Policy Review Policy Review - Accessibility

Status
Not open for further replies.

Magmortified

<b>CAP 8 Playtesting Expert</b>
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
Approved by Doug

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.
As tighter CAP projects for churning out new Pokemon are planned, and a potential EVO project that could bring in new Pokemon at an even faster rate appears on the horizon, some people might want to ask themselves, "How many is too many?"

While there's never really been an established threshold for exactly how complicated a modded server needs to be for it to start scaring away newcomers, CAP will, at some point, have to meet the issue of how complicated its metagame might become as the list of CAPs continue to grow.

There are already a few difficulties with some people new on the server and learning their way around the CAP Pokemon when they first click on the server, though the situation is relatively minor right now, imagine what might happen if the number of CAPs we have right now were to double, or even triple (which it very well could) as we move forward.

Though attempts such as a metagame-introduction guide are being undertaken to make CAP more newbie-friendly, there's the traditional issue of a user who a) first comes on the server without knowledge of such a guide, and, realistically, a lot of people don't read the welcome text, and b) one who finds the guide, but tl;dr's it when they see a long list of high-tiered (most CAPs are traditionally a large threats that should be taken into consideration when building a team) Pokemon they have to learn to deal with.

But what's wrong here? Without newcomers, the userbase - and the metagame itself, begin to stagnate. Before Stratagem was introduced, and the server-hype that came with it, the CAP server did not look very much like a serious competitive environment. We saw things like Absol being used enough for OU, and people laddering with theme teams.

This userbase of only regulars is assumed to have popped up when SmogonU came up and people started going there for their alternative for Official and not CAP. But the very same situation could repeat itself if the metagame becomes complicated enough to the point that a possibly interested person could think it may not be worth the effort to understand such a large list of CAPs.

But how can we avoid dumping our hard work on CAPs without creating so many that people start avoiding the server? One proposed idea is that an altogether seperate ladder is created to get newcomers interested in CAP, and from that point, more willing to learn the rest of the game.

The idea behind this "Hook Ladder" is that the number of CAPs is capped at X amount, and as newer CAPs are made, an older one is replaced by the newer. This has the advantage of creating a CAP environment, without a steadily-lengthening learning curve. The other ladder (essentially the one the server employs now), contains all of the CAPs, so that nothing is really lost. In this way, CAP can maintain accessibility.

While I realize that this situation won't be an issue until quite a far ways down the line, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps now to minimize it when it does pop up.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
I'm not opposed to this per say, but how would a "hook ladder" make the metagame more playable when one threat is eliminated and a new one is added every three months? It could potentially drastically change threat lists each time a Pokemon rolls over, forcing everyone to re-learn the metagame each time. It would potentially be harder to play than the normal metagame.
 

Magmortified

<b>CAP 8 Playtesting Expert</b>
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I'm not opposed to this per say, but how would a "hook ladder" make the metagame more playable when one threat is eliminated and a new one is added every three months? It could potentially drastically change threat lists each time a Pokemon rolls over, forcing everyone to re-learn the metagame each time. It would potentially be harder to play than the normal metagame.
In general, somebody sticking around for the requisite three months would usually mean that they've probably picked up enough to either move onto the "complete" ladder, or at least be able to deal with the metagame change.

Admittedly, some problems may be caused if a newcomer were to start playing maybe three days before a new CAP is implemented, but the general idea of the hook ladder is that the amount of information that needs to be taken in at once is lessened. The likely result is something that's easier to pick up, but (and I don't really think that a shift in the CAPs once every three months would make it harder than the regular metagame) doesn't necessarily lend itself to continuous play, unless you're the kind of person who likes a metagame shake-up often. It's not really supposed to be dedicated to continuous play, it's meant to get new users, and keep them around long enough for them to give the rest of the metagame a try.

In the event that it's flawed, though, a more stable process for the hook ladder could always be implemented.
 
I am very supportive of Mag's proposition.

