Policy Review Policy Review - Concept Assessment

[darkie]

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

I propose we add a step in the process, entitled 'concept assessment'. Simply put, in the 6 most recent CAPs (all of them), after voting on the concept, we really didn't know what to do next.

In order to make the process as efficient as it can be, before voting on anything that has anything to do with the competitive aspects of the Pokemon, we need to take a step to just 'get with the picture', figure if we are doing the right thing. This would allow the creation process to be streamlined and in effect, create a more cohesive Pokemon. This would be similar to the counters step implemented in CAP 6; it would just be a brief discussion.

As always with PR threads, give your input on the subject. If I am unclear in anyway, just let me know and I will attempt to elaborate.

2/3

 

[Elevator Music]

Err... so what would happen if we believed that due to the way the polls were going we felt the pokemon couldn't accomplish its concept.


Like if we had the same concept as Arghonaut but we chose to give it something [horrible for the current metagame] like Bug/Flying? Clearly not checking Tyranitar/Stratagem/Zapdos/etc anytime soon without ridiculous stats or movepool.

Would this step do anythnig to resolve that, or do we still have to let the chips fall where the will?

BIGGGG EDIT- I just reread the other post and heh this is before typing polls so my above scenario is completely irrelevant. Don't call me out on it I'll edit something worthwhile into this post.

OK so ignoring the above... I'm not going to bother deleting it just so people don't make the mistake I did... it basically just seems like a topic where we can hugely poll jump. Unless I'm reading it wrong and its for discussion of whether we chose a good concept, which I still find pointless. If the majority chose it because they are uninformed when they voted that's not the process' fault its the voter's fault.

 

[darkie]

Well hopefully it would allow everyone participating to get on the same page about how to go about this business, in essence, removing your first worry. My idea is to make the rules for poll jumping more lax in this stage with the standard of intelligence to be kept at a very high level.

While you couldn't create the whole pokemon by yourself, I would find it acceptable for a single user to give the idea of a certain type combination and reasoning of why it would help the concept work.

 

[Goodbar]

So basically a discussion to elaborate on the concept? I think this is a great idea and this CAP is a good example of why. People had split opinions about whether it should be a counter for certain things or just a check and exactly how many things were to be countered/checked, and also whether to extend it to the top 10. So I think this is a good idea to avoid some of these arguments throughout the CAP process.

 

[tennisace]

EM is pretty much right, it's a glorified poll jump. how far are we going here into the process anyway, typing and general stats? Thats about how far I would go, if at all.

 

[darkie]

I just read EM's edit. How is the voters' faults for having radically different ideas of going about the concept?

 

[billymills]

I think this is a good idea, we often step into the early polls without thinking of the consequences. I'm hoping this would give us enough time to solidify what we could do with a specific concept, without limits.

I would like to see near full concepts that would fill the concept here (Plenty 10+, not to limit future polls). Not poll jumping, but to theorize a few concepts that are likely to work. These concepts would NEED to be based on sound concepts, and should be within limits of what is realistic. And to continue discussion on what the main concept really means.

I would definitely support this idea.

 

[Magmortified]

I think this is a good idea, we often step into the early polls without thinking of the consequences.

Mos def.

I feel like Arghonaut isn't really going to end up accomplishing its goal, in that it's going to end up actually centralizing instead of the opposite. For instance, Zapdos usage will rise as Arghonaut is used, which will encourage the use of other Pokemon like Tar, Strata, and Blissey (all conveniently top ten Pokemon) to counter Zapdos, which then encourages things like Scizor and Argho to beat them. Guess what beats Scizor and Argho?

At least with some focused discussion on the concept, we'll be able to better plan out ways for it to accomplish its goal instead of jumping headlong in and ending up with something that missed its mark. I'm not sure if something of the sort might have turned Arghonaut in a completely different direction, but at least it would've provided the oppurtunity for people to think on the consequences of possible choices.

 

[Plus]

I like the idea of a "Concept Review" type of topic, and I am going to agree with billymills and extend his thoughts with mine.

Things such as "Pure Utility" and "Break the Mold" have created Fidgit and Stratagem respectively. There are obviously some flaws in the creation of these pokemon, and could be revised on. However, I do not believe these minor flaws in these two CaPs are comparable to Arghonaut. Mag is absolutely correct in the fact that the reason of these top 10 pokemon being in the top 10 is that they conveniently counter one another. It's a rule of thumb for most metagames, even outside of pokemon. Once something is deemed powerful and game-winning, the metagame around it changes, and so do the things used to respond to the current threat. As a result, the top ten pokemon are pretty much a cycle of counters and threats.

