Policy Review Policy Review - Concept Assessment

[Coronis]

I think thats a great idea Cyber, disussing it then will help the community choose a better concept.

 

[beej]

I think that what we're noticing here is not necessarily a need to add another step for the purpose of reconsidering our concept (although I do believe that discussing the concept after voting for it is a good idea) but instead a bit of an issue with the actual concept submission process. If we believe that there's an issue with "cool" concepts being the ones that go ahead when they're not necessarily the best for the metagame, we could put new limitations on the concept submissions. For example: "The description must detail exactly why we think that our concept will improve the metagame for reasons other than simply being fun to use."

I am still very much for the idea of having a thread in which we discuss the selected concept and talk about how we would go about it, but I don't think that it should be used to determine whether or not a concept has any merit and whether or not it should be dropped. We should try to assure that these kinds of substance-less concepts don't even get submitted in the first place.

 

[Plus]

After discussing this PR thread with Beej, we have come to a conclusion that if the event of scrapping a concept after deeming it unworthy or sub-par would give the risk of derailing the project due to going back and forwards in the project. It's going to be more work for the TL, and so it is very important that the concepts that make it to the pull must be decent concepts that have been well thought out, and not something that seems super popular at the time and could turn into something after it is created. The Concept Assessment does fix that; however, the more we go back, the more we lose our grip. I'm going to say this again -- I support the Concept Assessment thread after Concept Polls. However, we really have to be careful and not choose a bad concept with a lot of hype that represents a fad that will inevitably die out. The problem with the concepts lies at where it begins, right in the concept submission thread. If there happens to be a bad concept, there is going to be somewhat of a possibility that it could damage the project in the long run. In order to ensure a smooth CaP, we have to strictly monitor each concept and judge if it is deemed good or bad, which cyberzero has already suggested something similar. Monitoring each concept, and not just the final one is a great idea and gives the voters more of a reason to vote for what they voted for.

 

[Yllnath]

If we believe that there's an issue with "cool" concepts being the ones that go ahead when they're not necessarily the best for the metagame, we could put new limitations on the concept submissions. For example: "The description must detail exactly why we think that our concept will improve the metagame for reasons other than simply being fun to use."

I think this'll be a good idea to use weed out the big majority of concepts.
I would then add a stage within the polls, like cyberzero said, when 3 concepts are left to properly discuss those 3.
I would then still add the proposed concept assesment stage,

Soooo.
Stage 1 concepts are being made but a rule is added where users must try to describe what that CAP would add to the metagame.
Voting starts.
Voting stops when 3 concept remains.
Discussion stage on the 3 start to see what effect it will have on the metagame in general if we chose to work with that specific concept.
Voting starts again.

Now the concept assesment start to properly work out more details on what is wanted. What the goals are for that CAP. How those goals should be met. How it should be able to function in the metagame what role it would exactly fill on a team. What should at least be shown in the stats and the movepool (what should have emphasis and be a must, i.e. a tanking CAP should have at least def stat boosting moves, and good Def/SpD stats.)

I'm still wondering how detailed everyone wants this concept assesment to be though. I'm all for quite detailed personally. Programmers also come up with a plan and a (detailed) concept before they write the first line of code. (Yeah, I work in the IT branch) The benefit of working of a more detailed concept is that you can assume that the concept is properly thought out on all fronts. It also a discussion on how all individual stages work together (movepool, stats, abilities, etc.). Because of this, it's probably hard to still go in the wrong direction in any of the following steps because you could then viably point to the assesment and mention how the CAP is really missing it's (well thought out) goals because of the proposed movepool, stats, etc.

 

[cyberzero]

If we believe that there's an issue with "cool" concepts being the ones that go ahead when they're not necessarily the best for the metagame, we could put new limitations on the concept submissions. For example: "The description must detail exactly why we think that our concept will improve the metagame for reasons other than simply being fun to use."

I think that using a "cool" concept wouldn't be bad as long as it's realistic and actually brings something to the metagame, like Fidgit. Pure Utility is definitely a fun concept, and it brought to the metagame exactly that, the best utility Pokemon out there. If we can emulate this kind of production of both cool and fun, it's sure to be a successful CAP.

It should that be the goal of the concept submissions should be the one that can bring the most positive contribution to the metagame as well as being enjoyable to use, in my opinion, rather than outright banning cool for metagame purposes.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

We will add a Concept Assessment discussion thread immediately after the Concept Poll in the Process Guide.