Policy Review Policy Review - New Attacking Move Submission Changes

[the_artic_one]

Approved.

Policy Review - New Attacking Move Submission Changes

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 new move thread in CAP 7 was a complete mess, people just seemed to be throwing out the first thing that popped into their heads no matter how overpowered, fanboyish, or impossible to code it was. I would like to propose some rules for the submission thread as well as a slight change to the process to make things easier on the TL and improve the overall quality of submissions.

1. One submission per person
I don't think anyone actually submitted multiple moves in the last thread but this would help keep the chaos to a minimum.

2.Submitted moves with over 100 BP must similar drawbacks to existing moves of the same BP (eg. Fireblast's 85% accuracy, flare blitz's recoil, Superpower's ATK and DEF drop)
3.Additional effects should have a similar chance of occurring to additional effects on existing moves of the same bp (eg. power 95 moves are usually 10%, power 80 are 20%)
These two rules are to set a baseline for what is considered overpowered, "similar" is the key word here since what is and is not overpowered is not always clear cut.

4. Submissions should not contain names for the move, the name will be chosen in a later poll.
Here's the slight process change I mentioned earlier. There were quite a few moves with duplicate names in the last thread. This rule helps to make the thread less confusing and also helps to keep flavor out of the vote.

5. Include a short explanation of how your move would help the pokemon in it's chosen role.
So many of the moves in the last poll were just random sweeping moves that did nothing to help Kitsunoh scout and would have done nothing but encourage using it as a sweeper. This rule helps people put a little more thought into their move submissions and tell voters why they think their submission is worth voting for.

I think that these rules will greatly improve the organization of the move submission thread and make it easier for the TL to create the poll. It also helps to alleviate the number of overpowered submission posts that must be deleted by the mods.

 

[darkie]

I would mention that participants should also mention if the moves are contact, non-contact, affected by King's Rock, etc.

Other than that, this idea is solid and I support it.

 

[Thorns]

Good idea, but I slightly disagree with the no-name thing. We x
can't exactly refer to Shadow Strike as 'the base 80 move with defense lowering' now can we? I propose we name moves in the thread, but decide on an actual name afterwards.

 

[darkie]

Just call it by the user who submitted it.

 

[the_artic_one]

^what he said.

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

I have a question referring to Rule #2, 3, and 5

1. Now it states that a move with 100+ BP must have a drawback, but does that means we can't submit an Earthquake like clone with has no positive nor negative effect on it?

2. Does the drawback have to affect the user or just have to have a negative effect period?

3. This question goes out to #5, does the move suggested have to help the Pokemon in it's chosen role? CAP7's new move was to remedied the lack of Ghost STAB first and foremost, not to help it's scout career. I think not every move created needs to further boost the Pokemon's role more.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Here's a rule that needs to be observed:

Any new move must follow the same basic mechanics as an existing move in the game.

Basically, this means that we can only create variations of existing moves. Give the move a new name, change the type, change the BP, change the accuracy, change the secondary effects -- but no new move mechanics.​

The project already has a stated mission to not alter ingame mechanics. If we don't impose this rule, then there is no limit to what people will come up with. It turns the project into Create-A-Move, not Create-A-Pokemon.

The purpose of creating new moves is only to fill in a necessary gap that cannot be met with existing moves. For example, with Stratagem -- there was no Special Rock attack with sufficient power to allow Stratagem to fill its role as a special sweeper. I think it's debatable how "necessary" it was for Kitsunoh to get a better Physical Ghost move, but the fact remains that there was no high-powered physical Ghost move in the game.

In general, I think we should impose some strict limitations on when new moves can be added at all. I think we should explicitly state in the process guide that the TL should only open discussion for new moves, if he/she feels that the existing ingame moves are insufficient for the new pokemon we are creating. For most CAP projects - new moves should not be required, and should not be opened for discussion. If the discussion is opened, then people WILL make a new move. And the discussion quickly devolves into a contest of, "Who can propose the most outlandish idea?" It's best if we avoid the discussion altogether, in most cases.

 

[billymills]

1. One submission per person

Yes
1 submission is a good idea, and it has been used in many other polls. If you don't think your own submission has your vote, you have no reason to submit it.

2.Submitted moves with over 100 BP must similar drawbacks to existing moves of the same BP (eg. Fireblast's 85% accuracy, flare blitz's recoil, Superpower's ATK and DEF drop)
3.Additional effects should have a similar chance of occurring to additional effects on existing moves of the same bp (eg. power 95 moves are usually 10%, power 80 are 20%)

No
I have see no reason to restrict moves. If it is too good, then people won't vote for it, if it is terrible they won't vote it either. Problem solved.

