Policy Review Policy Review - Evolutions of Existing Pokemon

[DougJustDoug]

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.

The CAP project has a long, checkered history regarding evolutions. There has been a moratorium on the subject for the past few months, hopefully allowing past ill will to fade, and will allow the community to evaluate the subject with a somewhat fresh perspective. I do not want to simply "pick up where we left off" regarding evolutions. But rather, I want to start at the very beginning, and answer a very basic question:

"Should the CAP project evolve existing ingame pokemon species?"

This is not a thread to discuss HOW to do evolutions, this is a thread to discuss IF we will do evolutions at all. I do not want to see specific proposals for evolution processes. That's premature at this point.

I want to know if the experienced members of the community feel that evolving existing pokemon is a good way to further the basic mission of the CAP project. If any of you don't know the goals of the CAP project, then I suggest you read the CAP Mission Statement. If you can't find the mission statement, then you really have no business in this thread in the first place.

This is not a voting thread. Do not make short little posts saying "I support evolutions" or "I don't want evolutions". Such posts are already prohibited in the general posting rules for PR threads, but are even more unwelcome here. I want to hear reasoned arguments for and against evolutions as they pertain to the basic CAP mission and goals.

It is highly likely that this PR thread will be followed by a vote of the members of the CAP Policy Review Committee. Consider this thread to be a forum to present arguments to that committee. I encourage committee members to make "position statements" in this thread, so that other members will know your current opinion and, more importantly, the reasons for your opinion.

This is not a chat session, and I don't want to see long back-and-forths by persistent argumentative individuals. Present your positions in a well-reasoned manner, and possibly present counter-arguments to points raised by others. But don't hog the thread with multiple posts and bickering, or re-posting the same arguments over and over.

For those that are not familiar with the essence of the disagreement on this issue, I will try to present a few of the basic pros and cons of evolutions in the CAP project.

Pros

• Evolutions are popular and engaging to pokemon fans of all kinds. Evolutions would add excitement and interest, and could increase project participation and popularity.
  
  
• Evolutions are ready-made concepts, therefore a lot the ambiguity and lack-of-direction that plagues regular CAP projects can be avoided. CAP projects constantly struggle to find a cohesive design direction for new pokemon. Although a concept is defined up front, it is intentionally vague so as to not restrict later polls. This allows projects to "wander", and ultimately detracts from the quality of the end result. Evolutions have an inherent "compass" provided by the conceptual underpinnings of their pre-evolutions.
  
  
• Existing species have an existing niche the competitive metagame, therefore their evolutions can be very focused on specific metagame goals -- much more focused than regular CAP projects. Evolutions can effectively build upon the playtesting results of their pre-evolutions.
  
  
• Evolutions should be able to be made more quickly than a regular CAP project, because several aspects of the pokemon have already been decided or confined by the pre-evolution. Therefore, there are less things to discuss and decide.

Cons

• Evolutions are a magnet for pokemon fanboys. The CAP project constantly struggles to keep projects focused on the competitive metagame. With all the ingame history and baggage of existing pokemon, flavor concerns run rampant and dominate all threads and discussions about evolutions.
  
  
• A proper evolution is simply a CAP project with a bunch of restrictions and limitations. Since the CAP project is about exploring new things, we should not engage in projects that are inherently loaded with built-in limits. Worst of all, those limitations are almost impossible to define, since there is no clear definition of how much an evolution can deviate from its pre-evolution. It's an open invitation for endless bickering over game canon and game designer intent.
  
  
• If evolutions are not restricted, then evolutions have no differentiation from regular CAP projects. They will simply be regular CAP projects with a lot more fanboys and flavor disputes.
  
  
• Any competitive goal of an evolution, can be achieved in a regular CAP project -- without all the headaches associated with pre-evolution baggage. There is no competitive or creative need for CAP to evolve existing ingame species.

These are not the only arguments for and against evolutions. They are simply the most common arguments I can recall from past discussions. I am not posting them to bias the committee in one way or the other, and I hope I have presented both sides fairly. I included them in the OP, to give you an idea of the general kinds of arguments that are considered on-topic for this policy review.

 

[billymills]

My summary of pros and cons listed in the opening post:

Pros: It's faster, and it brings a lot more people to CAP.

Cons: While faster and more popular, the people it brings are fanboys and uninterested in competitive goals of CAP. EVO could be done as a CAP project without the unnecessary flavor parts.

While I like the idea of EVO, I think it strays too far from the competitiveness, should we be able to keep the project on track, it would be good.

I propose a full test run of EVO, evaluate all problems and concerns before even thinking about a second one. This would be a full project, and even if there were huge problems like last time, we will continue on and evaluate after the entire process is over. While this may be a problem, if there is any chance of doing the EVO, we should find all the problems immediately. If it is proven to be too fan-boyish, then it shall be cancelled.

It should be allowed a full test process.

 

[gorm]

All of the "pros" listed by Doug are completely on point. The second and third one regarding a "ready made framework to build upon" are key I think.

As for the cons;

Evolutions are a magnet for pokemon fanboys.

I think this is nothing a well defined process can't inhibit, and it's always been a problem for CAP. I think potentially useful new projects should not be suppressed due to "potential fanboy problems"

The CAP project constantly struggles to keep projects focused on the competitive metagame.

I don't see how a predicted increase in fanboyism will prevent this aim

A proper evolution is simply a CAP project with a bunch of restrictions and limitations. Since the CAP project is about exploring new things, we should not engage in projects that are inherently loaded with built-in limits.

