Policy Review Policy Review - Revamp of the CAP Revision Process

[zarator]

Approved by Darkie

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.

There has already been a Policy Review thread about a Revision Process. It has benn posted by Tay, and it specifically targeted Syclant and Revenankh (http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45874). The main reason which advocated the Revision Process at the time was that the two first CAPs weren't as controlled and well-managed as the following ones, and so Syclant and Revenankh could be overpowered. This, however, is not what this thread is about, both in the subject and in the method.

About the subject, this Policy Review is not aimed at a specific CAP. I can - and I will - tell some examples for the sake of explanation. But the true object of my PR will be the CAP in general. And about the method, Tay's one was quite situational. In the thread there was no focus on any measures to undertake "automatically" should the problem arise again. This is what I'd like to avoid.

On to the main point. As we all know, CAPs are intended to fit into the OU environment. Howeverm some of them have fallen in usage to the point they risk to become UU. As of now, the main "disused CAPs" are Syclant and Pyroak, but this issue could affect more CAPs in the future. There could be very different reason for this fall - I suggest to read Seven Deadly Sins article on Smog#1 about this (http://www.smogon.com/smog/inverse_metagames). However, this is not the place to argue about them.


What I'd like to propose is to undertake automaticallu a CAP Revision Process every time a CAP falls under a defined percentage of usage.
In order to ease the pace of the discussion, I also planned a draft of this new Revision Process.

1)CAP Nomination: As soon as the CAP process on charge ends (for example, CAP9 in the future), someone - I have still no idea of who, exactly - will open a thread for every CAP fallen under that specific percentage. The thread could be called "CAP Revision *insert CAP name here*". This will be a bold voting thread open only to the CAP Committee (In order to ensure a quality process - very necessary for a revision). The committee will vote whether or not said CAP need a revision. If "No" wins, the process ends. Otherwise, it goes on.

2a) Stat Revision - Discussion: Following - sort of - the order of the creation process, we will examine the stat spread of the CAP. Every member of the committee will be allowed to suggest a tweak of this spread.

2b) Stat Revision - Poll: The committee will vote between every option posted in 2a and "No stat modification". Pretty self-explanatory here. The poll can be prolonged as usual in order to narrow down alternatives. But "No stat modification" will stay as a valid alternative until the end.

3a) Ability Revision - Discussion: The committee will discuss whether or not the abilities should be changed. Single members are allowed to suggest other abilities in place of the existing one/ones.

3b) Ability Revision - Poll: Same as with the Stat poll.

4a) Movepool Revision - Discussion: The committee will discuss the movepool of said CAP, suggesting any tweak they like.

4b) Movepool Revision - Poll: This poll will follow the same mechanics as the controversial moves poll in the CAP process.

5) Finished Product: The new Pokémon is posted with its new (if any) features. People will also discuss where to place any new moves in the existing movepool.


Hopefully this process will last no more than 2 or 3 weeks. I don't think it will ever happen that 2 or more CAPs are eligible for the Revision Process - aside from amybe the first time. So, this should be a non-issue.

Feel free to discuss, suggest, contribute or criticize as you like. And thanks for your kind attention.

EDIT: The way the discussion evolved compels me to add something. (Credits to tennisace for this) The revamp of the Revising Process should be made in order to let us also tweak CAP which result to be broken. This will probably be an issue of newer CAPs, but it could affect also older CAPs which could receive a boost by a newer one. Feel free to suggest ideas to handle this problem!

 

[ferron]

i'm just at a loss for understanding when this would take place because 1)if we do it between CaPs, then we may delay the next CaP process or 2)we do it durring a CaP and have the community's attention divided. it might need its own sub-forum in order to not compete with any on-going CaP projects.
also, i'm not sure it is really necessary, as it is natural for a poke to have its usage rise and fall based on the current metagame. blaziken going from OU to UU, alakazam and breloom being BL in R/S, etc. new moves and new pokes change how good a poke is, making some older pokes obsolete while rising others to power.

