Policy Review Policy Review - An Open Review of Policy Review

Approved by popular demand and big Deck Knight

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.

Click to expand...

As a note, the above still applies, however in this thread we are welcoming people who might have less official experience due to our project fits and starts. If you were around through Voodoom and/or Tomohawk, that's a sufficient qualification for "experienced" for the purposes of this thread.

I have updated the policy review index to include all the threads leading up to CAP 1.

Our last few Policy Review threads were primarily about the transition to 5th Gen, and basically included a few pro forma threads as well as announcements and notes on the trajectory of the forum going forward.

In general, our only restriction on PR threads is that you need an approval of a moderator to post it, and the thread should discuss some portion of the process with real insight and an actual solution. PR threads are not sounding boards for complaints, they are meant to propose something.

I don't really think the definition of PR or how they are put into action is the real issue, but it was brought up, so in this case I will allow some discussion if it. Is it by nature the last part of the process we think about, since it happens inbetween actual projects.

So to summarize, I'm not sure where Aerodactyl Legend and others who brought this up in the getting CAP back on track thread want to go with this, but the forum is now available if you have any particular constructive criticisms or suggestions.

This is an OPEN review of policy review.

Basically we give constructive criticism of Policy Review.

...That being said, what exactly is there to talk about?

Tortferngatr said:

This is an OPEN review of policy review.

Basically we give constructive criticism of Policy Review.

...That being said, what exactly is there to talk about?

Click to expand...

Supposedly Aerodactyl Legend had some ideas, but to start with, essentially we only hold Policy Reviews inbetween CAP Projects. Generally they're started by members of the Policy Committee, though there's no rule specifying it has to be a member of the committee. It just needs moderator approval.

Ideally I'd want feedback on whether PRs should be more organizational in scope, or if they should discuss a different direction for some project element outside the scope of a specific process part, such as the feasibility of making an Uber CAP, or garnering support for a metagame lower down the tier bracket than Uber or OU.

Essentially I'm asking what kind of concepts you want Policy Review to encompass. Should it be a catch-all for new policy ideas, a more pro forma method of making policy changes (like the PR on updating how we describe BSR ranks), or be loose and multi-purposed, like it currently is now.

Well, I guess this is the best place to discuss about it, so I'll just lay out some details.

There's been some talk in the other thread about trying to make a CAP Uber. As other vets should know, we always have been wary about the idea because we feared it could turn the CAP process in a shitstorm, because of how Ubers are inherently broken (but at the same time how they can't be too broken to a certain extent).

So, as I said in that thread, I propose that, should we ever find ourselves making an Uber CAP, when it will come to stats we'll offer two different templates

1) Template 1: 680 BST (no more, no less); no stat below 90 or above 150. This has been the standard for most "cartridge" Ubers past 2nd generations, barring a handful of exceptions (Groudon and Kyogre if I remember correctly, who sit at 670 BST but still respect the 90/150 boundaries)
2) Template 2: 600 BST. No stat restrictions. With "only" 600 points to work on, it is much harder to break a Pokémon on stats alone, no matter how you tweak them (Deoxys is an excellent example).

This way, not only we are more consistent with the in-game precedents, but we also prevents the process from running amok by putting objective and clearly defined limits to the extent of the Uber's power (although it should be noted that particular care should be observed in which ability is given to (1) Ubers).

Any comments on this? If we are to try our hand with a CAP Uber, we should clear out such problems as well.

I would want to adjust 150 to 154 to accommodate for Mewtwo, Ho-Oh, and Lugia, but that's a minor tweaking.

Exploring Ubers would be interesting, but I'm not entirely sure of those two templates simply because they restrict the Ubers CAP a lot...

To be fair, and honest, I think it would be great / a lot more fun to experiment with a UU CAP. All of the CAPs have been designed to fulfill a roll in an OU metagame or environment, yet we haven't looked towards UU at all, which has been one of the most popular and liked Metagames outside of OU.

One might ask, what would make it useful / viable in UU? Simple, we give it a suitable and fitting role in today's UU Metagame (Eviolite Usage and / or Countering, for example, would be a very strong point of UU that we could direct our attention to, what with the large usage of Eviolite Chansey, Porygon, Dusclops, and even Tangela, which are all very tough opponents to face). To balance it of course, we would balance and adjust it's stats and movepool to keep it in line with most UU pokemon, while making sure that it isn't a "massive powerhouse" like most CAPs have proven to be.
These would be determined later on of course, but in general, we should try to look at the lower tears sometime in the future.

Just to briefly comment on Zarator's second Uber Template, I believe while restrictions should be less, they should not be thrown out completely. It is true that someone like Deoxys, while having absurd stats, is not broken on an Ubers scale. However, If we were to make a Pokemon similar, but only focusing on one side of the physical special spectrum, it very well could be. Imagine Attack Forme Deoxys, but with only one attacking stat, and then what is currently in the other attacking stat split between its defenses. Add in a few more points from dropping its speed to a more optized competitive number and you could have a Pokemon that bashes through anything but has enough bulk that it can almost never be taken out with out sacrificing 1 or 2 Pokemon.

For example, think about this 600 BST sweeper spread I whipped up in a few seconds: 100/180/92/5/92/131. This probably could be even better if you took the time to calculate the optimized defenses

As such, I think there should be some limits. What they should be, and whether or not they should be exact stat limits (specifically lower limits for attacking stats and speed) or limits on other things (Physical Special bias and the like), I could not say right now. However, I do think it should be considered.

