Should we also redo the analysis pages for the older Caps? The one's currently up seem a lil bit outdated and newer sets/counters could be added for us to always have them known.
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Policy Review Policy Review - Revamp of the CAP Revision Process
- Thread starter zarator
- Start date
- Status
Bull of Heaven
Guest
I don't support the idea of revising pokemon that are "not used enough". There is simply no good way to improve our creations while allowing the ignorant masses to vote, which is why zarator suggested a "committee" in the OP. I'm against this suggestion because it contradicts the most basic elements of the CAP process. CAP allows anyone to participate in the creation of a pokemon, and this has been a major factor in its success and popularity. If a "committee" changes even of Pyroak's stats, Pyroak is no longer the pokemon that the larger community created. Why should the new guys who want to be involved vote on, say, a movepool poll when some small, "experienced" group can just hijack that part of the process later. Does no one else think that this would discourage newer members and lower general interest in the project?
I'm not saying I disagree that certain pokemon should be used more, but for the reason above, I think that a CAP pokemon should only be revised if it is found to be clearly "broken" in the standard CAP metagame. If you don't think that Pyroak is used enough, and I agree that it isn't, use it. Build and post a team centred around it. Promote the pokemon. Maybe this won't work in every case, but it's a better answer than taking the community's creation and modifying it to fit the views of a much smaller group of people.
I'm not saying I disagree that certain pokemon should be used more, but for the reason above, I think that a CAP pokemon should only be revised if it is found to be clearly "broken" in the standard CAP metagame. If you don't think that Pyroak is used enough, and I agree that it isn't, use it. Build and post a team centred around it. Promote the pokemon. Maybe this won't work in every case, but it's a better answer than taking the community's creation and modifying it to fit the views of a much smaller group of people.
Zarator specifically suggested the policy committee, or PRC, and I agree. Making sure that the community doesn't screw up is a large part of what the PRC was intended to do. I'm also agreeing with Deck Knight.
I've personally revamped the majority of them once already, and over the summer Beej and I plan to add the Team Option sections. However I'd support playtesting all of the older CAPs now like Deck said, that would force everyone to use it so the analysis can be as accurate as possible.
I would also support "testing" Sycant-Arghonaut.
(Honestly we could really take away Syclant's nerf bar maybe Superpower and it still wouldn't be half as bad as stuff like Strata...)
(Honestly we could really take away Syclant's nerf bar maybe Superpower and it still wouldn't be half as bad as stuff like Strata...)
Art doesn't have anything to do with is, and shouldn't be brought up. Lunacario, the OP says not to post unless you are experienced.
Yes, some of our pokemon aren't used as much as they used to(or should be), but I really don't see why we need to revise them. These CaP's are perfectly viable, it may just take more "skill" to use them. I made an all CAP team and managed to make it to my highest rating ever, and that was using Pyroak, Syclant and Revenankh.
On the other hand, if a CaP were to be broken I would strongly support revising them. These pokemon were designed for OU, and would probably be to overpowered for UU. They have their uses, and I don't believe they need to be revised(undo Syclants revision). Also, X-Act said it would be impossible to have an OU list for CAP because the metagame is always changing.
Also, you're using stats from March. I know these are the most recent, but they may have changed since then.
Yes, some of our pokemon aren't used as much as they used to(or should be), but I really don't see why we need to revise them. These CaP's are perfectly viable, it may just take more "skill" to use them. I made an all CAP team and managed to make it to my highest rating ever, and that was using Pyroak, Syclant and Revenankh.
On the other hand, if a CaP were to be broken I would strongly support revising them. These pokemon were designed for OU, and would probably be to overpowered for UU. They have their uses, and I don't believe they need to be revised(undo Syclants revision). Also, X-Act said it would be impossible to have an OU list for CAP because the metagame is always changing.
Also, you're using stats from March. I know these are the most recent, but they may have changed since then.
Bear, that's what we were basically proposing all along, unless your trying to suggest something totally new that I just missed.