I believe that 7 would be a decent amount to stop at. Once CaP8 begins, we can remove a previous CaP from the "hook ladder" and have it allowed on a separate ladder which has all the CAPs. This would mean that we would have to have two CAP OU ladders, OR we can allow to have this "hook ladder" and allow all CAPs in Mini Tournaments, which will probably drastically increase the amount of tournaments being held.

Another issue that came up was how we would determine which CaP would go. So far, if this plan of action is implemented, I think that the most reasonable ways to get choose which CAP to lose are:

- The oldest one. In this case, it would be Syclant, then Revenakh, and so on.
- The one that is least used. Of course, this has flaws because the newest Pokemon creation would be at a disadvantage of the least time.
- The Pokemon with the lowest Base Stat Total. Being at a disadvantage statistically to other Pokemon, it might be expected that this is not going to be as influential competitively, BUT this is obviously not the case in actuality. The ability, typing, where the stats are placed, etc are also big factors.

Just a few ideas, any comments or ideas?
 
How about this: You know how in trading card games old sets get phased out after a while? Well, why not make a ladder with the last 2 or 3 or the CAP pokemon?
 
How about this: You know how in trading card games old sets get phased out after a while? Well, why not make a ladder with the last 2 or 3 or the CAP pokemon?
I agree with this, since as Gorm's mentioned many times, CAP OU =/= PT OU. I only see one issue, and that's do we have the user base for two ladders? Suspect Ladder gets less use than Standard on Smogon U, so what would happen if we ran two?
 

X-Act

np: Biffy Clyro - Shock Shock
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Programmer Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
What about stopping to create Pokemon after 7 or 8 were created, leave the metagame as is for about 6 months, then start afresh? Meaning all CAP Pokemon are scrapped and 7 or 8 new ones are created from scratch... and the cycle is repeated.
 
When I was about to start play CAP server, I had this very fear, i.e. this metagame was too complex. However, apart from Revenankh, I found that no one of the other pokes need a special preparation. If whoever comes here sticks to the standard defenses Blissey, Zapdos, Celebi/Skarmory etc., they will not be screwed. Even our CAP can reliably be dealt with by a standard OU team. Revenankh is arguably our worst creation in this sense, a monster which require a special preparation not to be beaten.
What I want to mean is that, as long as we create things like Fidgit which add variety to the metagame without introducing too powerful threats, even newbies should be fine - whichever could be the number of said things.

We must make newcomers aware that, even with CAP, this is still OU, a metagame much more familiar to a standard OU player than, say, Uber metagame.

So, I dont really think this is an issue. Indeed, I'd really like if we have more choice in the CAP list. I think somthing like 16 CAPs, like the 16 Ubers of the Uber metagame would be fine
 
How about this: You know how in trading card games old sets get phased out after a while? Well, why not make a ladder with the last 2 or 3 or the CAP pokemon?
I read the first couple of posts, and this was actually the first thing I thought of. I think it's a good idea.

My proposition is this: We do it like they do it with the Extended and Vintage metagames in Magic: the Gathering. We have two metagames: CAP Standard, and CAP Unlimited. In CAP Standard, we cap it off at 7 CAPs. In CAP Unlimited, we have every Pokemon we've ever made, from Syclant on. This makes CAP Standard the go-to metagame, but still allows CAP Unlimited for those who just want to tear it up with Revenankh, even after he's rotated out.

Reasons why this is a good idea:

• We still learn everything we need to learn from the actual creation process of the CAPs. Remember the CAP mission statement? The goal is to learn what we can from the cars that we build more than it is to have a blast driving them. This just puts warranty on them and says that we can't drive them forever, but it increases the overall awesomeness of the metagame.

• Seven is a good number. Two or three is far too little; what if we make three Pokemon of Pyroak / Fidgit-level power in a row? Then the metagame won't be changed enough. I think we can have more than four or five without it being too many! So we go for it. And six just seems really cheesy to me, because then we perpetually have exactly 1 all-CAP team in the metagame, rather than 7 different possibilities (1 for each CAP you leave out). And I think that more than 7 would be a little too much. In addition it's a very accessible number, and it's how they do it in Extended.

