Policy Review Policy Review - Playtesting CAPs 1-6

[Stellar]

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.

Doug wanted a PR thread so here it is!

We are planning to playtest CAPs 1-6 in isolation in a manner similar to Kitsunoh and Cyclohm. We did not have an established playtesting period during the creation processes for each of these CAP, so I think it's only fair.

Each CAP will be playtested for a relatively short period of time. During this time we will be gathering usage statistics with the help of Doug. Playtesting and statistics will help us update the older analyses as well as gather more information on how each CAP plays in the Platinum metagame. This is pretty important due to the fact that Syclant, Revenankh, Pyroak, and Fidgit were all created prior to Platinum's release.

The main issue here is the playtesting period. We originally planned for each playtest to take about a week; however, some people have voiced opinions that the playtesting period needs to be longer. This is really what needs to be discussed here. The test will hopefully be started prior to CAP9 and will run as a parallel project once the new CAP round has started.

Also, it is possible that there will be custom titles as incentives to participate in the tests!

So please voice your opinions on the matter. :)

 

[Elevator Music]

oh i agree

But seriously I think that 1 week playtesting is a bit two short. Like I suggested, 10 days would be good because that's like two months total (and yeah the extra 3 days is a lot better than you'd think).

 

[tennisace]

The reason I originally said a week is because we've already used the older CAPs for months now, and we have a general idea on how they play in the metagame. We just need to know how they perform in the Platinum metagame in the absence of CAPs. 1 week should be enough to test many different sets, while being short enough so that people don't lose interest before we go to the next period.

 

[ferron]

i have to agree with tennis. we already know their best usage, their damage calcs, etc. all we need is a feel in an isolated metagame, rather than a rediscovery.

 

[zarator]

I'd be for a 10 days test, but as others pointed out, we already know a lot about most old CAPs since we have months of experience with them.

 

[Fuzznip]

Even though we've been using the previous CAPs for months and have experience with them, we still don't know how they perform by themselves since we've been playing with them against other CAPs to, not in isolation.

One week may be enough, but I would stick with the 10 day rule just so we can gather as much information as possible about how a certain CAP performs against the Platinum metagame, since there's a ton of new changes during the transition between D/P and Plat that could've greatly affected them. Not to mention that we can even revamp the movesets since they be a bit dull in the Platinum metagame as they were built before that, there could even be more movesets that we don't know of as of yet.

Just my thoughts.

 

[tennisace]

I really don't see how three days makes that big of a difference, but if the majority wants 10 days then thats fine lol.

 

[Fuzznip]

I really don't see how three days makes that big of a difference, but if the majority wants 10 days then thats fine lol.

Three days can make a difference, especially if people are trying to get the title, haha.

On a serious note, I'm not sure if we are having a revamp thread for each CAP while the playtesting is running to add feedback to what's good and what's bad, new movesets, counters, etc. If this is correct, then the three days can be pretty helpful in finishing the analysis and making sure it's "good".

 

[tennisace]

Three days can make a difference, especially if people are trying to get the title, haha.

The rating will be reset at the start of the first playtest and reset again at the end of the last, not after each one.

On a serious note, I'm not sure if we are having a revamp thread for each CAP while the playtesting is running to add feedback to what's good and what's bad, new movesets, counters, etc. If this is correct, then the three days can be pretty helpful in finishing the analysis and making sure it's "good".

We already have full analyses written, we just need a [CAP Metagame] section and the [Team Options] section. Its more of just adding those than completely rewriting, except in the case of Pyroak which wasn't revamped originally.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

Honestly, I'm thinking that even ten days might be a bit short. I would personally go for two weeks, which gives plenty of opportunity to test, and also means we will complete exactly two tests in a month, which works out well with the monthly server stats.

in any case, uber Revenankh gogogo

 

[tennisace]

Actually U_D thats a good point. What happens if we deem a Pokemon broken in our playtesting?

 

[Matthew]

Actually U_D thats a good point. What happens if we deem a Pokemon broken in our playtesting?

