Other EVO Process Workshop III

[DougJustDoug]

The Policy Committee voted 14-7 to pursue an evolution project -- aka EVO. Before we can do that, we need a defined process. This is the third time we have made a serious attempt to define a good process, hence the "III" in the thread name.

I don't really care what process we follow, but the new EVO process must be aligned with the goals and mission of the CAP community. Also, the EVO process must employ the same basic process mechanics as the regular CAP process -- the project will have a TL, aspects are chosen by community vote, etc.

I know several members of the community have strong opinions about how this process should work. A few of you have already drafted near-complete processes already. I have no doubt we will see those drafts very soon. Be aware that the main reason EVO has been so difficult in the past -- is because the community has very divergent opinions on how it should be run. The most important thing about this thread, is to create a process that has general consensus support from the community.

To all the stubborn, argumentative people in the community that tend to get into extended knock-down-drag-out-fights in every discussion -- be careful how you conduct yourself. If you really want an EVO project, then it benefits everyone if compromises can be reached when disputes arise. If anyone attempts to "poison the well" by arguing continually after the rest of the community has shot down an idea, then you will be banned from contributing to further discussion. Basically -- "Play nice, and come to a mutual agreement."

This is a workshop thread, not a PR thread, but...
If you aren't familiar with the basic CAP process, then don't post in this thread.

The post below this one will serve as the home for the "latest version" of the process. Moderators will keep it up to date as the workshop progresses.

 

[DougJustDoug]

EVO Process, version 1 (updated Feb. 3rd)

This is not the final process. This is simply the most recent version currently under discussion.

EVO Process - Order of Events

* Concept Submissions
Topic Leader Nominations

* Part 1 (Concept Poll)
Topic Leader Selection

* Part 2 (Pokemon Selection Discussion)
Part 2b (Pokemon Selection Poll)

* Part 3 (Typing Adjustment Discussion)
Part 3b (Typing Adjustment Poll)

* Part 4 (Ability Adjustment Discussion)
Part 4a (Ability Adjustment Poll)
Art Submissions

* Part 5 (Movepool Adjustment Discussion)
Part 5a (Movepool Adjustment Poll)

* Part 6 (Stat Adjustment Discussion)
Part 6b Stat Submissions

* Part 7 (Stat Spread Poll)

* Part 8 (Art Poll)

* Part 9 (Name Discussion)

* Part 10 (Name Poll)
Sprite Submissions

* Part 11 (Sprite Poll)

* Misc (Height, Weight, etc.)
Server Implementation

* Playtesting
Analysis

 

[the_artic_one]

Ok well I might as well go ahead and repost my idea for the first step of the process that I came up with after the last EVO blew up. I'm open to suggestions on how it can be improved now that we've had time to look back on the whole ordeal.

I've got a good idea for how to prevent this sort of thing in the future. Basically it's a combination of the "Pokemon to be given an evolution discussion" we already have and the "concept discussion" from the CaP process.
Every submission should be in this form:

[B]<Name of Pokemon to be Evolved>:<Primary Role of evolution>
Reasoning:[/B]<What basis does the pokemon have for being able to evolve 
into this role>

[B]Needs:[/B]<what the pokemon needs to be able to fill this role>

EX1:

[B]Farfetch'd: Physical sweeper
Reasoning:[/B]
A farfetch'd evolution would make an excellent physical sweeper, it already 
has great some great sweeping tools in it's arsenal such as swords dance 
and agility. Physical flying is a great attacking type for the OU environment
and most physical flyers that exist currently are BL or lower.

[B]Needs:[/B]
A better movepool, much higher stats (mostly speed and attack), and 
possibly a secondary typing that would provide a STAB that has good 
coverage combined with flying.

EX2:

[B]Farfetch'd: BP/Team Support
Reasoning:[/B]
A farfetch'd evolution has potential to be an excellent baton passer, he 
already has access to baton pass as well as agility and swords dance. He 
would be especially dangerous as a baton passer since he could punish 
switch-ins with great support moves such as: knock off, toxic, and feather
dance (a very underused move in our metagame). He could even roost off 
damage and pass multiple times.
[B]
Needs:[/B]
Better defensive stats and speed, a better secondary typing to provide 
more resists

Even though these two suggestions are using the same pokemon, they would both go on the poll (provided that they received enough support/TL digression).

This process encourages people to think (as well as vote) competitively and also shifts focus off what would be "cool" to evolve. In addition, it has the added benefit of splitting the "noob vote" since there could potentially be multiples of any given pokemon in the pokemon poll. Suddenly, the fanboy who wants to see luvdisc evolved must think about what kind of evolution he wants and how it would fit into the metagame.

