Policy Review Policy Review - Evolutions of Existing Pokemon

[cyberzero]

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.

The concept polls are generally a pretty messy part of the regular CAP process, with random concepts coming that have very little practicality in the metagame, as well as the multitude that have to be deleted by our forum mods because they don't fit the requirements. With this project, although the mass of unqualified concepts is avoided, fanboys will all want their favorite Pokemon picked.

The EVO project will give us less of a mess considering concepts, but more of a mess regarding fanboyism. It's better to avoid all of that because we don't know exactly how much of a mess it will become.

 

[X-Act]

Good thread, first of all.

I think, first of all, that if this project is upheld, then the evolution should have a lot of restrictions. I agree that if this doesn't happen, this will be exactly like CAP, and the EVO project would lack meaning. And I'm talking especially about the abilities, typing, movepool and stats of the Pokemon - the four things that make the 'competitive' aspect of the Pokemon. For example, if someone were to evolve a bulky Pokemon, the evolution should also be bulky, and so on.

Secondly, I think that the 'fanboyism' of the project can be lessened a lot by the restrictions that would be implemented.

In short, I would support this project, but only if the restrictions surrounding the evolution Pokemon that would be created are clear and accessible to everyone.

 

[JimBob]

I would support having an evolution project. Ignoring the fact that there will be fanboy stuff, there are a lot of NU pokemon that are really cool, but unable to be used. Some of these are cool in the fanboy way, and others are cool from a competitive standpoint- their abilities or movepools seem really great and one wishes that that pokemon didn't suck because it would be useful to have on one's team. For example, I thought that about Roselia in Advance a lot when I wanted a grass type and needed to get spikes but only had one slot left in my team; Roselia was given an evolution so that's a moot point, but it does serve as an example.

I'm really not a well known dude around here, so I don't really know if anyone cares about what I have to say. Regardless, I want to point out that I argued against having an evolution in CAP3 because that would put a lot of restrictions on the rest of the process. If I remember correctly, people wanted to evolve a fire/grass dude into Sunflora, which made perfect sense. However, the problem was that we had the evolution/new species discussion before discussing the concept. Choosing to evolve it would have effectively chosen the concept for us, because of the fact that Sunflora is, you know, Sunflora. In the end Pyroak is nothing like what a Sunflora evolution would resemble (unless we took some serious liberties with the redistribution of Sunflora's stats). However, if we choose the pokemon to evolve based on what we want to do with it, that will basically knock out concept discussion and main type poll, as well as setting 95% of the movepool. But as long as we choose who to evolve in tandem with concept discussion, it will not actually be _that_ limiting, except you guys who jerk off to the movepool discussions.

And there's still definitely the possibility of adding one or two moves that the prevolution (is that a word) doesn't have, that can fulfill a mainly competitive, but also slightly flavor purpose.

Really, we're never going to completely eliminate flavor from the project, and having a healthy amount of flavor is probably a good thing. In my humble opinion, as long as we can organize the project so that we aren't ultra-limited as to our options, having an evolution project is a p.good idea.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

Some food for thought: EVO would act as more of a means of fixing and revising the existing pokemon metagame and tiers. With that in mind, in a sense, EVO almost has more in common with the Revision Process than actual CAP.

The problem here is people treating EVO like it's just a limited version of CAP when it's real objective should be to "fix" the existing game in an easy, fun, and efficient manner. I'd say its role would be somewhere between CAP and the Revision Process.

At the very least, the time and energy saved would make the process worthwhile. Otherwise, let's just ban the Revision Process and create a new CAP anytime we feel like an older CAP isn't fulfilling its intended role in quite the balanced manner we had hoped it would. (I know that's not a perfect analogy, I'm just trying to make a point...)

------

I don't want to go quote-happy, but now that I've fully read through the thread, I wanted to address something real quick:

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.

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.

Again, I think people need to get out of the mindset that EVO would be a lesser, more restricted CAP. There's more to game design than just making up new ideas. Here are some things we could learn from EVO that we could not learn from CAP:

• We would learn to identify and separate elements from a pre-existing design. It would develop our skills at identifying worthwhile gameplay elements that should be emphasized and the elements that relegate a pokemon to "broken" status. You don't learn such identification and analysis skills in CAP.
• We would be able to break down and understand exactly why certain pokemon became broken despite the developer's best efforts. Why did certain D/P evolutions become relegated to UU despite revamped designs? By analyzing the pitfalls the original designers fell into with their designs, we can avoid them in our own creation process, CAP. (History repeats itself and all that jazz.)
• Our revision skills would become more refined at a presumably faster rate than anything that could be done in CAP. By becoming talented at making broken pokemon competitively relevant, we will become better at designing CAP pokemon with proper concepts and metagame roles.

