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.