Policy Review Policy Review - Changes to Bias and Movepool Process

[DougJustDoug]

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: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1412586&postcount=2

I think CAP4 was the smoothest of all the CAP projects so far. Obviously, our fourth project built upon the lessons learned in the previous three. I also think it helped greatly to have a clearly documented process guide for the TL to follow and for the rest of the community to see. But the process was not perfect, and could use a few tweaks to improve CAP5 and beyond.

I felt there were two areas that could use some improvement and I have listed the proposed changes below:

Bias Polling Changes

CAP4 was the first project to use X-Act's stat rating formula for measuring the effectiveness of base stats. I think it was far superior to the previous use of BST. But, the polling in that phase of the project dragged a bit. The general community was not actively engaged in most of the early polls (just look at the vote and post totals), and the project lost momentum as a result. The project picked up steam when the actual stat spread poll came around. So, I'd like to minimize the boring early polls and more quickly proceed to voting on actual stat spreads.

Also, the nature of the early bias polls seemed to excessively narrow the field of "legal" stat spreads. I felt like all the stat spreads were confined into such narrow ratings limits, that many of that stat spreads looked the same. I think we should widen the ranges a bit, and allow the stat spread creators more flexibility to come up with unique and interesting spreads.

With this in mind I propose we hold only TWO polls to set the bias limits for ODB and PSB, prior to the actual stat spread polls. The two polls would be click polls and would contains four options in each poll:

Offensive/Defensive Balance

Offensive: 20 to 40+
Mixed, possibly Offensive: 0 to 20
Mixed, possibly Defensive: -20 to 0
Defensive: -40 to -20

Physical/Special Balance

Physical: 20 to 40+
Mixed, possibly Physical: 0 to 20
Mixed, possibly Special: -20 to 0
Special: -40 to -20

If you want to see the current polling process, look in the Process Guide. It involves more polls and results in narrower limits for ODB and PSB. The polling process I propose will be shorter, and will give stat spread creators some more leeway to be creative.


Movepool Discussion Changes

CAP4 was also the first project that separated the movepool voting into two parts - Attacking Moves and Non-Attacking moves. It think the separation went a long way to helping control the movepool discussion, which has been a total mess in the past. But, the movepool discussion was still fairly messy. I think we need to take further steps to make the discussions worthwhile.

The two biggest problems with the movepool discussions were:

Too many posts containing long lists of moves and TMs.
These posts are well-intentioned, but they really spam the discussion. Few people care to read a list of every move that someone thinks is POSSIBLE for the pokemon to get. And most of the lists contained very little content worthy of discussion. These posts HAVE to be eliminated.

Too much discussion about "flavor" of moves.
The movepool process was separated into three phases -- two competitive discussions, and then the poll after movepool submitters have added in flavor moves. For some reason, the competitive movepool discussions were hijacked by the flavor-junkies and we never really got them back on track.​

Currently, the Process Guide has the following language regarding the Attacking Movepool Discussion (there is similar language for the Non-Attacking moves):

The TL should post an initial competitive Attacking movepool in the OP of a discussion thread. This initial movepool should only contain damage-dealing moves that are considered "competitive". No "flavor" moves should be included. Moves that do not deal significant damage should not be included (see Non-Attacking moves below). As a general rule, any competitive move that can be prevented by Taunt, should not be included in this discussion. It is up to the TL's discretion as to which moves should be discussed in this thread, and which moves should be deferred until the Non-Attacking Moves Discussion. The community should post regarding necessary additions and removals to the list proposed in the OP. No full learnset posts are allowed in this discussion, and should be strictly prohibited.

I think we should change the language and tighten the enforcement of the last two sentences. The TL needs to post a list of moves in the OP and EVERY POST should refer to proposed additions or removals to the list. Possibly, we should limit the number of moves that a person can advocate for addition or removal. I really think we should limit people's natural tendency to spam long lists of moves into the discussion thread. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion involving so many lists. I think there should be one list -- the list in the OP. The OP list will change as the discussion progresses. Discussion participants should check it often.

I also think we should add some language discouraging purely "flavor" arguments. Inevitably, there will be lots of posts like, "I just don't see this pokemon using <move name here>." Those posts are annoying, but not particularly problematic. The problem is when the discussion veers deeply into the realm of pure flavor -- like the Tailwind discussions in CAP4. Flavor concerns can and will affect people's votes. That's fine. But the topic usually cannot be argued intelligently in the discussion threads. It always comes down to a matter of subjective preference. I think the discussion threads should focus on the competitive use of moves -- which can and should be debated and analyzed in great detail.

 

[Hyra]

Agree wholeheartedly, even though I didn't get to see the problems with the Bias polls. It all sounds like it will be much better. I would go as far to ban flavor discussions until the actual poll, because they won't influence anything until then (unless its really obvious and in violation of X-Act's guidelines (no Sunny Day on most Water's, etc.).

