Policy Review Principles Regarding Updating Past CAP Pokemon

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ignus

Copying deli meat to hard drive
Echoing Deck Knight / Heal / a bunch of other people on the 'not breaking the archetype' bit. Literally the only thing important to me is that the original Concept the creation of a CAP (you know, the one we based all of our decisions around when making the Pokemon) isn't broken with the introduction of new stuff. If the updates can convince me of that, I don't see any problem with updating past CAPs. Whether or not this is something that needs to go through a CAP metagame council or if giving the less viable new toys is a good idea is outside of my bucket of fucks. Can't give anymore for that.


The only other thing to be mentioned is archiving the 'original state' with something like 4th/5th/6th/7th gen tabs on each dex page, or with some sort of changelog for each project. I don't want to mangle the original products of our predecessors - there's still a lot to be learned even from projects that didn't go as well so we should keep them in their original state safe somewhere public and easy to access. I don't want old souls to come back, look at their old projects they worked on and go "YO why's my cool thing changed to this garbage" without having a full document thoroughly explaining why we changed it.
If we're talking about a serious rebalance project, this is something that should be handled by a CAP metagame council / public vote of some sort. We don't have multiple tiers for a good reason, so using rebalanced CAP mons as a way of 'fixing' the metagame as a replacement of the bans in other tiers is fine. But once again, keeping some sort of change log is important for the integrity and transparency of the project.

So basically:
  • Stick to the original concepts
  • Document everything. Like, everything. Put it somewhere important looking with full justifications.
  • Create a council or use some sort of ladder based voting if we're seriously talking about re-balancing stuff. How we do it I don't care - as long as it's transparent to the public.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of a council I have more of what I worked on along with Blackdrakon30 and Broken Phobias, this came before the aforementioned CAP Revision Panel Process that I posted a while back!

So here is how the council (in my opinion) should be run, although it could be run in any number of ways.

Revision Project Panel

The CRP, which also stands for "CAP Revision Panel", is the group of members who participate in the editing process of former CAPs. In order to have this group work effectively, it cannot be purely democratic. Yes, we realise this is a fairly radical concept in the eyes of some people, since most of the CAP process is based upon democracy. However, it is necessary to have a power structure, similar to the main CAP Process and some world governments, in order to keep the process running smoothly and prevent uninformed people from making rash decisions in regards to edits.

The Basics:
  • The government would operate similar to the PRC, where there is a team of people with a few notable positions. Remember that the CAP Leaders figures, such as DougJustDoug, HeaLnDeaL, Jas, Birkal, and so on all have significant influence in the project as well, and can do within the project what is necessary and allowed by their power.​
  • Position 1: Revision Panel Leader: The person who resides over the CRP actions. They mostly moderate and guide the section, like a CAP TL, but can veto edits or concepts that they deem uncompetitive or anti-goal. The Panel Leader or the aforementioned CAP Leaders create the polls and discussion topics throughout the process. They are elected through a topic, elected by the Public Voters, at the start of every Revision project, similar to the TL in the main CAP Project process.​
  • Postisions 2-6: The Majority Panel: There are 7 of these people, chosen every so often by the public. These 7 users only have the extra authority of being able to override the President's veto if they obtain a 4 out of 7 vote or more, which allows the edit/concept to be passed through the president. They can also veto an edit/concept if a majority vote is obtained. The Majority Panel is applied for at the start of every other Revision project, similar to the TLT. This allows the Majority Panel to remain more consistent and not sway as easily to sudden voter trends. The voters who participate in the vote for Majority Panel are the Panel Voters.​
  • Panel Voters: These are voters who apply in a topic, similar to the PRC. This has more stringent qualifications than PRC, as you must be active in the Pokemon Showdown CAP Room or at least possess significant knowledge about the CAP metagame. Ideally these people should be trustworthy and make their decisions not out of personal agendas, but make their choices in a way that achieves the goal best. You can apply for Panel Voter at any time, and if you are accepted for the Panel Voter position, you can participate in the process immediately. The Panel Voters are responsible for voting for the Majority Panel, and for voting on the final alteration decisions.​
  • Public Voters: These are the people who are the main public. This position includes the Panel Voters addition to the Majority Panel. This is identical to normal voters in the main CAP process. They vote for the Panel Leader at the start of every project, and vote for the Goal at the start of every process as well. They are eligible for applying for Panel Leader, Majority Panel, or Panel Voters.​
Sidenotes:
  • The Panel Leader would be elected via polls by the Public Voters in the same way as the TL is elected in the normal CAP Process. Their application is recommended to be similar to the CAP TL requirements.​
  • Note that the Majority Panel is elected via polls every other project, and are voted in by the Panel Voters. Their requirements for application are metagame knowledge, trustworthiness, (Ideally) experience, and it is smart to provide some info about yourself.​
  • The Majority Panel is most and foremost a check to the Revision Panel Leader's vetoes. The role of the Revision Panel Leader is to moderate discussion and ensure that uncompetative or anti-concept edits are not made, and to veto edits that would go against the "Fundamental Changes" Rules. The Majority Panel's main capability is to veto as well, but also to check the power of the Panel Leader. As a whole, the seven Majority Panel users have more power than the Panel Leader, but individually, they are not particularly powerful. The Majority Panel is chosen by the Panel Voters, because they are chosen to represent the "Majority" of the "Panel".​
 
Last edited:

Drapionswing

Eating it up, YUMMY!
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
Speaking of a council I have more of what I worked on along with Blackdrakon30 and Broken Phobias, this came before the aforementioned CAP Revision Panel Process that I posted a while back!