Hm, this seems arbitrary Doug; when do we decide how many restrictions are too many? Obviously there are more restrictions, but it's also less work for us. We could dub EVO a "mini-project" of CAP since it will obviously last less time and "a lot of the work is done for us.

Worst of all, those limitations are almost impossible to define, since there is no clear definition of how much a evolution can deviate from its pre-evolution. It's an open invitation for endless bickering over game canon and game designer intent.

The PR thread I submitted hopes to address this. I tried to define the parameters but there's still a lot to discuss. I think the community is mature enough to make decisions without trainwrecking the process definition.

Any competitive goal of an evolution, can be achieved in a regular CAP project -- without all the headaches associated with pre-evolution baggage. There is no competitive or creative need for CAP to evolve existing ingame species.

I disagree entirely. "pre evolution baggage" might be cumbersome in one way, but it's also helpful in that the "direction" of the pokemon is reasonably defined.

In CAP we base an entire project on a user-submitted concept. With an EVO project, we have the opportunity to base the entire project on a competitive niche that already exists, thereby allowing us to focus upon refining it for our own metagame.

I propose a full test run of EVO

Under what process? the one that Doug brought to a grinding halt after all the pointless bickering between the community?

Should the committee decide that this project could be beneficial, I think the next step is revisiting the process.

What can an EVO project do that a CAP cannot?

I'll reemphasize. Having a framework (movepool/typing/ability/stat bias) to work on as opposed to an arbitrary concept gives us the opportunity to focus on what competitive niche we want the Pokémon to fill.

 

[Magmortified]

In addition to the other Cons presented, I think that EVO has one critical shortcoming: the premade template. From the CAP mission statement:

Despite the project's name, the goal is not to create Pokémon. The Pokémon that come out of the project are simply a by-product of the community construction process. The process is the goal -- with all the discussions and discoveries that go along with it. Like they say, "Life is about the journey, not the destination." The same wisdom applies here.

EVO inevitably shortshifts the process by working off of something that was already made. Are we really learning more about how making a competitive Pokemon works if we're only improving an already-implemented concept? No.

Fanboyism is another of EVO's issues. Primarily because there's a lot more oppurtunity for flavor to interfere with competitive... without anybody even knowing!

Say I present Pinsir as an EVO for a "Mold Breaker Sweeper." I give decent argument for it, maybe not as convincing competitively as whoever else's idea, but good enough to keep it from outright rejection. Maybe I've just accidentally tapped into a bunch of people who want to see Pinsir evolved (maybe they want to see what the artists do with it, maybe they just want to see Pinsir in the limelight, I don't know).Then it's just an easy matter for all of them to just vote Pinsir in the poll without providing much/any reasoning, or to easily parrot my possibly-mediocre argument.

I guess the same argument could be applied in CAP, but generally the polls are swayed by more competitive reasoning or otherwise the number of people cheering on for XXXX/XXXX type is significantly lesser.

Speed and appealing to the inner fanboy does not seem like it should be deciding factors for a project with competitive purposes and learning from the process thereof.

 

[Wyverii]

One of the most inherent flaws with how the project went last time was with the fact that nobody could seem to agree with the point of the project and how to go about it even after guidelines were put into place and the project put into practice. Also, the arguments within the topics could've probably been inflamed by newcomers attracted by the project itself. If a repeat performance of the previous events is to be avoided the rules and guidelines for the project would have to be very clear and strictly enforced and that does not lend itself well to overall attraction and provide further restriction.

Even if the problems that occurred last time are solved there is one other problem I wish to address also, evolved Pokemon as said will be a faster process than our CaP one, if so it'll mean that there will be far more major metagame shifts than the current rate. Not only does this cause problems with collecting data but we may actually make this a harder metagame to access. This concerns me most about this.

 

[Captain]

All of the "pros" listed by Doug are completely on point. The second and third one regarding a "ready made framework to build upon" are key I think.

As for the cons; I think this is nothing a well defined process can't inhibit.
I don't see how a predicted increase in fanboyism will prevent this aim

Hm, this seems arbitrary Doug; when do we decide how many restrictions are too many? Obviously there are more restrictions, but it's also less work for us. We could dub EVO a "mini-project" of CAP since it will obviously last less time and "a lot of the work is done for us.

The PR thread I submitted hopes to address this. I tried to define the parameters but there's still a lot to discuss. I think the community is mature enough to make decisions without trainwrecking the process definition.

I disagree entirely. "pre evolution baggage" might be cumbersome in one way, but it's also helpful in that the "direction" of the pokemon is reasonably defined.

In CAP we base an entire project on a user-submitted concept. With an EVO project, we have the opportunity to base the entire project on a competitive niche that already exists, thereby allowing us to focus upon refining it for our own metagame.

Basing it off an already strict competitive niche instead of going with a more "directionless" concept inhibits the learning experience of CaP. It simply limits our choices over what we can learn about, and it's not like we can't do something unoriginal with the end product. Also, If a Pokemon is UU and barely sees any use in the standard metagame, then does it *really* have a niche? Another problem is that concepts are supposed to be open-ended not fully-made. In a sense allowing fully-made concepts is a big poll jump.

