Policy Review Principles Regarding Updating Past CAP Pokemon

[Deck Knight]

Written by Deck Knight. Approved by (HeaLnDeaL, Birkal )


CAP Policy Thread: Principles Regarding Updating Past CAP Pokemon


Moderator Note: To avoid this thread getting lost in the weeds, we are specifically discussing what principles surround our CAP Pokemon and their place within the project and subsequent CAP metagame. This is not a thread to propose specific updates for specific CAPs.


There is no denying it, every generation our older generation CAP Pokemon get more and more out of date with the moves and strategies of each passing generation. The only exception to this is Necturna, who by virtue of Sketch does effectively get updated.


The purpose of this thread is to discuss what our principles are regarding our CAP Pokemon, and what that means for Past Generation CAPs. This topic is a nightmare every time it comes up because it explicitly impacts the CAP Metagame and we do not want it to devolve into a festival of power creep. Please Re-Read the Moderator Note.


However, because CAP is a Create-A-Pokemon project, it cannot be ignored that each generation old Pokemon, even ones not available in the specific game, do get movepool (and sometimes even stat) updates, and their viability changes with that. To get an idea of what our Oldest CAPs are missing, below are lists from Bulbapedia of moves introduced in the 5th, 6th, and 7th Generations Respectively:

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Category:Generation_V_moves

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Category:Generation_VI_moves

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Category:Generation_VII_moves


There were also several stat and ability changes this gen, but for the purposes of this discussion lets stick to the generalized "updates."

History of CAP Revisions:

Historical context is appropriate here. CAP has gone over the topic and actually implemented revisions many times, dating all the way back to revising specifically Syclant and Revenankh, then Pyroak. Whether and how to revise our CAP Pokemon has had several prior PR threads, the most notable listed below for reference:

CAP Revision Process (Sep 2008)
Revamp of CAP Revision Process (May 2009)
CAP Revision Tag Index
- CAP Revision - Syclant Discussion (Dec 2009)
- CAP Revision - Revenankh Discussion (Dec 2009)
- CAP Revision - Pyroak Discussion (Dec 2009)
Revisions & The CAP Metagame (June 2010)
Movepool Revisions - Overview (July 2010)
The Future of the CAP Metagame (April 2012)
CAP Revisions (May 2012)

The most noteworthy of these is the aftermath of the CAP Revisions after December 2009 where the first three CAPs received a massive overhaul. One Revision of particular note was revamping Pyroak's stat line and giving it Dragon Dance. Pyroak went from being a somewhat useful defensive Pokemon to a bulky offensive tyrant with STAB Recoil-less Flare Blitz and Wood Hammer. This itself was subsequently undone for straight movepool updates in what CAP Historians refer to as "Reversions."

The reason this thread is focusing on principles in this thread is because this is well-covered ground, much more well-covered than many new CAP project participants know. The lull in discussion of CAP Revisions since 2012 is a direct result of some of these contentions. Since then, our ability to implement different metagames and have our changes go live swiftly has increased exponentially, and it is finally time to re-assess our policy on revisions.

Two primary subjects to discuss:


1) What are our principles regarding the purpose of our CAP Pokemon?


We are the Create-A-Pokemon Project. We create explicitly "competitive" Pokemon as a byproduct of our process, so what does that mean for our created Pokemon after their project is over? This question may seem like an abstraction but it is actually critical to our CAP Mission Statement and what separates us from Guy and Rusty's Fakemon Project.

a) Are CAP Pokemon considered moments captured in the time of their metagame or are they considered an ever-expanding part of a distinct CAP Metagame?


For a long time in CAP we treated our Project as snapshots in time, a look into the metagame they were created for. Back then, metagames were a lot more stable and the suspecting process was in its infancy. When we originally wrote our analysis for CAPs (post Concept Era, i.e Fidgit and beyond) it was based on our experience of the CAP in that metagame. Eventually we created so many CAPs that they each became relational to each other in how they impacted the overall metagame.


b) Are CAP Pokemon designed to be inherently competitive in the metagame they play in?


As we create Pokemon, there is no doubt some of them are more popular than others, just like some Pokemon define the OU or Uber tiers and some do not. CAP Pokemon are special in that we create them with the direct purpose of impacting a metagame to see how introducing a new Pokemon changes it. Kerfluffle did this specifically for the CAP Metagame, all other Pokemon were designed specifically to impact OU, and during their process we bifurcated OU and CAP and actively moderate any posts that mention CAP Pokemon.

Taken to its logical conclusion - the idea that CAP Pokemon are designed to be inherently metagame competitive - it is possible that in future projects that we might do our initial process for SM OU, and then have an “update period” for the CAP Metagame utilizing whatever process we may come up with.


c) What should be the principles that govern any CAP Update?


Some of our CAPs function perfectly well in the existing CAP metagame because they have aged well. Fairies being a prominent threat have made Mollux and Pyroak’s bulk and fire-typings invaluable, while Voodoom’s 4x Fairy weakness and no way to address them are a curse for its viability.

Functionally, we have moves with clear competitive ramifications and moves that are flavorful and would make our CAPs “more like Pokemon.” Using Krilowatt as an example, Scald, Volt Switch, and Wild Charge are clearly competitive and would merit scrutiny; Electroweb (5th Gen tutor all electric types get) would not be.