So here is how the council (in my opinion) should be run, although it could be run in any number of ways.

Revision Project Panel

The CRP, which also stands for "CAP Revision Panel", is the group of members who participate in the editing process of former CAPs. In order to have this group work effectively, it cannot be purely democratic. Yes, we realise this is a fairly radical concept in the eyes of some people, since most of the CAP process is based upon democracy. However, it is necessary to have a power structure, similar to the main CAP Process and some world governments, in order to keep the process running smoothly and prevent uninformed people from making rash decisions in regards to edits.

The Basics:
  • The government would operate similar to the PRC, where there is a team of people with a few notable positions. Remember that the CAP Leaders figures, such as DougJustDoug, HeaLnDeaL, Jas, Birkal, and so on all have significant influence in the project as well, and can do within the project what is necessary and allowed by their power.​
  • Position 1: Revision Panel Leader: The person who resides over the CRP actions. They mostly moderate and guide the section, like a CAP TL, but can veto edits or concepts that they deem uncompetitive or anti-goal. The Panel Leader or the aforementioned CAP Leaders create the polls and discussion topics throughout the process. They are elected through a topic, elected by the Public Voters, at the start of every Revision project, similar to the TL in the main CAP Project process.​
  • Postisions 2-6: The Majority Panel: There are 7 of these people, chosen every so often by the public. These 7 users only have the extra authority of being able to override the President's veto if they obtain a 4 out of 7 vote or more, which allows the edit/concept to be passed through the president. They can also veto an edit/concept if a majority vote is obtained. The Majority Panel is applied for at the start of every other Revision project, similar to the TLT. This allows the Majority Panel to remain more consistent and not sway as easily to sudden voter trends. The voters who participate in the vote for Majority Panel are the Panel Voters.​
  • Panel Voters: These are voters who apply in a topic, similar to the PRC. This has more stringent qualifications than PRC, as you must be active in the Pokemon Showdown CAP Room or at least possess significant knowledge about the CAP metagame. Ideally these people should be trustworthy and make their decisions not out of personal agendas, but make their choices in a way that achieves the goal best. You can apply for Panel Voter at any time, and if you are accepted for the Panel Voter position, you can participate in the process immediately. The Panel Voters are responsible for voting for the Majority Panel, and for voting on the final alteration decisions.​
  • Public Voters: These are the people who are the main public. This position includes the Panel Voters addition to the Majority Panel. This is identical to normal voters in the main CAP process. They vote for the Panel Leader at the start of every project, and vote for the Goal at the start of every process as well. They are eligible for applying for Panel Leader, Majority Panel, or Panel Voters.​
Sidenotes:
  • The Panel Leader would be elected via polls by the Public Voters in the same way as the TL is elected in the normal CAP Process. Their application is recommended to be similar to the CAP TL requirements.​
  • Note that the Majority Panel is elected via polls every other project, and are voted in by the Panel Voters. Their requirements for application are metagame knowledge, trustworthiness, (Ideally) experience, and it is smart to provide some info about yourself.​
  • The Majority Panel is most and foremost a check to the Revision Panel Leader's vetoes. The role of the Revision Panel Leader is to moderate discussion and ensure that uncompetative or anti-concept edits are not made, and to veto edits that would go against the "Fundamental Changes" Rules. The Majority Panel's main capability is to veto as well, but also to check the power of the Panel Leader. As a whole, the seven Majority Panel users have more power than the Panel Leader, but individually, they are not particularly powerful. The Majority Panel is chosen by the Panel Voters, because they are chosen to represent the "Majority" of the "Panel".​
I don't think a rotating CRP would be as good as a permanent CRP that people are allowed to join when they're offered/invited by one of the higher-ups. My reasoning for this is if we have a council of say 7 people they'd be able to actually start a revision in a group vote "ok the caps I think need revision here are ______ [Insert CAP(s) here]" and then they would then post the thread "Revision 1: [CAP Name here]" with the reasons for the revisions etc.

As well as that, revisions are extremely delicate and I'd rather the same trusted people doing them over again than people who are less-trusted due to less involvement in the process(in comparison to the 7). However the 7 won't/shouldn't be exclusive as just like any council, anyone who's showed a high amount of dedication to CAP as a whole should/may be "recruited" to join the council.