If we deem a pokemon broken wouldn't we "nerf" it like how you guys did by taking away Superpower from Scylant? Then once the nerf is complete we will have to hold another two week play testing period. So we test them to see if they are broken, if not then we make no changes, if they are we nerf them and then hold another testing period with the changes we implemented.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I don't know about that, Gen. If I had to call one pokemon broken in the Standard metagame right now, it would be Revenankh. However, we all know Revenankh isn't even close to broken in the CAP metagame. There's no reason to nerf it when nobody uses it as it is.

Basically, if it's uber in Standard, so what? Nobody's going to play it in Standard outside of the playtesting period.

 

[ferron]

if it is broken, then that is something that we can learn from, but i see no reason to nerf something that isn't uber in our standard metagame.

 

[Veedrock]

Basically, if it's ubter in Standard, so what? Nobody's going to play it in Standard outside of the playtesting period.

Let's compare this to somewhat similar scenario: an individual suspect test for Garchomp. So what if Garchomp is "broken" in this test? It's not the standard metagame where Latias is capable of defeating it. Just vote it OU, right? Wrong. You don't theorymon a pokemon is 'manageable' because something that isn't there will be in the standard environment.

(I'm aware that it's not complete theorymon as we have standard CAP experience but I'm under the assumption that it's completely void during the Playtesting period)

 

[Umbreon Dan]

You don't theorymon a pokemon is 'manageable' because something that isn't there will be in the standard environment.

Except it isn't theorymon at all; everyone knows full well that none of the current CAP Pokemon are uber in the CAP metagame.

oh, edit: why would it become void for no reason?

 

[sbc]

Is it neccessary to playtest Syclant as pre-Revenankh, Syclant was the only CAP pokemon.

I wouldn't mind seeing this but it seems impractical that we're going to put the CAP metagame on hold for almost two months, probably more; that is unless there is enough traffic to sustain a second playtesting ladder (unlikely).

 

[Magmortified]

Is it neccessary to playtest Syclant as pre-Revenankh, Syclant was the only CAP pokemon.

There've been a fair few changes since then, most notably Syclant's nerf (which happened after Revenankh) and the Platinum changes.

Just saying.

 

[tennisace]

Is it neccessary to playtest Syclant as pre-Revenankh, Syclant was the only CAP pokemon.

In the new Platinum metagame, yes.

I wouldn't mind seeing this but it seems impractical that we're going to put the CAP metagame on hold for almost two months, probably more; that is unless there is enough traffic to sustain a second playtesting ladder (unlikely).

The analyses are more important than the "CAP Metagame".

 

[DougJustDoug]

This discussion has touched upon a key issue with the CAP project. And it is something that I struggled with when I was first setting up the scope of the CAP project --

Is the CAP project attempting to create a new balanced CAP metagame?

My answer is definitely -- "No." I should probably make this explicit in the CAP Mission Statement, because we frequently get into discussions and debates that ultimately lead back to this fundamental question. And unfortunately, there isn't much room for gray when answering this question. It is yes or no -- and I have structured the entire project around the premise that we are NOT trying to make a balanced CAP metagame.

The key word in the question is "balanced". There is no doubt that we are making a new metagame; that's unavoidable. The minute we created our first new pokemon, we established a new metagame. But, that new metagame was simply a by-product of our experimentation with the OU metagame. The CAP metagame is not the intended result of the the CAP project, it just kind of... "happens" when we make new pokemon. But, we are not trying to ensure that the CAP metagame is balanced. Realistically, we CAN'T make the CAP metagame balanced -- not with the CAP project structure, or anything close to it.

If we really wanted to create a new balanced metagame -- the CAP project process and structure is a horrible way to go about it. Building individual pokemon piece by piece, using public community voting to decide each aspect -- that's a terrible way to build a balanced POKEMON, much less an entire METAGAME. The CAP process IS a great way to involve a large number of people in interesting and innovative discussions and experimentation with the basic building blocks of competitive Pokemon play. But, experiments usually produce messy results. When you dissect a frog in science lab, the student learns a lot -- but the frog gets fucked up completely. I won't go so far as to say that CAP pokemon end up like a dissected frog -- but you know what I mean. When you experiment, the point is to learn; and you get what you get at the end, whatever that may be. On the CAP project, we end up with new pokemon. Hopefully, new pokemon that are reasonably competitive in standard OU play. But, if we want the combined result of all those individual experiments to produce a balanced metagame in and of itself? -- that's practically impossible.