4. Submissions should not contain names for the move, the name will be chosen in a later poll.

Name IS chosen later, see the final product thread if you don't believe me. There should be a name submitted as it allows clarification earlier. If absolutely necessary, you could remove the name for the final poll(s).

5. Include a short explanation of how your move would help the pokemon in it's chosen role.

Yes
5. is also a good idea. ShadowStrike was debatable on topic, I think it would be better if anyone submitted at least a paragraph with examples etc. to explain why it would help, and how.

 

[ferron]

I have a question referring to Rule #2 and 3. Now it states that a move with 100+ BP must have a drawback, but does that means we can't submit an Earthquake clone with no positive nor negative effect? Also, what about if the drawback doesn't really affect the current user much? (i.e Hammer Arm on Revvy or Double Edge on a Rock Head Pokemon)

earthquake does have a drawback in the fact that there is an entire type that make pokes immune to it, in addition to an ability. its probably not as big of a drawback as the programs thought it would be, but everyone can make mistakes.

as for rev and rock head pokes, they also have drawbacks in that you basically have a preselect moveset for rev and you are forced to use an ability for rockhead.

these examples may sound weak, but they each do have a limiting factor.

 

[Veedrock]

Before I begin, I'm not going to pretend to be an experienced member of CAP.


Rule 1 is a given really, but it's always good to have on paper.

Rules 2 and 3 have my support. I disagree with billy. Sure, people may draw the line and say "that's too much", but sometimes the line isn't visible until it's too late (playtesting, theorymon doesn't reveal all). A potential example might include STAB EQ-like moves. Using existing move stipulations helps prevent us from going over the (invisible) line. Also, new moves shouldn't be created enough to really warrent their own effects.

• On the above note, I think that "STAB EQ" options should be prohibited altogether. EQ is extremely popular for it's high power and zero drawback (getting STAB is a major plus, but not needed; don't feed me the immunity bull). Giving such an option to a pokemon just for the sake of high power STAB (there is no other purpose) is ridiculous.

Rule 4 is really good and prevents people for voting on the basis of disliking the name, but what to call it in the meantime is a problem. I wouldn't want to attach the move to a specific person as it trophies them. If we're bound to do that, we may as well just call the pokemon "X's Pokemon" until we get the name.

Rule 5 is a godsend and is easily the most important. Kit's thread was full of STAB copycats that were essentially pointless. I also think the 'realiable ghost STAB' that was aimed for would've been shot down with this rule (Kit's purpose not to sweep). Shadow Strike can fit the bill (I suppose it can 'force switches' but what is going to come in on Kitsunoh that can't force her out?). Whether it was 'necessary' was debatable like Doug said, because the main purpose for most people was better STAB (which arguably wasn't necessary).

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

Earthquake does have a drawback in the fact that there is an entire type that make pokes immune to it, in addition to two abilities and a move.

If you count Wonder Guard and Magnet Rise. I wouldn't call those so much drawback, just limiters to EQ's.

As for Revenankh, they also have drawbacks in that you basically have a preselect moveset.

That drawback doesn't seem too bad if you're still able to kill anything within your path. Revvy with Hammer Arm was like one of the few examples I could think of situations where despite having a "drawback" the move doesn't affect the user so much.. Does Revvy suffer greatly from the speed lost? Not so much since it's already slow and has Shadow Sneak to make up for it.

You're forced to use an ability for Rock Head.

When I mentioned Rock Head, I was assuming Rock Head was it's only ability. So a DE clone would have an drawback, but wouldn't affect the user because of ability.

Edit: Upon further thought, I don't an restriction towards these type of move construction are needed. I also don't believe and removing the "STAB EQ" option out of the new move thread.

 

[X-Act]

Move power depends on the type, really. I wouldn't disagree with a 120-power Poison move with no positive and negative effects.

 

[hydrolphin]

1. Yes. It is basically a rule everywhere else, so why not here.
2&3. These should be replaced with Doug's rule. Stuff like Rift Hop had unprecedented effects, and shouldn't be allowed. However, like X-Act said, an exclusive, BP 120, Poison attack wouldn't break it at all, and wouldn't be hard to program.
4. I like the idea, but with the name submisssions being hard enough as is, we shouldn't implement this until we have a sane name poll.
5.Yes. Same reasoning as number 1

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

Move power depends on the type, really.

One could say that it's effect is also a factor on how powerful a move can be before strapping on some negative effect. I wasn't sure if this was what you meant by your statement but to me it sounds like you're saying that the more crappier a move's type is, the less restrictions are enforced onto a move. They're probably are restriction onto how strong a move is regardless of typing but the level of restriction varies among move types.