There is also a question of whether we should focus strictly on new TMs and Tutors or whether other new moves should be considered. Either way, we should principles that govern how we update CAPs before we begin discussing any process for it.

2) After Reviewing Our Principles, Should We Update Prior Generation CAPs for Gen 7 At All?


It is not questionable whether our old CAPs seem out of place, it is a basic fact that especially for our fourth generation CAPs, the entire environment they play in is different. Generation 4 CAPs exist in a world before Fairy type, Scald, Volt Switch, Temporary Weather Setters, and several extremely powerful stat-up moves. Steel still resisted Dark and Ghost when these Pokemon were created, and Dark/Fighting was unresisted coverage. As the generations continue this effect lessens, however it is still prominent.

CAP Staff hesitates to bring this up in the same thread, but we need clarity before we make a decision. If we implement an update policy at all it should be done in a way that we can replicate it after a Generation 8. Additionally, if we decide updating CAPs is desirable we may also want to do it during the mid-gen Tutor release.

Those are the functional questions though, what we really need to get at, and it ties in with whether we should pursue this as all, is what principles govern CAP generally.

We are hoping the PRC will share its ideas on the principles of what our CAP Pokemon are, and what their place is before we pursue the subject any further.

 

[darmico]

I think that we should update the previous caps, but only the ones that need it. My reasonings for doing this involve the fact you stated in the main post about CAP being different from other fakemon groups because of the ability to use them competitively which is extremely valuable because anyone can create a fakemon but they will not be able to try using it. Some of our caps have fallen out of the viability range which makes them just as valuable as a fakemon you could post on fakemon central, In which people can talk about them but not be able to use them successfully.

 

[Bughouse]

There are hundreds of actual Pokemon and only a small fraction of them are viable in a single metagame. Trying to force a specific 20something (an ever expanding list) Pokemon to be viable in a metagame together is an impractical and pointless goal. Many CAP Pokemon weren't even particularly good in their own CAP + OU metagames for which they were built; they certainly don't need to be good in a metagame that is coincidental to their existence.

It makes far more sense to have the CAP metagame and, if any CAPs are getting used too little, to have a usage list and also begin developing CAP UU.

 

[SHSP]

I'm tentatively supportive of a revisions project for older CAP projects, but wavering on that. Revisions are tricky at best- I wouldn't call myself a historian, but it's pretty plain to see past efforts have not gone particularly well. They also can be very subjective as to what needs what. For example, most agree with the idea Voodoom could use some work done, as it's just about completely irrelevant thanks to meta shifts (putting it nicely, some would say). However, other CAPs from that time- Colo, Krill, Clant- all have had a level of viability since their release. What needs to be done here? Were we to give Voodoom Sludge Wave/Bomb to get around it's fairy nemeses, should Krill get Volt Switch or Scald to update itself to a gen 7 meta, regardless of competitive impact? Are we revising for the metagame, where we would be rather okay leaving Krill alone and updating Voodoom, or are we revising for the sake of updating the CAPs themselves, where gen 4 and gen 5 CAPs would all logically receive these updates?

After the process that lead up to Kerfluffle, I feel as though we've solidified our stance on the CAP metagame. Building Kerf for the CAP metagame leans me closer to supporting revising for the metagame currently, as well as later on in a generation (such as in addition of tutor moves, as Deck mentions) or during generational shifts when the meta would change. Again to use Voodoom as an example- the shift from gen 5 to 6 crippled it with the Fairy type addition. I'm supportive of bringing Voodoom up to speed, so to speak, with the current metagame (although I highly suggest waiting quite a while for the gen 7 meta to stabilize, as early generations tend to bring with them many suspect tests and changes), and to have these revisions be a continuous process: CAPs are revised as generations shift, metagames shift with new editions, and CAPs need revisions. In this way, I'm against revising stuff like Krill- although giving it, for example, Scald, would update it to a gen 7 metagame, it runs quite the risk of being unbalanced, and as the meta settles, may be unnecessary for it's viability.

Lastly, on the idea proposed by Bughouse of CAP UU: This fails in just a few ways. CAP has a small playerbase as it stands- I don't think we can reasonably build a CAP UU that would be anything more than a list of what falls below X amount of usage. Not much is reasonably stopping a CAP to struggle in a theoretical CAP UU metagame; what do we do in that case? CAP RU? The idea has good backing, but doesn't cover enough in my view- it's uncertain in nature and uncertain to fix the issue in the first place.

 

[BP]

a) Are CAP Pokemon considered moments captured in the time of their metagame or are they considered an ever-expanding part of a distinct CAP Metagame?

For a long time in CAP we treated our Project as snapshots in time, a look into the metagame they were created for. Back then, metagames were a lot more stable and the suspecting process was in its infancy. When we originally wrote our analysis for CAPs (post Concept Era, i.e Fidgit and beyond) it was based on our experience of the CAP in that metagame. Eventually we created so many CAPs that they each became relational to each other in how they impacted the overall metagame.

I hate the idea of CAP mons being set and stone. I believe that our mons should have some sort of plasticity to them in the sense that they should be flexible with future generations. I understand that this as a process could potentially be extremely time consuming and strenuous.