 

[cyberzero]

I, for one, believe that the concept should be chosen first, similar to the current CAP process. Then, we can have a discussion regarding which Pokemon in the current lower tiers will be able to evolve and fit into that concept.

the_artic_one currently has a great idea going, but I'm concerned about the huge amount of ineligible posts that are going to be made. Although you have made some great posts, I have absolutely no doubt that there are going to be MANY posts like this:

Ariados: Physical sweeper
Reasoning:
Ariados is a really cool Pokemon but it sucks. I think we should make it that it doesn't suck as much. If it's a physical sweeper, it won't suck and we can make it be really cool and do awesome in CAP.

Needs:
It's gonna need a lot of new attacks and we should give it like OVER9000 attack and speed, maybe some HP and stuff. That way it can kill stuff and stay alive and stuff.

These posts are presumed to be deleted instantaneously, but there are also posts that are fueled by flavor but can have pseudo-competitive goals. Example:

Altaria: Defensive Supporter
Reasoning:
Altaria is like the only dragon Pokemon in UU! Then, if we make an evolution, I can have an OU mono dragon team! That would be uber cool! Hmm, I don't really have a lot of competitive reasons, but I think that having another Pokemon like Salamence would be cool because this one is a little more defensive.

Needs:
Increased stats, some more support and healing moves, and we have ourselves a pretty cool Pokemon!

It's definitely not the perfect example, but this has a lot more competitive reasoning than the last one, yet it is full of problems. A lot of flavor in it, but the idea is tough to pass off because a Pokemon with many support options with those defenses + would be a good thing to have on any OU team.

My suggestion, as I said before, would be to pick concepts and then choose the Pokemon in a later poll. The concepts won't be as flexible as Fidgit's, for example, because we will have to be able to expand upon a current niche in order to reach that, but having them as simple as "Physical Sweeper" just doesn't seem like it'll do EVO justice.

Another problem with yours is that it may lead to many redundant posts. What if two people want Farfetch'd to evolve? Which one do you choose? What if they just bandwagon and support it because it's their favorite Pokemon? We're not trying to kill flavor, but limit it. If we pick a concept and then the Pokemon that can evolve to fit that concept, it would be a lot less of a mess. You say that both would go on the concept poll, but that's why it would be flawed. They would just pick their favorite Pokemon, and then whichever concept is more badass.

Example:
Just like a regular concept thread, concepts would be suggested and voted for. Let's say this won:

Special Sponge that can hit back
A special wall like Blissey, Snorlax, Tentacruel and Tyranitar, but doesn't completely wall special attacks but can hit back with decent attack.

It's impossible to think a concept like that can win in one of our concept polls, but that's why it's an example. Now, as for the Pokemon that can evolve to fit that role, the next discussion would be to choose Pokemon that already emulate a similar concept in UU or even low OU. This would have to be accompanied by competitive reasoning and how drastic the changes to stats and movepool would have to be to evolve it satisfactorily.

I think that Grumpig can fit the concept well because it is one of the top special walls in UU currently, but it mainly runs as a sweeper, rather than the defensive sets that are all over OU right now.

Stats: Grumpig currently has 80/65/110 in regards to defensive stats, but if we increase either the HP it has then it would be able to take hits from some of the top OU threats better. Offensively, it has a 90 base special attack, which is workable but if we want this to hit back hard, it would do much better with maybe 20-30 points.

Movepool: If we give it Ice Beam, Thunderbolt and Flamethrower, it won't have to rely on weak Hidden Powers and it can be more of a threat.

This way, people can't just pick whatever Pokemon to evolve just because they feel like it because the competitive reasoning behind it would be much more demanding this way, and it would be a lot more limiting. Of course, this is subject to other problems, because it can just as easily happen here, but people will have to think more about what they're posting before they make a stupid post about how we can make Farfetch'd do a Magikarp-Gyarados and make it a special sweeper, because the difference in stats and movepool to reach the concept would influence votes.

Another problem with my suggestion is that people may come and say "Hey, why Grumpig? Why not Hypno? It's also a really good special wall in UU!" This is obviously because they are only concerned with the flavor behind a Hypno EVO, but it would be much more healthy if a post like the one for Grumpig was made for Hypno.

 

[Kamen Rider]

I think it is clear that if EVO wants to be taken seriously and run smoothly, it has to address 2 major problems from the start.

1) To curb submissions and reasoning that goes against the CaP forums basic beliefs and philosophy
2) To be able to distinguish itself from CAP in order to justify its existence.

I will get back to #1, which is an important point for every project, but I think issue #2 will make or break EVO in the long run. We all know CAPs objective is to better understand the game and metagame by exploring its various mechanics through the generated pokes we create. For this reason I do not think EVO beginning steps should be trying to promote concepts or niches, because CAP could easily take any submission along the same lines and produce something similar.