• It allows the CAP server to outlast the coming of the next Generation. This probably will not happen until, like, 2011, so I'm not meaning to be counting my chickens, but really. Generation 4 Pokemon we make for Generation 5 will rotate out, allowing them to be acceptable in the metagame.

• It eliminates the need for reviews. If Syclant and Revenankh (or even Stratagem) are broken, then it's better to just allow them to rotate out than review them.
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I think it all comes down to a few points.

1. Even if you say only X CaPs per team, you still have to prepare for all of them to some extent.

2. We do not have the number of users to comfortably support more than one ladder that is very similar to an existing one. LC or CaP Ubers would work because they are not the same meta.

But most importantly:
3. We should not try to compete with OU. People play CaP to try a dynamic and ever changing metagame. Not a stable OU-like one with minor adjustments. So long as the same general strategies are usable and all of out CaPs can be stopped by a well played normal team the players we want to attract (read: not the total noobs you 6:0 with Rev) will be able to learn and enjoy the CaP metagame with relative ease.

And from my own feeling I would LOVE to play a metagame with 15+ CaPs. Each one we make is not quite like the Nintendo Pokemon, each one introduces something new and interesting competitively, each one is viable but not overpowering (after revision at least) so with a large number of them.. it should become seriously fun!

Basically I do not think removing CaPs in any way is useful. If a player wants to learn a metagame with 7 new OUs, then it is extremely probable they would also want to try one with 15+.
So long as we keep a good guide to the metagame constantly updated it should be fine.
 
What about stopping to create Pokemon after 7 or 8 were created, leave the metagame as is for about 6 months, then start afresh? Meaning all CAP Pokemon are scrapped and 7 or 8 new ones are created from scratch... and the cycle is repeated.
I kind of like this idea, but only if something is done to keep the work of the previous CAPs.

Like... after those 6 months, keep a separate ladder with all of those pokemon, and make the hook ladder the one where we get rid of them all.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
When I was about to start play CAP server, I had this very fear, i.e. this metagame was too complex. However, apart from Revenankh, I found that no one of the other pokes need a special preparation. If whoever comes here sticks to the standard defenses Blissey, Zapdos, Celebi/Skarmory etc., they will not be screwed. Even our CAP can reliably be dealt with by a standard OU team. Revenankh is arguably our worst creation in this sense, a monster which require a special preparation not to be beaten.
What I want to mean is that, as long as we create things like Fidgit which add variety to the metagame without introducing too powerful threats, even newbies should be fine - whichever could be the number of said things.

We must make newcomers aware that, even with CAP, this is still OU, a metagame much more familiar to a standard OU player than, say, Uber metagame.

So, I dont really think this is an issue. Indeed, I'd really like if we have more choice in the CAP list. I think somthing like 16 CAPs, like the 16 Ubers of the Uber metagame would be fine
I have always thought the CAP project should strive to design pokemon that are playable within the existing OU metagame. I know that new pokemon will invariably shift the metagame. But, if we could make the statement, "A good standard OU team should be able to be used successfully on the CAP server", I think that would make the CAP metagame more accessible to newcomers.

As zarator pointed out - Revenankh is the only pokemon that can really tear apart a team that doesn't have a specifically prepared answer for it. Perhaps we could further revise Revenankh to make it more manageable by more standard OU counters?

I think we should make it a design goal of every CAP project, to keep the standard OU metagame in mind as we build new pokemon. And constantly ask the question, "How would a standard OU team fare against this new pokemon?"

If we do that, perhaps we can begin promoting the concept more widely. Perhaps we can invite specially designated OU playtesters to help out during a new pokemon's dry run? We could ask them to bring their standard OU team to the CAP server, give them a link to a "Quick-Start Guide to the CAP Metagame", and then see how their teams perform. Ask the players to post feedback in the playtesting thread. If they get their asses kicked, they don't need to feel bad about it -- since they can just blame it on the CAP metagame. But, they might get interested in CAP, and decide to keep playing. And, if the CAP metagame shifts so far, that standard OU teams are not playable -- then we revise our pokemon.

