Doug thought it would be a good idea to bring these issues up, so here we go.
CAP will soon be embarking on a mission to revamp the analyses for previous CAP Pokemon, namely those from Syclant up to Stratagem. However, a problem presents itself.
Do we mention other CAP Pokemon in an analysis?
If we mention other CAP Pokemon, we will be making the analyses for the 'CAP' ladder. If we do not, the analysis will be focused on the 'playtesting' ladder which lasts for a much shorter period of time. But are these analyses meant to focus on the Pokemon in the 'standard' OU environment or the CAP metagame? It should also be mentioned that if we decide to focus analyses on the CAP metagame, each analysis will need revision following the creation of a new CAP. There is no precedent for this, as each analysis tends to vary.
- Syclant DOES NOT reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Revenankh DOES reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Pyroak DOES NOT reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Fidgit DOES reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Stratagem DOES NOT reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Arghonaut DOES NOT reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Kitsunoh DOES NOT reference other CAP Pokemon.
- Cyclohm DOES NOT reference other CAP Pokemon.
When should the analysis be written?
As any C&C diehard would tell you, playtesting experience is the basis for any good analysis. However, based on the current analyses, this 'golden rule' was ignored. The analyses were written prior to extensive playtesting and man, does it show. Things like Air Cutter Stratagem, which might I add, isn't even in its final movepool, are present when it is obvious they shouldn't be. But people need a basis to work from when using the new CAP during the playtesting period. Last night, Doug brought up an excellent idea. It is as follows:
Write a rudimentary analysis based on theorymon to be published at the beginning of the playtesting period. This would give people some idea of how to use the CAP. As playtesting continues, people will see what works and what doesn't and address their Pokemon accordingly. At the end of playtesting, those who participated will be asked to participate in the writing of a more 'in-depth' analysis based on actual playtesting experience. This was largely the case with Cyclohm. Magmortified wrote an analysis based on theorymon which people used as a starting point. Afterwards, an organized attempt at writing a complete analysis was made. This seemed to work well. So, I'm going to push for such an idea in the future.
Quality of CAP Analyses
I would like to hope that in a project with so many dedicated C&C contributors that quality would not be an issue with CAP analyses. Once again, this isn't the case. This is probably due mainly to the the fact that most of the analysis were written prior to extensive playtesting.
I'll give a few examples of what is wrong with the current analyses.
The comments in this particular Pyroak set would not be considered adequate by any C&C standard. Defensive sets like this should include damage calculations against common enemies. It also doesn't help that the EVs are not explained in either this set's comments or in the EVs section.
Let's slow down for a minute. In a supposedly finished analyses, we are still referring to the CAP as <Rockmon>? This screams 'written WAY before the CAP process was finished'. I think this is actually pretty embarrassing.
Not to mention the fact that Air Cutter isn't even in Stratagem's movepool.
As you can see from the above examples, past analyses aren't really 'great'. They need a lot of work. Although I'll be running a project to revamp them, I'm mainly bringing this up so that quality will be stressed in future analysis endeavors. Obviously, Team Options will be added to older analyses.
The Future: A CAP Analysis Process Guide
In the next few weeks, I plan to work with some of the CAP 'bigshots' to write an in-depth guide for writing a CAP analysis. Things to mention would include:
- When to write 'briefer' analysis.
- What to include in the 'briefer' analysis.
- When to write the final analysis.
- Quality expectations with examples as to what 'to do and not to do'.
- How to write each of the sections without skimping on the details.
As CAP is a community project, I would love to hear from some of the community members as to what they think should be included in such a guide. All comments would be greatly appreciated!