On an unrelated note I'm just gonna throw out a question:
Would there be a set limit on the amount of revisions per generation?
I'm aware that Deck Knight Suggested once per game/generation but I'm assuming that was targeted more towards giving Caps positive updates like new moves rather than negative Updates like removing moves as I guess it made more sense to me in that way.

Lastly I just wanted to point out the fact that Revisions, even though they shouldn't be as frequent as the regular creation process, allows us to actually have a filler to keep people interested between caps sometimes which I know is somewhat of a concern
 
I don't think a rotating CRP would be as good as a permanent CRP that people are allowed to join when they're offered/invited by one of the higher-ups.
Sure thing, this is just an idea and is in no way final, I must say I agree with your sentiment!

Would there be a set limit on the amount of revisions per generation?
Two to Three in my opinion we don't want to chew through all the CAPs at once, this also gives us something to do in between each new CAP.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
I'm glad DK made this policy discussion, because we've been kicking this around behind the scenes for a while. As you can see in the OP, there is a lot of history here when it comes to revisions, reversions, and everything in between. But a lot of things have changed in the real Pokemon games and Pokemon metagames since our last foray into this area, so I'm glad we are revisiting this topic.

I am personally in favor of updating past CAP pokemon now -- which is a reversal of my longtime previous stance. I have been a very vocal critic of revisions, ever since our first revision project failed. To be fair to all those that worked on that project, I will defend that it was NOT considered to be a disaster at the time. It was a project that started much like this thread is starting right here and now.

There was a general discontent with some past CAPs, and the people that played the CAP metagame actively on the simulator were itching to make some changes. Several active metagame players at the time went off into a special workplace (a VBulletin special interest "Group", which was kinda like a subforum) and revised some past CAP mons. It was a "Revision Council" of sorts, much like the recent proposal in this thread. And the people that worked on the project thought they were doing good things for the CAP project with the revisions. Unfortunately, even though the revision project was open to anyone to discuss and participate, not many people stayed involved, and the project kinda went off the rails in terms of what the general public considered reasonable. As more and more people experienced the revised Pokemon, there was more and more outcry over the results.

Now history has branded the original revision effort as obviously stupid or misguided, with Dragon Dance Pyroak as its infamous poster child. But don't get too comfortable with the idea that "this time will be different". Because that first revision project was not some knee-jerk impulsive effort organized by idiots. A lot of time and effort went into those revisions, and the most active leaders and participants on the project were some of the best and brightest CAP members at the time. Sounds familiar, right?....

Just remember that, like almost everything else in CAP, if it's not a mainline CAP creation project, it's not going to get much participation. No matter how much we advertise the revisions and make them open for everyone (even if the revision threads are in the main CAP forum), the number of people that will take the time to discuss and vote and whatever -- will be small fraction of the people that participate in our main forum creation projects. So when the relatively small group of people working on revisions make decisions, even if those decisions are UNANIMOUSLY LOVED AND SUPPORTED by the working group -- there is no guarantee (or even likelihood) that the decisions will be loved and supported later by the CAP community at large when they get around to noticing what was done.

I'm not saying this as a reason to NOT revise or update CAP pokemon. Like I said at the top of this post, I am now in favor of updating our creations, after opposing it for many years. I'm just reminding everyone that public optics on Create-A-Pokemon is a real bitch to navigate.

CAP specializes in making hundreds, sometimes thousands, of people feel ownership over our creations. So there are plenty of vocal critics that feel entitled to bitch about decisions pertaining to these creations. And if you think you can blow them off with, "Haters gonna hate" or whatever -- don't kid yourselves. I agree you can't please everybody, but be very careful in making decisions with a small group of CAP diehards, thinking the general CAP public will agree with you. DDOak is a cautionary tale, because it was an intentional effort by an intelligent group of CAP veterans that turned out to be almost universally reviled by the CAP project at large. Let's not organize this revision project the same way and expect different results. Inb4 definition of insanity yada, yada, yada...

I'll post again later on a few things related to "Guiding Principles" for a revision project, related to the principles Deck Knight posted earlier. Also, I won't quote his post here, but I agree almost completely with everything reachzero posted earlier. Really great post, RZ ;-)
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
There is a lot of stuff going on here, and far too much for me to comment on all in one post, but I want to start by getting out there my long held beliefs on this issue - we should update CAPs, but only logically, based on what makes sense for the Pokemon to have (flavor wise or based on thier concept). We should not try and make competitive adjustments to try and reach some desired competitive end. All metagames are fluid, and such attempts at manipulation are destined for failure.

