure if this works in any other game (I've never tried it) but it should have some mention in here. Blaziken257 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a real damaging attack so it's logic, no need to speak about that in the article imo.--Froggy25 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
From the article: "Lock-On, Mind Reader, and No Guard give moves a (100 - move accuracy)% chance to hit through Protect" So Pound with an accuracy of 100, has a 0 percent chance of hitting? While Dynamic Punch has a 50 percent chance? The Dark Fiddler - Nos hablamos? 15:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- My experiments seem to corroborate with that statement—I was able to make DynamicPunch hit through Protect, but not Spark. — Laoris (Blah) 17:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- So one can safely say that if the player uses Fissure after one of those moves against a Pokémon with Protect, its accuracy is 70%? That sounds pretty amazing. UltimateSephiroth (about me · chat · edits) 21:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
PKMN Anime: Safeguard = Protect
The anime has made, and still continues to make, no distinction between Safeguard and Protect since both moves have been consistently shown to share the same function of protecting a user from damage with only the visual appearance of the moves and the method in which they are used as being the differentiating factors. --Arima 00:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A Bit of Trivia...
Should it be put that, ever since its introduction, it has always been TM 17? --TheXMJohnson 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What's the source for the success chance for Gen IV?
When it's used twice in a row, it goes from 100%, to 50%. Does this reset when not used in succession? (VictoryStar 03:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC))
Include List of Moves Unaffected by Protect?
Since it's a relatively short list, should this page also list the moves unaffected by Protect? True. you can probably just search the site for "not affected by Protect," but it also makes sense having them listed together here.--Joec (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Black/White 2 changed animation
Alternating Protect and Detect
- No. Please read the article before asking on the talk page, this is answered in the article. Werdnae (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Question about the erratic success table after the fourth consecutive use
I'm surprised that such an effect would occur in Generation III, which fixed a lot of move oddities present in the previous Generations. UPokeCenter's description here gives the following excerpt: "A variable, X, starts at 0, and resets to 0 if the last move called for the user is not Detect, Endure, or Protect as user uses this attack or if this attack fails, and is raised by 1 (up to 3) each time this attack is successful. This attack has a 50% chance of failing if X is 1, a 75% chance if X is 2, and an 87.5% chance if X is 3."
I'm wondering if the table in the article is actually a relation between the success rate and X, rather than a relation between the success rate and the number of times used. According to UPokeCenter's description, the value of X is capped at 3 (the fourth consecutive use), so even if you used Protect and succeeded ten times in a row, X would still be 3.
I believe the success table would have been ripped straight from the game data, which would make all values beyond the fourth cell actually garbage data relating to something other than the move Protect, since X never becomes 4 or higher.
This could perhaps be verified by having someone load up a Gen III game in an emulator, spam savestates until Protect succeeds four times in a row, and then reload to see approximately how often the fifth Protect succeeds. If the X-value theory is correct, then Protect should work 1 in 8 times. If the table is correct, then Protect should only work 1 in ~555 times. Blueapple128 (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)