People achieve a comfort level with their teams. I think the key to transitioning new players to the CAP metagame is by allowing an easy transition of the teams they play with currently. After they get interested in the CAP game, they will branch out and build new teams with CAP pokes, and hopefully get more deeply involved in the CAP project.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
I have always thought the CAP project should strive to design pokemon that are playable within the existing OU metagame. I know that new pokemon will invariably shift the metagame. But, if we could make the statement, "A good standard OU team should be able to to be used successfully on the CAP server", I think that would make the CAP metagame more accessible to newcomers.

As zarator pointed out - Revenankh is the only pokemon that can really tear apart a team that doesn't have a specifically prepared answer for it. Perhaps we could further revise Revenankh to make it more manageable by more standard OU counters?

I think we should make it a design goal of every CAP project, to keep the standard OU metagame in mind as we build new pokemon. And constantly ask the question, "How would a standard OU team fare against this new pokemon?"

If we do that, perhaps we can begin promoting the concept more widely. Perhaps we can invite specially designated OU playtesters to help out during a new pokemon's dry run? We could ask them to bring their standard OU team to the CAP server, give them a link to a "Quick-Start Guide to the CAP Metagame", and then see how their teams perform. Ask the players to post feedback in the playtesting thread. If they get their asses kicked, they don't need to feel bad about it -- since they can just blame it on the CAP metagame. But, they might get interested in CAP, and decide to keep playing. And, if the CAP metagame shifts so far, that standard OU teams are not playable -- then we revise our pokemon.

People achieve a comfort level with their teams. I think the key to transitioning new players to the CAP metagame is by allowing an easy transition of the teams they play with currently. After they get interested in the CAP game, they will branch out and build new teams with CAP pokes, and hopefully get more deeply involved in the CAP project.
I strongly agree with this, and for this reason, I don't feel that it is necessary to "wipe the slate" clean after a certain number of CAP pokemon are created. If our goal is to create pokemon that complement the standard metagame, what is your basis that creating more pokemon would actually discourage more people from logging on to the server and playtesting? By creating just ONE new pokemon, we already have a metagame that's different from standard. Nobody is going to come to the server to play standard (unless they don't want to play on Smogon U for whatever reason), they are going to come to playtest the new pokemon that we create. In fact, most of the "spikes" we have had in server traffic came AFTER a new CAP pokemon was implemented. Thus, the problem in attracting a new userbase isn't that people are baffled by our metagame, but rather that they don't know enough about the project or have no interest. It's as simple as that. I don't see how this justifies us erasing all of the hard work that we have put into creating these pokemon. If we are going to get rid of them, then what is the point of creating them in the first place?
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
As zarator pointed out - Revenankh is the only pokemon that can really tear apart a team that doesn't have a specifically prepared answer for it. Perhaps we could further revise Revenankh to make it more manageable by more standard OU counters?
As far as I know the revision that has been voted on is not yet implemented so Rev could well be far more manageable already.
In fact I think that a base 10 point drop in its most important stat should make it much more beatable even if it does partly set up.

But yea, agreeing with Bass.
We should not try to be like OU by limiting CaPs (in any way), but we should make new Pokemon with the idea of them being stoppable by OU as well as CaP teams.
 

Magmortified

<b>CAP 8 Playtesting Expert</b>
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
1. Even if you say only X CaPs per team, you still have to prepare for all of them to some extent.
But not so many of them for any newcomers. The idea of the hook ladder is to get people to think, "Hey, I like CAP, I want to get into this more." At which point, they'd be more willing to look over a longer list of CAPs than if they had simply jumped right in.