As far as the proposed addition to the CAP proscess I think it's a great idea. I seem to remember at the beginning of Kitsunoh's Playtesting some people were a little less than impressed with how it had turned out. Whats the point in spending so much time on something that your not going to hone and perfect? The entire point of this whole project is to learn about a concept in pratical format, but sometimes what the community wanted and what fit in terms of practical use just don't match up that well. There's nothing wrong with tweaking, gamefreak does it, their just confined to doing it every generation/remake. Since this is our pokemon we have the license to do just about anything we want to it.
I wouldn't call myself as "experienced" as most of the members here- but the idea popped in my head while reading this...
I hope it's worth some sort of consideration...
Going by zarator's CAP Revision Process...
How about only letting the committee vote on the first poll- deciding whether or not the CAP required a revision. If a revision did happen, the community wouldn't be discouraged due to not being able to participate.
But again, the fact of whether or not a revision would happen would be decided by more experienced members, preventing some sort of unwanted rash changes.
I hope it's worth some sort of consideration...
Going by zarator's CAP Revision Process...
How about only letting the committee vote on the first poll- deciding whether or not the CAP required a revision. If a revision did happen, the community wouldn't be discouraged due to not being able to participate.
But again, the fact of whether or not a revision would happen would be decided by more experienced members, preventing some sort of unwanted rash changes.
Something I would like to point out the the 'cirtain percentage range'.
As more and more CAP's are added, there will be more and more viable pokemon to choose from.
As a result, it is only natural that all CAP's useage, as with the likes of Scizor, ect, will slowly drop.
So, shouldn't the percentage not be set in stone, but, instead, vary according to the usage of other OU pokemon, or CAP's?
For example, if the percentage is 10%, but most OU's are below that, then, having to revise CAP's to 10% would possibly make them broken, but it may be better to bring suffering CAP's up to the level of other CAP's, such Skylant to the level of Argonaught.
As more and more CAP's are added, there will be more and more viable pokemon to choose from.
As a result, it is only natural that all CAP's useage, as with the likes of Scizor, ect, will slowly drop.
So, shouldn't the percentage not be set in stone, but, instead, vary according to the usage of other OU pokemon, or CAP's?
For example, if the percentage is 10%, but most OU's are below that, then, having to revise CAP's to 10% would possibly make them broken, but it may be better to bring suffering CAP's up to the level of other CAP's, such Skylant to the level of Argonaught.
From a fundamental perspective, I personally don't see what the issue is with having CAP Pokémon fall into disuse in OU. While the Create-A-Pokémon project is designed with OU specifically in mind, its goal is not to attempt modification of a designated series of Pokémon so that they can remain in OU. Instead, its purpose is to create Pokémon and see how the metagame affects them. If they remain in OU, wonderful. If they fall to UU, so be it - this is evolution of the metagame. They can see plenty of use in UU/BL matches on the server. Maybe they'll receive their calling again when some new CAP threatens to overcentralize the metagame.
Essentially, CAPs don't deserve any special treatment simply because they are CAPs. If we can tinker around with the stats of Pyroak, why can't we give an appreciable boost in stats to something like Corsola, Sandslash, or Drapion, whose unique combination of abilities and moves would be invaluable to OU teams if only they had the stats to back them up? Why not punish Scizor, Tyranitar, and Latias, easily some of the most centralizing threats in OU, with a hit to their individual stat totals and movepools because they are doing too well? What's to stop us from playing God on any Pokémon? On the grounds of witnessing the natural development of the game with the introduction of new Pokemon, I reject the notion of modifying the old CAP Pokémon and being content with declaring them either successes or failures, just as Game Freak has done with its own Pokemon. (However, I would not be opposed to a movepool revision to reflect the introduction of new move tutors in Heart Gold and Soul Silver.)
On a pragmatic level, however, the CAP server generates only a fraction of the activity of the primary Smogon server, and as such it would help its popularity if it maintained all of the CAPs as viable OU contenders. I would grudingly accept these modifications as long as they would turn out for the greater good and health of the CAP server and community.