 

[Wyverii]

Ah yes the movepool threads. If I remember correctly any well thought out posts that inspected the effects of a particular attack were overridden by huge complaints about flavour. I also found it rather odd that we sculpted an ability to make Tailwind viable then nearly did an about turn and had some people trying to get it out of it's movepool, there was so many complaints about flavour we had to give Fidgit an excuse to use it before people would allow it. Frankly i'm of the mindset that if Nintendo can make huge discrepancies in the movepools of official Pokemon we should be allowed to think about competitiveness foremost then flavour later in the movepool submissions. I give my full and honest backing to this.

There was something else that annoyed me slightly within movepool discussion that's not been mentioned. About six different poison themed moves were suggested within the attacking moves discussion after X-acts original post. I think that throwing new moves out onto a CaP Pokemon without a well thought out reason should be discouraged heavily. Anything unnecessary that removes accessibility from the metagame should be moderated in my opinion.

 

[X-Act]

I agree completely with the Bias Polling changes. Having more leeway would make the stat spread more creative and less restrictive as you say. I would like to add that it should be made clear that:

1) Base Stat Total can be a number that is not a multiple of 5. Add up Zangoose's Base Stats, or Abomasnow's, or Clefable's, or Drifblim's, and tell me what the answer is. And don't tell me 'those are the exceptions that prove the rule' -- rather, those are a few cases that prove what I'm saying.

2) Nobody should frown upon a spread having all, or any, of its stats not divisible by 5. Have you ever used a Pokemon with 67/89/116/79/116/33 base stats? Or one with 108/112/118/68/72/47 base stats? Don't lie, you have: one is called Bronzong and the other one is called Hippowdon. And don't tell me 'I don't like that base stat spread because the numbers are not divisible by 5'. It's like you're saying 'I don't like Coca-Cola because the shape of its bottle is ugly'. What the hell does the bottle have to do with the taste of Coca-Cola?

In short, creativity shouldn't be stifled just because people have wayward ideas that stifle a person's creativity. What I mean is: if the majority of people don't like a stat spread because it has way too many numbers not ending in '0' or '5', then, next time, that person is going to be forced to make his stat spread conform to that. Because, let's face it, when people submit a stat spread, or anything really, it's because they have faith in their own submission, and hence they want it to win. If people wouldn't vote for a stat spread because it is 74/84/94/99/91/109 instead of 75/85/95/100/90/110, then that is restricting creativity.

Adding to this: should a BST limit of 555 or less be imposed? You know my position on this, but since 'game lore' states that a BST of >555 is restricted to legendary or uber Pokemon (even though a Pokemon with a BST of 600 can be much worse than one with a BST of 500 -_-), I am giving the benefit of the doubt that, perhaps, we should clarify this and take a stand.

About the movepool discussion changes, I agree with everything you said, and I don't have anything to add.

 

[tennisace]

Unfortunatly, I don't have much to add about the movepool discussion, because I completely agree. I also agree with X-Act and you about everything he said about the BSR and stat polls, because on a personal level, my spread had to be changed to qualify, but was too close to other spreads. Another thing people didn't like was the odd speed. I also believe that at some point, we may want to make a legendary. A spread like 100/90/100/90/100/90 has a BST of 570, but a BSR of 444, which is within the range we gave for Fidgit iirc. So in conclusion, I agree with everything that has been said here.

 

[Elevator Music]

Where is the line between a flavor move and a competitive move? Because Acid is not a competitive move. Fire Fang **_on Syclant_** isn't really much of a competitive move. Hell, Power Whip on Revenankh isn't much of a competitive move.

However, if the argument on flavor only works one way, then I suppose that is fine. I could see where you're coming from saying flavor can't keep a move out of a movepool, but it can shove one in. With exceptions of course.


It is my personal belief that just because Nintendo fucks up some pokemon doesn't mean we should. However, I'm not going to fight if you guys think that giving Mud Slap to <CaP #> is a good idea.

 

[DougJustDoug]

There was something else that annoyed me slightly within movepool discussion that's not been mentioned. About six different poison themed moves were suggested within the attacking moves discussion after X-acts original post. I think that throwing new moves out onto a CaP Pokemon without a well thought out reason should be discouraged heavily. Anything unnecessary that removes accessibility from the metagame should be moderated in my opinion.

Good point. Thanks for bringing this up. We do need a more orderly way of handling the issue of new moves. Perhaps we should require that new moves (and new abilities, for that matter) be submitted to the TL via PM for "approval"? The TL can then weed out the moves that aren't viable, or that are too similar to other custom moves presented. If the TL approves the submission, then they can be posted with a note acknowledging that the poster received explicit permission from the TL. The OP would indicate the required process for submitting new moves. Offenders would be moderated.

This is just one idea for controlling the new move process. I'm very open to other suggestions. But, I would like to address this issue in this Policy Review.

1) Base Stat Total can be a number that is not a multiple of 5.
2) Nobody should frown upon a spread having all, or any, of its stats not divisible by 5.

I agree with this suggestion X-Act. But, not for the reasons you might think.