There are hundreds of actual Pokemon and only a small fraction of them are viable in a single metagame. Trying to force a specific 20something (an ever expanding list) Pokemon to be viable in a metagame together is an impractical and pointless goal.

We are not Forcing them to be viable we are simply updating them so they can more or less fit today's standards. Also CAP UU would be an interesting undertaking as I feel it would be fun to experiment with.

 

[Mova]

I'm fully supportive of updating CAPs to fit the current metagame, such as Krilowatt's access to Scald and Volt Switch, Voodoom receiving Sludge Wave, and so on. They could utilize updates to fit to today's standards, especially the first eleven from Gen 4. Also, would all of the first seventeen CAPs receive updates, or just those that could use them, such as Voodoom, Malaconda, Revenankh, and Krilowatt? Would we remove the moves Paleo Wave and Shadow Strike, or the abilities Mountaineer, Persistent, and Rebound, since they don't exist in Game Freak's toolbox? Giving the first eleven Sinnoh CAPs their ASB Hidden Abilities doesn't sound too farfetch'd, either. They exist somewhere on Smogon, after all.

 

[sparktrain]

As OU gets more powerful with each generational shift, through the addition of new Pokemon and other new mechanics, certain Pokemon will fall in viability and usage. Likewise, as the CAP metagame gets more powerful with each generational shift, through the addition (and creation!) of new Pokemon and other new mechanics, certain Pokemon will fall in viability and usage. This includes CAP Pokemon, assuming they are left untouched.

My gut is telling me it's a lot simpler to leave the old CAPs untouched, but I'm definitely not opposed to basic revisions. Mainly those involving movepool updates to reflect the new universal TM/HM lists, move tutors, and so on. More drastic revisions I'm more hesitant about (those involving stat updates, ability updates, and more drastic movepool edits). The main justification for doing this would be to make currently unviable CAP Pokemon into viable choices for a teamslot, but this raises a question: do CAP Pokemon have an inherent right to be viable in the CAP metagame? Personally, I don't think this is the case, no more so than any non-CAP Pokemon, anyway. Some Pokemon have received buffs this generation (Flygon getting Dragon Dance, Pelipper getting Drizzle, several mons getting base stat boosts), but these tend to be the exception, not the rule.

 

[DarkSlay]

I am all for updating past CAPs in regards to updating movepools with moves introduced in subsequent generations. GameFREAK did that themselves, the CAP Pokemon should be no different. I personally don't see how people could think that examining specific moves for past CAPs, moves that were not available at the time, but now are, is a toxic idea for the project.

Stats, nerfs, and new coverage options for the sake of improvement? I think that it should be discussed, but heavily moderated with a conservative process. It's useless to have these kinds of changes if there's some sort of "super ultra conservative 'tweaks only' safety" rule, since that won't lead to much significant improvement to the projects, but there's not a ton of CAPs that desperately need help or buffs, and while there are some CAPs that probably could use a nerf of sorts, you don't want to be too liberal with changes. Just open discussions and hear out potential ideas, and apply strict scrutiny when picking actual changes. I think there are some reasonable changes the project can do without having the goal of "let's make bad CAP incredibly good".

People who point out that "bad Pokemon are bad, bad CAPs are bad, just make CAP UU", you're absolutely right...but this both creates a subdivision for a metagame that is already struggling with the quantity of its userbase, and the main highlight of the CAP metagame is to use /all/ of our creations. I don't think Voodoom would even be UU at this point, and there are a few others who would struggle for usage on lower tiered teams. I think a more realistic floor for revision projects should be "UU, with at least some incentive to use it in the standard metagame". Otherwise, you risk abandoning some of our past projects for new users and CAP citizens to use. I have faith that the project can handle revisions in a manner that focuses on relevancy and not strength.

 

[NumberCruncher]

As another thing worth discussing while we're discussing changes to old CAPs, there's something I think is worth addressing. Back in the old days of CAP, we used to allow custom moves and abilities for CAPmons. Nowadays, we choose not to do this for optics reasons. However, some CAPmons such as Colossoil, Fidgit, and Stratagem still have their custom goodness grandfathered in, because we don't update old CAPs. So this begs the question:

Should old CAPmons that no longer confirm to CAP's rules be changed so that they do?

 

[BP]

Reading through DarkSlay 's post I found myself nodding my head in agreement with basically everything he said. As a player who tends to dabble in UU I would love to give CAP UU a try. Also I believe that some of the UU peeps would love to get in on it also thus expanding our playerbase ever so slightly. The one issue with CAP UU though would be how we decide what drops and if we would ever actually create a CAP for said tier.

Should old CAPmons that no longer confirm to CAP's rules be changed so that they do?

It is my belief that we should as I have stated in my post from earlier. I also believe that we should keep custom moves/abilities intact.

 

[sparktrain]

Playerbase-splitting issues aside, our usage statistics just aren't suitable for creating a usage-based tier below the standard CAP metagame. CAP Pokemon get way more use than they actually deserve simply by being CAP Pokemon, even at the 1630 and 1760 levels (this is largely due to ladder quality and CAP Pokemon showing up at the top of the teambuilder). As a result, non-CAP Pokemon get less usage than they deserve, resulting in only a small handful of CAP mons actually falling below the cutoff (or none at all), and OU staples that are perfectly viable in CAP falling below the cutoff. Just look at any of the usage stats from the past several months. Here's a random example: http://www.smogon.com/stats/2016-09/cap-1630.txt Both Zards are CAP UU, Voodoom is CAP OU. Plenty of other oddities if you look around.