I think reachzero had the post I agree with the most so far. The CAP metagame has become a much bigger part of the project than it ever has before, at least in my time here, and at the moment it largely features Pokemon that are stuck in the past, lacking expected things for no real reason other than because they are old. That was a fine excuse when the metagame was a small thing few people took any note of, but nowadays, whether we continue to do projects directly for it or not, the metagame has taken on a life of its own, and I think in such an environment, our CAP Pokemon deserves more that to just sit there, unchanging forever, while everything else changes around them. That said, we should not try to do too much. As I already noted, overly specific updates with regard to a metagame are doomed to fail, so we should root any and all updates in... well... bringing things up to date. Not in changing things. As reachzero said, "We should 'update' rather than 'revise.'" This should be a chance bring our CAPs out of the past, not to try and remold them to something new.

As somewhat of an aside, while I think we should do some updates, I believe there is one very important thing to remember. This is somewhat of a restatement of what I have said above, but from a different point of veiw that I think is relevant:

No Pokemon deserves to be in a specific tier. No matter how cool it is, or how powerful it was last generation, or anything else. How good a Pokemon is today is a product of the individual elements that make it up today. I have used this argument in the past with regard to tiering philosophy when I felt that people were trying to ban (or avoid banning) something based on pre-conceived notions of power based on experiences with previous generations. I think it applies here too, though, with regard to our CAP Pokemon. A tier can only support so many top threats. As more Pokemon are introduced, others get pushed out. Simply put, we are at the point where not all CAP Pokemon can be top tier threats, and nor should we be concerned with trying to make that so, as doing so would be foolhardy. In other words, no, not all CAPs deserve to be good in the current metagame. On a similar note, no individual CAP deserves to be good in the current metagame. If, by some random chance, after updates Tomohawk suddenly stops being a top tier threat for the first time in its existence, so be it. It doesn't deserve to be good any more than any other CAP.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I had several thoughts last night that I wanted to put down in brief:

First, I don't think any of the Councils we have on Smogon are structured the way KrazyCake/Blackdragon/Broken Phobias is. I will fully admit I state this from a position of ignorance on Councils within Smogon generally (never having been on one), however I don't think we should jump into a structure like that, where we set a goal at the outset.

Rather, the idea I had last night is that each CAP be revised during a generation following a miniature, expedited model of our current CAP Process (Ability/Competitive Movepool/Flavor Movepool).

At the beginning of each generation we would assess how CAPs perform both at the end of the last generation and within the first two months of the new one. At that point we convene a vote for each CAP as to whether we should update their movepool and abilit(ies), or just their movepool. As reach stated, there is almost no justification for altering our CAP creation's stats, and as much as I might like to tinker with a 141 HP/115 Spe Updated Speed Tier Krilowatt, that kind of super-specific tweaking seems outside the scope of what we're looking to do.

Back to the process I have in mind:

Once we determine whether both ability and movepool or just movepool are to be updated for each CAP (Basically, Ability + Movepool Update CAP vs Movepool Update Only CAP), we hold a second poll in the thread to get a sense of which Update Threads should open first (so we don't have 22 threads open simultaneously.) Pokemon with Ability updates will go first by default, Pokemon with Movepool Updates will be determined either by MBV or a weighted method - which is not relevant, the bottom line is we have a maximum of 3 Update Threads open at a time

Instead I propose a modified CAP System.

Interested Players would sign up to be an Update Leader for that CAP, and with moderator guidance preside over a thread that would contain all the update process for that CAP. The parameters of these discussions would focus on Removals and New Additions. Each thread then proceeds as it would in a CAP, with Ability going first, then Competitive Moves, then Flavor Moves. The finalized movepool would be edited for completeness (i.e. if a Competitive Move was also a tutor like Cyclohm's Draco Meteor, it'd be listed as a tutor) and then that would be the CAP we play in the metagame for the new generation.

Removals: The elimination of an Ability or Move from the Pokemon's available moves that Gen. There is actually a precedence here if we treat CAPs like the Forme-Pikachus, which can't be transferred to another Gen. This may lead to a situation where, say, Gen 6 Aurumoth is entirely different from Gen 7, but that may be desirable.
New Additions: For Abilities, if an Ability is removed, the Ability thread will then discuss whether there should be a replacement ability or no additional ability. For Moves, we would essentially reconsider the Pokemon's entire competitive movepool, with a strong preference for retaining all of the original competitive moves that keep within the Concept and Role and the Pokemon. New Additions can come from any generation, including the source generation of the CAP.

During mid-gen releases, we could then either selectively repeat this process or simply do a flavor update modeled after the non-competitive move discussion.