However what EVO can look at and CAP cant is the line that distinguishes OU from UU. Im sure someone out there is saying its usage statistics which is true in how we define tiers. But as we all know it completely fails at explaining why certain Pokémon are used, others are sometimes, and yet others are completely ignored in serious competitive play. CAP cant do this because they are expected to be able to perform in OU from the start, which is why people are incredibly cautious about giving negative attributes if it can be avoided.

I propose rather than voting first on what which Pokémon we want on the bases of what it might became, we vote on the type evolution we are looking for. This will help reduce the near free for all that happened last time and will let us better exam submissions in the later steps to see if they are keeping with the same idea, or just trying to promote their favorite (This is not completely foolproof but it will make the TLs job easier).

If you are wondering what I mean by type of evolution. From a competitive standpoint there really is only 4 types of reasoning to do so

1)The Borderline-These are the top of the top of UU, pokemon who have strong competitive advantages. The ones that can be used OU successful, but either require a specific strategy or major team support to be useful. The just tend to be missing one or two key aspects that prevent them from making the leap to full OU. Major issues to keep in mind is some of the BL have made OU in the past, so we don’t want to ramp up something that could be considered OU compared to a BL who really needs assistance to jump up
2)The Shadow-When a game like Pokemon grows bigger, its inevitable that their will be redundancy along the way. Whether it is typing or roles or sets, some pokemon will just outperform others. These pokemon need more than just a boost, they need to provide an incentive to use them over their similar counterparts. These pokemon may be high in UU or the may not, but what they clearly are is outclassed. The Major concern for this group is of course overshadowing the pokemon that they were overshadowed by. This group wants to diversify, not replace.
3)The Magikarp factor-The truth is most Pokémon are just bad, they have poor typing, low stats, weak movepools, unnecessary abilities or generally a compination of the previously mentioned. Even if they have some sort of distinguishing feature, it is generally no more than a weak gimmick than something to promote. To make this Pokémon competitive requires the same sort of leap one sees between Magikarp and Gryados. Unfortunately for this group, any evolution to come out of this is more or less a CAP by default.
4)Metagame Target-Rather than looking at the Pokémon, these try to fit a keyhole problem, by looking for a key in the UU that could fill it. In essence a predefined concept that just needs the right evolution to fill it. The problem is its just like the Magikarp factor, the pokemon evolved can just as easily be filled by a CAP with the same objective in mind

So out of these 4 catagories, I think #1 and #2 and excellent choices to vote on. They have pokemon that clearly fall into their catagories and are distinguishing enough reasons from regular CAP. #3 might wanted to be avoided in this EVO but could potentially be reintroduced down the line if we really want to see what an evolution from the bottom of the barrel would bring, but its so much like CAP that I think it should be done sparingly. While #4 had competitiveness in mind, it more or less opens the floodgate for any pokemon to be evolved and frankly would be bettered served through CAP than EVO.

This is merely one possible solution to the problems I mentioned, but whatever we decide on needs to address these issues if we want to avoid another disaster.

As for the concept thread part of the process, I have a one suggestion. Pokemon submitted for evolution should not include potential typings for what the Pokémon could become. Why? Because there is no objective way to justify why this Pokémon should be that typing, nor why any Pokémon that shares on of the types couldn’t just as easily fill that role. The only distinguishing reasoning is flavor, which is something we want to avoid in making mechanic decisions.

In fact it might be wise to ignore typing all together. Unique typing frankly is much of a factor when 1) A pokemon that share one of the same types could just as easily evolve into the same typing if we wanted it to and 2) CAP could just as easily create the same typing. In short, typing factors don’t really help separate EVO from CAP and run the risk of promoting poll jumping and similar bad thinking.

 

[gorm]

I dunno if my entire thread submission that discussed a potential process is being thrown out the window due to poor quality, but I might as well paraphrase it...

I am with the_artic_one in supporting a submission of niche and pokemon at once for a decision regarding the direction of the project.

1. This differentiates EVO from CAP and makes the project more "fresh" from the start.

2. allows it to get a "headstart" with better defined concepts ("niches") by focusing on pokemon as opposed to concept.

Basically, choosing a pokemon+niche as opposed to a simple concept at the start of EVO reduces many more degrees of freedom than submitting a concept alone and assigning a pokemon to it, as c0 describes above. Reducing degrees of freedom may seem like a counterintuitive approach in CAP, but I think we should focus on the advantages EVO has over
CAP, and getting a headstart+good framework is definitely one of them.

as far as which "niches" might be appropriate for EVO that;s yet to be defined but i agree with everyone who says that "fanboyish, basisless submissions should be curbed" or something along those lines.