I've played a few CAP UU matches before with cbrevan mainly as a joke to show how unbalanced it would be, and the CAP mons that do end up in CAP UU will likely struggle in terms of viability anyway due to the abundance of overwhelming non-CAP mons that really shouldn't have dropped in the first place. If we're looking for a way to make all CAP Pokemon viable (which I don't think is a huge priority to begin with), I don't think CAP UU is the answer we're looking for.

 

[NumberCruncher]

Playerbase-splitting issues aside, our usage statistics just aren't suitable for creating a usage-based tier below the standard CAP metagame. CAP Pokemon get way more use than they actually deserve simply by being CAP Pokemon, even at the 1630 and 1760 levels (this is largely due to ladder quality and CAP Pokemon showing up at the top of the teambuilder). As a result, non-CAP Pokemon get less usage than they deserve, resulting in only a small handful of CAP mons actually falling below the cutoff (or none at all), and OU staples that are perfectly viable in CAP falling below the cutoff. Just look at any of the usage stats from the past several months. Here's a random example: http://www.smogon.com/stats/2016-09/cap-1630.txt Both Zards are CAP UU, Voodoom is CAP OU. Plenty of other oddities if you look around.

I've played a few CAP UU matches before with cbrevan mainly as a joke to show how unbalanced it would be, and the CAP mons that do end up in CAP UU will likely struggle in terms of viability anyway due to the abundance of overwhelming non-CAP mons that really shouldn't have dropped in the first place. If we're looking for a way to make all CAP Pokemon viable (which I don't think is a huge priority to begin with), I don't think CAP UU is the answer we're looking for.

Hypothetically, you could make a reasonable CAP UU with the ladder data, but there would be quite a bit of hoop jumping to make that work. What you would have to do is keep everything banned in regular UU banned in CAP UU and set a cut-off point for usage of CAPs.

Using the CAP September 1630 data linked above as an example, Malaconda, Arghonaut, Fidgit, and Voodoom are the four CAPmons that fall below 6% usage, which is insanely low for a CAP in the CAP metagame. In that case, CAP UU would be standard UU but with the above four CAPs. At that point though, CAP UU would be quite a pain to update, and would work so completely different from any other Smogon format that it would cause too much confusion among people trying to enter the metagame. Probably updating the bottom end of CAP would serve us better.

 

[darmico]

If we do leave the caps untouched we should definitely move them to uu as bug house suggested it just would be a bit complex to have two tiers of cap but if updating is to hard I am on the idea of uu cap.

 

[Drapionswing]

For the most part I'm against cap revisions.

What would make a cap eligible for a revision? "It's underwhelming" metagame trends will always make pokemon seem and feel underwhelming and we can't just buff something because it's under preforming. "It doesn't carry out it's concept very well" A good case of this is volkraken, as despite not really being used for it's partner role it's still and incredibly good and viable pokemon without needs of a revision. "It's overwhelming" this is the only point about cap revisions that I am giving any form of support. There are caps which are extremely overwhelming and most definitely need to be revised because the only way to really describe them are "stupid" due to their movepools, stats or abilities and I think deserve a nerf.

Edit: Cap UU would be nice but I definitely don't think we should been aiming for that currently. Our playerbase is already small and there's not really a point to "split" the playerbase among two ladders.

 

[Deck Knight]

Moderator Note: A separate "CAP UU" Tier is not relevant to the thread topic, which is defining what the general place of our CAP's our and that if we were to do revisions in the future, what would the principles that guide those discussions be.

I understand "CAP UU" is being discussed as a way to make less viable CAPs more viable in a "weaker" for lack of a better word metagame. That subject still evades the central purpose of this thread, which is what principles should govern a revision and then whether we should do them. For example even if we do update CAPs, they still might not have enough usage to be in "CAP OU."

Therefore, if you would like to discuss a separate CAP UU, please PM CAP Staff and if we get enough interest we will host a separate PR.

 

[Deck Knight]

Now, for a personal post.

In the OP I tried very hard not to bias whether we should update CAPs or not. This post is my own personal opinion on what should govern our updates.

The reason the original revisions process generated so much blowback is because we allowed ourselves to change the fundamental way our CAPs operate in the name of total competitive viability. Pyroak is singled out specifically because it's new stat line made it an entirely different Pokemon. Here's what happened with our original revisions in late 2009:

Syclant:
OG: 70/116/70/114/64/121
Revised: 70/115/70/115/65/120

Revenankh:
OG: 90/105/90/65/110/65
Revised: 94/110/90/50/120/71

Pyroak:
OG: 120/70/105/95/90/60
Revised: 117/105/102/80/96/70

Syclant arguably got weaker save the expanded movepool it received, Rev was basically min/maxed, but Pyroak was completely redone. The reason this thread focuses on principles is that in any future process we want to avoid what happened with Pyroak, which was an optics nightmare as well as a fundamental re-shifting of the way our metagame played, as pointed out in a Smog article after the changes.

We have not even approached revisions at all since then, leaving Volkraken and Plasmanta as Pokemon that never even received BW2 Tutors, nevermind ORAS.