2. We do not have the number of users to comfortably support more than one ladder that is very similar to an existing one. LC or CaP Ubers would work because they are not the same meta.
I think this is one of the primary issues with the introduction of a hook ladder. And it's a difficult one to solve. The most I can say at the moment is that we hope the number of users increases by the time the complexity of CAP starts to alienate people. Obviously, we're not going to implement the hook ladder when the current ladder already resembles what the hook ladder would be. There's a possibility that CAP can attract enough people to make a secondary ladder viable. Other than that, we could always fall back on plans that don't rely on a new ladder, like X-Act's suggestion.

But most importantly:
3. We should not try to compete with OU.
Of course not.

People play CaP to try a dynamic and ever changing metagame.
Coincedentially, a hook ladder would probably increase this aspect, since you're not only adding something, something's also being removed.

Not a stable OU-like one with minor adjustments.
The hook ladder's going to be akin to something like what we're playing right now (besides the rotation thing), and if people are playing that...

Not that anybody's saying a newcomer can't immediately jump to the "Real" CAP ladder if they want. The hook just provides the transition option.

So long as the same general strategies are usable and all of out CaPs can be stopped by a well played normal team the players we want to attract (read: not the total noobs you 6:0 with Rev) will be able to learn and enjoy the CaP metagame with relative ease.
Assuming that we are going to make a CAP that can be dealt with by the regular metagame 100% of the time (and that's very debatable, I think that many regular teams would require some level of change to be able to deal with the CAP metagame even now... but that's another discussion) , it doesn't mean that a large number of CAPs wouldn't create a certain learning curve. A newcomer can't just jump in and expect to win battles against a team with maybe even 2 CAPs.

Trial and error is probably going to end up frustrating them enough to leave, and they may not figure it worth the effort to try and familiarize themselves with all of the CAPs when they could just decide that maybe it's not really worth the effort anyways. Either way, an environment of so many CAPs could prove itself overwhelming for somebody who finds it on the server list and thinks it might be interesting. And those are the kind of people that we'r egoing to end up needing.

And from my own feeling I would LOVE to play a metagame with 15+ CaPs. Each one we make is not quite like the Nintendo Pokemon, each one introduces something new and interesting competitively, each one is viable but not overpowering (after revision at least) so with a large number of them.. it should become seriously fun!
...But it could also become very imposing for a newcomer. Which could at some point lead to another Absol-in-OU fiasco.

Basically I do not think removing CaPs in any way is useful. If a player wants to learn a metagame with 7 new OUs, then it is extremely probable they would also want to try one with 15+.
CAP is primarily able to attract new users over places like Captain's because it's not as largely modded. The learning curve isn't very high right now. But as CAP introduces new Pokemon, it will become higher. The idea would be to maintain a learning curve similar to what we have now (much more manageable to the forseen situation), with the option for people to become more involved with CAP after they've had time to get familiar with the kind of things that are being made here.

Like I said, there's no measured threshold on how much modding a server can go through before it starts scaring people. But it's a possibility in CAP, where the Pokemon occupy a big enough place in the metagame that people usually need to take some amount of time to familiarize themselves with the CAPs. Why not take steps to reduce said amount of time and increase the odds people will stay because of it?

Again, nothing's stopping people from going right in and playing with all 15+ at the start.

So long as we keep a good guide to the metagame constantly updated it should be fine.
Sadly, nobody can really forsee what effect an increased number of CAPs is going to have. Either of us could be right, but, maybe my perception of how newcomers behave is less optimistic than yours. We don't know, but we might as well try to look down the road and make sure this won't cause huge problems if it ever does pop up.