P.S. also i disargee with the assignment of fetch'd to "baton pass physical sweeper", this seems like an arbitrary concept as opposed to improving on a niche.

1)The Borderline-These are the top of the top of UU, pokemon who have strong competitive advantages. The ones that can be used OU successful, but either require a specific strategy or major team support to be useful. The just tend to be missing one or two key aspects that prevent them from making the leap to full OU. Major issues to keep in mind is some of the BL have made OU in the past, so we don’t want to ramp up something that could be considered OU compared to a BL who really needs assistance to jump up
2)The Shadow-When a game like Pokemon grows bigger, its inevitable that their will be redundancy along the way. Whether it is typing or roles or sets, some pokemon will just outperform others. These pokemon need more than just a boost, they need to provide an incentive to use them over their similar counterparts. These pokemon may be high in UU or the may not, but what they clearly are is outclassed. The Major concern for this group is of course overshadowing the pokemon that they were overshadowed by. This group wants to diversify, not replace.
3)The Magikarp factor-The truth is most Pokémon are just bad, they have poor typing, low stats, weak movepools, unnecessary abilities or generally a compination of the previously mentioned. Even if they have some sort of distinguishing feature, it is generally no more than a weak gimmick than something to promote. To make this Pokémon competitive requires the same sort of leap one sees between Magikarp and Gryados. Unfortunately for this group, any evolution to come out of this is more or less a CAP by default.
4)Metagame Target-Rather than looking at the Pokémon, these try to fit a keyhole problem, by looking for a key in the UU that could fill it. In essence a predefined concept that just needs the right evolution to fill it. The problem is its just like the Magikarp factor, the pokemon evolved can just as easily be filled by a CAP with the same objective in mind

These are good points, Doug addresses them in an older EVO thread here. I think any prededermined list shoudl contain any pokemon with a "reasonably defined stat bias" and/or "reasonable viable" strategy it can pull off. Camerupt could be an example of the former, and Castform could be an example of the latter but i realize "reasonably" is totally undefined heh

 

[X-Act]

I plan to write a short article on how to write the base stats of a newly-evolved Pokemon. These base stats cannot be modified to our hearts' content, but follow rather strict rules, which I hope each and every one of us will adhere to.

EDIT: Here is the short article. The way it is written suggests that a physical/special bias, offensive/defensive bias and BSR can still be voted for before the Base Stats are submitted... although they are a little bit more restricted than for CAP.

 

[X-Act]

I also need to say something about the movepool of an evolution Pokemon. Most of the time, this movepool is, by and large, the same as that of its pre-evos. If the movepool is different, it is only different by a few moves, around 4 at the very most (2 from Level-up and 2 from TMs). And if the Pokemon is being evolved from a Stage 1 Pokemon, the movepool is even more restricted, basically having at most one new move from Level-up only. These are my initial conclusions I drew from looking at existing movepools.

 

[tennisace]

Here is a link to the old process, written by me. Now that there is no BL, and no NU, all Pokemon to be evolved will come from UU. I still stand by my "No Item EVOs, No Split EVOs, No Trade EVOs, No Move EVOs, No Happiness EVOs, No 3rd Stage EVOs, and No Legendary EVOs" rule. It makes things more competitive really and a lot less complicated. Also, there is no precedent for evolving one of those types of evolution (Save the Wurmple/Togepi lines).

As for the start of EVO, I strongly believe that we should do concept first. It's really the only way to get rid of the huge mess that was the first poll in EVO last time. Everyone had their own agendas for what to evolve, and nobody ended up happy since some of the better ideas got lost in the shuffle. If we do concept first, we have a direction to go in that leads us to the Pokemon, and it's more democratic then just saying "Hey we're evolving this, here's how we're going to do it."

I also disagree with deciding a niche then saying what it needs. In CAP, nobody is allowed to say how they would carry out their concept, so why should we allow them to in EVO? It really reeks of a poll-jump, since X-Act said that the stats don't really differ much on average and the movepool is only changed by a couple moves. So if you lay out what to change in the Stats or the Movepool, coupled by the fact that every Pokemon keeps at least one type on evolution (Eevee and Azumarill but who cares about them?), you have a full Pokemon in one poll.

 

[RBG]

I have 2 things to say right now

1) While I like the Arctic one's proposal, I do feel it could do without what the pokemon needs, as that part seems to be almost major poll jump. Actually, here is what I would like to see done:

• Submission thread for pokemon/concept
• 15-20 make it to the next vote (or less depending on quality of submissions)
• When we get down to 3-5, pause the voting, and open up a discussion thread for each pokemon
• after 3-4 days, vote on the remaining pokemon

2) I am against deciding we should not evolve any pokemon, bar legendaries. Just because there are no 4th level evolutions doesn't mean we can't change that for our purposes. We made a Fighting type that doesn't learn Bulk Up as a TM. Why can't we break another "norm" by nintendo standards?