So what I am really hoping is that we come up with a set of principles that define how we want to do revisions, and then actually do that and update our CAPs the same way every Pokemon in-game gets updated with each new release, even if that update is just a pro-forma copying and pasting of parts of their existing movepools that happen to be tutors now.

Here is what I think those principles should be (Deck Knight's Revision Principles):

1. Definition: A Revision is defined as a removal or addition to a Pokemon's Movepool, or a change in their Base Statistics or Ability.
2. Precedence: In-Game Pokemon receive revisions upon each new game and generation's release, therefore CAP Created Pokemon should as well.
3. Frequency: Movepool Revisions should be considered upon each new game release, Base Statistics and Ability Revisions should be considered upon each new generation's release.
4. Continuity: All Revisions should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Intended Metagame Role.
5. Coherence: All Revisions should have sound competitive reasoning and /or in-game precedent (ex. Electric and most Bug types getting ElectroWeb, most bipedal Fighting types getting Dual Chop).
6. Appearance: All Revisions should consider the overall optics of that revision and how it will impact perception of the CAP Community.

Those are principles I want any system we design for updates to adhere to. It will be the role of whoever leads that revision process to ensure these principles are followed.

I have not yet discussed a proposal for such a system yet. I want to get a good feel from the thread whether my proposed principles are good ones first, If you have a different set of principles, please post it so we can start comparing similar things instead of trying to decipher what we may or may not do with less viable CAPs.

 

[reachzero]

I am in fundamental accord with sparktrain and DarkSlay with regard to the importance and scope of revisions; for me the biggest issue is not the non-competitiveness of the less viable CAPs (i.e. Voodoom and Naviathan), but bringing our existing CAPs, especially older ones, into line with the way actual Pokemon are now clearly handled. Since its creation, Zapdos has been fundamentally improved by gaining Roost, Heat Wave and Volt Switch. Entei, against all hope, received Sacred Fire. GameFreak clearly considers updating Pokemon with new moves to be a fundamental aspect of launching a new generation, and they have definite interest in making sure the Pokemon that are the "face of the franchise" (competitively, not Pikachu) do not get left too far behind. The "snapshot" approach to CAPs made sense while the CAP Metagame was considered essentially an Easter egg, a silly sidebar to the serious project that was based firmly in OU. With the CAP process now rooted in the CAP Metagame, however, this approach appears anachronistic. In creating a whole bunch of new Pokemon, we have made almost a new generation's (from a competitive standpoint) worth of Pokemon, yet we have thus far been uninterested in tending them the way GameFreak itself curates its competitive Pokemon. From an optics perspective, our Pokemon end up extremely counterintuitive--practically every special attacking Water anyone has used competitively has the option of using Scald, but Krilowatt doesn't, not for any competitive reason but simply because it was designed before Scald existed. This was fine so long as Krilowatt being competitively available was novel, but no longer.

On the other hand, I'm a big fan of respect for the process that produced each Pokemon, and Pokemon players are a fundamentally traditional player base. GameFreak took ages to adjust anything's stats, and whether that will prove to be a long-term good or not is still to be proven. Gengar losing Levitate is a change that was universally hated, the more so because it was competitively unnecessary. In other words, small, coherent changes are welcome even if they have significant competitive impact--Gyarados getting Bounce or Greninja getting Gunk Shot considerably affected their viability, but both changes worked because they were consistent with what people expect from Gyarados and Greninja. Bullet Punch Technician Scizor would be an example of a more radical change, but one that worked reasonably well because it gave a Pokemon that lacked a true concept and role a clearly defined identity. I think the most important thing for CAP is to keep each CAP fundamentally congruent with the established identity of the CAP (Deck Knight's concept of Continuity is very close to this). For most CAPs this means the concept around which the CAP was built, but in some cases the concept was not well expressed, and the Pokemon has become better known for other qualities. Dragon Dance Pyroak was a huge issue not just because it was broken but because it took us so far out of what was expected from Pyroak--giving it Dragon Dance made it less Pyroak-y, not more. In this vein, I feel that while nerfs are not generally needed (Gen 7 has given us enough power creep that even the more powerful CAPs are mostly reasonable), we probably should not miss the opportunity to make Aurumoth actually risky, since Aurumoth is the number one complaint I hear about competitive CAP.

tl;dr I like Deck Knight's principles, with the caveat that stats should almost never change. We should "update" rather than "revise", making small, sometimes significant changes, particularly to movepool, to bring CAPs in line with what is now the expected standard for Pokemon. Maintain the fundamental identity of each CAP.

 

[Drapionswing]

I like your principals Deck Knight however I'd like to know the priority of each of these principals to prevent conflicting principals and a solid order if we were to adhere to these principals.

Also I think rather than having a rotating topic leader for revisions a council would be better for finalizing any "updates" given to a cap. (but of course people excluded from the council will be capable of giving their opinion just like how we do it for any stage of a creation process)

 

[Bughouse]

Ok clearly people want revisions to happen, so now my goal is to make sure they are tasteful.

The primary goal must be to preserve the Pyroakiness of Pyroak, etc.

Here is how I would prioritize that and some examples:

If what it would take to make Pyroak more up to date would give Pyroak substantially different sets from what it currently runs, it should not get it. If its current sets don't cut it competitively but none can be improved (without substantial changing) with a newer, better, but similar move, then and only then we should look to small stat buffs and finally abilities.