 

[TekkenStorm]

i'm just at a loss for understanding when this would take place because 1)if we do it between CaPs, then we may delay the next CaP process or 2)we do it durring a CaP and have the community's attention divided. it might need its own sub-forum in order to not compete with any on-going CaP projects.
also, i'm not sure it is really necessary, as it is natural for a poke to have its usage rise and fall based on the current metagame. blaziken going from OU to UU, alakazam and breloom being BL in R/S, etc. new moves and new pokes change how good a poke is, making some older pokes obsolete while rising others to power.

That isn't always the case though. If we use Syclant and Pyraok again as examples, Syclant started lowering in usage by huge margin when we Revamped it, from top OU to bottom OU almost being UU, showing we nerfed a little too much. This meant that our current revision process isn't that great and needs to be fixed.

As for Pyroak, he wasn't good enough from the start, he had a good usage at the begining because he was a new CAP and people wanted to try him out but as time passed he fell alot in usage. This was because during its creation we where afraid of making an other broken CAP since the previous two where shown to be overpowered so this caused us to limit Pyroaks potential alot. Because of this, Pyroak didn't turn out quite well and could make a good use of a revamp.

 

[zarator]

i'm just at a loss for understanding when this would take place because 1)if we do it between CaPs, then we may delay the next CaP process or 2)we do it durring a CaP and have the community's attention divided. it might need its own sub-forum in order to not compete with any on-going CaP projects.
also, i'm not sure it is really necessary, as it is natural for a poke to have its usage rise and fall based on the current metagame. blaziken going from OU to UU, alakazam and breloom being BL in R/S, etc. new moves and new pokes change how good a poke is, making some older pokes obsolete while rising others to power.

About the timetable, we generally have at least 2 weeks between the end of a CAP and the beginning of another one. This period is usually employed in playtesting and in Policy Review threads. However, even with this issues at hand, these weeks are generally quite stagnant, so, if anything, the CAP Revision Process could help keeping interest alive in the transition between one CAP and another.

Moreover, this is a CAP revision, not a CAP creation. It should not require so much effort into it. Under many aspects, it is more suitable comparing the CAP Revision Process to a Policy Review thread. And if we can manage 2 discussions, we can manage also 3, right?

As for the necessity, I have not posted SDS article just for the sake of it. We all know that a Pokémon in UU may be viable in OU, but if it is nonetheless UU there are generally some reasons. Just for example, I'll write some points:
- The CAP is shut down by some of the top-tier OU Pokémon
- The CAP is not enoughly versatile to be employed aside from a very narrow niche
- The CAP is outclassed at his job by another Pokémon

These are just some issues which could affect - for example - either Syclant or Pyroak (not all of them together, obviously). The process I proposed should help us make disused CAPs match again the metagame.

Let me make an actual case. Let's suppose Blaziken is a CAP we created in the past. We realize that, despite having good potential, we have done too little to differentiate him from Infernape. So, we could revamp it tweaking its stat and its movepool to diversify him.

I hope it was more clear now

 

[hydrolphin]

I am a huge supporter of this idea. Some CAPs have lost a lot of usability due to recent CAPs like Arghonaut, and to a lesser extent, the Platinum changes.

In the most recent stats Revenankh has dropped to 26, Pyroak has dropped to 38, and Syclant has dropped to 41. Fidgit, Stratagem, and Arghonaut are top line pokemon still, though Stratagem has dropped of a bit. We don't have a good estimation for Kitsunoh yet, so its still to early to judge.

The lower used CAPs are not competetive for one or more of four reasons:
-A newer CAP counters it perfectly
-A newer CAP completely outclasses it.
-Platinum has created a perfect counter
-Platinum has crated a more effective version of the CAP

Syclant, for example, fits into three of those categories. Revvy is in one of those, and Pyroak never had a chance to be good.

While recent CAPs all have something worthwhile, the lack of structure in the first three CAPs actually made them worse.

 

[ferron]

this still doesn't argue for the necessity of it. the most that happens to a poke to improve it from one generation to that next is a slight movepool upgrade, maybe a new ability and new items. what is proposed is much more than this. are we really gonna say that what we have the right to do something like this when the game creators themselves choose not to do?

 

[zarator]

this still doesn't argue for the necessity of it. the most that happens to a poke to improve it from one generation to that next is a slight movepool upgrade, maybe a new ability and new items. what is proposed is much more than this. are we really gonna say that what we have the right to do something like this when the game creators themselves choose not to do?