 

[tennisace]

By that logic, why can't we evolve Legendaries? I also disagree with a separate thread for each Pokemon, that would be a major headache for the mods and TL, and would clog up the forum needlessly.

 

[RBG]

By that logic, why can't we evolve Legendaries? I also disagree with a separate thread for each Pokemon, that would be a major headache for the mods and TL, and would clog up the forum needlessly.

Besides the fact that all legendaries (Except phione) already have a BST of at least 580, it would involve much more care than I think would be necessary, considering that CAP has never touched a poke with more than 575 BST

 

[Frosty]

I agree with Tennis and Cyberzero. We should start with the concept and concept only for the first post. Since this is a project prone to derailing, we need something to guide us along the way even more than with CAP.

As far as suggesting a poke to go with the concept (like the_artic_one has suggested) I am completely opposed to it. If you include pokemons like that, you can bet that a reasonable number of the votes will be determinated based on the poke and not on the concept (mainly the votes from the random people who come only to click on the polls), and that is bad. As I said before, having a good concept approved is crucial to EVO, so we should make sure that the concept and concept only is being voted on. So my suggestion here is to kick off the project with a concept poll, where no pokemon discussion will be allowed at all. This may seem a bit too much, but we must make sure that we will evolve a poke because of what it brings to the table (concept), not because it is cool and all. Only after the concept is approved is that we will start a discussion about the specific pokes and choose the one that suits best the task.

 

[RBG]

The problem I have with doing it that method, is that you are almost making the Pokemon you evolve a formality imo. There are some pokemon, that given this method of voting, will not be able to be selected. And besides, in the past, just because a concept was not deleted, does not mean that it made it to the first poll. The topic leader should have the sense to realize what a good concept and what a bad concept is. I have no doubt that if their was an altaria evo written like the one that was above, it would not be excepted at all. I don't see why we should concern ourself with badly written fanboy concepts, when a good topic leader will remove them.

 

[Goodbar]

I'd like to suggest that there be a policy committee vote on whether farfetch'd should even be allowed to be submitted in the upcoming evo. Farfetch'd is the biggest and almost only fanboy threat of the evo project; in our first attempt when it was chosen, we decided that there weren't any unique or useful competitive directions for it, or at least that's the impression I got when we decided to scrap the project. Why not rid ourselves of the problem all together then?

Also I don't like the idea of predefining the niche, as there are pokemon that can fill various niches (for example, celebi). I also disagree with RBY's idea of having separate threads for each pokemon when the results are narrowed, but I agree with him that there should be more discussion at that point.

 

[latinoheat]

I know some people have been saying a concept poll beforehand is the best way, but I believe this is a horrid idea which favours the "fanboys" vote, it is also incredibly biast.

Say somebody submitted a concept of “Rapid Spinner that beats Ghosts" and another concept submitted was "Physical attacker".

Looking at the current UU pokemon exactly 11 pokemon learn rapid spin, which is without even factoring in things such as 3rd stage pokemon which will be excluded.
I haven't even looked at the UU list for things which already fit into this physical sweeper idea and just need a little upgrade to be a benefit to the OU enviroment, but I can guarantee it is significantly more then 11.


Everybody has an idea of what they want to evolve and a lot of that is for "flavour" reasons, whatever you say or how good your process is will not change everyone’s mind.
There is a much larger chance that pokemon will fit into say "physical attacker" then say rapid spinner or 90% of other concepts for that matter.

If 50 of these flavour votes happened to be for pokemon that fit under the physical attacker concept, that’s a good amount of votes and give physical attacker a good chance of winning the concept poll.

Why? Because 50 people's favourite pokemon just happened to sit under a much broader concept, not because they considered if the concept would be the "best" for the OU environment.

If each pokemon is split up into individual niches instead of lumped together under one concept, suddenly these flavour votes are much less harmful. Sure something like Farfetch'd might get 10 of these votes but it’s not going to make it win for all the wrong reasons.

Individual threads for each pokemon will no doubt clutter the forum up and be a bitch for the TL to manage. Maybe we should have 5-6 people including the TL and then people PM their pokemon discussion to one of these people and they determine if it is suitable.

This is less work for the TL and it also gets rid of the whole favouritism idea that a lot of people seem to be bitching about with the way the current concept process for CAP. If people want to say this approach demeans the TL then they need to realize the aim of this project is not a popularity contest.

