"What is the Create-A-Pokemon Project?" Workshop

[X-Act]

But I already said that Garchomp would not lose Draco Meteor! I said that the only moves that should be removed are Stone Edge, Fire Blast and Flamethrower, and from a select few Pokemon only (specifically Pokemon that do not get STAB on these moves but that get too good a coverage with them).

I think my suggestions are cautious enough. I could have suggested to change the type chart and to change the Pokemon's base stats, for instance, but I didn't. The reason why I chose Stone Edge and Fire Blast is because I calculated their average damage against all Pokemon, and they came among the top. When I saw the number of Pokemon that learned them, I realised this was unfair. Flamethrower is there because it doesn't make sense to remove Fire Blast without removing Flamethrower with it.

[Time Mage]

The point is not asking if those changes are reasonable: They are. The point is asking: Will a random user think it is reasonable, or will he/she complain about Garchomp not being Garchomp, just because it doesn't have Stone Edge, Fire Blast and Flamethrower?

Brain brought a very important point up: Your new metagame not only has to be balanced and fun, it has to be accepted enough. It's not fun to make a great game that nearly no one plays.

[latinoheat]

Originally Posted by Fat Helios

Well, If Garchomp, salamence and dragonite lost their ability to use Outrage/Draco Meteor and their booster moves, it'd be pretty noticeable, or if heracross lost it's ability to use close combat and brick break (this is an extreme case). It's like Time Mage said, people won't have the patience to adjust to the changes. The way the CAP will probably nerf garchomp is by making a counter that is to garchomp, as gliscor is to heracross.

I was under the impression that the first CAP-scylant was started with the intention of it being a garchomp counter.
Look how that ended up, a fragile bug who cannot switch into any of Garchomp's offensive moves, sustitute and is still beaten by Scarfchomp.

[DougJustDoug**]

Originally Posted by Fat latinoheat

I was under the impression that the first CAP-scylant was started with the intention of it being a garchomp counter.
Look how that ended up, a fragile bug who cannot switch into any of Garchomp's offensive moves, sustitute and is still beaten by Scarfchomp.

I personally advocated that Syclant be a Garchomp counter. I wanted very badly for that to happen. I argued loud and long that it should be a Garchomp counter. But, to be fair, that was NEVER a stated goal of that project. In fact, IIRC, I was very much in the minority with my opinion. I think because I argued for it so much, some people like yourself actually thought it was a project goal. It really wasn't.

And yes, you are right, Syclant can't do much to stop Garchomp.

[X-Act]

If that random user complains that Garchomp doesn't have Fire Blast, he would also complain about the existence of Syclant.

You brought up the issue about people seeing Syclant and quitting in the other thread. The main point of the CAP server is to play with fake Pokemon, right? If a person does not even accept fake Pokemon such as Syclant, how can he ever accept Garchomp without Fire Blast? Not every person out there wants to play with or against fake Pokemon, whether we like it or not. However, those that do want to play with fake Pokemon have a huge chance to also accept slight, prudent alterations in the regular Pokemon. That's what I'm saying.

Ultimately I know that my posts are probably going to be useless, but I felt the need to voice my opinion, as I thought that this opportunity to make the game more enjoyable was too good to miss. I'll respect the opinion of the majority and that of Doug, though (even though the research time devoted for this thing could have been used for something else lol).

[Hyra]

I agree that if we start tinkering with movepools, we can create a more balanced metagame.

However, it just causes confusion. On the few times I go back to play ADV, I throw Special moves on Physical Pokemon thinking the split exists. This is the same thing that will happen on the CAP server if we mess with movepools. To us, its not that bad. But it takes its toll on people who switch back and forth between the two metagames. Currently, they just have to account for Syclant (and soon to be Revenankh). They can take a fully operational team from the normal server and play against us if they feel like it. The changes you are proposing will most likely remove this fluidity (since you want to remove some of the most common moves from some of the most common Pokemon.)

It's just an additional barrier we don't need, similar to a password to get onto the server.