 

[gorm]

Are we really learning more about how making a competitive Pokemon works if we're only improving an already-implemented concept? No.

the initial state of the project is one thing but the final state is another. I'm arguing that by starting on a pre-made niche, we can refine it to something that suits our purposes more easily than we can with cap, where the niche creates itself.

The point is that I think EVO can bring us places CAP cannot because while it does have restrictions, those restrictions and the process can be more refined to competitive aims.

Maybe I've just accidentally tapped into a bunch of people who want to see Pinsir evolved (maybe they want to see what the artists do with it, maybe they just want to see Pinsir in the limelight, I don't know).Then it's just an easy matter for all of them to just vote Pinsir in the poll without providing much/any reasoning, or to easily parrot my possibly-mediocre argument.

this is pretty much what happened last time with me and farfetch'd. I'd really have to blame the process in a way, but you're right. People are easily swayed. The idea is to sway them with good reasoning and not with "tapping into the urge to evolve an arbitrary Pokemon". Again, I think the process needs refining.

evolved Pokemon as said will be a faster process than our CaP one, if so it'll mean that there will be far more major metagame shifts than the current rate.

CAP's metagame is extremely volatile as it is, I tihnk the primary concern is to get more users to stabilize data, not to slow down projects.

Not only does this cause problems with collecting data but we may actually make this a harder metagame to access. This concerns me most about this.

actually, evolving familiar pokemon seems to me to be a more accessible end result than a completely "random" new pokemon.

Basing it off an already strict competitive niche instead of going open-ended inhibits the learning experience of CaP. It simply limits our choices over what we can learn about, and it's not like we can't do something unoriginal with the end product. Also, If a Pokemon is UU and barely sees any use in the standard metagame, then does it *really* have a niche? Another problem is that concepts are supposed to be open-ended not fully-made. In a sense allowing fully-made concepts is a big poll jump.

our choices are always bounded in any CAP project. EVO has more bounds but I'm arguing that the bounds on niche will help us refine said niche. "Unoriginal" seems like an arbitrary parameter to stop a project from going through.. I'm certain there is enough originality in the community to make this interesting.

Also, If a Pokemon is UU and barely sees any use in the standard metagame, then does it *really* have a niche? Another problem is that concepts are supposed to be open-ended not fully-made. In a sense allowing fully-made concepts is a big poll jump.

every Pokemon has a niche. many of those niches are crappily defined though, like in the case of farfetch'd.
You're right about the poll jumping but you're looking at it from a CAP process point of view. we're skipping steps, that's obvious. it's where we're going that's interesting.

 

[Kamen Rider]

Doug has done a pretty through jobs and Ill only had a minor pro that EVO could help diversify some of the redunt typing/role combination between pokemon that inevitably have popped up as the game has grown.

As for the cons, Dougs covered that pretty well too. I mean we were all pretty aware of them the last time we tried EVO but nobody thought they would turn out to be as bad as they did.

I think we need to try EVO one more time, its a good experiment to show if highly focused topics/concepts from the get go are a viable process or not. Though I think everyone agrees that if we do it again it needs a restructuring of process to reduce the cons as far down as possible.

At the very least we should try EVO and complete one to the very end so we can end the argument once and for all. As long as it hovers around as a potential project, we are going to get people asking for it to be done. This way, even if it turns out to be a disaster, we can say we have tried and close the book on the subject. Who knows, we might find out there are some benefits to do an EVO project over a CAP from time to time.

 

[Frosty]

First of all, to answer the opening question, I believe that yes, the CAP project should enable evolutions of ingame pokemon. Creating an evolution instead of a new poke is extremely easier and (more importantly) user-friendly. If you are new to the server and face Syclant, it will be hard for the veteran to explain exactly how this new poke works and it will be equally hard for the new guy to learn a whole array of new strategies, moves, stats so it is able to use and counter said new poke effectively. Evolutions, in the other hand, have already a predefined concept with at least 1 year (or 2...I don't remember when DP was released), so it is much easier for the new dude to get a hold on how this poke works. For example, if we evolved Houndoom, we wouldn't need to explain that this new poke is a Fire/Dark, with great SpAtk, Nasty Plot, good Speed and Flash Fire, that is capable of running Choice Scarf/Specs effectively or switch in on a choiced fire move and using Nasty Plot to boost its power, etc etc etc. You only need to say "it's a Houndoom evolution" and most of the stuff I've said will come to mind. Even if you've never used Houndoom, chances are that you've seen it at some point on the ladder, at smogon's analyses or even on the pokemon games.

Of course, for that you will need to evolve the poke in a way that its basic qualities are left unharmed, which brings me to my second point: I am not sure if having a parallel EVO project is the best way to do this. While the CAP project starts with the userbase choosing a concept that may benefit the metagame, the EVO project starts with the userbase choosing a poke to evolve. I believe anyone who was here back when we had that...uh...episode with Farfetch'd knows that choosing any poke to evolve leds to huge amounts of fanboyism which is terrible on a project that fights so hard to make the competitive aspects the top priority. If we want to keep the fanboyism on a healthy level, we will need to do something akin to the CAP project, as in, choose a concept and then maybe do an evolution if there is any underused poke (or BL or NU or whatever) that already fits the concept nicely enough. In other words, my proposition is that, after the concept for the CAP is decided, we discuss the possibility of evolving a particular poke that fits nicely on said concept and, if there is indeed a good candidate, we vote the proposition. If it is approved, we move on with a predefined EVO proccess, if not we keep going as if nothing happened. That way we will only evolve a poke if there is a pre-approved good concept that fits it nicely, so we avoid evolving "for the heck of it".