That's why the CAP project is focused intensely on each individual CAP pokemon, not the combination of those pokemon with each other. The CAP metagame may or may not be balanced, but we are not going to work very hard to make it balanced if it gets out of whack.

The CAP server continues to operate after isolated playtesting is over, often for several weeks between playtesting. As such, some people may want us to consider the implications of all our CAP's available for play in the same metagame. I think that's fine. Stellar suggested a "CAP Metagame" section in our CAP Analyses, and I support that fully. But, I don't want to attempt to revise our pokemon by considering their effectiveness in the combined CAP Metagame.

We need to revise our pokemon so that each individual pokemon is reasonably competitive when played in standard OU. If we are able to do that, then I suspect the metagame that results from throwing all those pokemon together, will be reasonably balanced as well. If it isn't, then I'm inclined to say "So what?" At worst, the CAP metagame will centralize a bit here or there. But the centralization will likely be no worse than the current Uber metagame -- which is INTENTIONALLY unbalanced, and yet many people still find it engaging and fun to play.

The overall CAP metagame is not something we can reasonably engineer or manage. Let's stay focused on individual CAP pokemon, which is the raison d'etre of the entire CAP project in the first place.

 

[zarator]

Doug, theoretically I agree with you, but on a more practical basis I think it could be somehow unfair. I mean, most people would not like a perfectly viable and balanced Pokémon such as Revenankh to be nerfed (more than it once was) just for the sake of a "temporary" metagame. And you will agree that "OU + Rev" is a temporary metagame by all means, since after the playtesting period no one will play it anymore. Hell, I'm inclined to say that IMO Rev would not be broken even if we returned him to his former 110 base Sp Def (no, I'm not suggesting to enhance Rev's 100 Sp Def in the slightest way - it was just to say). At least, not in a metagame where Kitsunoh, Arghonaut, Rotom appliances and Metagross run rampant (note how only Metagross was present in the old days where Rev was so godly that we decided to nerf it).

Yes, that may be contrary to the basis of the CAP mission, but I think that this is one of the few cases where purity should come after common sense. Why should we nerf an already good-but-not-so-great Pokémon? (the fact that many people use Rotom or even Kitsunoh as their spin blocker where in the past Rev was almost the spin blocker means something to me) And for what? For the sake of "fairness"? Sorry but I can't agree on this point - even if I find that the question Doug has brought up is worth a PR thread by itself for a lot of other reasons.

 

[VKCA]

Doug, what I don't understand is why we keep the old cap pokemon. Why don't we just add the cap to the metagame then keep him there until a new cap is created to replace him?

That's why the CAP project is focused intensely on each individual CAP pokemon, not the combination of those pokemon with each other.

If you want to "explore and understand the competitive Pokémon metagame", then IMO stacking the pokemon that are created here is not the way to do it. Lets say 15 pokemon are created. We would certainly learn about the CAP metagame but it would not be at all like the standard. If we scrapped the old pokemon though we would be able to see what affects individual pokemon can have on the OU metagame.

 

[DougJustDoug]

If we go back and playtest previous CAP pokemon, we are doing it for "academic reasons". We're not doing it to balance the CAP metagame, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. So, you could say that this entire PR proposal is really for the sake of "purity". In practical terms, we will presumably learn something about our previous individual creations that we did not learn the first time around -- since none of the previous creations were tested in isolation with standard Platinum OU. We aren't doing this for "fairness" or because of some perceived "obligation" to apply the current playtesting process to each and every pokemon. This isn't a forced exercise. This is something that we think might be interesting, fun, and we'll learn something from it.

But, if we do it, we should do it right. And by "do it right", I mean that we should apply the playtesting process to each individual pokemon -- regardless of the impact on the supposed "permanent CAP Metagame".