EDIT: Blegh. Everybody posted while I was replying to eric. Now I don't know what's going on.
 

beej

everybody walk the dinosaur
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I strongly agree with this, and for this reason, I don't feel that it is necessary to "wipe the slate" clean after a certain number of CAP pokemon are created. If our goal is to create pokemon that complement the standard metagame, what is your basis that creating more pokemon would actually discourage more people from logging on to the server and playtesting? By creating just ONE new pokemon, we already have a metagame that's different from standard. Nobody is going to come to the server to play standard (unless they don't want to play on Smogon U for whatever reason), they are going to come to playtest the new pokemon that we create. In fact, most of the "spikes" we have had in server traffic came AFTER a new CAP pokemon was implemented. Thus, the problem in attracting a new userbase isn't that people are baffled by our metagame, but rather that they don't know enough about the project or have no interest. It's as simple as that. I don't see how this justifies us erasing all of the hard work that we have put into creating these pokemon. If we are going to get rid of them, then what is the point of creating them in the first place?
I agree with this sentiment and I do not wish to destroy any of our hard work. But once again we have to note that every single time we add a new CAP, the metagame becomes slightly different from standard. If our goal is to compliment the OU metagame, doesn't that imply that there is a goal to reach by implementing all of these new Pokemon, as in a more desirable metagame? What happens when we "meet" this goal? Will we have to stop making more CAPs?

This is, of course, a rhetorical question. I don't think anybody here will want to stop making more CAPs even if we reach a point where we consider our metagame to be "perfect". And if we continue to add more CAPs the way we plan to, eventually the accessibility of our metagame IS going to change. It seems very unrealistic to believe that we can somehow preserve the similarity of our metagame to OU while still planning to continue adding more and more CAPs without a limit.

That is why I do support the idea of some sort of alternate ladder. We do not want to drive regulars away and destroy our hard work by removing CAPs gradually, which is why I think the current ladder should be preserved, but I don't think any harm can come from having an alternate ladder, in which the number of CAPs does have a limit. Because I just don't see how limitless Pokemon creation will let us keep our metagame similar enough to OU to be accessible to the general public. Eventually our CAPs could triple or more, as Mag said.
 
I agree with Beej, I think an alternative ladder is the way to go. Getting rid of the CAP pokemon would be nonsensical and if you chopped and changed the metagame instantaneously like that it would have as off-putting effect.
 
I do not agree with making a ladder which hosts only some CAPs. People would be upset to learn 2 different metagames. We could on the contrary make, yes, another ladder, but with one different rule.

People playing in the alternative ladder can use only a CAP at most on their team.

This will make people familiarize more slowly with the CAP metagame but, at the same time, will give them a taste of possibly all the CAPs. It is fairly easy deal with a single, unknown threat than with 3-4. Taking into account every single revision we are going to make, there should be no CAP able to 6-0 a standard OU team. Maybe the initial surprise may make you lose a pokemon, but nothing else. As long as you know that Syclant is a Bug/Ice pokemon with good attack, 115 speed and Tail Glow, you should be able to deal with it in a way or another. Maybe you will send in Blissey to test the ground, but within some turns - and even better within some battles - you will come out with some ways to deal with them.
As long as we nerf Revenankh to the point that something like Starmie can revenge kill him with STAB Psychic we should be fine. Other CAPs are manageable if taken as one
 
Magmortified's idea is absolutely great in my opinion, but zarator's is also going to be able to allow new members to adapt. Both are amazing ideas, in my opinion, but I think that the already underused ladder should stay as one.

Instead of an alternate ladder, we can allow the current ladder to only allow one CaP and have Mini Tournaments allow all CaPs, which makes both the ladder and the MTs effective.
 

tennisace

not quite too old for this, apparently
is a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Magmortified's idea is absolutely great in my opinion, but zarator's is also going to be able to allow new members to adapt. Both are amazing ideas, in my opinion, but I think that the already underused ladder should stay as one.

Instead of an alternate ladder, we can allow the current ladder to only allow one CaP and have Mini Tournaments allow all CaPs, which makes both the ladder and the MTs effective.
We already voted no on CAP Clause on the main ladder. So its either a separate ladder or nothing.
 