EDIT: Actually, having thought about it for a while, a even better example would be a tank. A spread such as 200/150/120/5/120/5 could break through most things, and bar a crippling double weakness to a common Ubers type, would never be taken down. And once again, optimized defences could make it even scarier.

I didn't actually have any qualms about any current Policies that are up myself (I think the way we have polished and tuned the CAP process for the entirety of its existence has been excellent). I wanted us to take a brief chance for anyone else who has any concerns/questions/changes about current policies as well as possibly bringing ideas of new ones.

Seems some have interests in exploring other tiers other than OU for example. Personally, I'm for sticking with OU since it's the standard, which gives us the most opportunities for getting information. I'm not against any other tiers however.

If there aren't any other issues regarding any existing policies, then that's great. Shows we've done a good job and is an indication we'll continue that trend.

In general a lot of that is borne out by the process, since we usually select ranks and expect people to keep within them. Generally they're done on a maximum basis, but since Ubers are more flexible we could also set a minimum basis of say, Rank 4 (Below Average) or something. I haven't busted out my BSR calculator in forever, but effectively it means you can't just leave a stat hanging at some abysmal level. The Tank Spread would have to cut 85 points in defenses and push them into SpA o make it 90 to meet such a standard.

That being said, the limit on a 680 model should be 160. Slaking isn't an Uber, but it has Uber stats (670 like the Hoenn Ubers), and its Atk is 160. Its SpD is 65. I'd say having those limits on a 680 mon should be enough, and conveniently enough if it were to make both SpA and SPe and dump stat, it would have Rank 4 strength. Such a system would make the optimized tank stats 160/160/115/65/115/65. If we raised the floor to Rank 5 or more in every category, the optimized tank would be 160/160/109/77/109/65.

Just some food for thought. Picking 6 stats between 90 and 154 is just a tad bit too limiting, and while there is some allure to optimization (me being the case in point), I think using the 65-160 limits would be far more flexible without breaking the spirit of that route.

Exactly what I was trying to get at. Maximums are easy to set, and I knew those usually exist but rarely would there be a need for minimums. Just adding them in makes a huge difference in what kind of spreads are allowable. However, I almost feel that their would need to be some other requirement other than a min if the second template Zarator provided was used, as without one, or with one really low, it allows for optimizing to the extent of brokenness, but with a higher one, there is no reason to ever choose the 600 BST over the 680 BST.

However, that being said, this thread is not really about discussing the limits on an Uber CAP, and as such I will refrain from going into details like this any more for now, as whether or not an Uber CAP is even going to happen is still undecided.

However, as a more general question about an Uber CAP, if one was to be done, how exactly would it be handled from a design standpoint? While Ubers may have a metagame, it is really made up of cast-outs. No Pokemon there was designed to compete in such an environment, and creating one to do so really would cause us to make something in a way that was never really done before. So the question is, would we be designing a Pokemon to compete in a specific role in Ubers, or designing an Uber type Pokemon in general, and just seeing if and how it fits in? Another interesting thing that could possibly be done if it is the latter, is actually testing it in OU and seeing whether or not what was made is actually Uber material.

Basically, what I would want to know, not just for Ubers, but for any alternate tier CAP (with the possible exception of LC, which is like its own mini version of OU), is how would the process go about designing such a Pokemon, when the way tiers are made does not just allow Pokemon to be placed directly into them?

jas61292 said:

However, as a more general question about an Uber CAP, if one was to be done, how exactly would it be handled from a design standpoint? While Ubers may have a metagame, it is really made up of cast-outs. No Pokemon there was designed to compete in such an environment, and creating one to do so really would cause us to make something in a way that was never really done before. So the question is, would we be designing a Pokemon to compete in a specific role in Ubers, or designing an Uber type Pokemon in general, and just seeing if and how it fits in? Another interesting thing that could possibly be done if it is the latter, is actually testing it in OU and seeing whether or not what was made is actually Uber material.

Basically, what I would want to know, not just for Ubers, but for any alternate tier CAP (with the possible exception of LC, which is like its own mini version of OU), is how would the process go about designing such a Pokemon, when the way tiers are made does not just allow Pokemon to be placed directly into them?

Click to expand...

Technically speaking, no Pokemon in OU is designed for OU either. OU in 5th Gen is arguably a more contrived metagame than Ubers is. The point of the CAP process is to have a concept that, when built around, creates a Pokemon with a specific goal in mind for whatever metagame it's being put into. The only real difference between OU and Ubers is that the caliber of Pokemon in Ubers exceed even the power creep that has become endemic to OU. The only thing a project on an alternate tier would have to do is answer questions relevant to that concept. Ubers might even be a better environment in some respects, as its now a much purer metagame. It doesn't have complex bans like Swift Swim + Drizzle, and the tier itself is more stable.

Or to summarize: We introduce CAPs into a metagame to answer questions about that metagame, and we have done OU in the past because it was the most balanced metagame with the largest following, and therefore the best suited to answering questions about competitive Pokemon.

In this generation, OU is significantly more complex and fairly volatile since complex bans have been put in place. It is no longer the de facto stable, go-to metagame. If Ubers is a better environment to answer questions for because of its lower volatility, then creating a CAP for it would not be totally out of line.

That said, I agree with AL that this thread has served its purpose, and this discussion about Ubers and other metagames can be moved to a thread dedicated to it.