I admit that I don't like stat spread numbers that are not divisible by five. I've made comments in spread discussions indicating that preference. For me, I'm accustomed to seeing "even numbers" on stat spreads and I can easily remember certain calculations based on even stat numbers. Since the majority of ingame pokemon follow this convention, it has become ingrained in my perception of what spreads "look normal". It's just a preference of mine.

BUT -- I agree that I should not be voicing that preference in stat spread discussions. Why? Because it is a variation on the concept of "rulebooking". "Rulebooking" is when a person presumes to know the rulebook that Nintendo follows when making pokemon. Just because many pokemon ingame have even-numbered spreads, does not make it a rule. There are many examples of pokemon that deviate from even numbers, and there is no rule or guideline on the CAP project that requires even-numbered spreads.

We need to stop presuming that anyone knows the "Rules of Pokemon Design", because no one does. The CAP Forum Rules actually prohibit it. By introducing statements of preference like "I think a stat spread should be divisible by five." -- has an undertone of rulebooking behind it. I plead guilty to doing this myself in the past, but I will not do so in the future.

This is the sort of discussion mindset that I think we should be encouraging on the CAP project. There will always be matters of preference that affect voting. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But we need to avoid issues of pure preference that cannot be analyzed or debated. It is pointless to discuss. The insidious problem with rulebooking is that it gives the dubious appearance of a statement of fact. It is very compelling from an argumentation standpoint to act like you are following a "rule" -- when, in fact, it is almost completely baseless and unprovable. Experienced members of this project need to be cognizant of rulebooking in its various forms on the CAP project. This "divisible by 5" issue is a good example.

Adding to this: should a BST limit of 555 or less be imposed? You know my position on this, but since 'game lore' states that a BST of >555 is restricted to legendary or uber Pokemon (even though a Pokemon with a BST of 600 can be much worse than one with a BST of 500 -_-), I am giving the benefit of the doubt that, perhaps, we should clarify this and take a stand.

This is a tough one. I agree that there is a massive amount of game lore and community perception precedent on this one. BST limits are really another variation of rulebooking, like I just mentioned above. But, the overwhelming history behind the issue is probably too much to overcome. Perhaps we should mention it in the guide like this:

There are no hard limits regarding BST totals for our pokemon. The only stat limits imposed by this project pertain to the stat ratings. However, there is a preference by the vast majority of the community that all stat spreads should be less than 555, for a variety of stylistic reasons. BST limits should not be argued within the stat spread discussions. However, stat spread creators should be aware that if your spread exceeds 555 BST, you may alienate a large number of voters based on the BST alone.

 

[User 12783]

I whole-heartedly agree, and can we cut out this flavor crap if you're not gonna back it up intelligently? :/

I agree with X-Acts method here too, unless we make a legendary Pokemon we should have have a BST limit. I agree with everything else X-Act has to say, and agree with movepool stipulations.

Agreeing with Doug as well.

 

[X-Act]

Just for fun, I counted quickly the number of base stats that don't end in '0' or '5' (excluding our CAP Pokemon).

22 Pokemon have 6 base stats that don't end in '0' or '5'. (4.4%)
8 Pokemon have 5 base stats that don't end in '0' or '5'. (1.6%)
17 Pokemon have 4 base stats that don't end in '0' or '5'. (3.4%)
36 Pokemon have 3 base stats that don't end in '0' or '5'. (7.2%)
71 Pokemon have 2 base stats that don't end in '0' or '5'. (14.3%)
17 Pokemon have 1 base stat that don't end in '0' or '5'. (3.4%)
327 Pokemon have 0 base stats that don't end in '0' or '5'. (65.7%)

This shows that about 1 in 3 Pokemon have at least a base stat that does not end in '0' or '5', while 2 in 3 Pokemon have their base stats all ending in '0' or '5'.

Also

74 Pokemon have a BST that does not end up in '0' or '5'. (14.9% or about 1 in 7)
424 Pokemon have a BST that ends up in '0' or '5'. (85.1% or about 6 out of 7)

Make what you want of that.

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

Agree with X-act and Wyverii's statement whole-heartily but I do have a problem with this suggestion of an BST "limit". To me this "limit" isn't necessary as it would stifles creativity within the discussion and alienate submitters of stat spread as they would believe that this limit is official, but really this is all being suggested because people within the community are too afraid to break "game-lore traditions" ever once and awhile. You have to remember that people are already conforming to another limit called BSR, so a limit on BST isn't needed. If the stat spread in question is within the limit of the BSR, it's alright within my book regardless of BST.

Tennis~ Figdit's BSR was between 300 to 419.

 

[tennisace]

Tennis~ Figdit's BSR was between 300 to 419.

D'oh! Still close though. X-Act demonstrated a 600 BST with a fairly low BSR in a past thread though to prove that BST meant nothing. So there really is no practical reason for a limit, but if people just don't make them with 600 BSTs, then there won't be a problem.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

I will implement the proposal in the OP.

I will also add language to the process guide to require "TL approval" for the submission of new moves and abilities.