 

[Deck Knight]

This was a rough outline of the process I thought up:

I remember the controversy that surrounded our first (axed) attempt at an EVO project. It was completely unfocused on the competitive aspect of the metagame and instead became a fan-for-all freight train that got derailed.

We'll need to be very careful with this. I think there needs to be a multi-tiered concept process. I'll illustrate with what I think could work:


Metagame Role:
The role this evolution would fulfill in the metagame.

For the purposes of this example, lets choose something fairly concrete, like a Baton Passer.

Metagame Role: Baton Passer

Eligible Pokemon Discussion:
The pokemon who currently fit most of the needs of a Baton Passer, e.g. either Baton Pass itself or (if really special dispensation is made) at least 2 different +2 stat boosting moves (Dragon Dance and Cosmic Power count as +2)

Given our example, pokemon that meet criteria [not OU, Basic or Stage 1]:

[B]Learn Baton Pass from Level-Up:[/B]
Mr. Mime
Furret
Ledian
Girafarig
Mawile
Plusle
Minun
Huntail
Gorebyss
Drifblim
Lopunny
[B]
Learn Baton Pass from Breeding:[/B]
Venomoth
Ariados
Delcatty
Medicham
Volbeat
Illumise
Spinda
Absol
Floatzel
[B]
Learn Baton Pass From XD:[/B]
Fearow
Rapidash
Farfetch'd
Dodrio
Hypno
Xatu
Swellow
Lunatone
Solrock

Now we have our list of eligible pokemon for evolution. Even if they don't get it by level, there's nothing really stopping us from adding it as a Level-Up or Heart Scale. From this list, we would have an eligible pokemon discussion. We'd narrow it down to a list of say, 6 or 7 to go to the first poll.

As far as eligible pokemon, the TL should come up with the original list, but if someone can offer a compelling and logical addition [in this instance, a pokemon with two passing moves and decent type, but no Baton Pass], it should be allowed.

Competitive Element Discussion:
Once narrowed down to 3 (unless there is one obvious winner), we will have a final discussion topic to decide which of the final 3 will make the best addition to the metagame, and what we may potentially have to do for them.

For the purpose of completeness, lets say the final 3 BP'ers boil down to Ariados, Xatu, and Farfetch'd. From there possible points brought up would be what they can currently pass (Spider Web/Agility vs. Miracle Eye/Calm Mind vs. Swords Dance/Agility), what you might want to add, and what the pokemon's existing movepool allows it to do.

Ariados users could for example argue that a good Trap-passer that absorbs Toxic Spikes would be in the metagame's best interest. Xatu users could mention Xatu already has lots of pseudopassing moves like the Screens, Tail Wind and Wish, and Farfetch'd users could argue that since Farfetch'd has fairly balanced stats, it could become a powerful, fairly bulky generic passer.

The trick would be to avoid getting off course. For example, Xatu also gets Thunder Wave, Trick, and Psycho Shift, but neither of these things help much directly in a passing role, although each could be used to get a setup turn. Ariados gets Sucker Punch, which might some to argue to add Swords Dance to its passable repertoire, though the trouble arises as to whether it will then act more like a sweeper and forgo Baton Pass because it got Swords Dance. Farfetch'd probably brings the most trouble because people want to pull it in a million different directions, even though the Baton Pass frame is there and fairly straightforward.

In a nutshell, I believe an EVO project needs that much control on the front end in order not to devolve into something unfocused and crazy.

Once you get beyond this point, I think there should be a Movepool Additions Section. I think Movepool should be first because it allows us to crystallize where the pokemon is going before we give it the monster attack/defense/whatever.

Movepool Additions:
Should we add to the pokemon's movepool?
(If Yes) What should we add?

Note that this would be additions corresponding to the concept. Lets say at the end of the day, Farfetch'd was selected. Keeping in mind the concept, a general moratorium on new attack moves should be considered unless they help the concept. The defense drops of Close Combat and Superpower for example would work against the concept, whereas something like Drill Peck would be mostly innocuous.

For stat boosting moves, some people might suggest Nasty Plot and Charge Beam to be considered, or perhaps Iron Defense and Amnesia, Stockpile, etc. Those would be the primary objects of discussion because of the high focus on the metagame role. Short of doing something remarkably strange with Farfetch'd stat upgrade, none of these moves in and of themselves make Farfetch'd dangerous.

Stat Upgrade Discussion:
How much should we increase this pokemon's stats [target BSR]?
Should we specialize towards offense, balance, defense in our increases?

Stat Upgrade Submissions:
Basically the Base Stats Submission for EVO.

Ability Change Discussion:
Should this pokemon keep its previous form's abilities?
[If No] What should this pokemon's changed ability be?

Flavor Polls:
All other noncompetitive polls, Height/Weight, etc.

