CAP Server Statistics - June & July 2010

[DetroitLolcat]

My two cents on why the CAP metagame is over-dominated by CAPs.

First, the stats of the CAPs. The CAP's have grossly high stats. Compare the BSRs of the CAPs with the BSRs of OU. These BSRs are of the CAPs in the current Pokedex, the revised CAPs, not the original ones.
Syclant: 355
Revenankh: 313
Pyroak: 345
Fidgit: 340
Stratagem: 312
Arghonaut: 331
Kitsunoh: 294
Cyclohm: 324
Colossoil: 355
Krilowatt: 361, and remember, it has MAGIC GUARD

Average of CAPs is 333

Compared with the rest of OU, taken from the July 2010 Stats. Salamence will be counted (with its 401 BSR), even though it is # 18 (Nite>Mence!). The Rotom Formes will be counted on each forme's individual usage, not Rotom-A as a whole.

The top 10 of OU have an average BSR, rounded to the nearest whole number, of 322

The top half of OU (24 Pokemon, out of 48 OUs, and including Salamence) has an average BSR of 313

I won't extend this for all of OU, but it can be assumed that it is less than the other ones, probably in the mid-high 200s.

As you can see, the average CAP is 333, and the average Top 10 OU is 322.

The following stats were done by Doug in the Policy Review-Movepools thread:

Already, you should see that the average CAP is stronger than the BEST of OU. Next movepools. The current (without movepool revisions) CAP has about 93 moves, 68 good moves, and commonly uses 14 of them

The average Top 50 Pokemon (also defined by Doug) has 71 moves, 52 good moves, and commonly uses 17 of them.

The CAP has about 1.3 times the moves that an OU Pokemon does, and has about 1.31 times the good moves.

CAPs have more options to use, and also has more "good" options to use. But what if that's not the case? I bet that doesn't make the CAPs better at all! Heck, Smogoners are stupid for using these terrible Pokemon. CAPs should be only allowed in UU! [/sarcasm]

Let's look at the Type Defense, courtesy of X-Act. Abilities will be factored into the Type Defense, and partially used abilities will be counted depending on the ability's usage (for example, Straragem's Levitate will only get half the Levitate boost, as it is only used on half of all Stratagem)

The Average CAP has a Type Defense of approx. 31.4

The Average Top 10 OU has a Type Defense of approx. 31.7

Though the Top 10 OUs win in Type Defense, they don't win by much, showing that the CAPs have Better Stats, a Better Movepool, and very slightly worse typing than the BEST OF OU

I think that, come next PR time, we should impose more strict regulations on the CAP movepools and stats, and incorporate a device that would change the number of allowed moves based on the Pokemon's type, which X-Act hinted at in his "The Type Defense of a Pokemon" post. It's in the first page of the CAP forum, so I don't need to link it to you.

The CAPs are out of control, and there's a reason why the CAPs enjoy 20.86% on average, which would put each CAP at about #3 on the OU ladder.

Something needs to be done, and I think the movepool revisions are a good first step. I do think the target numbers for "Great", "Excellent", "Very Good", "Good", and "Above Average" need to be lowered. It would allow a CAPs stats to be less out-of-control.

Also, is this a good 100th post????!!!!

 

[Rising_Dusk]

This is really not a complicated or strange thing. First of all, note that the CAP ladder has seen the largest drop in games as it almost ever has. 2310 games in July compared to 4076 in June and 6595 in May is a huge statement. This is even considering the fact that the players are generally more available in the summertime than in other months. I attribute this sharp drop in games to the fact that it's just not fun anymore. The CAP metagame is broken beyond belief and our last PR to help adjust that and deal with it was shot down by a wishy-washy community that's scared of taking action. Just look at how Pyroak finally usurped the #1 spot on the ladder by a whole 3% over Colossoil. "I told you so."

Revisions will shake this up tremendously. Fortunately, movepools were a lot of the problem with CAPs, but that isn't the entire story. They're focused, they have perfect typing, they have immense stats, they have broken abilities, the works. Rey's right, too, as the CAPs are the only way to beat the CAPs. Strata's too strong and forces all teams to have a dedicated special wall, Colossoil removes Rotom-A from the metagame and is the best Rapid Spinner that exists, Cyclohm is the last standing Dragon that can do the job Latias and Mence once did, etc. I could go on for awhile.

Anyway, to avoid a complete tl;dr like some other posts, I will wrap this up by saying that we are moving in the right direction. The July stats clearly indicate that something is wrong, and I think that starting with the movepool revisions, things should improve slightly. We should definitely keep up with PRs that limit CAPs and how strong they can be.

 

[smallvizier]

Several people have mentioned that the revisions should help with this (at least a little). There's another big event on the horizon: Black & White.

There'll be new (and more powerful) pokemon, new moves for existing favourites, quite possibly new TMs and tutor moves. The metagame will get stronger, and if the old CaPs are - eventually - translated over faithfully, we'll probably find they're not the powerhouses they are at the moment.

If the CaPs aren't transferred when Black & White hit the servers, then of course we'll have a chance to start again. Hopefully we'll be more restrained in our choices.

 

[ssbbm]

People have mentioned that they think that CAPs are too overpowered. However, I feel that CAPs are not that good; they are merely high OU, at the level of Metagross / Gyarados.