In my opinion there are few moves that could be given to Pyroak that would enhance its Pyroakiness. It would probably be best served by a small stat buff or a more relevant ability than Battle Armor that fits with its idea of being a leech seed annoyer, maybe Bulletproof for some move immunities, widening what it can come in on. Maybe Harvest, if that doesn't become too strong.

I am not in favor of substantially changing Aurumoth to actually be risky. The Aurumothiness of Aurumoth is not its concept, but rather its finished product. You should not be relitigating the whole process starting from concept stage.

In the case of Voodoom, it was a decently potent special attacker but we still cared about it being mixed with Close Combat for Blissey, since it was pairing with special attackers. I don't think substantial competitive changes are needed except for Sludge Bomb and Nasty Plot, to now focus on being a pure special attacker. Nasty Plot was a move people would Baton Pass to Voodoom from Togekiss. Giving it to Voodoom itself feels appropriate now, for example. Here, moves are enough, so I would not proceed to stats or abilities.

 

[KrazyCake]

What Deck has said makes sense to me, what we need to to in this case is think on how we should go about it.

So I'm going to talk about what I think we should do if we do start revising past CAPs.

First of all and most importantly I believe that we should make sure that the updated CAPs stick with their concepts or at least stick to their original roles so giving Pyroak Dragon Dance is a big No no as it would have to stick to its bulky supportive role, and nerfing/updating a pokemon like Aurumoth would have to be done in a way that helps it accomplish its concept, as I don't know about you but giving Aurumoth over a million different coverage options isn't very risky.

Secondly we need to think on what the pokemon needs i.e What makes Aurumoth so OP? What's holding back Voodoom? Things like this need to be discussed before we start revising past CAPs lest we end up with something becoming broken/overly weak.

Thirdly the movepool updates as most CAPs are in desperate need of this how this would probably work is people would propose moves that this CAPs couldn't learn in the past generation due to it not existing, I'm going to use krilowatt as an example, it was made in gen 4 before the moves Volt Switch and Scald existed the question then becomes should we add this?

But in my opinion we ether Nerf/Update broken CAPs or Ban them no two ways about it

[Edit] Me, Blackdrakon30 and Broken Phobias worked on this a while back so I decided that I should post it here!

CAP Revision Panel Process

1. A Goal is chosen by general consensus. The next goals will be proposed, in the format of "I believe that _______ (CAPmon) should be buffed/nerfed/revised, because _______ (reasoning). Note: The goal reasoning cannot merely be "Add Volt Switch" or something similar. Below are two formatted Goal samples that could apply. The specific additions or buffs that would be required are decided upon during discussion and voting stages later on. A voting slate of the reasonable goals will be composed by the Revision Panel Leader and the Majority Panel.

Goal Samples

"I believe that Voodoom should be buffed and revised, because of an outdated movepool. Voodoom was created in the DPP era, also known as Generation 4 of Pokemon. Therefore, it is missing several competitive moves from the movepool."

"I believe that Krillowatt should be revised, because of an outdated movepool. Krillowatt was created prior to the addition of Volt Switch in the game, and also has room for addition of several other reasonably sensible competitive moves."

2. The goal will be chosen by a public vote, in the same format as done by the main CAP process. This vote is completely public, and the voting method will be as said, identical to the format used in the main process.
3. Goal Discussion is the next stage. The first stage of discussion is on why the CAP needs revision.This includes why the CAP is outdated/overpowered/underpowered.
4. Primary Discussion: This is where the discussion of what edits to the CAP are necessary to achieve the goal. People will discuss the edits, their consequences, and their benefits. The Panel Leader and Majority Panel will construct voting slate of the suitable revision choices in preparation for the Panel Vote.
5. Panel Vote: The next vote is using the slate of revision choices. This is not public: Only registered Panel Voters can vote in it. With your vote, it is advised to provide some reasoning along with your bolded vote. The format of this is identical to that of the normal CAP Votes, although only the vote of the Panel Voters will be considered.
5. Archive Changes: Prior to making the winning edits to the CAP, the original stats of the CAP will be archived. This way the changes can be amended if need be.
6. Process Review: Now the Panel Voters, Majority Panel, and Panel Leader step back and review the made alterations. They are discussed. If it seems reasonable, they will be implemented to Pokemon Showdown eventually. Implementations of alterations will be made every 2 projects. If found to have not met the set goal, or to have a much more drastic effect on the metagame than expected, the changes will be repealed.

Each section will take approximately one to two weeks. Here is an concept version: (The actual time lengths will be decided upon in the PRC, If this concept is seen as the most fitting method to balance the CAP metagame. )

1. Goal Submissions: At any time.
2. Goal Polls:4 Days ∞*
3. Goal Discussion: 1-2 Weeks ∞*
4. Primary Discussion: 1-2 Weeks ∞*
5. Panel Vote:4 Days ∞*
6. Archive Changes: 2 Days (Done by the CAP Leaders or Revision Panel Leader)
7. Process Review: 2-3 weeks.
8. Off-time: 2 weeks.
Total: The entire process takes approximately takes place in a range of two months to two and a half months. This way edits can be made with thought but faster than say, the normal CAP process.

I'm most likely going to post more about this later on down the line!