That's a basic skeleton of how I believe EVO should be handled. The most trying and necessary parts to focus on are all in the beginning. It is a very front-loaded process but it should yield the best results.

A few notes: I believe all typing decisions should be made at the eligible pokemon list. Unless someone has a very good reason to change the type of a selected pokemon, they should choose a pokemon who best matches the type. If you want a Fighting/Flying physical sweeper, try and get a CAP to swing that way, not bastardize Farfetch'd.

Submitted for your discussion.

 

[Atlas]

that was basically what i had in mind, deck knight.

after the metagame role poll, the TL should make a list of prepared pokemon that fits its criteria. but submissions of other pokemon (in your case, if a pokemon doesnt learn baton pass) should be allowed to be discussed.

for example: "chimecho should be considered for this role because its has calm mind, light screen/reflect, any even wish. it also has an useful ability for the metagame at this time. its currently over shadowed by other psychics in other areas due to its movepool and stat distribution. by giving it baton pass it will be able impact the metagame while not dominating over the pokemon it previously shadowed."

if its discussed intelligently, like above (hopefully), write in submissions should be accepted by the TL.

 

[Hyra]

Just going to pipe in to agree with Latinoheat that the concept phased should be tied to what Pokemon we are going to evolve. If we choose a concept and then look for a Pokemon to fulfill that concept, we should have just done a regular CAP. It's better for a submitter to choose a Pokemon and then tell us what its competitive role could be, and then vote on the Pokemon/role combo we want. I see no reason to be doing an EVO unless the Pokemon we are evolving defines the project.

 

[hydrolphin]

On the possibility of a typing change in the evolutions: only 25% of evolutions in a later generation have thepokemon changing type.

Of these instances two-thirds is a single type gaining a second type. Only twice has one of the types changed (Scizor and Steelix)

Obviously, a when dealing with a mono type pokemon we are evolving (Hypno, Flotzel, Glalie) the typing poll should always be an option.

However when doing dual typed EVO there must be good reason to change one type. If we were to evolve Drifblim, typing would likely NOT be an option. Ghost/Flying is decent, unique typing. But when evolving Parasect, we would likely want the option to change its type. Personally, I believe th Policy Commitee or the TL should decide.

 

[Deck Knight]

Just going to pipe in to agree with Latinoheat that the concept phased should be tied to what Pokemon we are going to evolve. If we choose a concept and then look for a Pokemon to fulfill that concept, we should have just done a regular CAP. It's better for a submitter to choose a Pokemon and then tell us what its competitive role could be, and then vote on the Pokemon/role combo we want. I see no reason to be doing an EVO unless the Pokemon we are evolving defines the project.

Going back to me Baton Passing Example, what if someone chose "Baton Passing Farfetch'd," but in reality Illumise (/random) would have been a better Baton Passer, don't we end up doing a disservice to the metagame by not choosing the best pokemon to fulfill the Metagame Role, rather than the one a fanboy thought would be cool to evolve but also fit their concept?

Doing Metagame Role first ensures this is a competitive project. People can then choose their favorites relevant to the concept, rather than having 20 different, mutually exlcusive pokemon with concepts that they don't fit into as well as another, non-mentioned pokemon.

Nobody cares about Golduck for example, but if someone came up with "Weather Ignoring Spinda," we'd be obliged to use Spinda.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

First, I want to say I fully support the_arctic_one's suggestion for the initial submission process.

I've mentioned it before, but starting with just a strict Concept Poll will doom EVO to being a redundant, more restrictive CAP. It's not taking advantage of EVO's strengths. It will become a game of "shoehorning". You cannot evolve a pokemon properly if you don't have it the focus of the project, or else it will become a hinderance rather than an asset. A pokemon and its concept should be intrinsically tied to one another from beginning to end.

I've always said that, at the very least, the pokemon that is to be evolved must be included somewhere in the initial selection process to justify EVO. Now, with the_arctic_one's idea, we can maintain EVO's unique identity while still ensuring the project remains focused on the metagame.

I also agree with gorm on his two points. This selection process serves to differentiate EVO from CAP right from the beginning and also gives it a nice "headstart", as gorm put it.

I feel it would also start the project off on the right foot by defining a specific metagame niche that particular pokemon would fill. While CAP may be more open to unique possibilities in the beginning, I think EVO will result in pokemon that have far more focused and defined metagame uses, and this selection process reflects that.