To prevent this act, the "Concept Assessment" topic would clear a lot of shit up. The Decentralizer concept is an obvious example of what becomes of concepts when they are difficult to accomplish.

And just a question for darkie:

If the concept is deemed bad by people in the Concept Assessment topic, will we redo the concept polls until we find an adequate concept? If there are errors or loopholes in the concept, it's a priority to "nip it at it's bud" before it sprouts into something we failed to accomplish.

 

[darkie]

Hmm.. that is an interesting question, Plus, and I think that my answer would be to simply take the second place concept. That would also ensure that the used concepts are well thought out, as in essence they would need to stand through the test of a poll AND through a discussion, which improves the quality of the CAP overall.

I'll let that simmer a little while, as well as let other people give their input before adding it to the proposal outlined in the OP.

 

[Elevator Music]

I would just like to say that I would not be opposed to a topic made for mild poll jumping (if that is what Concept Assessment intends to do).

We have discussion threads but its nice to know all the ideas up front. I mean its cool to say that you want a Fire/Grass super awesome Sunny Day sweeper, not a Fire/Grass bulky tank pokemon. Sometimes the project tends to kinda get caught up in 'fads' and 'what seems cool at the time', and I've noticed that when that happens we kinda look back on it and think "What happened -there-? Why did I even think of voting that?". And sometimes we end up voting for typings that kinda restrict the concept (Water/Fighting anyone?).

Its nice to get out on table what things work together and what things don't, as there is really no where else you can do that without 'poll jumping'.

 

[darkie]

Fire/Grass super awesome Sunny Day sweeper, not a Fire/Grass bulky tank pokemon.

neither of those would be acceptable posts in this step unless the post clearly says WHY and HOW a bulky fire/grass would help the said concept.

"What happened -there-? Why did I even think of voting that?"

that is exactly the kind of questions i aim to reduce or remove entirely.

 

[Elevator Music]

I just read EM's edit. How is the voters' faults for having radically different ideas of going about the concept?

To clarify this isn't exactly what I mean. Going about the concept doesn't exactly apply because I'm talking about voting on actual concepts. If the majority chose a concept like "Physical Blissey" (first thing that came to mind), and if it for some reason flopped (again, first thing that came to mind, not saying it actually would) and there were warnings that such a consequence would likely happen for such a concept, then I feel that's the voter's fault for being ignorant or for taking such a big risk with the project.

Though I suppose it holds no relevance in the topic anymore.

 

[Deck Knight]

I propose we add a step in the process, entitled 'concept assessment'. Simply put, in the 6 most recent CAPs (all of them), after voting on the concept, we really didn't know what to do next.

In order to make the process as efficient as it can be, before voting on anything that has anything to do with the competitive aspects of the Pokemon, we need to take a step to just 'get with the picture', figure if we are doing the right thing. This would allow the creation process to be streamlined and in effect, create a more cohesive Pokemon. This would be similar to the counters step implemented in CAP 6; it would just be a brief discussion.

As always with PR threads, give your input on the subject. If I am unclear in anyway, just let me know and I will attempt to elaborate.

2/3

The "Counters" part of CAP6 was a disaster IMO. Basically what happened is we created a list of potential counters, then set about removing as many of them as possible in the movepool threads.

I'm not quite getting the thrust of this. If we aren't poll jumping then what, exactly, would we be assessing? Our Concepts are by their nature broad and evasive of poll-jump potential. Judging by some of your responses, this assessment period is almost like making the case for the build polls going forward. What inevitably happens is people think of a move or an ability that would bring the best out of the concept.

A Pokemon's relative value is comprised of its combination of stats, ability, and movepool. If we are not assessing these elements, the ones central to all pokemon and nearly required to shape a concept into a good product, what will we be doing?

 

[Pink]

Although I don't post here much, I do stay current with the polls, etc. I think a discussion might help a lot with the set, and moving things along in a n orderly method so that we can get out a set that will best expand our knowledge of competitive Pokemon. As I think of it, the purpose of CAP is to make a Pokemon that hasn't been done in game (fighting ghost... Fire/grass) and see how it would effect the metagame in the most professional way we can.

The way I see it, coming out of the concept poll, people have tons of ideas buzzing in their heads, and are immediately thrown into the voting process. If we could give people a chance to discuss the concept a bit more, without having to vote on a ton of separate options, it might organize the thoughts enough to get the polls moving quickly, and in a more organized manner. Also, it seems like when we have all the polls, there isn't a chance for people to talk about the effects of each poll as a whole until the process is near completion. For example, if we could discuss typing in accordance to the concept, and how that would influence move pools, it would organize the information there, and help people come up with ideas for the polls.