 

[Deck Knight]

I like your principals Deck Knight however I'd like to know the priority of each of these principals to prevent conflicting principals and a solid order if we were to adhere to these principals.

Also I think rather than having a rotating topic leader for revisions a council would be better for finalizing any "updates" given to a cap. (but of course people excluded from the council will be capable of giving their opinion just like how we do it for any stage of a creation process)

I didn't want to get too overly wordy, but basically the first three principles are "Structural Principles." They define the terms of a revision, what it means, and how often it is done.

The second three principles are "Functional Principles" and are the real meat of what I'm thinking. I didn't define the terms in there nearly as well, but when I talk about Intended Metagame Role we can actually look to our new method of submitting concepts. An Intended Metagame Role would fit under a Pokemon's "Archetype." Every Pokemon, even horribly flawed ones, have an Archetype. If Magikarp didn't have totally dismal offenses, it's Archetype would be Physical Sweeper since all its competent attacking moves are physical and its ability boosts its speed in Rain (or Rattled). [Inb4 major threat of Supersonic Skystrike Magikarp.]

Pyroak doesn't have a concept, but it does have an Archetype. Taken exhaustively, Pyroak's would be "Bulky Defensive Pivot Wall Tank Utility Ceric Supporter." Any revisions that would be in line with those roles would adhere to the principles, giving it tools that would give it a Sweeper or Wallbreaker role would not.

Voodoom's concept is Perfect Mate and is largely built around its ability to Baton Pass Stat-Ups. It's Archetypal Roles are "Offensive Pivot Baton Passer Stallbreaker Wallbreaker Special Sweeper." Revisions that would be in line with its concept and roles would be additional stat-up moves to pass and options that expand its ability to punch holes in opposing teams. For a hypothetical, giving it Swords Dance might orient it towards a possible role as a Physical Sweeper, but it is compatible with the concept of passing boosts and it's still retaining its offensive pivoting role.

I would also note that there is nothing about the principles I proposed that prohibit reducing the power of CAPs that are a little too good at their roles.

Cawmodore for example does it's job of being an "Offensive Pivot Physical Sweeper" a bit too well, because Volt Absorb allows it to pivot into Electric attacks and specifically Volt Switch, halting an opponents momentum and allowing it to set up for a sweep. Altering its ability is within the definition of our revisions because they are neutral in direction. Note it will still remain an Offensive Pivot because its other ability, Intimidate, still allows it to do that but with a different set of targets. Whether Volt Absorb would be replaced or simply removed would be up to whatever system we design, but making such a change does not violate CAP's principles on revisions assuming the set we're discussing is adopted.

 

[HeaLnDeaL]

At the core issue of the thread, I will define myself as a supporter of revisions but only in a very strict, very conservative system. I think a small number of revisions per mon is acceptable, and that these revisions should consider the "essence" of the Pokemon. There's been talk about retaining the Pyroakiness of Pyroak, but I personally would like to define this "essence" under a competitive concept/role based definition. Yes, changing Pyroak from a wall to DDancer changes its essence. I do NOT think that every CAPmon needs to be viable in the main CAP metagame. I think updates should serve the purpose of "sharing the wealth" of the new generations with older generation Pokemon. But as even GameFreak has shown, such a system does not, cannot, and will not make every Pokemon viable. It can make some things "better" but to me the main purpose (for GameFreak) has been making the game more fun when people see their old favorites returning with subtle new tricks. It's competitive fanservice, and I think that's a good way of describing what I think CAP should do. But for us, that "competitive" aspect obviously holds an important weight. We want people to have fun with our metagame by introducing new things on old mons, but we want to keep our fans and original contributors happy by honoring their work and not destroying what was built beforehand.

My personal proposal for CAPmon updates/revisions would follow these guidelines:
-If at all possible, a sense of continuity should be maintained with the CAPmon's original concept when revisions are made. If the concept is not salvageable, then that continuity should come from major roles/archetypes instead.
-Only new moves created by GameFreak in a subsequent generation after a CAPmon was made are eligible to be added to a CAPmon during a revision. In other words, moves already existing during a CAPmons initial creation cannot be added after the fact (i.e. Colossoil can not learn Stealth Rock).

-However, any move competitively updated since the CAPmon was created will be treated as a new move, and thus allowed.(i.e. Defog would be allowed to go on a Gen4 CAPmon since the competitive function of the move is different now than it was in Gen4). In addition, moves that were previously banned for being legendary exclusive but were since then unbanned are also eligible additions (i.e. Sacred Sword would be allowed even on a Gen5 mon since in Gen5 it was banned). Lastly, moves with notable coverage changes would be allowed for discussion, but should be under special scrutiny (i.e. the addition of the Fairy Typing could cause a Gen4 or 5 mon to receive updated coverage such as Poison if it is deemed competitively relevant/necessary).​

-Movepool updates would only occur once per generation. TMs and Tutor moves might change mid generation by GameFreak, but we do not make Pokemon movesets based on whether a move is TM or Tutor or any other label. Our current process chooses our moves and then picks the (flavor) labels after the fact. Thus, it is incompatible with our process to just add competitive tutor moves to our Pokemon when those moves become available in game. If it's worth letting the Pokemon learn the move, it is worth letting it learn it from Level up or Egg Move rather than scrambling on letting in needless Tutor moves just because they so happen to be available in game when the middle of the generation version is released. Furthermore, updates should be manageable, and having updates once per generation is far less work than twice.

