Policy Review Policy Review - Countering

[cyberzero]

In my opinion, we should have a discussion and a vote on what it counters/checks as early as the typing polls. I also agree that once we have our concept for the Pokemon, we should expand upon the role and what it actually does. We should only have the discussion on what it counters if it turns out that the concept is for a defensive Pokemon or a Pokemon that relies on defense, like Fidgit.

If this is going to be done, we need to make it so that the CAP will be made to be a safe switch in to standard sets of a Pokemon that is overcenteralized in the current DPPt metagame, such as Zapdos or Skymin, but not to the point where we don't see any Zapdos or Skymin anymore.

In order for this to be effective, we need this Pokemon to have favorable defensive typing against the Pokemon which is planned to be countered.

I think that what we should aim for is a relationship such as that of Heracross and Gliscor, rather than Weezing and Heatran. Heracross was an absolute monster back in ADV, and Gliscor was brought in having great defenses and typing which was resistant to both of Heracross' STAB attacks. Heracross was brought down from the monster title and it is still perfectly viable to wreak havoc with it, as well as still retaining OU-ness, it's just a little closer to mortality.

This is what I think we should aim for when it comes to the CaP's countering discussion and vote. If, and only if, the concept provides for a defensive Pokemon, we should have a discussion and vote on what Pokemon are currently 'absolute monsters' in the current CaP OU metagame. Personally, I think that the TL, and ATL or the Round Table, if those are implemented, should be the judges as to whether or not this is necessary.

Another problem: Should this Pokemon be designed to specifically counter a certain threat?
We can see in the two examples I've given that Gliscor and Heatran, which wall/counter/check Heracross and Weezing, respectively, that they are very versatile and are not fit to JUST fill the role of a Heracross counter or a Weezing counter.

In short, I recommend having the discussion and vote of what it counters/checks alongside the typings polls and discussion. This is only if the Pokemon's concept and role assume that it will be defensive. Personally, I don't think that the countering should be an actual concept, such as "True Garchomp counter" because these kinds of things would limit the CAP project drastically. It should have its own purpose, but just by chance be able to keep a certain Pokemon or two in check.

 

[tennisace]

I think there should be a general discussion along side the typing/stat bias polls, but no formal poll. The reason for this is that how many "counters" and "checks" is the Pokemon going to have? Its unfeasible to poll for every single one really, because we don't know how many we should have. However, it's a good discussion to have, because it will make the project more metagame centric.

 

[RBG]

I like tennis' idea. However, I think the general discussion should start with the completion of the Base Stats being finalized. Just by type alone, you cant make a viable counter or determine what would be nust by typing alone. It becomes much easier to do this once the stats have been finalized and the ability/movepool are being discussed.

 

[gorm]

actually tennis brings up a good point. We could try restricting it to "classes of pokemon", like when pyroak was created with the objective of threatening bulky grounds waters AND steels, a set of checks that pretty much no other pokemon could lay claim to.

Unfortunately (in pyroak's case at least) that's really too broad of an idea of what niche the pokemon is filling, not not really metagame specific enough. Even if it ended up being a decent estimation of the pokemon's actual role post playtesting, it would pretty much require it to be submitted from the very beginning. That means every single part of the process gets touched by a less than certain "niche specification".

bottom line is i don't think it's right for a regular cap project.

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

I like tennis' idea. However, I think the general discussion should start with the completion of the Base Stats being finalized. Just by type alone, you cant make a viable counter or determine what would be nust by typing alone. It becomes much easier to do this once the stats have been finalized and the ability/movepool are being discussed.

I couldn't agree with you any more than I could. They're should be a general discussion for counters/checks between the end of base stat and/or during ability discussion as like you said, it's easier that way. Personally...any [general] counter based discussion should be done well before the movepool thread just so that everyone is on the same page by the time it comes to giving a CAP it's movepool.

 

[zarator]

If this thing takes place, will we be forbidden from propose a counter as a CAP Concept? Like X-Act's "True Garchomp Counter"...

 

[tennisace]

If this thing takes place, will we be forbidden from propose a counter as a CAP Concept? Like X-Act's "True Garchomp Counter"...

This would discuss its counters, not what it counters from my understanding. So no, but I doubt that we would ever pick a "counter concept" because its just too limiting.

 

[gorm]

just so i have it straight, what process are you guys wanting to apply this hypothetical "Check discussion" to, the one that's currently stickied? or that one with modifications brought on by PR threads

 

[jagged_angel]

Well, presumably the process that is decided on after the PR thread seeing's how the currently stickied Order of Events won't exist anymore once it's revised.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Conclusion:

There will be a short Counters Discussion prior to the first Moves discussion. There will not be a formal vote. It will simply be some dedicated time to talk about intended counters and/or checks for the pokemon being created. Presumably, this discussion will be used by the TL during the move threads, as they lead the discussion on Allowed and Disallowed moves.

See the conclusion of the recent Order of Events PR for the sequence of the Counters Discussion in the overall CAP Process.