I think far too many underestimate the value of evaluating and intelligently refining existing designs, as well as how positively they would impact the other aspects of our CAP and developing metagame.

------

Finally, a quick note on fanboyism in regards to the initial selection process: Yes, fanboyism will impact the voting. However, as long as the end result is a competitively viable pokemon, I don't see how it really matters.

Had it been a CAP, yes, it would have mattered. CAP is supposed to identify and fill specific gameplay roles and niches that have not been addressed, and having fanboyism affect it would damage the metagame.

But there are a finite number of UU and NU pokemon, and the EVO process would be about fixing them via evolutions. As long as we don't let fanboyism influence the actual competitive aspects of each EVO project, it really shouldn't matter which pokemon we evolve in which order as we would ideally address all of them in the end anyway.

Yes, it would be nice to evolve those that would have the greatest impact on the metagame first, and ideally, we would all keep that in mind when selecting an EVO candidate. Regardless, the end result would just be one more viable OU pokemon (and community experience), and that certainly wouldn't hurt anything. Bickering over whether one pokemon should get evolved before another or not is kind of pointless if both would eventually get evolved anyway. The metagame obviously didn't implode with the lack of an EVO last time for any of the major candidates, and I'm sure any future candidates could wait an EVO project or two for their turn.

Remember: If a specific, unfulfilled metagame niche needs to be addressed, it should be done in CAP. If we want to fix the existing game as it is, then we do it one poke at a time in EVO, where even a fanboy-influenced selection process wouldn't damage it as long as the goal is to fix a broken pokemon.

 

[tennisace]

Finally, a quick note on fanboyism in regards to the initial selection process: Yes, fanboyism will impact the voting. However, as long as the end result is a competitively viable pokemon, I don't see how it really matters.

A Farfetch'd evo that is Fighting/Flying which is a bulky tank and has Close Combat and Brave Bird is competitively viable. However, it would completely shit on the metagame (no pun intended). Yes it DOES matter if fanboyism impacts the voting. A competitive PROCESS is what sets us apart, because every other fanboy CAP project out there makes "competitively viable" Pokemon, with no competitive impact on their mind.

Had it been a CAP, yes, it would have mattered. CAP is supposed to identify and fill specific gameplay roles and niches that have not been addressed, and having fanboyism affect it would damage the metagame.

And EVO wouldn't be about adressing gameplay roles and niches that we need? Then we definately shouldn't do it, because that's the whole point of the project as a whole.

But there are a finite number of UU and NU pokemon, and the EVO process would be about fixing them via evolutions. As long as we don't let fanboyism influence the actual competitive aspects of each EVO project, it really shouldn't matter which pokemon we evolve in which order as we would ideally address all of them in the end anyway.

Again, that's it? Just evolving them for the hell of it? That sounds like any other fanboy project.

Remember: If a specific, unfulfilled metagame niche needs to be addressed, it should be done in CAP. If we want to fix the existing game as it is, then we do it one poke at a time in EVO, where even a fanboy-influenced selection process wouldn't damage it as long as the goal is to fix a broken pokemon.

You're missing the point. The goal of EVO is not to arbitrarily "fix" Pokemon just because we feel sorry for them. The goal is the same as CAP, to explore the metagame. It may overlap with just evolving random NU Pokemon, but it isn't the same thing at all.

 

[Ziggy]

A Farfetch'd evo that is Fighting/Flying which is a bulky tank and has Close Combat and Brave Bird is competitively viable. However, it would completely shit on the metagame (no pun intended). Yes it DOES matter if fanboyism impacts the voting. A competitive PROCESS is what sets us apart, because every other fanboy CAP project out there makes "competitively viable" Pokemon, with no competitive impact on their mind.

