Written by Fuzznip, eric the espeon, and zarator. Approved by DougJustDoug.
We say that the CAP Strategydex sets are focused on the "playtest metagame" - even if not explicitly, and we keep updating the analyses in the several workshop threads, often with important changes (think, for example, of the "Wispy Kit" set, which flourished long after the playtesting was over). However, where are these updates tested in the CAP metagame? Hell, sometimes people (including me) judge the viability of a set through the interaction with other CAP Pokémon (that was the case of a recent discussion around a Fidgit's lead set). But even if we think that such discussions are not correct since we shouldn't take CAP Pokémon into account, making the necessary tests in the full-CAP metagame (and we have little choice here, once playtest is over) is as legitimate as testing an Uber Weavile set in the Standard ladder.
So far, I'm not suggesting any solutions, neither am I taking sides. I just wanted to point out a contradiction that, I feel, we cannot ignore if we want to live up to the Smogon standards of quality. We can't focus the analyses on a metagame if they get tested in another one.
I'll present three possible solutions which should help us find the consistency we have so far failed to achieve. They are just some ideas thrown into the fray, and should be treated as such (i.e. don't discount any "fourth possibility").
I hope that, from this discussion, several, more accurate and refined solutions may arise. My only firm purpose was to make clear that "keeping the things as they are" is hardly viable if we want to follow the standards of consistency and clarity Smogon enforces in the other competitive forums.
I'm sure that some of you remember almost a year ago when we discussed in this thread whether or not CAP analyses should mention other CAPs, be them teammates or counters. We thought that the issue was solved through the addition of a "CAP metagame" section within each analysis, keeping the focus of the CAP Strategydex on the "playtesting metagame" (i.e. the metagame formed by standard OU + the single CAP analyzed). It was a good decision for several reasons, and it helped to underline the fact that CAP is not just a "modded server" but, rather, a community focused on experimentation within the standard, existing metagame. Unfortunately, not all the problems were solved at that time. I'll try to explain how and why below.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.
We say that the CAP Strategydex sets are focused on the "playtest metagame" - even if not explicitly, and we keep updating the analyses in the several workshop threads, often with important changes (think, for example, of the "Wispy Kit" set, which flourished long after the playtesting was over). However, where are these updates tested in the CAP metagame? Hell, sometimes people (including me) judge the viability of a set through the interaction with other CAP Pokémon (that was the case of a recent discussion around a Fidgit's lead set). But even if we think that such discussions are not correct since we shouldn't take CAP Pokémon into account, making the necessary tests in the full-CAP metagame (and we have little choice here, once playtest is over) is as legitimate as testing an Uber Weavile set in the Standard ladder.
So far, I'm not suggesting any solutions, neither am I taking sides. I just wanted to point out a contradiction that, I feel, we cannot ignore if we want to live up to the Smogon standards of quality. We can't focus the analyses on a metagame if they get tested in another one.
I'll present three possible solutions which should help us find the consistency we have so far failed to achieve. They are just some ideas thrown into the fray, and should be treated as such (i.e. don't discount any "fourth possibility").
Option One
We "freeze" the analyses once playtesting is over. We keep updating the "CAP metagame" sections, but the sets stay as they are forever, since any new set could not be tested in the "legitimate metagame". The main flaw of this proposal is that we probably want sets like "Wispy Kit" to get more than a simple mention in the CAP metagame section as if they were "Optional Changes" material. It may be consistent, but certainly not user-friendly. Keep in mind that, once playtesting is over and many people want to learn how to play full-CAP, they will look to our CAP analyses for help in mastering the metagame, so we can't be sloppy about it for the sake of consistency alone.
Option Two
We shift the focus of analyses onto the CAP metagame, possibly including a "playtest" section, and write an article about how each Pokemon on it's own fares in and affects the standard metagame. This way, we could freely update the analyses and add new content to reflect what most of the CAP community is playing without any concern for consistency, and the lessons we learn from our creation's interaction with the metagame are spelled out in a direct form. An article is a far more appropriate medium to explain how a new Pokemon fits into the metagame than a standard analysis, which deals directly with "how do I use this to win" not "what does this do to the metagame, what did we learn from it". This article could be included in The Smog, /cap/articles/ or on a separate tab of the analysis.
Option Three
We divide the analyses into two tabs, one for the playtest metagame, and one for the CAP metagame. Any changes and/or updates after the end of the playtesting period will affect only the CAP metagame tab. I wonder if it could be possible to split analyses like that, and there is the risk of them looking a bit confusing and repetitive, but at the same time, this solution may be the "best of both worlds" we are looking for.
I hope that, from this discussion, several, more accurate and refined solutions may arise. My only firm purpose was to make clear that "keeping the things as they are" is hardly viable if we want to follow the standards of consistency and clarity Smogon enforces in the other competitive forums.