The only thing I think could be added is a more specific outline to the Reasoning of the submission. I would suggest that each submission be made with respect to a couple of key points:

• The pokemon as it was. When an evolution is suggested, it should be made with consideration to its previous gameplay role and stats, regardless of how the proposed evolution incorporates (or discards) those attributes. In other words, one must justify why this particular pokemon should best be evolved in this manner with respect to its pre-evo.
• The pokemon as it will be. This part of the reasoning will take what was gleaned from the first point, and adapt it in such a manner as to apply it to a unique metagame niche. The submission will state exactly what benefits the evolution will bring to the metagame and how there is no other pokemon that can or will fill that gameplay niche once established. In other words, we want to eliminate competitive redundancy.

I also think Kamen Rider's "Evolution Roles" could be tied somehow into the Reasoning of a proper submission.

Also, I sincerely doubt that the_arctic_one's plan would lead to more "fanboyism" than any other suggestion. Even if we had a Concept Poll first, that's not going to stop fanboys from voting for their favorites in the following polls. In fact, I would say that fanboyism would be even more pronounced in a poll that has a reduced list of applicable pokemon, as the votes won't be quite as spread out and mitigated.

Not only that, but a fanboy-influenced pokemon selection poll after a concept poll could potentially push a pokemon into a concept that it doesn't really fit terribly well, further accentuating the "shoehorning" effect that comes with selecting a concept first, and then trying to think of a pokemon that best fits it as an afterthought.

With the_arctic_one's plan the competitive aspects are tied to the submission, so as long as proper screening is done, whatever evolution we roll forward with is guaranteed to have an effective metagame role attached to it, one that was tailored with that specific pokemon in mind from its inception.

But as we all know it completely fails at explaining why certain Pokémon are used, others are sometimes, and yet others are completely ignored in serious competitive play.

I'm glad you brought this up since it reinforces a point I made in the other thread.

EVO does have a lot to teach us about the metagame and pokemon as a gameplay system. There are many things we can learn from EVO that are not possible in CAP, and this is one of them. It should make for a fun ride. :)

EDIT:

If we choose a concept and then look for a Pokemon to fulfill that concept, we should have just done a regular CAP. It's better for a submitter to choose a Pokemon and then tell us what its competitive role could be, and then vote on the Pokemon/role combo we want. I see no reason to be doing an EVO unless the Pokemon we are evolving defines the project.

This. I agree 100%

However when doing dual typed EVO there must be good reason to change one type. If we were to evolve Drifblim, typing would likely NOT be an option. Ghost/Flying is decent, unique typing. But when evolving Parasect, we would likely want the option to change its type. Personally, I believe th Policy Commitee or the TL should decide.

I also agree with this. This would go with what I was saying about my second point in a person's Reasoning for a submission -- I think a change in typing should only be made necessary if it serves to eliminate redundancy in such a way that no other option would be better.

To be honest, though, I'd like to see a Grass/Bug typing be made to work with some creative ingenuity. I think the double-typings that would want to be addressed would be all the Normal/Flyings, if we decided to evolve them all eventually...

 

[ParadOxymoron]

Here is a link to the old process, written by me. Now that there is no BL, and no NU, all Pokemon to be evolved will come from UU.

Ho, what? When did that happen? Our old list was perfect! Why don't we stick with it?

 

[cyberzero]

Many of you are concerned with this being just like a regular CAP in terms of the beginning of the project. But our goal with this isn't to create a whole new project entirely, but to have a project based off of the current CAP process. It would be very radical and we wouldn't be able to get off to a smooth start if we just randomly start posting what Pokemon we'd want to see evolved and what they should evolve into. This would lead to CHAOS.

Let's say someone just wanted to see Armaldo evolved or something because it's their favorite Pokemon. Then, if they say they want it to become a faster Rhyperior, for example, by saying Physical Sweeping Tank, people would bandwagon just because they want to see Armaldo evolved. With the concept first, the bandwagoning in the next poll won't mean as much because the concept is secure.

 

[Deck Knight]

Many of you are concerned with this being just like a regular CAP in terms of the beginning of the project. But our goal with this isn't to create a whole new project entirely, but to have a project based off of the current CAP process. It would be very radical and we wouldn't be able to get off to a smooth start if we just randomly start posting what Pokemon we'd want to see evolved and what they should evolve into. This would lead to CHAOS.

Let's say someone just wanted to see Armaldo evolved or something because it's their favorite Pokemon. Then, if they say they want it to become a faster Rhyperior, for example, by saying Physical Sweeping Tank, people would bandwagon just because they want to see Armaldo evolved. With the concept first, the bandwagoning in the next poll won't mean as much because the concept is secure.

This. The reason I want to avoid starting with a Pokemon first, even if starting with an attached concept is that we'd have the same fiasco we had last time. A concept should win on the merits of the concept, and not on the net fanboyism its attached pokemon brings.

Thus once we have a concept, pokemon compete on an even playing field, and we get a full spectrum of choices rather than 20 individual user's favorite pokemon tailored to what they wish it could do.