Much more than this? Not really. Or at least, not necessarily. The system I proposed is organised so that there is the possibility to modifying even a minor feature leaving the rest of the revised CAP untouched. But at least the system itself at least give us a meaning to modify what would otherwise be outdated Pokémon.

And about the game creators, I don't think they could have created a system to revamp their creatures during a generation, aside from maybe some tutor moves and similar things. And actually, I don't think they would be interested. They don't care about the competitive environment the same way we do. And if we have different objectives, we can also have different methods.

 

[ferron]

alteration of the stats and/or the ability wouldn't be considered much more..?

 

[zarator]

alteration of the stats and/or the ability wouldn't be considered much more..?

1) The method I posted should allow the committee to modify just the movepool and leave stats and/or the ability untouched
2) While we never modify the ability of a previous CAP, there is a precedent to the tweak of a stat spread - hence why I linked Tay's PR
3) If you like, you could propose to modify the process I posted saying for example that we should limit the Revision Process to just the movepool part

Just, please, could you make your criticism a bit more constructive? I'd need to hear some suggestion rather than a bunch of "I don't think so"-like comments...

 

[ferron]

i never made an "i don't think so" comment, but made two statement originally about the time table for it and if it is necessary. the first one you responded to, but the second one has recieve no direct response, but rather have listed qualifications for a poke worthy of revision rather than explaining why it needs to be done.
as for TAY's previous revision process that you wish to mention, you forget that one of the pokes that were nerfed by it you now mentioned to raise the power of. this alone should show you how effective changing it at all can be.
i honestly say to just leave them be, as for what may seem like trash now might have a surprising usefulness in the future (a la tentacruel).

 

[zarator]

i never made an "i don't think so" comment, but made two statement originally about the time table for it and if it is necessary. the first one you responded to, but the second one has recieve no direct response, but rather have listed qualifications for a poke worthy of revision rather than explaining why it needs to be done.

You keep treating CAP metagame like standard metagame, but it really isn't. The game creators didn't choose to introduce a new Pokémon every 2 months in the first place. We are already doing something that game creators did not choose to do. CAP metagame is much more shifting than standard. Our new creations interact with older ones, and sometimes they make them obsolete. Arghonaut for example resist both of Syclant STABs and with Unaware does not fear Tail Glow or Swords Dance. If we constantly change the metagame this way, we need a system that let us review older creations that we might have indirectly nerfed. Most importantly, the system I posted does not bring us to necessarily modify the disused CAPs. This is up to the community. I'd say, it's better to choose than not.

as for TAY's previous revision process that you wish to mention, you forget that one of the pokes that were nerfed by it you now mentioned to raise the power of. this alone should show you how effective changing it at all can be.

This is a slightly dishonest assumption from your side. Do you honestly think that Syclant would have been nerfed in an environment with BP Scizor, Arghonaut and Stratagem (just to name some new threats)? And anyway I never said we should empower Syclant. I only said we should build a process that might give us the chance to do it, should we deem it necessary to keep him OU. It is different.

i honestly say to just leave them be, as for what may seem like trash now might have a surprising usefulness in the future (a la tentacruel).

Tentacruel is a lone exception. There is almost no other Pokémon that found itself bumped from UU to OU without a generation shift or the introduction of a new environment (aka Platinum).


I don't think it may be harmful to create a process with whom we can modify previous CAPs - note the word "can". We may as well leave them as they are if we wish to.

 

[ferron]

Tentacruel is a lone exception. There is almost no other Pokémon that found itself bumped from UU to OU without a generation shift or the introduction of a new environment (aka Platinum).

dugtrio from G/S to R/S
machamp from R/B to G/S
there are probably more, but the point still stands that it is possible.

look, if you want to know why i'm so against this, then it is rather simple;1) i don't see it as necessary, and 2) this might lead us down a path where instead of making OU viable pokes, we are trying to only make top 10 pokes.

 

[tennisace]

I don't think you should be concentrating on bringing "fallen" CAPs back up. You forget that every 2 months or so, the metagame drastically shifts. Ferron is right, in the future, CAPs could suddenly become useful or not useful depending on what kind of CAP is made.

