EV-reducing berry anomaly

So, EV reducing berries are supposed to reduce EVs by exactly 10, right? Well, that's what I always thought. But today I saw a much, MUCH bigger reduction than that.

So, I had a level 99 Froslass with Pokerus whom I had put off getting the last bit of Exp to get to 100. She had 255 Speed, and 255 Sp. Attack (which each have an IV of 31, I know that for sure thanks to the Emerald IV man). At level 99 she had a Sp. Attack total of 256 and a Speed total of 346.

I gave her 1 Hondew berry (-10 Sp. Attack), and 1 Tamato berry (-10 Speed). Then, I had her get +4 HP EVs. Then +8 Sp. Attack (putting her up to 253) and +8 Speed (253). So, her Speed and Attack SHOULD have remained unchanged, while her HP would have gone up by 1. When she hit 100, however... Sp. Attack: 224. Speed: 311. FAR below what they should be (259 and 350 respectively). Also, I should note that the Pokemon she fought to hit 100 was a single level 60 Roselia (+4 Sp. Attack with Pokerus).

So this calls into question whether EV-reducing berries always reduce an EV by a static 10, or whether it's been changed in D/P (or if possibly Pokerus status affects it). With an IV of 31 in Speed, 108 EVs would be required to get 311 Speed, which in this case means 145 EVs unaccounted for, suggesting that 155 were taken away instead of 10. Same for Sp. Attack, adding in the EVs from Roselia I had given her +12 Sp. Attack, but her stats calculated at 112 EVs in Sp. Attack, again showing a loss of 155.

After resetting the game and leveling her up to 100, with the 255 Sp. Attack and Speed EVs untampered-with, they reached the correct amount, 259 and 350, confirming that they were what I thought they were. So, I decided to test this by using the berries (1 Hondew, 1 Tamato) again and leveling her up again, this time without gaining any EVs back except the +4 Sp. Attack from the Roselia. Sure enough, her stats show a huge reduction. 222 Sp. Attack, 309 Speed, suggesting -155 EVs from each berry.

So, I wonder, what happens if I use 2 of each berry and then level up on the Roselia? Strangely enough... 219 Sp. Attack and 305 Speed, a loss of 165 EVs. It seems only the first berry results in a huge loss of EVs. 3 berries: 217 and 303, a loss of 175. I'm sure if I kept going the results would continue the trend. So, the first berry chews up 155 EVs from a Pokemon with maxed out EVs in a stat, while the following ones only take 10 like they're supposed to.

I decided to test it again on a level 100 Pokemon whose EVs and IVs I already know the exact amount for. First: Adamant Scizor, level 100, max Attack (394), but it has 252 Attack EVs rather than 255 (according to my notes), and it doesn't have Pokerus. Used 1 Kelpsy berry. Went down to 353. Loss of 152 EVs, dropping it to exactly 100 EVs in attack (this is the same number of EVs the Froslass had in each stat after having used just one berry). Next: Modest Gengar, max Sp. Attack (394). After 1 Hondew berry: 353 Sp. Attack, as expected. Finally: Modest Alakazam, max Sp. Attack (405) and Speed (339), used 1 Hondew and 1 Tamato, which cut him down to 364 and 301, 100 EVs in each stat.

So, so far, I'm seeing pretty consistent losses. I should probably note that all of these Pokemon I tested this on were originally from Emerald. I don't have any that were bred in D/P and leveled to 100 to test it on yet (I'm still in the process of breeding and EV training mine). Closest I have is a level 77 Azelf, 252 EVs in Speed with an IV of 20-21, 270 Speed. After 1 Tamato berry, it went down to 237 Speed, suggesting a loss that is consistent with all the others I tested it on. It has a Sp. Attack IV of 25, with 155 EVs, for a total of 246 at level 77. After 1 Hondew berry... down to 236, so it lost around 55, bringing it down to exactly 100 EVs, also consistent with the results above.

So, the origin of a Pokemon, and whether or not it has Pokerus, seems to have no effect on this. My tests suggest that they adjusted the EV-reducing berries to shoot any stat with EVs above 100 down to exactly 100, and after which point they behave like normal, only reducing the EVs by 10 for each used after the first. If anyone would like to test this on their own Pokemon (couldn't hurt, just reset after seeing results), I'd like to know if my theory is true or if this is an isolated anomaly.

If this is how it really works now, then it's a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, you can quickly reduce a Pokemon's EVs by a large amount, making it easier to correct ones received by trading. On the other hand, it makes making small adjustments to a Pokemon's EVs more difficult.
 
Well, if your pokemon has more than 100 EVs when you use the EV-reducing berry, it's dropped to 100. Once the EV is at 100, it drops by 10 for each berry.
 
I hate to be the one to say this, but....this is not by any means new, though I don't have a ready link to other threads. It's been known the first berry brings you down to 100 for a while. : /

Thanks though.
 
Well, if your pokemon has more than 100 EVs when you use the EV-reducing berry, it's dropped to 100. Once the EV is at 100, it drops by 10 for each berry.


Yes, that's what I saw happening. So this has been confirmed to work this way in D/P? I hadn't seen anyone mention this before... in fact, every time I've found someone mention these berries, they just say that it drops them by exactly 10 EVs in each stat, which was true in Emerald.
 
Ah, thanks. When I had searched for topic titles inquiring about berries, I couldn't find mention of the change in any of those threads. I thought someone might've made a thread about this, since it's pretty important to know before you go and screw up your EVs like I did. >.< I soft-reset but still lost a lot of work.
 
Actually, if the EV count is 110 or more, then it brings it to 100. Anything lower will still be reduced by 10, so 109 EVs will turn to 99 EVs and so on...
 
Actually, if the EV count is 110 or more, then it brings it to 100. Anything lower will still be reduced by 10, so 109 EVs will turn to 99 EVs and so on...

I've seen both mentioned in threads -- has anyone conclusively proved it one way or another?
 
Back
Top