Add Gen IV Great Marsh changing encounters

[Machine-Maker]

Change description

Closes #1496

• Adds new condition type for great marsh selection, x of 32 options.
• Adds encounters for all the changing pokemon, taking into account pre and post national dex states.

AI coding assistance disclosure

Claude Code helped me analyze decompiled diamond and platinum repos. Also generated the big huge changes based on how they work.

Contributor check list

• I have written a description of the contribution and explained its motivation.
• I have written tests for my code changes (if applicable).
• I have read and understood the AI Assisted Contribution guidelines.
• I will own this change in production, and I am prepared to fix any bugs caused by my code change.

[jemarq04]

I've been taking a look at these but I think before I do an in-depth review I'd like you to manually go through these yourself. From an initial glance, rates seem to be incorrect and I'm already seeing duplicates from my first look at Area 1 (e.g. Wooper).

I've made a couple other comments below.

[jemarq04]

I'm not sure I like how these are named (but I'm not sure how else to describe the difference in rates) so we can leave that. That being said, what would a rate of 0/32 for a daily spawn mean? I think this was likely a mistake.

[jemarq04]

Ah, if this is for the default field I'd rather something similar to the story-progress condition and name it great-marsh-daily-slot-none, as if you don't check the binoculars you don't have any daily spawn added in to the encounter pool.

Suggested change

	179,18,great-marsh-daily-slot-0-of-32,1
	179,18,great-marsh-daily-slot-none,1

[Machine-Maker]

I'm fine with either really, but I just feel like none doesn't really convey that this is impossible. Like this condition is never true. It's my understanding that there is always a selected pokemon in each area and so the 2 5% encounter slots for the default pokemon are just never ever true. So I don't know if none is the best way to convey that (maybe 0-of-32 isn't the best either).

[jemarq04]

If the daily spawn is always set, a slot of none would definitely convey it's not possible. 0-of-32 is a convention used only for these IDs, so that's not immediately conveying that this would be impossible either.

Plus, I believe if you don't check the binoculars, the daily spawn isn't set. So this condition would be possible.

[jemarq04]

I think these should be a bit more verbose, like the other entries in the file

[Machine-Maker]

It might look like there are duplicates, but that's just cause there are 2 encounter slots for each area. So we need them to be possible on each slot.

Say for diamond, for example. Each of the "special" pokemon, when selected, have a 10% encounter rate in that area. It's the same for every pokemon. But that 10% is distributed across 2 different encounter slots. This is because it decreases the encounter rate for 2 separate pokemon by 5% each (by replacing that slot). So there are a lot of what seem like duplicates, but they are just in different encounter slots.

The same is true for platinum, there are 2 5% "wooper" encounters that are replaced by the 2 5% encounters for the selected pokemon.

For D/P, its either encounter_slot_id 7 or 8

For Plat, its either encounter_slot_id 129 or 130.

[jemarq04]

It might look like there are duplicates, but that's just cause there are 2 encounter slots for each area. So we need them to be possible on each slot.

Say for diamond, for example. Each of the "special" pokemon, when selected, have a 10% encounter rate in that area. It's the same for every pokemon. But that 10% is distributed across 2 different encounter slots. This is because it decreases the encounter rate for 2 separate pokemon by 5% each (by replacing that slot). So there are a lot of what seem like duplicates, but they are just in different encounter slots.

The same is true for platinum, there are 2 5% "wooper" encounters that are replaced by the 2 5% encounters for the selected pokemon.

For D/P, its either encounter_slot_id 7 or 8

For Plat, its either encounter_slot_id 129 or 130.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I've done a more thorough review and the encounters are looking good - thank you for adding these in! All that's left is to address the previous comments I left. I'll take a look at your other PRs soon as well.

[jemarq04]

I also missed this in my earlier review - please add the corresponding entry in encounter_condition_prose.csv