 

[jagged_angel]

2.Submitted moves with over 100 BP must similar drawbacks to existing moves of the same BP (eg. Fireblast's 85% accuracy, flare blitz's recoil, Superpower's ATK and DEF drop)

I am happy with the proposal apart from this point. Doug's rule also needs inclusion.

Point 2 is iffy due to its prevention of slightly more overpowered moves for bad attacking types (i.e. X-Act's 120BP Poison move).

It's a small thing but 102 is actually the highest effective BP without any drawbacks in the form of Return and Frustration, since happiness is assumed to be at maximum in Shoddy.

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

Point 2 is iffy due to its prevention of slightly more overpowered moves for bad attacking types (i.e. X-Act's 120BP Poison move).

Erh...regardless of how bad the attacking type is, if it's overpowered wouldn't that be a bad thing? Maybe if the statement was worded to say "prevention of move with little to no negative/positive gain of bad attacking types" it would mean something different. Regardless on what's the true meaning of your statement is a move's brokenness are mostly depended on it's BP, typing, and/or it's special effect.

 

[Wichu]

Here's a rule that needs to be observed:

Any new move must follow the same basic mechanics as an existing move in the game.

Basically, this means that we can only create variations of existing moves. Give the move a new name, change the type, change the BP, change the accuracy, change the secondary effects -- but no new move mechanics.​

The project already has a stated mission to not alter ingame mechanics. If we don't impose this rule, then there is no limit to what people will come up with. It turns the project into Create-A-Move, not Create-A-Pokemon.

In that case, would this apply to abilities? Is Fidgit's Persistent not a new mechanic?
I don't think that there's a problem with creating new move mechanics, as long as they don't drastically change the gameplay. For example, a new 'field' effect, in the vein of Trick Room and Gravity, shouldn't be allowed; however, a move with a chance to, say, raise the user's Special Defense should (although there is no similar existing move).
New moves are an ambiguous grey area; I agree that we should try and avoid them unless necessary.

Just my two cents (or whatever that is in British currency) ;)

 

[Magmortified]

In that case, would this apply to abilities? Is Fidgit's Persistent not a new mechanic?

Most new abilities, by definition, will create new mechanics. So, it probably wouldn't apply there, but rather need more of a tighter grip on the TL's part.

I don't think that there's a problem with creating new move mechanics, as long as they don't drastically change the gameplay. For example, a new 'field' effect, in the vein of Trick Room and Gravity, shouldn't be allowed; however, a move with a chance to, say, raise the user's Special Defense should (although there is no similar existing move).

I think Doug was referring, less on a move that has a chance to raise a stat - there are moves that have a chance to raise stats, so that's nothing new - than he was something totally out there. Like Rift Hop halving Spikes damage.

New moves are an ambiguous grey area; I agree that we should try and avoid them unless necessary.

Yep. I think that may've been part of the issue in Kitsunoh where nobody actually provided a good reason as to why Kitsunoh needed a new move for its purpose. We should be a lot more conservative on new moves/abilities in future CAPs.

 

[jagged_angel]

In that case, would this apply to abilities? Is Fidgit's Persistent not a new mechanic?
I don't think that there's a problem with creating new move mechanics, as long as they don't drastically change the gameplay. For example, a new 'field' effect, in the vein of Trick Room and Gravity, shouldn't be allowed; however, a move with a chance to, say, raise the user's Special Defense should (although there is no similar existing move).
New moves are an ambiguous grey area; I agree that we should try and avoid them unless necessary.

Just my two cents (or whatever that is in British currency) ;)

Persistent is definitely a new mechanic since there is currently nothing in the game that extends the duration of those moves.

However, many attacking moves have a chance to raise or lower stats so regardless of the stat, the mechanic is not new. Also, you could technically say that Ancientpower and co, have a chance to raise SpD.

I think a better example of a grey area for new mechanics would be a potential Hail boosted move if Kingdra of the Snow won the Concept Poll.
Would a move that increases power in Hail be a new mechanic? Since there is sort of precedent in Fire and Water move boosts in Rain Dance and Sunny Day, as well as Accuracy increases for Blizzard and Thunder. Nevertheless, Hail and Sandstorms don't boost move power.

I doubt this scenario would ever come to pass but it's just one of many situations where the novelty of a game mechanic is ambiguous. I would say that in these situations the TL should get executive decision about whether the move is allowed or not.

 

[Flounder]

1. One submission per person
I don't think anyone actually submitted multiple moves in the last thread but this would help keep the chaos to a minimum.

but of course. Multiple submissions haven't ever been an issue (as far as I can recall) in any part of the CAP process in the process, unless by accident in something like concept. Though, it never hurts to reinforce this.