I am firmly in favor of anything that makes this project more user-friendly, since it seems to be one of the issues we have (mainly related to the server). But that is my opinion. I wouldn't mind a parallel EVO project if it is designed in a way to avoid fanboyism, since, as I've said, evolutions have some great advantages, but I'd prefer not to have one if we don't come up with an appropiate process for it.

 

[gorm]

While the CAP project starts with the userbase choosing a concept that may benefit the metagame, the EVO project starts with the userbase choosing a poke to evolve.

see this post by the_artic_one http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1585825&postcount=82

Basically the "niche" idea is that "pokemon submission" and "concept that will benefit the metagame" are one and the same, ideally.

I believe anyone who was here back when we had that...uh...episode with Farfetch'd knows that choosing any poke to evolve leds to huge amounts of fanboyism which is terrible on a project that fights so hard to make the competitive aspects the top priority.

We'd have to rivist the old process for certain.

If we want to keep the fanboyism on a healthy level, we will need to do something akin to the CAP project, as in, choose a concept and then maybe do an evolution if there is any underused poke (or BL or NU or whatever) that already fits the concept nicely enough. In other words, my proposition is that, after the concept for the CAP is decided, we discuss the possibility of evolving a particular poke that fits nicely on said concept and, if there is indeed a good candidate, we vote the proposition. If it is approved, we move on with a predefined EVO proccess, if not we keep going as if nothing happened. That way we will only evolve a poke if there is a pre-approved good concept that fits it nicely, so we avoid evolving "for the heck of it".

again, the pokemon and nichie could be submitted at the same time.

 

[Wyverii]

To answer the "newbie friendly" arguments it may be true that by evolving a Pokemon with an already defined niche will be easier to pick up than completely new concepts but that has little to do with the metagame shifting. Everytime you essentially push a Pokemon concept up into the CaP metagame you'll be introducing something new to it that will get use and that will cause a shift. Add our current process to the mix and we have a metagame that could shift every few weeks. Judging by the fact that the newest Poke gets a jump in use for a while I don't really see there being enough time for it to settle making for a highly chaotic metagame. Even if both projects don't run side by side the faster process won't be comfortable.

I don't suppose this really matters if you don't care about the server though.

 

[Frosty]

@gorm
I've seen artic's post and the many others who suggested submiting concepts for the EVO project, but I am not sure if that will work. Call me skeptical, but I believe that many people will submit a concept/vote with the pokemon that motivated the concept in mind, not the concept itself. While on the CAP project you will choose the concept for the concept itself, I'm afraid that, on the EVO project, people will choose the concept because of the poke it represents.

But I agree with you that the process will need to be revisited and maybe then people will come up with an idea that will work (if that happens, I will be more than willing to support it). I am just a bit skeptical.

@Wyverii:

I agree with you that a faster project will cause constant changes on the metagame, but this is where we are heading with or without evolutions. If you check the PR threads and similar discussions, you will notice that most of them aims to make the process even faster. Personally I don't agree with this urge, but this is not the place to discuss that. Either way, at least an evolution will make it easier for the players to adapt to this metagame if compared to an entirely new poke, since you will have a better idea of what is causing the metagame to shift in the first place.

 

[gorm]

Wyverii, CAP's metagame is always extremely volatile as it is continuously adding in new elements and it is underpopulated. I don't think a short EVO project will completely tip the scales and "chaoticize the metagame" just like I don't think that a CAP project that takes 2 weeks won't "chaoticize the metagame". I think your argument is kind of arbitrary.

Metagame shifts are not as destructive as you might think; a metagame is always in the process of finding an equilibrium. I don't think the EVO project will make it "too much for the community to handle", but if people are genuinely concerned that the new element input will be "too much", we can stagger EVO and maybe do it once every 2 months.

Swift changes to a metagame and how the community reacts are important, but i think we need to worry about boosting our numbers before we worry about "too many new elements too fast".

I don't suppose this really matters if you don't care about the server though.

:< i dont like that implication.

I've seen artic's post and the many others who suggested submiting concepts for the EVO project, but I am not sure if that will work. Call me skeptical, but I believe that many people will submit a concept/vote with the pokemon that motivated the concept in mind, not the concept itself. While on the CAP project you will choose the concept for the concept itself, I'm afraid that, on the EVO project, people will choose the concept because of the poke it represents.

Eh, no harm in trying I think. If it's a worthwhile project and a potentially useful niche, it doesn't really matter "what motivated it". If you're worried about people picking weaker arguments based on fanboyish intent, we can always restrict the submission formats and possibly introduce bold voting

 

[beej]

One of the largest pros behind the EVO project that is being represented here is that because we have a niche to work off of when we're evolving an existing Pokemon, the production rate of Pokemon will increase significantly and the process will be easier. However, I really beg the question as to whether or not there are any other real benefits. What is the real point of evolving a Pokemon? Giving justice to our favorite weaklings?

I honestly cannot find any pros for the EVO project that aren't entirely tied into it being an overall easier process than CAP or that it will simply attract more people to regular CAP. Personally, I don't care if we have the absolute easiest and smoothest EVO process in the universe if there's no point to it at all. As far as the actual product Pokemon that will result from the EVO project, I'd argue that they will be teaching us less than the CAP Pokemon because of the limitations that have been discussed. I'd like to go to the Mission Statement for a moment:

"The Create-A-Pokémon project is a community dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokémon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokémon concepts."