I would instead focus on having a contingency plan for revising broken CAPs. The process you have would work great for this, however you just need to emphasize that in the OP the first vote. I would also make the revision vote mandatory after the two week period, making it the TL's last duty. Having the PRC or people who make a certain rating on the ladder (a la the suspect test) vote may be the best way to approach this, however it kind of goes against the "everyone votes" philosophy. Then again, that's how the suspect test is handled in Smogon, which is essentially what the playtesting period boils down to; a suspect in a metagame without other suspects.

 

[zarator]

dugtrio from G/S to R/S
machamp from R/B to G/S
there are probably more, but the point still stands that it is possible.

look, if you want to know why i'm so against this, then it is rather simple;1) i don't see it as necessary, and 2) this might lead us down a path where instead of making OU viable pokes, we are trying to only make top 10 pokes.

You are still telling us of generation shifts. And you still keep ignoring that CAP metagame is much more unstable than standard. It is not like "Hey, Dugtrio was useless in G/S but with R/S it got Arena Trap". Our constant efforts of modifying the metagame through the introduction of new Pokémon cause some of our older creations to become obsolete. This is not Persian falling from R/B to G/S. This is Syclant (I repeat - Syclant is not the only one. The same could happen also to Stratagem, Arghonaut and friends in the future) being fucked up when we decided to let it nerfed even after Platinum brought Bullet Punch Scizor and we created Arghonaut, Stratagem and Kitsunoh to check and counter it hard. This is not Gamefreak's game, and you should stop making example based on what happens in-game.

Also, there is no risk of making Pokémon a game of only 10 top contenders. OU is composed of roughly 50 Pokémon as of now (yeah, I know it's based on usage and not on a set limit, but on average the number of OUs is constant). And we still have not defined the usage percentage we should set for this process. If for example we would deem "UU status" as the requirement, then so far no Pokémon - not even Syclant and Pyroak - would achieve it. Making such considerations is a gross overstatement.

@Tennis: I agree upon a method to handle the Revision Process of a supposedly overpowered CAP, but I have no clue of how to decide the criteria said CAP should satisfy in order to be eligible to the process...

 

[tennisace]

@Tennis: I agree upon a method to handle the Revision Process of a supposedly overpowered CAP, but I have no clue of how to decide the criteria said CAP should satisfy in order to be eligible to the process...

Offensive Characteristic
A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it is capable of sweeping through a significant portion of teams in the metagame with little effort.

Defensive Characteristic
A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it is able to wall and stall out a significant portion of the metagame.

Support Characteristic
A Pokémon is uber if, in common battle conditions, it can consistently set up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other pokemon to sweep.

A bold vote explaining why it meets one or more of the characteristics would work here, kind of like in the UU Suspect Nomination.

 

[zarator]

I have not explained well... How we determine what is suspect and what not? Periodic nominations? Reasoned Topic posted by a single member? I can't understand...

 

[tennisace]

I have not explained well... How we determine what is suspect and what not? Periodic nominations? Reasoned Topic posted by a single member? I can't understand...

I said it in my post, a vote after each testing period. If it is determined to fall under one or more of the three clauses (via a bold vote), we will go to a revision process, then another two week testing period. Other CAPs will be held up so attention is not drawn from either.

 

[cyberzero]

I personally am mixed about this PR, because although the less used CAPs are basically hard work gone to waste, it tells us how it fits into the OU metagame. We can analyze that Syclant is both outclassed by many Pokemon and is countered by Bullet Punch Scizor showing that a great sweeper still has trouble.

I would instead focus on having a contingency plan for revising broken CAPs. The process you have would work great for this, however you just need to emphasize that in the OP the first vote. I would also make the revision vote mandatory after the two week period, making it the TL's last duty. Having the PRC or people who make a certain rating on the ladder (a la the suspect test) vote may be the best way to approach this, however it kind of goes against the "everyone votes" philosophy. Then again, that's how the suspect test is handled in Smogon, which is essentially what the playtesting period boils down to; a suspect in a metagame without other suspects.