I also believe that the CAP statistics are not a significant factor in determining the strength of CAPs. This is because CAPs are often used as a novelty. I remember that I used to use a team of 6 CAPs, because they were new Pokemon. However, having CAPs, or not having CAPs, does not make a team better or worse. I believe a no CAP team is easily viable in this metagame. In fact, one of my best teams only has one CAP, Syclant, simply because I like quick spikes - however, I could easily put in a Skarmory, Cloyster, or Forretress into that spot.

 

[Ice-eyes]

My best teams are mostly 5 CAPs + Ground immunity. The CAPs are better than most other stuff.

I think the reason play numbers have dropped is that, like me, people are waiting for CAP 11 to finish, revision rollbacks to be implemented, movepool revisions to be updated etc. Also, the CAP Metagame was kind of balanced by Salamence, which checked Pyroak and Colossoil and provided a valuable Ground immunity (half the CAPs are weak to Ground and none resist it).

 

[Skymin_Flower]

The CAP usage stats are the most CAP-centralized they have ever been in the history of this project. I'm not exactly sure why the CAP ladder has suddenly become "All CAP all the time" -- but that is NOT a good thing. Yes, we obviously expect the ladder to be biased towards using CAP pokemon, since that's kinda the whole reason for playing the CAP metagame. But, to have the ladders skewed almost to the exclusion of ANY standard OU pokemon -- that's very bad, IMO.

I'm not exactly sure what to do about it. But, we first need to get a decent idea of the probable root cause.

I personally think it is a whole bunch of new people coming to the site, and when they say CAP they go "oooh new Pokemon me wants a go!" So they go onto the CAP server and make a whole team of CAPs just to see what they are like. I won't lie, that is what I did when I first saw CAP :P Probably cause the Marriland forums shut down, I have seen a crapload of new users in the Wi-Fi section...

 

[Azule]

. I attribute this sharp drop in games to the fact that it's just not fun anymore. The CAP metagame is broken beyond belief

Rising_Duck says everything i'd need to say. With Mence out of OU, i'd rather play OU because its less broken than the overall CAP metagame is nowdays.

As for what to do about it- maybe having a policy review where the overall CAP metagame is examined and the more broken aspects are revised again.

 

[Lord Jesseus]

Create a new CAP to balance the CAP metagame!!!! :D

No but seriously. The rotation idea could be good, especially since it means you can play with the caps in the metagame they were designed for instead of the mess that results when we throw them all together.
Perhaps there could even be two ladders, one with rotation of the caps which would be more balanced, and another with all of them for those who just want to mess around with a bunch of broken fakemons.

 

[Aerodactyl Legend]

I'm interested in the rotation idea, however, I think we could only do it by adding the ladder to the server, not by replacing the original Cap ladder. It would cause too many problems for people wanting to use any of the Caps at any time but can't.

 

[Tortferngatr]

i don't think the revisions will make a whole lot of difference. even with a smaller movepool, stratagem is still one of the best sweepers, and eve with slightly lower stats, revenankh is still one of the only counters to it, and kitsunoh is still one of the only counters to that...

as we keep adding pokemon, the metagame will keep branching away from standard. that's a fact, and there's nothing we can do about it. the only option that i see would be to stop adding CAP pokemon, which obviously makes no sense, or to, as bmb suggested, "rotate" them.

Why don't we, after seeing the August results, START them with lots and lots of power (I.e. now,) but then nerf them afterwards if they are a bit too good or don't work with their concept? (I.e. if Voodoom got used as a Zapdos partner rather than a Togekiss one.) We can not only make them weaker and OUsable if we get the CAP right, but we can adapt the CAP if we get it wrong. We can have room for creativity, while being able to nerf the CAP if the trick is too good/doesn't fit the concept.

In short, we can be creative initially for learning (i.e. the thing which separates this fakemon project from all/most others,) but to make it realistically OU, we can then get one chance to nerf it/better align it with its concept. So we have two project sections: CAP creation and CAP tweaking. That's my proposal for this.

 

[cyberzero]

Tortferngatr, we essentially already have two project sections, as you suggested. Our revisions are basically CAP tweaking.

 

[Tortferngatr]

I understand that. But aren't the revisions primarily to make the Pokemon more like stuff Game Freak would make?

The point of what I was suggesting is to make a Pokemon designed to be perfect at what it does first, then using a revision period to make it more in line with its concept if what we tried didn't work for the concept/less perfect and more OU if we already got it right. Isn't the point to be learning about the metagame through these CAPs?

 

[tennisace]

Stop talking about unbanning actually tested Ubers. It's a stupid idea because while they may be "checked" by CAP Pokemon, it doesn't change the fact that they are still Uber. It is off topic and will be moderated as such.

The fact that people are suggesting this suggests that there is an inherent problem with the CAP Pokemon. There will be a Policy Review thread on this matter after CAP 11 is completed, along with likely revisions to bring the CAP Pokemon more into line with OU Pokemon. Until this is resolved, the CAP Tournament 3 is postponed.

 

[eXeggutoraped]

krillowatt is overpowered, with magic guard it's basically a wall that can sweep. It has execellent typing both offensively and defensively, 105 speed and 150 hp. It can switch into many things and kill it with ease and then kill whatever they switch.

Magic guard needs to go at-least.

 

[ssbbm]

Please don't make this a "ZOMG, CAP ____ is broken!" thread. Please write a) about whether you think the CAPs are broken, b) how to fix the problem of CAP dominance, c) why CAPs are dominating or d) about the actual statistics, which is actually the point of the thread. I don't mean to sound rude, but I really don't want a lot of people just randomly saying that a single CAP is broken, without focusing on the whole issue.