I think that's taking it to an extreme. I mean... couldn't the same be said for any of the CAPs? I mean, there's been people making potentially devistating decisions in the CAPs based on preconceived notions, like, for example trying to gain support for a typing (or move) that doesn't quite fit the concept, but the typing (or move) itself is really cool (in the supporter's eyes), but have failed again and again. I think, ultimately, everyone who's NOT a fanboy for a certain poke would more than likely vote for a less broken stat-spread/typing/movepool, just like in the CAPs.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

A Farfetch'd evo that is Fighting/Flying which is a bulky tank and has Close Combat and Brave Bird is competitively viable. However, it would completely shit on the metagame (no pun intended). Yes it DOES matter if fanboyism impacts the voting.

Yes, I agree. But read what I said:

Finally, a quick note on fanboyism in regards to the initial selection process: Yes, fanboyism will impact the voting.

As long as we don't let fanboyism influence the actual competitive aspects of each EVO project[...]

Is a Farfetch'd evolution intrinsically broken? Or would an improper execution of said evolution make it broken?

If fanboys want to select Farfetch'd, that's fine. We're presumably going to evolve him anyway, it's just a matter of when. We would just need to keep the fanboys out of the competitive aspects of voting.

And EVO wouldn't be about adressing gameplay roles and niches that we need? Then we definately shouldn't do it, because that's the whole point of the project as a whole.

It's about fixing broken pokemon for the metagame. As it stands, pokemon is like that fighting game where only a fifth of the fighters are viable in actual competitions. I would see EVO as a means of making the entire cast of characters viable, and CAP a means of introducing new ones.

What's the real reason behind CAP? What is more important? Adding new mechanics just for the sake of it, or strengthening and diversifying the metagame? I would think that as a competitive community, we would want to make it as fixed and balanced as possible.

Again, that's it? Just evolving them for the hell of it? That sounds like any other fanboy project.

It is not just for the hell of it. It is to balance and refine the pokemon metagame. It would be done in such a manner that is quicker and more efficient than introducing CAP equivalents. It would allow us to play the real game of pokemon, involving all of the originally intended monsters and strategies balanced to an appropriate and relative competitive level.

You're missing the point. The goal of EVO is not to arbitrarily "fix" Pokemon just because we feel sorry for them. The goal is the same as CAP, to explore the metagame. It may overlap with just evolving random NU Pokemon, but it isn't the same thing at all.

We "fix" them for the same reason we have a Revision Process, just magnified to the next level.

Having tiers in any sense is the result of a broken gameplay system that is in need of being rebalanced. A competitive community for almost any other game (particularly in the fighting genre) would see this, and I would think the same would be true for pokemon.

 

[MapleSandwich]

First of all, before anyone claims I know nothing about the CAP project (this being my first post), I am MajeSan, one of the users who has been with this project from the very beginning.

While I would love nothing more than being able to give Delibird and Farfetch'd evolutions, I don't think that CAP is the place to do it, based on the mission statement and the results of the former attempt at creating an evolution. From my viewpoint, the potential and definite cons of making an evolution outweight the potential and definite pros. For example, taking the basic arguments given by Doug:

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

This is very true. The CAP project at this point consists of a lot of regulars, while fresh and new faces aren't many to be seen (as far as I've noticed, but I'm one to admit I don't pay a whole lot of attention). However, we have to consider: Will the participation be of the constructive and mature kind of participation the CAP project and the Smogon community as a whole needs? Or will it be "d00D Farfetch'E nEEdz DRACO METEOR lolololol1".

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.

So far, all six of the CAP projects have more or less fufilled their roles succinctly, without breaking the metagame. More importantly, the concepts proposed have been ORIGINAL concepts, that have not been already used. The "compass" given will lead largely to a Pokémon that can be simply called an OU version of some pokemon or another, or a very poor, unrelated evolution indeed. To refer back to the mission statement:

"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."

CAP projects do this better than evolutions can possibly ever do, although at some points certain pokemon have been accused of "replacing" other, lower tier pokemon.

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.

This is true. That is the only reason why evolutions could fit the mission statement: because playtesting the OU equivalent of Houndoom or Glaceon could reveal new insights into how certain Pokémon fill niches in the upper-level competitive metagame.

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.

However, a faster, more "rushed" product may also result in lower quality as well as vague concepts might.

The cons are all viable points. However, to be blunt, Evolving Pokemon is not what CAP should be about, that truly does fall more under the jurisdiction of the Revision Process. Either you will simply be making low-tier pokemon viable, or creating entirely new concepts which could be accomplished via a normal CAP anyway.

Apropos.