Bass

Brother in arms
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
I have read all of the posts in this thread, and I still don't see any solid evidence showing that it will be too hard for newcomers to learn the CAP metagame. One certainly won't be able to "jump right in" as more CAP pokemon are created without having prior knowledge at first, but I still think we are underestimating one's abilitiy to adapt to a new metagame. For starters, we have all went through the process of learning how to play STANDARD competitive battling at one point or another. Think about how difficult it must have been to learn some of the mechanics (EVs, teambuilding, and what not). Think about how hard it would be to adjust from battling the game's predictable AI to a real human opponent. On top of all this, several people have been playing pokemon competitively for all four generations. During each new generation, they had as many as 100 new pokemon thrown at them at once. But over time, they learned how to adapt to fast and unpredictable changes in the metagame each generation.

So just how "inaccessible" is CAP by comparison? Hardly at all! For starters, each pokemon is created over a lengthy time frame. People that pay attention to the process will know what to expect once a new CAP creation is implemented onto the server (as compared to dealing with 100 new pokemon all at once). It's also important to consider the fact, that the pokemon we create are influenced by the competitive battling community's opinion, and therefore end up complementing the standard metagame well (Especially when Nintendo creates new pokemon WITHOUT the competitive community's input at all, resulting in questionable pokemon (like Garchomp) to utterly pointless pokemon (like Luvdisc) every generation. To be fair, Syclant, Revenankth, and even Pyroak to an extent were also questionable, but possibilities like these have been mitigated by Concept submissions, Base Stat ratings, and most importantly revision, which is not possible in the standard metagame.

If anything, all of these factors make the CAP metagame easier to learn than standard. Thus, I don't think being required to be knowledgeable about several new pokemon is what discourages people to play the CAP metagame, but rather the simple fact that some people just aren't interested in the idea of a different metagame to begin with. If we want to limit the effects of the new pokemon on standard by creating a hook ladder, then what is the point of this project to begin with? If we are going to create a ladder that LIMITS the number of CAP pokemon one can use, then how will that encourage them to learn about the other CAP pokemon? Thus, if I haven't made it clear in my last post, I am against the addition of a hook ladder.
 
I don't see too much trouble with accessibility, as a general rule new users should "Lurk Moar" before jumping straight into CAP. If they come here before anything else, do we really want someone like that playing? I can understand if they want to learn to play here, but if they have that much drive, they should have some common sense to look deeper into the meta this server has. You think that it might reduce the community size, but I think it weeds out the people we wouldn't want. It doesn't take too long to learn some changes that a couple new pokemon make.

But I'm straying away from the topic. I think we should not limit the of CAP we make. Wel not until we hit about 10-15. Then we should think about weeding out the most used, and the least used(Excluding the newest made one) ones, and then take them off the main server, and make a side server and have it have all of them. Or something similar to that.
 
I totally and absolutely agree with Bass. The recent lack of popularity of the CAP server is not related to the lack of accessibility of the CAP metagame. It has to do with Smogon getting its own server, plain and simple. Even the official server is lacking players!

CAP may need more advertisement, specially from experienced standard players from smogon, but I don't think accessibility has an important impact in its recent lack of popularity.
 
Bass is probably right. And, now that I think of that, I found a lot more difficult to adapt to the Platinum additions than to the CAPs themselves.
Moreover, as someone previously noted, people who come to the CAP server generally is attracted by the opportunity a new metagame offers. The more CAP we introduce, the more different our metagame will be from bog standards and thus more enjoyable. This may seem a contraddiction of what I said before, but Bass' point is so good that I have to agree with him.
 

eric the espeon

maybe I just misunderstood
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Researcher Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnus
I totally and absolutely agree with Bass. The recent lack of popularity of the CAP server is not related to the lack of accessibility of the CAP metagame. It has to do with Smogon getting its own server, plain and simple. Even the official server is lacking players!

CAP may need more advertisement, specially from experienced standard players from smogon, but I don't think accessibility has an important impact in its recent lack of popularity.
QFT, in fact at some times we have had more players than official.
I think we have made a really fun metagame, the CaPs have added greatly to it IMO and it is not necessary to limit them in any way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top