The CAP Suspect Test is truly a good idea, in my opinion, and fully support it. Would a separate PR need to be posted or would this idea in here be sufficient?

 

[zarator]

And what if:
1) The CAP we created is broken in the standard OU environment but is checked enoughly well by some of the other CAPs
2) The CAP we created is balanced in the standard OU environment but, coupled with one or more of the other CAPs it becomes broken

In case 1 I think the answer would be very easy - we would revise him, I suppose. But what in case 2? During the playtesting period it would not be apparent due to the lack of other CAPs. What would we do in such a case?

 

[tennisace]

And what if:
1) The CAP we created is broken in the standard OU environment but is checked enoughly well by some of the other CAPs
2) The CAP we created is balanced in the standard OU environment but, coupled with one or more of the other CAPs it becomes broken

In case 1 I think the answer would be very easy - we would revise him, I suppose. But what in case 2? During the playtesting period it would not be apparent due to the lack of other CAPs. What would we do in such a case?

We would still revise it. However, there is no good way of handling it besides doing it during the next CAP, since its unfair to leave it in the metagame. The chances of that happening are low, its more likely that the rest of the CAPs would cover up a broken CAP.

And @cyber, I don't think it needs another thread but if a mod wants me to remake it, I will. It was intended as a replacement/supplement to this proposal, since the skeleton process won't change, only its use.

 

[zarator]

Well, considering that the idea of revising disused CAPs seem to not have had much approvement, we may as well open another PR thread for tennis' idea and lock this, I dunno... I'd prefer to leave the decision to the others.

 

[Umbreon Dan]

I quite strongly support this. I really do want to see all of the CAPs getting used, but I've tried to use Syclant myself, and, well, it just doesn't work.

However, I would prefer this order:

1) CAP Nomination
2a) Stat Revision - Discussion
2b) Stat Revision - Poll
3a) Movepool Revision - Discussion
3b) Movepool Revision - Poll
4a) Ability Revision - Discussion
4b) Ability Revision - Poll
5) Finished Product

I don't even think that the ability revision should be there, but if it needs to be, I'd rather it be done last.

As for who could run it, why not use the TL or the ATL of the most recently completed CAP? I actually suggest the ATL because the TL is likely to be tired out by the end of their run.

 

[cyberzero]

I quite strongly support this. I really do want to see all of the CAPs getting used, but I've tried to use Syclant myself, and, well, it just doesn't work.

However, I would prefer this order:

1) CAP Nomination
2a) Stat Revision - Discussion
2b) Stat Revision - Poll
3a) Movepool Revision - Discussion
3b) Movepool Revision - Poll
4a) Ability Revision - Discussion
4b) Ability Revision - Poll
5) Finished Product

I don't even think that the ability revision should be there, but if it needs to be, I'd rather it be done last.

As for who could run it, why not use the TL or the ATL of the most recently completed CAP? I actually suggest the ATL because the TL is likely to be tired out by the end of their run.

I actually think that this process is lengthy and unecessary. If anything, I believe that we should have a discussion addressing what the problem is with the Pokemon, explaining if maybe it has too many counters or needs a new type of move to work around that weakness in order to get it to a higher place in the OU usage rankings. Then we can address the concerns in a poll to see what should be fixed and voila, revised Pokemon.

 

[Deck Knight]

Before we have any discussion on this matter, why don't we spend time suspect testing Scyclant and the others with our new Suspect policy rather than try to tackle it in this haphazard manner.

The first CAP we actually tested under our new method was Kitsunoh. I believe it only rational to apply the knowledge we're supposed to be getting e.g. how a CAP affects the standard non-CAP metagame by first spending a month or two suspect testing each CAP in succession, starting with Syclant and going through to Arghonaut.

Otherwise we're revising things in relation to other CAPs, and learning nothing about the standard metagame (the express purpose of the CAP project).

 

[zarator]

I strongly support Deck Knight on this point. On one side, this will prove whether or not some CAPs have been nerfed by Platinum addition (which I think it is Syclant case - screw you Scizor), and which CAP instead are still strong and only a bit troubled by other CAPs (I do not think Rev would have fallen to 26th if Arghonaut never existed...).

It may take some time, but I think it is very necessary.