 

[Darkflagrance]

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...)

I am not sure I am completely comfortable with the idea of an EVO project because it seems redundant.

The biggest issue with "update reasoning" like this is that it does not actually justify creating an evolution, because an evolution is only marginally less inefficient than creating a whole new pokemon (a new character is created, only time is saved). It would instead be better just to tweak the existing pokemon, if at all. In fact, this would qualify other pokemon such as Poliwrath and Butterfree for revision that otherwise would not qualify.

In addition, there is the argument that there are some pokemon with specific roles that seem ill-defined, and part of the point of this renewed evolution project would be to make these pokemon better at that niche. Of course, there exist pokemon such as Unown, Spinda, and Luvdisc with no role whatsoever, or a very generic one. Evolving extreme NU's like this would require a process almost akin to a CAP to make them competitively relevant.
Of course, making all over-200-or-so fully evolved pokemon relevant to the OU metagame also runs the risk of creating some incredibly generic pokemon in the process, but that is a personal issue I have.

The only argument remaining for following through with an evolution project over a normal CAP is the time and efficiency argument, and the issue here is the increased change over time to the CAP metagame, and I believe that this is the best and only argument that can be used to justify it.
However, in doing so I must say again that we have to clearly define the current role of the pokemon to be evolved, and thus define all changes that must be made in that context, and that context alone.

 

[Caelum]

I may not be a highly experienced member of the CAP community (if me posting here is really out of line my apologies, the bold OP is scary O-o), but I'd thought I'd bring up one point no one seems to be considered.

I'd be more worried about the EVO project detracting from the CAP project if they were run simultaneously. Could you do both successfully? Probably. However, from me lurking it seems a lot of you participate heavily in the CAP project and devote a good amount of time (be it in sprites / move pool / whatever). My fear is that quality contributors would be forced to split their contributions between them or ignore one project altogether. That situation would be unhealthy for both projects.

Just something to consider.

 

[Bass]

Let's not come to conclusions regarding the EVO process in this thread. Please keep the discussion related to the original question in OP, that is whether we should do EVO or not.

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.

 

[billymills]

I think we have to do a full test run. We don't randomly assume something won't work, just like the current UU test, we give it a full trial run (Like in the current UU test, we believe we can not determine if something is a problem within a week, we test for a long time, and then evaluate at the end). This is an issue that will continue to pop up until we at least try it. If we do test it, and there are large, unfixable problems, then it will not be continued, ever. But it deserves at least a full test.

 

[tredge]

I may not be a highly experienced member of the CAP community (if me posting here is really out of line my apologies, the bold OP is scary O-o), but I'd thought I'd bring up one point no one seems to be considered.

^^He said it better than I could lol.

First off, I think that we definitely should do AT LEAST a test run. Make it just like another CAP project, or w/e. There are alot of good ideas on how to do that.

Once we get a completed EVO project, we get a committee of the experienced, long-time CAP users (eg. not me) to evaluate this pokemon. They see what they would have done, whether its competitively viable or not, etc. These people should be able to judge just how different this EVO project is from your regular CAP.

At the same time, we play-test. Fanboyism would most likely result in a pokemon being overpowered, not underpowered. So it should be relatively easy to see if our EVO project is broken.

Also, once the project gets started, we should be able to get an idea of just how many fanboys we are attracting.

We take these results, and the community and committee decides on a) whether to allow this pokemon into the CAP metagame at all, and b) whether to consider a second one.

In short, I think we should test the project and evaluate afterwards. The EVO project is a great idea, has true potencial to show our understanding of the metagame, and it would be a huge shame to disregard it over fears of what may happen.

 

[chronostrike]

My concerns:

1. The needs of the metagame
I think this is a terribly restrictive concept. Good mixed sweeper (Infernape), physical tank with great type coverage (Metagross), mixed wall with complex resistances (Bronzong), brilliant supporter (Vaporeon), special sweeper (Azelf): existing pokemon already cover all of these concepts. The difference between them and what we did is flavor. We didn't need a special rock sweeper, but we made it because it was a cool idea. If the only value we give a pokemon is its necessity to the metagame, then I fear the only thing we will ever make is an endless stream of "Pokemon that can check a majority of the current top 5 Pokemon."