Here's the process in steps:

Process Part I. New Update Trigger Occurs (New Gen or Game Release) [1 wk total]
CAP Opens Applications for Update Leader (CAP)s - -
Before Second Month of Game Release, Close Applications and Poll to determine selection order (UL's get choice in order of voted received) (24 Hrs)
After the second month of Game Release, Open Discussion as to which CAPs should be updated in which way. (4 Days)
Poll update method of CAPs (3 Options: Ability + Moves Update / Moves Update / Flavor Only, One Selection only each subsection) (48 Hrs)
Poll is taken as to the priority of selected updates (sorted by competitive importance), and UL's choose from among the top options. (24 Hrs)

Process Part II. Three Update Threads are opened simultaneously - [1.5 weeks for Ability, 1 week for Competitive + Flavor Updates, 3 Days for Flavor Updates]
Update Leaders open their Pokemon-Specific Thread (preference for thread selection decided by highest vote-recipients in order.) - -
Ability Discussion Occurs (If None, Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Competitive Moves Discussion Occurs (If None [mid-gen update], Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Flavor Moves Addition Discussion Occurs (2 Days)
CAP Finalizes Movepool with a poll. (24 Hrs)
CAP Repeats Process Part II. with next highest priority CAP until updates on all CAPs are complete.
New Generation / Release Officially opens, and Ladder is reset.

I understand this seems overly complex, however here are the benefits:
  • All steps are decided in a manner consistent with how CAP Operates as a project and competitively.
  • Shared Responsibilities and Opportunities for Forum Leadership are created.
  • Reduced potential for bias within the update workgroup by utilizing a slate/mod/intelligent community consensus model.
  • The process is flexible, repeatable, and replicatable.
  • Once all Competitive Updates are taken care of (Ability and updates with high Competitive priority), remaining CAP flavor updates have minimal to no impact on metagame state even if considerable time is taken to finish the updates.

Here are some drawbacks, for balance and completeness:
  • It's quite possible most voters want nothing changed or especially no removals that nerf the CAPs, and this democratic system has no safeguard for that.
  • Time consuming to discuss and gather public opinion, even the most relevant competitive changes will take on the order of a month to implement for the 8 or so Pokemon most affected.
  • Complexity may interfere with an ongoing CAP Project, delaying it further or splitting resources.
 
Last edited:

BP

Beers and Steers
is a Contributor to Smogon
Okay I have to say that I really love how this is structured. It is really easy to follow and wouldn't take that long. What Deck Knight proposed seems to be extremely efficient and I love the proposed process. I appreciate how efficient this and I hope others see it the same way.

The one thing I worry about is the democratic system and if this is what people actually want. So far while looking through this thread it seems most people are for granting our CAPs the ability to be updated but this still worries me for the masses that aren't on PRC. I am also worried about our CAPs becoming over productive and straying away from their designated concept. Dragon Dance Pyroak for example was broken and please correct me if I'm wrong but this was because of an update to Pyroak's movepool. If something is broken, how would we fix it? Would we hold a suspect test which can take around 2 weeks to determine if said CAP should be analyzed? This is just something that I worry about and I hope we can find a solution to this if we have not already found one.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
DD Pyroak was broken because we changed Pyroak's stat line so it had 105 Atk and 70 Spe, along with basically the same level of bulk. We didn't have a Build Triangle (Bulky/Powerful/Fast - Pick Two.) then but DD Pyroak smashed that thing to hell and back.

You could throw DD on Pyroak's original stat line now and it would just be laughably bad. As pointed out though, the idea is to have someone actively looking to guide an update by the principles and process we set in this thread, and there will be moderator and public scrutiny along with it.
 

reachzero

the pastor of disaster
is a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I very much like Deck Knight's proposal, most of all because right now we have a lot of time. It is hard to overstate just how messy OU really is: we could still be anywhere from 3-5 Suspect tests away from a reasonably stable metagame, and who knows what the final metagame will look like? There will never be a better time to do this, and to do it right. Moreover, I feel that Deck's concern that people may not want to change anything is unwarranted--even if this is the case, it will represent a clear mandate, and therefore a victory for the system. I'd be perfectly comfortable doing the updates that way.
 

snake

is a Community Leaderis a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
I like DK's proposal, as long as the removals part doesn't touch the CAP exclusive moves and abilities (Persistent, Paleo Wave, Shadow Strike, Rebound). I already spoke about why I don't want these to be removed, but I feel like it'd be worth restating alongside my support for his proposal.
 

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
For the most part I can get behind Deck's proposal. However, two details in particular bother me.

Deck argues that things such as the Pikachu forms are not transferable and thus prevents certain moves from being in their Gen7 movepool. However, CAP Pokemon do not have unique forms. They have one form and one form only, and only one single CAP even has event moves. It does not make any sense for any CAPmon to lose any of their moves because there is no reason why any of the CAPmons should not be transferable in full to Gen7.

Secondly, in Deck's system there is an option for a CAPmon to lose an ability but not gain one to replace it. I believe that if a CAPmon loses an ability it should be replaced with a new one, even if the new one is just a flavor ability. There is no precedent for a GameFreak mon losing an ability without gaining one to replace it. Pokemon don't really "lose" abilities, they are either added or traded.
 