Is an EVO project truly creating "new" Pokemon concepts? It sounds a lot like we're just recycling concepts to me, which would go against a large part of CAP.

 

[Magmortified]

the initial state of the project is one thing but the final state is another. I'm arguing that by starting on a pre-made niche, we can refine it to something that suits our purposes more easily than we can with cap, where the niche creates itself.

Learning from the process that created the end result is equally important to having the end-result and not learning very much from its creation. My fear is that by cutting down parts of the process in EVO we're not so much able to learn on how to build a successful competitive Pokemon if what we're primarily doing is buffing pre-existing Pokemon.

The point is that I think EVO can bring us places CAP cannot because while it does have restrictions, those restrictions and the process can be more refined to
competitive aims.

But are those places EVO is bringing us necessarily better? I don't believe that simply by improving on what's already there that the concept is able to reach its full potential because maybe those predefined aspects were part of what was hampering the original concept to begin with. CAP, at least, provides the flexability that allows people to assess everything that can be done to allow the concept to reach its full potential. While EVO has to generally restrict itself to certain guidelines based on the evolved Pokemon.

The idea is to sway them with good reasoning and not with "tapping into the urge to evolve an arbitrary Pokemon". Again, I think the process needs refining.

I'm not really sure that's possible because as long as the base reasoning is acceptable enough to make it into a poll it's easy enough for people to back it purely out of fanboyism. Even if it's not the best one that could have been chosen if people backed evolved Pokemon based on purely/primarily competitive reasoning. Plentyof people generally only skim through a thread and any arguments made for/against poll choices, and because of that, fanboyism is able to take the place of competitive reasoning.

Furthermore, being able to pick up an EVO Pokemon shouldn't be a deciding factor. Being able to assume some things because I know about the Pokemon evolved has nothing to do with the Pokemon competitively. When looking at how a new Pokemon performs in the metagame, it should be assumed that most if not all of the users know at least the basics for the new Pokemon.

The difference in exactly how easily a newcomer can pick up a completely new CAP and an EVO is completely irrelevant here (and even then I'm not sure the gap is really all that great).

 

[gorm]

My fear is that by cutting down parts of the process in EVO we're not so much able to learn on how to build a successful competitive Pokemon if what we're primarily doing is buffing pre-existing Pokemon.

Ok, sure but it's still learning something new, isn't it? and if it turns out useful to the metagame, I'm pretty sure that's win-win.

But are those places EVO is bringing us necessarily better?

how should I know, we've never done it! I'm trying to argue that it's worth giving it a chance.

I'm not really sure that's possible because as long as the base reasoning is acceptable enough to make it into a poll it's easy enough for people to back it purely out of fanboyism. Even if it's not the best one that could have been chosen if people backed evolved Pokemon based on purely/primarily competitive reasoning. Plentyof people generally only skim through a thread and any arguments made for/against poll choices, and because of that, fanboyism is able to take the place of competitive reasoning.

can't this argument be applied to any CAP?

Furthermore, being able to pick up an EVO Pokemon shouldn't be a deciding factor. Being able to assume some things because I know about the Pokemon evolved has nothing to do with the Pokemon competitively. When looking at how a new Pokemon performs in the metagame, it should be assumed that most if not all of the users know at least the basics for the new Pokemon.

The difference in exactly how easily a newcomer can pick up a completely new CAP and an EVO is completely irrelevant here (and even then I'm not sure the gap is really all that great).

it's not extremely relevant, you're right.

What is the real point of evolving a Pokemon? Giving justice to our favorite weaklings?

I'll reemphasize. Having a framework (movepool/typing/ability/stat bias) to work on as opposed to an arbitrary concept gives us the opportunity to focus on what competitive niche we want the Pokémon to fill.

"The Create-A-Pokémon project is a community dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokémon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokémon concepts."

Is an EVO project truly creating "new" Pokemon concepts? It sounds a lot like we're just recycling concepts to me, which would go against a large part of CAP.

To everyone explicitly interpreting the mission statement, I have this to say. I believe EVO can take us somewhere new in our experience of Pokémon creation. If that's not learning about Pokémon creation, I don't know what is, and if you disagree with my statement, considering we've never actually finished a project I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find evidence against it.

I'll stop threadhogging now =\

 

[beej]

I'll reemphasize. Having a framework (movepool/typing/ability/stat bias) to work on as opposed to an arbitrary concept gives us the opportunity to focus on what competitive niche we want the Pokémon to fill.

From your other posts, I had gathered that the entire point was that the niche has already been decided for us, and that we just need to enhance the Pokemon in question. Was I incorrect about this?

To everyone explicitly interpreting the mission statement, I have this to say. I believe EVO can take us somewhere new in our experience of Pokémon creation. If that's not learning about Pokémon creation, I don't know what is, and if you disagree with my statement, considering we've never actually finished a project I'd say you'd be hard pressed to find evidence against it.

Well if you believe we will be taken somewhere new, I'd like to know the details. I have not gotten a picture of this place from what I've read so far. Could you elaborate on this more?

I don't wish to have a back-and-forth and they are not facilitated by this thread anyway, so I can wait for a response. Or perhaps somebody else could explain what exactly is revolutionary about what we'd be doing other than a faster production rate, as I've said before that I believe that the EVO process will be missing something that the CAP project has to offer, which is the learning experience.