2. Differences between a pokemon and its EVO
Courtesy of X-Act, we can measure this. A pokemon that is nothing more than its pre-evo with better stats will have approximately the same ODB and PSB values. Then, if we want to make the EVO more different, we can decide as part of the process whether it can have different typing, ability, biases, etc. and then by how much. I don't want to suggest an actual process for doing this, but rather that it can be done in an orderly manner.

3. CAP can do it better
CAP can certainly do it better because we do not go in with pre-existing boundaries. However, we are somewhat spoiling ourselves. We have a wide open sandbox with no rules to do whatever we like. I think it would be instructive to start with some limitations and see how well we can shape an existing pokemon to our purposes while leaving it recognizable as an evolution of the original.

 

[v]

I'm afraid that many of you seem to be missing the point of CaP. CaP's job is not to "fix" perceived problems with the Metagame. That's Suspect's job, not ours. Our objective is to make something and see what happens when we throw it into the mix. Yes, we want a "balanced" Metagame, but what we don't want is Pokemon that addresses these perceived issues. We want to measure the effect of the addition of a new factor into the environment, which in this case happens to be a Pokemon. We are creating niches, not trying to expand them.

The EVO Project would be expanding upon an already-existing niche. If we had started this project several months ago and decided we wanted to evolve Tentacruel who, at the time, would have fit all the criteria, not 3 stages, not legendary and UU or less. However, it has since proven to be an OU-viable Spinner. What other Pokemon are there like this out there? How do we know that by evolving a UU or NU Pokemon we aren't taking a niche that is inherently broken on a powerful Pokemon? Even with the utmost prudence we may be making Pokemon that not only yield inferior research but create an undesirable play environment until revised or banned.

Another thing about EVO is an issue Wyveri brought up is the chaos it would create. There is simply no way to make a time-table that ensures that EVO would not have a Pokemon implemented simultaneously to a CaP or within a week or two without having EVO run when we would be playtesting the new CaP or alternating between CaP and EVO, but undesirable circumstances. If CaP and EVO had Pokemon being implemented nearly simultaneously or within two weeks of one another, the effects of one would not be clear enough to correctly observe before the other made its own effects on the metagame, compromising the research aspect of the CaP Project. Even for those familiar to the Metagame, a new Pokemon every week or two is just too much.

tl;dr version: Vader doesn't like EVO.

 

[Naxte]

The EVO Project would be expanding upon an already-existing niche. If we had started this project several months ago and decided we wanted to evolve Tentacruel who, at the time, would have fit all the criteria, not 3 stages, not legendary and UU or less. However, it has since proven to be an OU-viable Spinner. What other Pokemon are there like this out there? How do we know that by evolving a UU or NU Pokemon we aren't taking a niche that is inherently broken on a powerful Pokemon? Even with the utmost prudence we may be making Pokemon that not only yield inferior research but create an undesirable play environment until revised or banned.

Any CAP can have the same problem (and in fact, both Syclant and Revenankh turned out to be too much and needed to be toned down); we simply don't know whether or not something will be too much until we test it and see what happens. If something turns out to be fine, then that's great. If something turns out to be too much, then we can figure out some way to handle it, like we did for Syclant and Revenankh. This is something we have to keep in mind regardless of if it's EVO or CAP.

Another thing about EVO is an issue Wyveri brought up is the chaos it would create. There is simply no way to make a time-table that ensures that EVO would not have a Pokemon implemented simultaneously to a CaP or within a week or two without having EVO run when we would be playtesting the new CaP or alternating between CaP and EVO, but undesirable circumstances. If CaP and EVO had Pokemon being implemented nearly simultaneously or within two weeks of one another, the effects of one would not be clear enough to correctly observe before the other made its own effects on the metagame, compromising the research aspect of the CaP Project. Even for those familiar to the Metagame, a new Pokemon every week or two is just too much.

As you said, we can do something like alternate between CAP projects and EVO projects to rectify this problem. Then, we just make sure to give the same amount of time after each EVO project that we give to each CAP project (and also maintaining that same period of time between a CAP project and an EVO project), in order to make sure that we've given adequate time for the metagame to settle a bit and for the Pokemon to be properly tested. If done that way, this shouldn't be a problem.

 

[darkie]

IF, not HOW.

 

[Deck Knight]

So yeah, I need to focus more. Generally I try to think something through completely. My thought were holding over the problem of process because I thought that IF we do it, we should at least be able to focus on the mistakes of the past.