And, on that point, there is no "permanent CAP Metagame" -- not one that we can really manage overtly. Since the CAP project is perpetually creating new ladders and new pokemon, we always have new metagames on the server. None of them are permanent. Yes, the pokemon we create will reappear in the server metagame for several weeks at a time, in between playtesting ladders. But, each time an old CAP pokemon reappears, they are in a new metagame than the one in which they last appeared. So a "permanent CAP metagame" doesn't really exist.

I mention this because we should not get too attached to the concept of a "CAP Metagame". The CAP metagame exists, and it can be fun to play. But, the CAP metagame's purpose is mainly to facilitate the CAP server's "community atmosphere" -- not the overall CAP Project's explicit purpose and goals.

Indirectly, the CAP Metagame serves a good purpose. Here's the indirect chain of logic:

• A direct goal of the project is to validate our theories -- ie. our forum-created pokemon.
• To validate our creations, we need to playtest them.
• To playtest them we need playtesters.
• To have playtesters we need a ready supply of dedicated battle-simulator enthusiasts.
• A great way to get players to dedicate, is to make a self-sustaining battle-simulator community.
• A permanently-available server, with established rules, leadership, ladders, and rankings -- is a great foundation for a self-sustaining server community.
• Therefore, the metagame played and favored by the server community is critical to keeping the players interested and engaged with the project as a whole.

The key point is that the CAP metagame's purpose is mainly to be interesting and fun for the server community -- it is not the direct focus of the overall CAP project. Because of the intertwined nature of the server and forum, I realize it's all a bit circular -- but I think you see my point. As long as the CAP metagame is interesting and fun for the server regulars -- then I'm fine with it. I am keenly interested in making sure our server community is sustainable, and the CAP metagame is part of that. But, it's necessarily a small part of that -- because the inherent nature of the CAP project is that we will be constantly changing the server's metagame. If server players don't like that, then they need to find another server community to join.

Whether the server players like it or not -- their metagame is, and forever will be, the melting pot that results from the CAP Project's continual experimentation with new pokemon. This PR thread is a proposal for yet another experiment. That experiment is to test individual past pokemon in isolation with standard OU. If we agree to do it -- then we should do it "right". Test each pokemon, and revise those that are overpowered/underpowered in testing.

If Revenankh or any other CAP pokemon is overpowered/underpowered in standard OU, then we should revise it. There are two reasons for this:

• If Revenankh is overpowered in OU, a revised Revenankh will likely still be viable in the combined CAP metagame. I highly doubt it will be revised downward so much as to be completely useless. If it is... oh well.
  
  
• Experienced newcomers to the CAP project evaluate our project by looking at our past creations. When they do so, they evaluate our creations by estimating their effectiveness in the OU metagame. If a CAP pokemon appears to be unusable in standard OU -- it makes the project look bad. As I like to say, "It's bad for business". New players will not take the time to investigate key interactions with other CAP pokemon. CAP pokemon are walking billboards for the CAP project itself. As such, it is important that our creations are suitable for OU play, which is the yardstick used by the competitive pokemon community.

If we are going to do this experiment, then I think we need to ignore the consequences on the combined CAP metagame, which is ever-changing anyway. The CAP metagame will likely be interesting and fun, regardless of what we do here.

 

[ferron]

Doug, what I don't understand is why we keep the old cap pokemon. Why don't we just add the cap to the metagame then keep him there until a new cap is created to replace him?
If you want to "explore and understand the competitive Pokémon metagame", then IMO stacking the pokemon that are created here is not the way to do it. Lets say 15 pokemon are created. We would certainly learn about the CAP metagame but it would not be at all like the standard. If we scrapped the old pokemon though we would be able to see what affects individual pokemon can have on the OU metagame.

because people create an attachment to the the pokes they use and the newer members would be annoyed that they never got to use certain pokes. at the exact same time, we ARE doing what you say using the testing period that we now have after each CaP

 

[zarator]

Mmm... Now I start to see your point, Doug. Yeah, probably the more consistent policy we should stick to is the one you explained, at least if we want to make sense out of these playtests.