Essentially, CAPs don't deserve any special treatment simply because they are CAPs. If we can tinker around with the stats of Pyroak, why can't we give an appreciable boost in stats to something like Corsola, Sandslash, or Drapion, whose unique combination of abilities and moves would be invaluable to OU teams if only they had the stats to back them up? Why not punish Scizor, Tyranitar, and Latias, easily some of the most centralizing threats in OU, with a hit to their individual stat totals and movepools because they are doing too well? What's to stop us from playing God on any Pokémon? On the grounds of witnessing the natural development of the game with the introduction of new Pokemon, I reject the notion of modifying the old CAP Pokémon and being content with declaring them either successes or failures, just as Game Freak has done with its own Pokemon. (However, I would not be opposed to a movepool revision to reflect the introduction of new move tutors in Heart Gold and Soul Silver.)
On a pragmatic level, however, the CAP server generates only a fraction of the activity of the primary Smogon server, and as such it would help its popularity if it maintained all of the CAPs as viable OU contenders. I would grudingly accept these modifications as long as they would turn out for the greater good and health of the CAP server and community.
I think that rather we would learn more by undertaking a revision process. Think this way: we know - or at least suppose - that the main burdens to Syclant's viability (I hate to always have to make Syclant's case - we may as well call this PR Syclant's revamp!!! ironic obviously) are Scizor, Arghonaut and Stratagem to a lesser extent. How can we tweak Syclant's features in order to make it viable again? I think it would be nonetheless interesting.
Well, I proposed the PRC since it is the closest existing group of "selected members" which the revision process would need. But if you have another idea, you are welcome. And I also agree with Eszett about his point.
Hmm, not really sure how I feel about this PR. The intent is good, but actually pulling it off could be difficult, even with the small amount of CAPs we have now. For example, what happens when a pair of CAPs, where one of them is countered by the other, both happen to drop below this amount of usages in the same month (like say for example Cyclohm and Arghonaut; I don't really see this happening, but I'm just using it as an example)? It would be difficut to get the usages of both Pokemon up. Plus, what happens when we do inevitably (unless something should happen, of course) we get to say CAP55? Even though that's quite a ways in the future, once we get there, it will obviously be impossible to keep the usage of all of the CAPs up, and probably sooner.
The intent of this PR is really good though, as I'd of course love for all of the CAPs to be very viable in the OU environment and as a result used extensively in it for as long as possible, so I'm mixed on this.
The intent of this PR is really good though, as I'd of course love for all of the CAPs to be very viable in the OU environment and as a result used extensively in it for as long as possible, so I'm mixed on this.
I thought about this when I drafted the process. In fact, the reason why the first step of the Revision Process is "Do we have to revise this CAP" is because, even if said CAP falls under the percentage, we could deem a revision unneccessary. I think this should cover your issue.
As the guy who ended up running most of the last set of revisions, I suppose I should post here.
First off, the order of the three things with we should have the ability to change (Movepool, Stats, Ability) I think should be decided in the same way as it was in the previous set of revisions. That is:
1. Discussion thread, talk about what changes generally would bring the Pokemon closer to the desired power/usage.
2. Vote on which of the three things to change. You would be able to vote yes/no on each category.
3. The category with the most "yes" is put up for discussion (unless all have less than 50%) and changes are voted on.
4. Repeat step 3 until you hit something with less than 50% yes. Bear in mind that changes in earlier poll may mean that changes to later sections may not be needed.
I am also hesitant to make voting PRC only, though it may mean that the voters are more informed on average it seems like a step away from the "made by the public" that has made CaP so popular. Especially as we would in effect be overturning votes by the people. It would also run into problems because some PRC members may not be as experenced with the Pokemon as many non PRC players, and if you try to go be experence how much experence is needed to qualify? How do you measure it? Open voting is more practical and fair IMO. Some advise specifcally asking voters to read through the arguements would be helpful though.
First off, the order of the three things with we should have the ability to change (Movepool, Stats, Ability) I think should be decided in the same way as it was in the previous set of revisions. That is:
1. Discussion thread, talk about what changes generally would bring the Pokemon closer to the desired power/usage.
2. Vote on which of the three things to change. You would be able to vote yes/no on each category.
3. The category with the most "yes" is put up for discussion (unless all have less than 50%) and changes are voted on.
4. Repeat step 3 until you hit something with less than 50% yes. Bear in mind that changes in earlier poll may mean that changes to later sections may not be needed.