 

[Captain]

see this post by the_artic_one http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1585825&postcount=82

Basically the "niche" idea is that "pokemon submission" and "concept that will benefit the metagame" are one and the same, ideally.

the_artic_one's method is still polljumping. Imagine this concept: "High stats (mostly speed and attack) and possibly a secondary typing that would provide a STAB that has good coverage combined with flying." Remember this? This is part of one of his example concepts and it would never pass as an actual CaP process. It's simply too narrow. Really can we say things like "mostly attack and speed?" The type is already pretty much decided to be dual flying/other type (probably fighting based on last time among other things). It's made even worse by the fact that farfetch'd already has certain competitive moves. What if we didn't want one of those moves but liked most of it? We'd have a better grip on the decision in regular CaP. This is a heck of a lot of poll-jumping.

The second submission only offers something similiar. Same sort of problems. Unnescessary move restrictions, already implied dual typing, implied stat spread.


Really all the template does here is letting us poll jump. And all those niches are only if we go specific routes with the pokemon. As is, farfetch'd doesn't really have any niche.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I do not want this thread to degenerate into "quote-response hell". To most of the people that have already posted in this thread -- thank you for your contribution to the discussion, I think we get your point. Any continued reiteration of your same arguments against the same individuals with opposing opinions is not helping the thread. It isn't going to change your opponents' minds, and it's spamming up the thread for the rest of the community.

 

[sbc]

The main problem with the Evo project is not how it's done but what it is meant to achieve. That said, I think from a competitive standpoint that gorm's idea of taking a pokemon that has the potential to fulfill a role that is preventing from doing so due to shitty movepool/whatever and making it able to do it is what we should strive for, the whole CAP umbrella project is competitively centred after all.


It is arguable whether this should come under the main CAP role, although I can see two positives in terms of the accessibility of the project, it's easier to newer players to adapt to a metagame where for instance there is Poliwrath evolution rather than a new pokemon named Arghonaut. Arghonaut barring art/stage limits could pass for a Poliwrath evo easily but the mentality of adapting to said pokemon would be different. And also flavour is pre-defined to some degree rather than slowing down the process at the end which happens at times with CAP.

Worst of all, those limitations are almost impossible to define, since there is no clear definition of how much an evolution can deviate from its pre-evolution. It's an open invitation for endless bickering over game canon and game designer intent.

And there's this that makes evo a potential clusterfuck. I think this is unavoidable for obvious reasons. Everyone has a different, pre-determined view of how much to change the Pokemon and that's where fanboyism comes in, to a much greater degree than the main CAP project. Why not make Farfetch'd a top 10 OU? If any evo goes ahead, it needs to have watertight footing on the concept and limitations of the evo. We need to make sure that the competitive niche is defined way before any pokemon is chosen to be evolved as a precaution if evo does happen.

Plus, the CAP server would resemble more like a customized modded server rather than the 40 OU + CAP that there roughly is now. Especially if we were to decide on minor changes made to the existing Pokemon.

 

[Plus]

Recycling concepts as Beej said is NOT what CaP is looking for. If anything, we're trying to make new concepts, not build off of already existing concepts. Defining an already existing niche even more is something I honestly don't want to do, as I'd rather create totally new niches that will show more of an effect on the metagame rather than, say, making a pokemon evolve just to keep the existing metagame in check.

I feel it's more of a priority to change the metagame by creating new concepts as opposed to further defining a niche and making it useful in the current metagame of CaP. We're learning more with CaPs than EVOs with creating new concepts. We can definitely learn more about pokemon with new concepts as opposed to learning more about a concept and modifying it.

With that being said, what's the point of an EVO if you don't learn as much as a CaP?

Let's look at the Pros:

Evolutions are popular and engaging to pokemon fans of all kinds. Evolutions would add excitement and interest, and could increase project participation and popularity.

Is that always a good thing? What do these people want who just came to CaP for EVOs? As Doug stated in the cons, there would be a massive outbreak of fanboyism and flavor restrictions regarding EVO projects, which would hinder the entire CaP project as a whole. Don't get me wrong, as I am totally for the CaP project getting bigger, just not for fanboys who want their Pinsir EVO because Pinsir didn't get an EVO.

Evolutions are ready-made concepts, therefore a lot the ambiguity and lack-of-direction that plagues regular CAP projects can be avoided. CAP projects constantly struggle to find a cohesive design direction for new pokemon. Although a concept is defined up front, it is intentionally vague so as to not restrict later polls. This allows projects to "wander", and ultimately detracts from the quality of the end result. Evolutions have an inherent "compass" provided by the conceptual underpinnings of their pre-evolutions.

CaP is here to design and playtest new pokemon concepts. It's true that there is some confusion and ambiguity in CaP projects, but we all learn from it. To be honest, I actually think it's beneficial to us to see lack-of-direction in projects or confusion in threads, as it shows us what to improve on in the next CaPs. CaP 1 was never as organized as CaP 6. The reason for that is because we massively improved this process after each and every CaP. We all learn from our mistakes.

As I said before, evolutions would not bring as much to the table as a CaP would to the metagame. In EVO, you'd already have a niche that's filled out like a "compass," like Doug said. That compass leads to a *hopefully* improved version of that niche, which would help change the metagame.

But, would it change the metagame as much as a CaP? Most likely not.