I'm cool with Deck Knight's proposal. And I think reachzero brings up a good point: if we want to move forward with this sort of proposal, now would be the optimal time to do so. CAP revisions and a CAP project should not happen simultaneously for a few reasons. For one, this splits the competitive community's focus between the two efforts, and not everyone has the spare time to devote to two major projects. Perhaps more importantly, especially if we continue building for the CAP metagame, it's illogical for us to be altering the metagame as we're trying to build something for it. So if revisions happen, they should really be before CAP 23 begins (which I personally think is ideal as the OU/CAP metagames will very likely be undergoing shifts as suspect tests occur), or perhaps during the downtime in between projects. I know that this is usually when pre-evolution projects happen, but I think it'd be alright to run a revision project and a pre-evolution project simultaneously; one has competitive implications, the other does not.
The only other thing to be mentioned is archiving the 'original state' with something like 4th/5th/6th/7th gen tabs on each dex page, or with some sort of changelog for each project. I don't want to mangle the original products of our predecessors - there's still a lot to be learned even from projects that didn't go as well so we should keep them in their original state safe somewhere public and easy to access. I don't want old souls to come back, look at their old projects they worked on and go "YO why's my cool thing changed to this garbage" without having a full document thoroughly explaining why we changed it.
If we're talking about a serious rebalance project, this is something that should be handled by a CAP metagame council / public vote of some sort. We don't have multiple tiers for a good reason, so using rebalanced CAP mons as a way of 'fixing' the metagame as a replacement of the bans in other tiers is fine. But once again, keeping some sort of change log is important for the integrity and transparency of the project.
I agree with this point a lot; I think it's important that the original creation is preserved and archived in some form or another in a way that is accessible (probably on the CAP site). On a somewhat related note, if we do decide to update the learnset or abilities of past gen CAP mons, I strongly believe that this should only impact the CAP metagame for Gen 7 and onward, leaving the 4th/5th/6th generation metagames intact. This is only relevant in situations where past gen CAP is played (CAPTT), but this ensures that players get to battle in the format that was actually played, not one where Voodoom has Wonder Guard and Shell Smash or whatever.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Before I write a conclusion, I just want to condense a few things we discussed to get a total scope of the thread.
Principles:

1. Justification: GameFreak updates its "face of the franchise" (competitively) Pokemon at regular intervals in competitively significant ways. CAP should do the same with our "face of the franchise," our CAP Pokemon.
2. Definition: An Update is defined as an addition to a Pokemon's Movepool, or a change in their Ability. Base Statistics Updates will not be considered. Abilities are to be replaced, not removed, consistent with in-game precedent.
3. Frequency: Movepool Updates should be conducted upon each new game release, Ability Updates should be considered upon each new generation's release.
4. Continuity: All Updates should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Established Identity (Metagame Role, "CAP-iness" of the CAP.)
5. Coherence: All Updates should have sound competitive reasoning and /or in-game precedent (ex. From BW2 Tutors Electric and most Bug types getting ElectroWeb, most bipedal Fighting types getting Dual Chop).
6. Appearance: All Updates should consider the overall optics of that revision and how it will impact perception of the CAP Community.

Process:

The Process is structured like an expedited CAP Process, starting by nominating and electing Update Leaders who will guide the updates along using the traditional Discussion/Slate/Intelligent Community Consensus Model.

Process Part I:
New Update Trigger Occurs (New Gen or Game Release) [~2 wks total]


Nominate and Select Update Leaders:
CAP Opens Applications for Update Leaders (4 Days)
Close Applications and Poll to determine selection order (UL's get choice in order of votes received) (24 Hrs)

Update Priority Discussion: [Opened By Moderators]
Open Discussion as to which CAPs should be updated in which way. (4 Days)
Poll update method of CAPs (3 Options: Ability + Moves Update / Moves Update / Flavor Only, One Selection only each subsection) (48 Hrs)
Poll is taken as to the priority of selected updates (sorted by competitive importance), and UL's choose from among the top options. (24 Hrs)
ULs select CAPs to be updated are prioritized based on complexity (Ability + Moves First, Then Competitive Moves, Then Flavor Only)

Process Part II:
Three Update Threads are opened simultaneously by ULs - [~1.5 weeks for Ability, ~1 week for Competitive + Flavor Updates, ~3 Days for Flavor Only Updates]
Update Leaders open their Pokemon-Specific Thread (preference for thread selection decided by highest vote-recipients in order.) - -

Ability Discussion Occurs (If None, Skip) (3 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Competitive Moves Discussion Occurs (If None [mid-gen update], Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Flavor Moves Addition Discussion Occurs (2 Days)
CAP Finalizes Movepool with a poll. (24 Hrs)

CAP Repeats Process Part II with the next highest priority CAP until updates on all CAPs are complete.

New Generation / Release Officially opens, and Ladder is reset.

If these Principles and Process are amenable to the PRC, please post in support. Given several posts suggesting the time to begin this process is sooner rather than later, I want to ensure that we are neither rushing this, nor dragging our feet.

Notable changes to previous posts are that removals of moves are not considered, abilities are always replaced not removed, and wording changes that incorporates reachzero's post into my original principles.
 