I am also hesitant to make voting PRC only, though it may mean that the voters are more informed on average it seems like a step away from the "made by the public" that has made CaP so popular. Especially as we would in effect be overturning votes by the people. It would also run into problems because some PRC members may not be as experenced with the Pokemon as many non PRC players, and if you try to go be experence how much experence is needed to qualify? How do you measure it? Open voting is more practical and fair IMO. Some advise specifcally asking voters to read through the arguements would be helpful though.
Hi all,
I know I'm not the most experienced CAPer around but speaking from a theoretical level, isn't the point of CAP to make a new, more balanced metagame? Metagames are meant to grow and evolve as changes occur (like Platinum) but the special thing with CAP is we control how it grows. Now, it seems to me, going through all the CAPs, revising them and seeing how the metagame shifts will be a lengthy and involved process which I feel could be avoided.
Why not make CAP9 something strong against higher threats and weak against lower threats? Something Pyroak and Scylant both counter but something that can give Argo, Rev and Strata a run for their money. Say...a mixed Grass/Ghost type?
The community here controls how CAP evolves and if what we have isn't what we want, then we can control how it evolves until we do like it, without changing what has already been accomplished.
I realized this might be too little too late but something worth considering I think.
I know I'm not the most experienced CAPer around but speaking from a theoretical level, isn't the point of CAP to make a new, more balanced metagame? Metagames are meant to grow and evolve as changes occur (like Platinum) but the special thing with CAP is we control how it grows. Now, it seems to me, going through all the CAPs, revising them and seeing how the metagame shifts will be a lengthy and involved process which I feel could be avoided.
Why not make CAP9 something strong against higher threats and weak against lower threats? Something Pyroak and Scylant both counter but something that can give Argo, Rev and Strata a run for their money. Say...a mixed Grass/Ghost type?
The community here controls how CAP evolves and if what we have isn't what we want, then we can control how it evolves until we do like it, without changing what has already been accomplished.
I realized this might be too little too late but something worth considering I think.
I agree that PRC is not a good idea, but an open poll could not be either. I remember a user - I think it was Crobatchop - who on Syclant revision movepool voting thread posted some shit like "Focus Blast should not be allowed because Syclant do not look badass enough for it" or something like that.
I only tried to think about some sort of measure to avoid inexperienced people to be involved in a process I think it is much more delicate than the standard CAP.
EDIT: I found that post, just to clarify my point
http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47769&page=2
For those who do not want to look directly into the thread, I'll quote the post for you
Do we really need to let people post something like this?
i know that you are new, but please read the CaP process. the concept and typing have to be voted in, and need legitimate metagame reasons. "help these CaPs" is not a strong reason.
@bear- that was a post from a vote. i don't want to be the one telling a person that they should revise their vote...
Oh no, I know the process. I was just thinking of how using a new CaP in an anti-metagame sense should open the door for some of the lower ones. Much like Heatran does in OU. Surely anti-metagame is a strong enough reason since the idea that CaPs need tweaking is certainly strong enough to taken seriously. That alone proves the CaP community isn't happy with how the metagame is changing but I think it's feasible to make a CaP to change the metagame in the direction people are going to take it with tweaks. Simply an alternative idea.
Sorry if I wasn't clear before.
anti-metagame was actually arghonaut's purpose, and he accomplised it pretty well, by being able to halt the serious amount of stat-uppers there were at that time. it's been done recently and i doubt it will happen again so soon. what you mentioned though, isn't an anti-metagame it's much more pro-CaP, which has weaker merits.
part of what i have been asking this thread is if any tweaks are even necessary. as for the community being happy, if they are so unhappy with the current course of the metagame, then they can run an anti-metagame team. if they are so unhappy with how they CaPs have fallen, then they should have made themselves heard more in this thread, because the concept of adding power hasn't been supported by all that many in this thread.
Sorry, but we cannot do what you ask. CAPs are based upon the standard metagame, not the CAP metagame. Hence why we have the playtesting period. We must never forget that CAP has born to study standard metagame, not to create a new one.
- Status