Basically it comes down to helping people organize their thoughts before heading into the creation process. From personal experience, I find it's best to not rush into a project thinking of each individual part one at a time, and exploring those ideas individually, but to organize my thoughts, and working the parts as a whole. (This bad process is evident in many Pokemon teams I have tried to create. Think of it part by part, and fail. Create a threat list, what you need to get done, etc. and you will be much better off)

 

[X-Act]

This would be similar to the counters step implemented in CAP 6; it would just be a brief discussion.

The Counters step wasn't clear enough. In fact, I looked into the EnCAPlopedia thread to see what it is supposed to achieve, and there's nothing written about it.

Was it supposed to check which Pokemon is the new CAP supposed to be able to counter, and which shouldn't be able to counter? Or something else?

 

[sbc]

I've been supporting actively this since the end of the previous CAP.

It also means that if we don't choose a concept that is specifically metagame-centric then we can still have that competitive focus inside that project. And hopefully it would mean that we don't get a mish-mash of components of the new pokemon that aren't coherent based on what ever seems cool at the time (bulky bug/flying for instance).

 

[jagged_angel]

I'll post my support for this idea. I agree that pinning down a clear metagame oriented focus to any CAP as early as possible in the process is very important and can be done without poll jumping as once the focus is decided, it should necessarily influence the results of future polls.

If we take Priority Moves Abuser as an example - much of the support may come from those who simply go "Oh cool, I'd love to pwn teams with that!" Adding a Concept Assessment step would force people to really think about how the concept would aid the metagame and discuss in advance why a particular typing or stat build would be best in order to help the concept be fulfilled.

CAP6 was a great example of a tricky concept that really needed discussion before the primary typing poll. If we had been able to consider key resistances that our poke needed, I'm sure we could have avoided all the hassle with many people going "ELECTRIC/DRAGON TANK FTW!!!!!"
The concept was also unofficially expanded to consider the top 10 CAP threats once the server statistics became available, but ideally this sort of thing would happen in the Concept Assessment stage.

Edit: The only thing I'm not clear on is the extent to which we would/wouldn't be allowed to poll jump, can you spell it out for me darkie? You mentioned it regarding EM's post but it needs to be clearly written down so that everyone has clear rules to follow if they want to heavily promote their own ideas about how the concept should be realised in the Concept Assessment.

 

[Darkflagrance]

In addition to that, it might also be a good idea to establish whether or not a person that suggests a concept could also 'poll jump' by suggesting a way in which the concept could be executed.

 

[Lawman]

I was pulling for something extremely similar in the Previous PR threads (before CAP 6). Thinking about the possibilities of how a concept can be done, especially if it is stated in a very general way, like the top 10 counter for example.

jagged worded how i feel about it pretty well. We have the "what" already, now before we submit "hows" we get to think over the "hows" first. Being able to control what we are poll jumping would be great, and allow for plenty of brainstorming and discussion before the voting begins.

Everything else I could say to support this idea has already been said by several people, all I can say now is that I fully support this idea and think it should be implemented in CAP7.

 

[tennisace]

I'm going to have to agree with Duck Knight on this one. Again: how far will we be discussing this? I could basically gradually introduce a whole Pokemon in that thread with a combination of solid reasoning and bandwagoning while it's set up now. I could put it out in stages really, and let the thread flow from stage to stage. It would require constant nurturing, but I bet you any amount of money I could get it done.

As for the counters thread: It should be for setting counters in stone. There should be a MAX of three Pokemon on the list however. Any moves/ability that allows the Pokemon to beat said counter wouldn't be allowed, unless it requires a gimmick.

 

[darkie]

I don't think I was clear in the OP. I'll talk with billy/mag/plus whoever and get a more detailed description of what this step would accomplish.

edit: I find cyberzero's idea acceptable, as well.

 

[cyberzero]

Rather than redo the concept polls or have the second place concept win, I think that during the 2nd or 3rd concept poll, once the concepts have been streamlined to a more reasonable number, we should have a discussion thread where we talk about which concepts are most viable for the metagame, and realistically possible for CaP.

 

[Lawman]

Cyber I like that Idea a lot. Having some time to discuss a few as opposed to all of them at once would be quite beneficial.

 

[tennisace]

I like that in place of the concept assessment darkie proposed. It won't necessarily encourage poll jumping, and gives us a second to reflect back and see which concepts will work and which concepts are "just cool".