2.Submitted moves with over 100 BP must similar drawbacks to existing moves of the same BP (eg. Fireblast's 85% accuracy, flare blitz's recoil, Superpower's ATK and DEF drop)

Totally agree with this. Additionally, something with 75-90 base power shouldn't have absurd effects, such as multiple-stat drops, priority, etc.

3.Additional effects should have a similar chance of occurring to additional effects on existing moves of the same bp (eg. power 95 moves are usually 10%, power 80 are 20%)
These two rules are to set a baseline for what is considered overpowered, "similar" is the key word here since what is and is not overpowered is not always clear cut.

again, agreeing.

4. Submissions should not contain names for the move, the name will be chosen in a later poll.
Here's the slight process change I mentioned earlier. There were quite a few moves with duplicate names in the last thread. This rule helps to make the thread less confusing and also helps to keep flavor out of the vote.

yes.

5. Include a short explanation of how your move would help the pokemon in it's chosen role.
So many of the moves in the last poll were just random sweeping moves that did nothing to help Kitsunoh scout and would have done nothing but encourage using it as a sweeper. This rule helps people put a little more thought into their move submissions and tell voters why they think their submission is worth voting for.

A "short description" should be the minimum. The submitter should show at least a decent level of competitive knowledge, or their submissions should be dropped unless they can figure something out.


To be honest I've never liked the new move thing at all. It shouldn't even be considered unless absolutely necessary, like in the case of Stratagem. If the line between needed and unneeded is rather undefined and arguable, the necessity should be discussed amongst the TL, ATL forum mods, or at least some people in the project with authority, whomever it may be. Whether it's just something between Doug, Darkie, and Bass (or whatever that super-secret discussion panel is!) or the entire Policy Committee is involved. If the move is determined to be unnecessary, then this should be mentioned by the Topic Leader, and any posts pertaining to a new move deleted/edited/whatever.

 

[Naxte]

Totally agree with this. Additionally, something with 75-90 base power shouldn't have absurd effects, such as multiple-stat drops, priority, etc.

Really? What about X-Act's example of a 120 BP perfect accuracy Poison move for a part poison Pokemon? Poison is a very poor offensive type, so giving it some real power without the draw back of poor accuracy shouldn't be an issue, as it would be hitting most things neutral and thus be doing less damage than a super-effective STAB 70 BP move that has better coverage. Thus, the rule should be a bit more flexible to account for such scenarios.

 

[billymills]

Most new abilities, by definition, will create new mechanics. So, it probably wouldn't apply there, but rather need more of a tighter grip on the TL's part.



I think Doug was referring, less on a move that has a chance to raise a stat - there are moves that have a chance to raise stats, so that's nothing new - than he was something totally out there. Like Rift Hop halving Spikes damage.

Couldn't we just replace 'no new things' with ask Doug if the move/ability seems a little strange?

We may want something new, it may not be too different, but we'd be prevented by this rule. Maybe Doug could just veto some moves/abilities?
I'd group moves and abilities in the same section. There's no reason why new abilities should be allowed but moves aren't.

 

[Veedrock]

Really? What about X-Act's example of a 120 BP perfect accuracy Poison move for a part poison Pokemon? Poison is a very poor offensive type, so giving it some real power without the draw back of poor accuracy shouldn't be an issue, as it would be hitting most things neutral and thus be doing less damage than a super-effective STAB 70 BP move that has better coverage. Thus, the rule should be a bit more flexible to account for such scenarios.

If a poison type did get a mvoe like that, it would be a sweeper. STAB 120 move would be 180. It'd take a 95 super effective to do more, and even then it's only 10 BP difference. I have a slight feeling that if it did have this it wouldn't be packed down with other really high power moves like Fire Blast, so even if it had the the 95 crowd, the neutral coverage would suffice (saving moveslots at the cost of 10 power is worth it). "Poor coverage" really doesn't cut it for me, because really neutral coverage is good enough if the attack is STAB'd and strong (like 120).

Poison is resisted by ghost, ground, poison, rock, and steel. Ground hits 3 of those types SE (blah blah second types blah). Hits Ground for neutral, which is fine. Ghost can be covered by an array of things just fine.

Super Effective is just two words; just because you don't get them does not imply that you're going to be doing lol for damage.

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

After reading those "rules" over and over again, I believe that the only rules that should be made official are #1, #3, maybe #5. Rule 2 and 3 shouldn't really be employ because we already instinctively ignore suggestions that are broken beyond belief. Anyone with enough common sense should be able to tell what's obviously broken or not. Borderline broken is a different story, but that's where the TL/Mod come in to share his/her opinion on the subject. I'm iffy about #5 because I keep thinking to myself that not all new move main function is to help the current CAP out with it's job. This might also stem from the fact that 99% of the time, when a new move is suggested the main reason why it's being made is because they're wasn't any existing move that help the CAP the way we wanted it.