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I mentioned this earlier, but my only point yet to be incorporated into the current proposal is that I think updates should happen once every generation, regardless of tutor moves brought in mid generation (or at the very least limit tutor updates to flavor only). I won't fight tooth and nail for this, but we already make sure our competitively relevant moves are added regardless of what tutor moves are available so I don't see any reason why we should add competitively relevant moves mid generation (in the form of tutor moves). Making competitive updates twice every generation is a lot of extra work with no real benefit and so I believe the (competitively relevant) updates should occur near the start of a generation and not again during mid gen. Changing everything twice is a ton of extra bureaucratic work and potentially has conflicts with the CAP creation process. CAP will never make a new CAPmon during the immediate start of a new generation, giving this update process room to operate smoothly. I'm not confident in saying that the same can be said during mid gen. Obviously we'll know ahead of time and will be able to plan according when a new game comes out, so I don't anticipate us still making a new CAP when a mid-gen game is released. However, since mid-gen games offer smaller updates it is very possible for us to want to start making a new CAP two weeks or so after their release (as in sign ups for TLT might start two weeks after and the actual process might happen a month after release), and having to deal with these updates first could delay the main process. In the beginning of a gen, there's a very safe two or three month period as the metagame settles, allowing plenty of room for updates, but this room might not always be available mid-gen.

EDIT: I also very much appreciate the time frame Deck provided in his proposal, but I personally think the timeframes should be estimates rather than hard rules. Under no circumstance do I think a 3 day discussion should become 6, but if the update leader thinks its appropriate to extend 3 days into 4 then that would be fine with me. A +/- 1 day rule for discussions seems to offer the best mix of letting the update leader attend to the needs of the discussion while making sure things are done in a timely manner.

I also think that updates should operate similarly to our current movepool stage in that items with broad consensus have no need to be polled on. Only moves/abilities without a consensus should be polled on.
 
Last edited:

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Timeframes are approximates, based on projects we've done in the past and also because this has a lot of base materials already assumed.

I am getting pushback on move removals, however. I think it's possible to balance our CAPs without removing some moves, but there's no doubt in the updates discussion people will be discussing the fact many CAPs have excellent coverage and excellent support, and their support is even more excellent because something that would otherwise check them can't (e.g. I find myself running Earth Power more than Aura Sphere on hawk just because of what it targets alone). I personally would like removals to be possible, but I want to get more opinions on it before we finalize a conclusion.
 

snake

is a Community Leaderis a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
Personally, the only moves that shouldn't be removed are the CAP exclusives blah blah blah already said this. I think removing some moves on certain CAPmons is ok, but they can't contradict the concept (e.g. Hazehawk is a good momentum stopper, don't get rid of Haze on Tomohawk). Also, we shouldn't get too remove-happy; I'd say remove like 3 moves maximum if it even comes to that. We shouldn't even be removing moves from too many Pokemon anyways. The number isn't my final opinion, but my point is that we shouldn't say that we can't remove any moves. And if we are going to remove a move, it should have to have a lot of support to get the change through.
 

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
The problem with removing moves from a CAP from my understanding with my past fakemon server is also a coding issue. If a mon is shown to learn a move in Gen 4 or 5 or 6, it will learn it in gen 7 based on the code. If we remove a move, it inherently must be removed from past generation learnsets.js or whatever the file is called, which screws up things like CAPTT and does not leave an accurate record of the past CAPmons, which we all seemed to agree on earlier. Removing moves now is a code problem and unnecessary. Once again, my knowledge is somewhat limited, but as far as I know based on my own experience, it's not possible to keep a CAPmon on the server with it know a move in Gen4 or 5 or 6 and not knowing it in Gen7. A roundabout way to resolve this would be to code Gen5/Gen6 Aurumoth (for example) as a completely separate Pokemon than Gen7 Aurumoth and then just ban Gen5/6 Aurumoth from the current metagame. But imo such a process is convoluted and not a good system to run. EDIT: spark says he thinks there's a way without additional species being coded, but it's still convoluted and I still personally don't think it's necessary.
 
Last edited:
Personally, the only moves that shouldn't be removed are the CAP exclusives blah blah blah already said this. I think removing some moves on certain CAPmons is ok, but they can't contradict the concept (e.g. Hazehawk is a good momentum stopper, don't get rid of Haze on Tomohawk). Also, we shouldn't get too remove-happy; I'd say remove like 3 moves maximum if it even comes to that. We shouldn't even be removing moves from too many Pokemon anyways. The number isn't my final opinion, but my point is that we shouldn't say that we can't remove any moves. And if we are going to remove a move, it should have to have a lot of support to get the change through.
I wouldn't imagine we'd take away too many moves. We'd probably be adding more than we're subtracting.
 

snake

is a Community Leaderis a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
All I'm saying is that we shouldn't lock ourselves out of it, and if we do remove moves, we should do so very sparingly.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Wasn't aware of the coding aspect. Although can't we just add a clause in Tier Validation like the move legalities that are still codified, or is that not supported since Egg Legalities specifically don't exist anymore (but there are Event and Nature Legalities so...)