Existing species have an existing niche the competitive metagame, therefore their evolutions can be very focused on specific metagame goals -- much more focused than regular CAP projects. Evolutions can effectively build upon the playtesting results of their pre-evolutions.

Is it a niche in the standard metagame when what you are evolving sucks horribly? It sure does have a niche, but it could be a pretty damn small one, depending on what you evolve.

Let's say you evolve Luvdisc. It's a horrible pokemon, and nobody would even dare to use it in the metagame. Now, let's say we wanted to give it an EVO. Where do we start?

Just like Magikarp to Gyarados, you'd need a fucking huge massive overhaul of movepool and stats to make a Luvdisc EVO viable. Niches are pretty vague, and you can't always zoom in on a niche when you decide what you want to evolve. If it has a super small niche that nobody cares about, you'd best do a CaP project instead. If you evolve Luvdisc, there's going to be practically no comparison in stats between the two pokemon.

If you really have the urge to zoom in on a niche such as Magnezone to Skarmory, a CaP would have a better time in creating one, as there are no limitations to a CaP project. If the situation happens where that specific niche is not chosen as a concept, then the chances are that there are obviously better choices for the metagame rather than a zoomed in niche.

Evolutions should be able to be made more quickly than a regular CAP project, because several aspects of the pokemon have already been decided or confined by the pre-evolution. Therefore, there are less things to discuss and decide.

I'd rather have 1 good pokemon that teaches me a shitload as opposed to 5 pokemon that were just "cool." There are less things to discuss and decide because it's restricting most of the polls that we do in CaP anyways. Why restrict everything when you can do 100% of the pokemon?

I'm going to end a post with an analogy.

Would you rather bake a cake yourself, or would you rather take something like a pound cake and put icing all over it?

 

[Elevator Music]

Doug wanted me to post this, though I'm pretty reluctant to. Here we go:

I hope you guys know how impossible it is to argue for the EVO project while trying to ignore the flavor aspect of it. It's one of the main reasons why we're even considering doing it, regardless of how many times I hear that "CAP is a competitive project by nature!!!1!!11". That is undeniable. Choosing to ignore it when presenting an argument for it seems silly. So I'm not going to.

The competitive reasoning for choosing the EVO project over the CAP project are simple. It is faster, and we are working off of a much more defined niche. The concept discussion is always a shitstorm; and we've seen that we don't always accomplish our concept. It's much easier to tweak and boost things and make them work than it is to do something from scratch.

The flavor reasoning for EVO is just an exaggerated version of why many people choose to do CAP in the first place. Most, if not all of us are all huge fanboys at heart. We want to make a pokemon; we want to make an evolution. That's not a big deal. The only complaints are that it's getting in the way of an otherwise competitive project. Which is, to be fair, true. Only its not as much as people are trying to make it up to be.

You have several things that are set once you pick the pokemon that you want to evolve; typing, relative stats (because there are restrictions on how much a pokemon's stats can be increased upon evolution), and relative movepool.

Typing is no big deal, it's the equivalent of doing typing before concept (or doing typing WHILE you do concept, depending on how EVO is structured). Stats shouldn't be too much of a big deal either. You can't make a super wall with 10 Def/10 SpDef, which is hyperbole how for stats need to be tailored to fit the concept of a CAP anyways.

Movepool is the biggest subject of controversy, because a lot of CAP users do not like flavor mixing with movepool. I can see there point (I don't like my peas touching my gravy either!), however here is where I think there is the most leeway. If members don't want flavor to dictate movepool, what is stopping them from adding moves like Hydro Pump to a Camerupt evo? The fact that it doesn't do anything competitively for it would be their main reasoning (mine would be because it's a walking volcano-camel and not a super soaker). But if a move like Hydro Pump DID add something to the niche/concept (for those that haven't figured it out I'm using these words interchangeably)? Then of course, it would be fair game, even recommended by other users.

So my answer to "Why?" for EVO is simple. "Why not?". It's just a 'faster CAP'. It's a bit more limited depending on what you pick from the start (arguing for certain pokemon will be crucial, as well as stating that uncompetitive niches will be unallowed), but other than that it's really not too different from a normal CAP anyways.

Tl;dr version: Yes flavor is the biggest reason to do this, however it's not getting in the way of anything beyond movepool, and since this is a competitive project that really doesn't matter (as you can give it any moves you want).
-----------
I ran that post by Magmortified first, and his initial counterreaction consisted of two points; 1) That flavor fanboys who don't care at all about the competitive aspects of the project will have too much of a say and vote for a not very competitive project, and 2) That (consistant with the mechanic analogy in the mission statement), EVO project doesn't let us learn as much about making a pokemon as CAP does.

I admit I am also afraid that point number 1 will happen. I think the best way to shield ourselves from letting that happen is to not let options like that into the polls. This can be up to the discretion of the TL (similar to how the TL picks the best concepts/yada yada to put in the first poll). I think when we submit a pokemon to be evolved, we should be forced to describe the niche we think it should fill in the metagame. This will prevent the first steps of the EVO project from being too fanboy-based (if the TL eliminates the non-competitive options). I'm sure any other concerns can be guarded against when if we choose to redo the process (which we should).

Point 2 is also valid. However we aren't making a new pokemon (as in, starting from scratch), so that's not fair to say. We aren't just learning about making a pokemon with EVO; we are learning how to make an evolution (which isn't even bad!!)
----------

Which means:

With that being said, what's the point of an EVO if you don't learn as much as CaP?