[Time Mage]

It's the sum of all changes what worries me. Yes, I am aware that I complained about people quitting when they saw Syclant, but if, on top of that, some pokémon lost some very useful moves, then maybe those who were reluctant but ultimately stayed would leave.

Besides, a new pokémon condenses all the changes in itself, so if you know about it, you know what changes to expect. Several changes here and there require more memory and attention, even if individually they aren't many.


I'll reiterate it: I'd love to play with those changes. Specially, the changes to the Poison type, attack-wise. And, in fact, if other people think those changes would be OK, I wouldn't mind trying them out, since I'm pretty sure I would have more fun with them.

And speaking of other people... VOICE YOUR OPINION! X-Act and me have already exposed our arguments, but we are not the only ones interested in the project, right? Let me hear your opinions!

[chronostrike]

I think making poison super effective against and resistant to dragon would be overall good for the metagame, and it would be a small, easy to remember change. I don't think that it would cause any reduction of variety either. Mence, Chomp, Nite would all still be great choices for a team, and Drapion, Venusaur, Toxicroak would become more useful. It's important to note, though, that poison's target pool would be contained within ice, and most dragons carry EQ. That means that only Weezing and /grass really have a chance of switching in (although any poison with good Def now has a chance against Outrage).

Here's how I see it:
-Poison types will increase as revenge killers against dragons
-dragons (not chomp) will have the most to fear from random sludge bombs hidden on unusual pokemon
-use of steels will increase to protect dragons, use of waters for the same purpose will drop
-Weezing walls all physical dragons and most mixed
-Kingdra gets a second weakness
-Psychic gains ground as an attacking type

As for poison SE vs water, I think it is a very bad idea because it affects far too many pokemon and would completely rearrange the metagame.

[Dane]

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand what you mean by "Psychic gains ground as an attack type".

Also, if Poison becomes SE against Dragon, do you honestly think other Pokemon will be used more? I doubt it, Gengar usage will just go up exponentially. Maybe just make Poison resist Dragon, but not be SE against it. This yields the desired result of poison being better, but mostly just grants a boone to the more defensive ones.

[Gothic Togekiss]

I say making Poison resist and be super effective towards dragon is sorta weird. Kinda wish poison attacks weren't based on natural poisons so we can put that Poison beat Steel types to the test.

Also...can we give Dragon in terms of typing a chance? Everyone seen afraid of it and well...I think we can make a balanced dragon type.

[latinoheat]

ice should resist dragon and that is all.

[Magmortified]

Originally Posted by Fat Dane

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand what you mean by "Psychic gains ground as an attack type".

I believe it means, "Psychic becomes better to use as an attacking type when Poison becomes more prominent."

I think a big question on changing around movepools (and especially messing with the type chart) is if it really meets the goals of the CAP project. I mean, yeah, part of the effort is to create a balanced metagame. But it's also a learning and understanding experience in creating Pokemon to understand what makes things tick. Will a Fire Blast-less Garchomp help reach both goals? Or will it focus more on one aspect than all the others?

[Dane]

Ahhh, ok. That makes more sense. I thought it meant that it gained the ground typing... I think I should just go to sleep now.

BUT one thing to add: If we do change things around, we'd have to do all new CAP analysis pages for them. That's the entire point of doing an analysis page for the newly created Pokemon, right? To act like the standard pages and help new players learn how to use them? So if we change types, attacks, etc, we'd need to make new pages.

[Helios]

Actually, mountaineer syclant can switch into stone ege. And changing the type charts and what not WILL help, since it explores what makes ifferent pokemon good/crap. Removing stone ege an fire blast from garchomp may help, since it allows us to see why ifferent pokemon might not be as goo as they coul be.

Stupi '1)' key on't work properly

[Deck Knight]

For the record I am against changing anything related to existing pokemon and the type chart, If you want a Mod server with all those chages, I suggest Amazing Ampharos'.