Like lets say we removed Overheat on Aurumoth. Wouldn't the coding solution just be that Overheat is illegal on Gen 7 Aurumoth?
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I've had a few discussions, and for now we're tentatively allowing the removal of moves in the original proposal. The sticking point is going to be what our safeguards are in not going too far the other way. Which brings us to nailing down the final controversial topic of this thread:

Update Leader Powers

Having established we want an expedited CAP-style system for doing updates, it is not imperative that we focus on what we want our leaders to do.

An Update Leader is much like a section leader in a regular CAP, however since there is no overarching Topic Leader to balance out their slate selections, questions arise as to how to ensure the update leader is listening to intelligent community consensus.

Right now the only check on that is the Mod Veto, which we've never used on a slate in CAP since the TL and TLT work together on it.

Are people comfortable with that set of expectations and that check? It makes little sense to try and get an overall "Update Conscience" that can veto all update slates, and the mods would rather act collectively then have one of us run (let's be real, such an elected position would attract Mods and Mods would be very likely to win it) for such a position and only have one of us decide.

Basically, should Update Leaders have a separate set of powers and checks, given there's no TL to work with and only direct interaction with Mods as a collective group?

Once we get that resolved I will feel comfortable offering a conclusion to the thread.
 
So what I'm hearing is that we want updates for CAP Pokemon, but not necessarily viability boost updates. Updating our CAPs to the current generation seems like an excellent step to take in furthering the CAP process. I personally would like to see some updates that make certain CAPs more usable, like what Darmico stated, but I don't feel it is strictly necessary. Above all, we need to make sure that the CAPs aren't changed too much through the updating process.

Overall, I would say that I am on the side of conservative updating for now. We can see how it goes, see how it impacts the metagame, and perhaps graduate to bigger updating if it ends up as a necessary action.

I agree with Snake's point that we should not remove the old Custom Abilities and Custom Moves. These are integral parts of the Pokemon that we cannot just remove because we want to be "more authentic." Imagine Syclant without Mountaineer. It'd either be overpowered with Magic Guard as a replacement, or it would be dying all over on account of Stealth Rock. Removing aspects is definitely a lot more dangerous than updating bits and pieces.

HeaLnDeaL's revision criteria seems like a fairly safe choice, at least for when we first begin attempting to update CAPmons. They would definitely prevent radical alterations from being made to the CAPs, which I think is something everyone wants to avoid in general.

In Response to Checks/Balances Q:

"Basically, should Update Leaders have a separate set of powers and checks, given there's no TL to work with and only direct interaction with Mods as a collective group?"

I'd say that the update leaders should probably have a separate list of powers and checks. We kind of need the updating leaders to be their own entity in order to keep things from getting tangled together, and in order to prevent people from being overly-strained from too much responsibilities. I'll probably elaborate more later.
 
Last edited:

BP

Beers and Steers
is a Contributor to Smogon
I've had a few discussions, and for now we're tentatively allowing the removal of moves in the original proposal. The sticking point is going to be what our safeguards are in not going too far the other way. Which brings us to nailing down the final controversial topic of this thread:

Update Leader Powers


Basically, should Update Leaders have a separate set of powers and checks, given there's no TL to work with and only direct interaction with Mods as a collective group?

Once we get that resolved I will feel comfortable offering a conclusion to the thread.

No. They should obviously lead the discussion and steer people in the right direction but I don't see them needing any powers.
 

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I probably could have made the question clearer than I did. Basically our Update Leaders will be acting as a TL for that particular update the signed up for.

I hesitate to be any more specific because, for example, if people wanted to run for "Aurumoth Update Leader" or "Tomohawk Update Leader" and they had an agenda to nerf or buff it, that would be a bad thing. Do people trust the moderators and general community to catch that kind of abuse is the thrust of the question. There really isn't an effective way to install a separate layer that won't be similarly riddled with opinions on the CAPMons.

Ultimately what we're looking for in these updates is not "make X or viable" or "make Y less broken" but to acclimate the CAP to whatever competitive environment it's being updated to. Basically we are not trying to make CAPs "more viable" or "less broken," we are trying to make them "look like" competitive level Pokemon in that game's release.

For example, and kind of counter to HeaL's point, ORAS's mid-gen addition of a ton of new Megas drastically altered gameplay, and in fact since half of those Megas haven't been reintroduced but likely will be, there are going to be at least 2 major metagame reflection points this Gen, and probably every Gen if GF retains this model of limited re-releases of Megas going forward.

So I'll add a 7th and 8th principle to the list:
7. Acclimation: All Updates should acclimate the CAP to baseline competitive play in that release's OU (or equivalent) environment.
8. Conservation: All Updates should be as conservative as possible in acclimating the CAPs to the new release's environment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top