I think we should be able to pull it off. 9/10ths of the focus will have to be on the concept and strict TL enforcement of what does and does not get polled. EVO will basically require much more TL restraint than an ordinary CAP in order to succeed without getting derailed.

So basically, if EVO is to be done, it is going to require a TL willing to be very conservative and override most of the more fanboyish suggestions unless they are very good and heavily concept oriented. But it can work, and because we're working with a known quantity it allows us to focus like a laser on what we want to add to the metagame. I support starting an EVO project, knowing full well that it is going to need much, much more restraint than a normal CAP project, and some users might be turned off by the necessary rigor.

 

[Lawman]

I have much, much more to say on the EVO process rather than if it should/shouldn't be done, but right now I am with Deck Knight in the fact I believe it is perfectly possible to have a successful EVO as long as the TL knows what he is doing and is able to eliminate non-serious or competitive choices and options, which may be a turn off for newcomers the project, but competitively it would be able to work.

 

[ferron]

yes, i am aware that i am not a long time member or that i lack many posts here, but smogon's CaP was one of the major reasons i choose to join. as such, i believe all but about 5 or 6 of my post have been in CaP.

i, personally, started off against the idea of creating an evolution. the simple idea that any group could be coordinated enough to decide which single poke out of the possible hundreds to evolve seemed outright improbable. then factor in how many different directions an evolution can go (from straight foward, to slaking or magnezone-like change, or even adding types and abilities) it turns to impossible.

this was all before i saw how efficient the CaP process here can be. if a strong TL were to lead, then i believe that it is actually a viable task. the initial discussion may take a while, due simpley to the vast number of pokes one may support, but i believe that it can be done.

yes, i reaize that i have not touched upon the pros and cons of the discussion, but has that not already been done in detail on both sides? as such, i have limited myself to a much more simple question; would this community be able to make a legitimate evolution? i say it can, though the weight will be quite heavy on the shoulders of the TL. as such, if there a defined reason to not give it another try?

 

[Magmortified]

I think we should be able to pull it off. 9/10ths of the focus will have to be on the concept and strict TL enforcement of what does and does not get polled. EVO will basically require much more TL restraint than an ordinary CAP in order to succeed without getting derailed.

I'm actually kind of wondering whether this is good or bad. Mainly because with the extra restraint the TL will have to pull (combined with general paranoia of fanboyism), otherwise allowable concepts might end up being overlooked according to how the TL percieves it.

Everybody's plans to seem to require a strong TL. What if we've somehow managed to pick somebody who can't keep the project on a tight enough leash? What happens when we have a TL who can't or doesn't keep projects built on mediocre reasoning and vocal fanboy support out of the polls?

This isn't even accounting for the fact that fanboyism will still make a major impact on the chosen concept regardless of how tight a leash the TL keeps the project on. Because even the "weakest" of the allowed concepts can win if enough fanboys rally around it.

 

[Ziggy]

I'm more concerned about the paranoia of fanboyism than the actual fanboyism at this point. =\ I don't think it's hard to imagine entire threads derailed by "anti-fanboys" who call out/flame of a group of people for pushing a concept, regardless of how good it is, simply because they think the people in question are fanboys.

 

[tennisace]

I'm not worried about fanboys in the metagame. People from the server and a strong TL/mod base will deter them easy enough. I'm more worried about people suggesting concepts that do absolutely nothing for the metagame. If EVO was to happen, any Pokemon made would have to be like a CAP in that it has to bring something to the metagame that is needed.

 

[Cartoons!]

I'm more worried about people suggesting concepts that do absolutely nothing for the metagame. If EVO was to happen, any Pokemon made would have to be like a CAP in that it has to bring something to the metagame that is needed.

I get your point; Farfetch'd was a popular choice for all the wrong reasons, but I object to the statement that a chosen EVO has to be something the CAP metagame needs. No CAP creation we've ever made was needed. They were created to explore their effects on the metagame we have, and I think it's unfair to frame the argument on the notion that if an EVO isn't absolutely necessary, then it isn't worth considering.

 

[FinnRagetti]

Why not put in a topic suggestion, like we do with CAP, and then suggest the best pokemon to evolve into that niche. Example: supposing that the concept wanted a special sponge that could deal massive damage back, then people could suggest pokemon like Muk, Dewgong, or Clefable, and then the vote can work from there. This way, the fanboyish votes of the Farfetch'd won't happen for the wrong reason.