This ceases to be a server about building competitive-battle worthy pokemon when we change the fundamental dynamics of how things are damaged (e.g. type charts.) You can no longer gauge the effectiveness of a counter in a real situation when you grant it resistances, SE's, or weaknesses where it does not have them in any actual battle scenario you will ever run into, e.g. Sludge Bomb hitting Mence Super-Effective.

Our new pokemon may be theoretical, but we cease to be concerned about changing the metagame one pokemon at a time when we alter things that intrinsically affect every single pokemon new or existing.

If we wanted to create a new type chart among our projects, we should have named our endeavor "Create a New Metagame " not "Create a Pokemon."

[X-Act]

I don't agree to change the type chart.

The problem with Dragon is that its moves deal too much damage. As I said before, compare the Dragon attacks in DP to the Dragon attacks in ADV. In ADV, Dragon attacks mostly sucked. In DP, Dragon attacks rule. ADV and DP both have the same type chart, so the problem is not the type chart; the problem is the Dragon attacks.

Likewise, the Poison types can be improved by creating more powerful Poison attacks and give them to some of our new Pokemon. We did create a new ability; I'd assume creating new moves is thus also allowed.

[eric the espeon]

Likewise, the Poison types can be improved by creating more powerful Poison attacks and give them to some of our new Pokemon. We did create a new ability; I'd assume creating new moves is thus also allowed.

This does fit with CAP, new moves are ok IMO so long as only CAP pokemon get them. Makeing a perfict garchomp/salamence counter would be able to fit with our goals, makeing a new poison pokemon with a 140 base power attack with no bad side effects could work, as far as i see its only changeing existing (and the type chart) pokemon that we are against.

Also thank you for makeing your Def evs thingy i have found it extremely useful. Your guides are also exelent.

what do people think about makeing new items? e.g. defencive choice items or a non-choice item that boosts speed a little? how would we do polls for these? should we do a poll to dicide weather to make them?

[Darkflagrance]

What about creating moves so that the balance that already exists between moves is merely maintained?

There already exist a slew of 80, 90 and 95 based power special moves for Fire, Ice, Water, Lightning, Ghost, Dragon, Grass, Psychic, Ground, Bug, Dark, and Poison. Would it then be too unbalancing or too novelty to create similar moves like a generic, non-100% accurate version of Aura Sphere, or maybe Physical versions of these moves for types that already have Special Versions of them (for example, physical fire move with Flamethrower's base power)?

These moves might be available exclusively to Smogon CAP's, or perhaps released as extra [balancing] factors into whatever new metagame that would have a revamped poison-type is created.

[DougJustDoug**]

It looks like most of the primary discussion for this workshop has trailed off. I have made some changes to the document and I have posted it as a semi-permanent Announcement in this Forum. I think that is more appropriate than a sticky. If we build a general information/resource sticky, then I might move it there.

I will leave this workshop thread open, if we ever decide to revisit the document again.

[DougJustDoug**]

A question came up the the SQSA thread regarding CAP pokemon passing egg moves. Here was my answer:

Originally Posted by Fat DougJustDoug

This question has not been answered specifically, but we have somewhat addressed it at a higher level. In the CAP project mission statement, we have language that mentions that we will not change the existing game and mechanics of Pokemon, we will only add to it. If egg moves were passed, that effectively changes existing pokemon movepools.

Therefore, CAP pokemon cannot pass any egg moves.

However, this question has made me consider altering a few phrases of the mission statement to make this general concept a little clearer. Right now, it refers mostly to mechanics, and not the pokemon themselves. I'll probably propose some wording changes in the mission statement workshop thread. If you wish to comment further on this issue, do so in that thread.

I propose we add a bullet item to the "What we are NOT" list at the top of the mission statement.

• We are NOT interested in changing existing ingame Pokemon. This includes their typing, movepools, abilities, breeding characteristics, etc.

Comments?

[Time Mage]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

[eric the espeon]

fine.

[Hyra]

sure

[Darkflagrance]

It preserves balance. Maybe one day when X-Act finishes balancing the other pokemon by removing Stone Edge from them all we can go back and look at this situation.