More on the subject of TMs/Tutors in respect to move availability

For the last few CAPs, we have separated movepool into competitive movesets and flavor movepool. This has effectively allowed us to deal with competitive moves separately from flavor. I will choose to define whether a move is "Tutor" or "TM" as a flavor designation when within the CAP process itself. For most of Gen6 CAP, we have made competitive decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of moves, and only after the fact have we dealt with flavor labels such as Tutor moves, Egg Moves, or TMs. The core point is that if there was a competitively worthwhile move within Gen6 that we wanted our Gen6 CAPmons to have, we made sure the CAPmon got it, regardless of whether it was a Tutor or TM. Effectively, this means that if there was a competitively relevant move available in Gen6 that did not get onto the CAP, we choose it to be excluded already, and I do not believe we should update CAPs with new moves that previously existed but so so happened to become TMs (or Tutors come midgen 7) in Gen7. And while this competitive/flavor shift is most obvious in Gen6 CAP, I believe the underlying principle remains for all past CAPs; if there was a competitive move we wanted a CAP to to learn in the generation it was created in, we had the power to give it to that CAP already. If we did not give Stealth Rock to Colossoil, it was a conscious choice and should be respected and not added during future updates.

-Stat updates really shouldn't be done. The Pokemon that GameFreak has buffed stats for by and large have had lower BST than any of the CAPmons have with only rare exceptions. I've looked over the lists, and I think the only mons that started with over 500BST that got an inflated stat were Krookodile and Roserade. CAPmons have higher than 500 BST, inflated stats are not needed.
-Ability changes should only be considered if movepool additions are not sufficient for to accomplish our goal when updating a specific Pokemon. As we really can't have a Pokemon "unlearn" a move (since the mon still gets the moves when "transferred") the only way to possibly nerf a CAPmon is to change its ability. GameFreak has already set precedence in this, such as when Chandelure lost Shadow Tag and more recently when Gengar lost levitate. I do not think we'd even need to nerf a CAPmon's ability, but it's really the only nerfing mechanism that I see that makes sense. Abilities could also give buffs, but I really think that ability updates should not be done unless deemed absolutely necessary. Like with moves, I think only brand new abilities or abilities with significant mechanical changes (i.e. Drizzle being 5 turns) should be eligible.

I also believe that before a revision is to start, some sort of assessment should be made on the "level" of competitive impacts we want that particular revision to have. For the vast majority of CAPmons, I truly believe that we do not need to actively "buff" them rather than just update them to the current times with subtle new tools. It's possible to have revisions that do not have a major impact on the competitive merits of a CAPmon. As I said in my introduction, I definitely do not think that every CAPmon even needs to be viable.

TL;DR: I only support additions of brand new or competitively changed moves/abilities. The revisions should not distract from the original concept and/or the competitive roles of the CAPmon. I do not want to even try to make every CAPmon viable in the CAP metagame.

 

[Mova]

CAPmons don't have to be viable (B Ranks or higher?) to exist in the meta, so most of the updates should focus on competitive and flavor movepools. Some nerfs could involve removing or replacing an Ability, such as Aurumoth's access to Illusion, though. Aurumoth may need an Ability replacement to actually be risky, even in the SM / SuMo / Alola metagame. A Bug typing has become much more useful recently, even if its attacks are resisted by many opposing typings.

 

[snake]

Personally, I agree with reachzero's sentiment of "updating" rather than "revising." Generational updates for moves (Krilowatt getting Gen 5+ Water-and Electric-type moves, Voodoom getting Sludge Wave, (not campgaining, just noting some popular examples), etc.) seem fine to me. On first inspection, I'd support an update if one were to happen that were going to change the pokemon's role/increase its viability, but its role cannot change. Like Bughouse said, in my opinion, Voodoom getting NP doesn't change its role that much since it was supposed to get those boosts from Togekiss, but Togekiss NP + Baton Pass isn't used that much anymore. Obviously if were to go down the "let's turn Pyroak into a DDancer route," I would dissent that (as many others would). Updating moves and abilities (if moves can't accomplish the update), I'm ok with those, but stats, I don't want to touch those. It seems unnecessary and too complicated, and giving better moves out would certainly increase the viability of CAPmons. If we get them to where they're all in B or high C on our viability rankings, I think that's a success.

Just bringing this up: I don't think retroactively taking away Persistent, Paleo Wave, Shadow Strike, and Rebound from their respective projects would be a good idea. It's almost removing core aspects from the Pokemon, and Game Freak rarely takes moves/abilities away from Pokemon (Gengar, Legendary Dogs). In fact, I really don't want anything to be removed from any of the CAPmons (unless its something like Aurumoth, and as much as I'd like to nerf Aurumoth, taking things away from a project is much more damaging that adding little updates). I think its a cool piece of CAP history that we used to develop signature moves/abilities for a concept, and then we decided to stop; we should preserve it by letting these Pokemon keep their signature moves/abilities.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

 

[darmico]

I do not think that every cap needs to be viable but I do think we should make them usable. What I meen by usable is that a player chould use it and still not have it be completely wrecked, but still have it maybe not be completely viable.