I personally think you are learning something different. But we don't really even know that, and (gorm and) I think that we should give it a chance to actually find out.

 

[RBG]

One of the things about pokemon is that there are many "novelty" pokemon. These pokemon preform niches in the the NU metagame (which doesn't exist yet) that are currently not replicated by any usable OU pokemon. The first pokemon that come to mind in this situation are Castform and Kecleon. Both of these pokemon have interesting characteristics that, given the right stats and moves, could be viable in an OU environment.

One of the things I actually like about EVO, is that it would be easy to focus the aim of the project a little better. In the last one, (and yes, i know this has been resolved, but still) there was no real focus on what we wanted/how we were going to do it. Evo gives us the basic build for our pokemon already, which makes evolving a pokemon a much different task than building one from scratch, a task, i believe, we are capable of doing.

 

[Goodbar]

Doug's pros seem like good reasons to do this, I'll go post a few comments on the cons...

Evolutions are a magnet for pokemon fanboys. The CAP project constantly struggles to keep projects focused on the competitive metagame. With all the ingame history and baggage of existing pokemon, flavor concerns run rampant and dominate all threads and discussions about evolutions.

I really don't see fanboyism as a huge concern, the only part I'd be worried about is the selection of what to evolve, and I think we kinda showed by the cancellation of the last EVO project that we can make an intelligent selection.

A proper evolution is simply a CAP project with a bunch of restrictions and limitations. Since the CAP project is about exploring new things, we should not engage in projects that are inherently loaded with built-in limits. Worst of all, those limitations are almost impossible to define, since there is no clear definition of how much an evolution can deviate from its pre-evolution. It's an open invitation for endless bickering over game canon and game designer intent.

There is a good variety of pokemon to work from, so I don't think limitations of concepts/goals are that huge of a deal. As for game canon based "limitations", I think we showed in the last CAP that we are willing to deviate from canon if its for the better (banning bulk up on argho, which didn't happen but it seems for more competitive reasons).

If evolutions are not restricted, then evolutions have no differentiation from regular CAP projects. They will simply be regular CAP projects with a lot more fanboys and flavor disputes.

We could possibly make a discussion/poll thread to deal with what aspects of the pokemon we're working with stay the same.

Any competitive goal of an evolution, can be achieved in a regular CAP project -- without all the headaches associated with pre-evolution baggage. There is no competitive or creative need for CAP to evolve existing ingame species.

Yes, but the EVO project would provide us with a better contructed plan I think and would most likely be a quicker project, with a good deal of appeal as well. The last CAP is kind of a good example of why such prelaid concepts would be nice to have.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

I know I probably don't have the reputation or experience of being involved in CAP to fully justify a post in this thread. However, I'd like to think I'm fairly competent when it comes to game design and mechanic decisions in general, so I hope this post will be acceptable in that regard.

Before I say any more, it would probably be best for me to plainly state that I fully support CAP involving evolutions for existing in-game pokemon.

Now, my game design philosophy (specifically, for multiplayer games involving multiple and varied gameplay entities and/or mechanics) is to create a diverse, interesting, and balanced array of gameplay entities/mechanics. Each idea serves its own gameplay role or niche in the fabric of the overall game system, the whole of which cannot be appreciated without an intimate understanding of all the little elements that make it so balanced.

In a game such as the recent Super Street Fighter II Turbo Remix HD, many (all?) characters were readjusted and rebalanced due to input from the competitive community. New characters were not introduced, and instead heavy revisions were made to make all existing characters as viable as possible. No effort was made to, say, introduce a new slow but powerful character that had the EXACT same hitboxes and attributes as Zangief, but with a different priority for his medium down kick or whatever. Instead, Zangief was updated as a character to be competitively relevant (as was presumably the original intention). It would be silly to introduce a balanced but redundant character that fulfills the same gameplay role of another character, especially if the second is left in the game. It's sloppy, and completely unnecessary.

Pokemon is similar to a fighting game in that it has a wide variety of gameplay entities that create an intricate and entertaining system of checks and balances when viewed as a whole. However, there are more than a few pokemon that are "broken", in that they are not competitively viable in the metagame. They fill specific roles and niches, but have been made irrelevant due to improper balancing. Their parts of the gameplay "fabric" are weak and fraying.

Obviously, something should be done. I think the most relevant "Con" on Doug's opening post is the one concerning whether EVO would just be a redundant CAP, where some would claim that anything EVO could do, CAP would do better. In a sense, that's true -- theoretically, we could, say, make a new, competitive Fire/Ground instead of evolving, say, Camerupt. However, while that would be possible, the OCD game designer in me says that it's messy and inefficient, like adding more fabric to the design and just ignoring the bits that are already there and fraying. The practical man in me also says that it's a waste of CAP time and resources.

EVO would have its own role on Smogon as a means of rebalancing pokemon for the metagame by making their already established roles competitively relevant. CAP would be reserved for creating entirely new ideas and roles that serve a competitive niche not filled by any other pokemon, balanced or not. Both would work towards creating a more diverse, balanced, and competitive metagame, and both would fulfill the CAP mission statement. (Even an evolution requires a clear new vision and design to properly rebalance the pokemon for competitive play. While the foundation may be old, the concept itself would be entirely new as it relates to the metagame.)

If EVO ends up pulling through, I'll post a few suggestions on the process at the appropriate time. (Actually, I'll probably just link to the posts and points I made in the past...)