CAP 8 CAP 8 - Part 10d - Name Poll 3

A bulky Electric/Dragon Hydra Pokemon... What will it be called?


  • Total voters
    337
Status
Not open for further replies.

CyzirVisheen

Am I poplar yet?
is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
#1
Please note for the time being Cyberzero is recovering from an injury, so as ATL I will be continuing things until he gets back.

Our Pokemon so far:



Type: Electric / Dragon
Style Bias: Somewhat Defensive
Build Bias: Mixed, possibly Special
Ability: Shield Dust/Static
Stats: 108 HP/60 Atk/118 Def/112 Sp Atk/70 Sp Def/80 Spe

This will be a clicky poll. Select one of the following options:

Nimbus
KnightoftheWind said:
Nimbus is my final submission.
Cyclohm
Hohahihehu said:
Since I've seen a little support for it:

Final Submission
Cyclohm

Cyclone, which is a storm, and Ohm, a unit of resistance which on an electric pokemon implies bulky. Or refers to it's 4x resist to electric.
Atmosfere
Thorns said:
Third time, my final submission is Atmosfere. The best part is it's not thunder word + dragon word, really.

Teslacoatl
Beej said:
Final Submission: Teslacoatl
Spiffy
Tennisface said:
Just reposting it: Final Submission - Spiffy

As in: Damn that is one Spiffy dragon!
 
#2
Yeah, Atmosfere, let's end this. A better selection of names here compared to Kitsunoh.

Can't you just imagine 'Atmosfere used Thunderbolt!' in battle?
 
#4
Atmosfere looks like a bad spelling mistake. just no. Nimbus is a cool, sweet name. im aussie. Could you imagine if the pokemon was called spiffy? Smaugohm(like smogon if your slow) or whatever the suggestion was is even better!.
 
#6
Why couldn't we just call it CAP[insert number] and not have to go through the trouble of with naming each creation? They're nothing wrong with numbers.
Because we're creating a pokemon and every pokemon has to have a proper name. A name containing numbers might be plausible in some cases (actually, only Porygon2 comes to mind) but giving our creations proper names, even if they're a bit stupid like Spiffy, is more interesting than the bland CAP8.
 
#7
The fact that Atmosfere, well...indeed does look like a bad spelling mistake is the only reason why I don't think it should be the name. Nimbus is nice sounding, but in general, I don't think a Pokemon's name should be just a word, instead of a name. (Surest reason why Spiffy is silly, besides subjective things like it being ridiculous.)
 
#9
Atmosphear/fear would have been so much better than the pseudo-misspelling (I would have totally gone for that). I guess I'll go for Nimbus, then.
 
#10
Because we're creating a Pokemon and every Pokemon has to have a proper name. A name containing numbers might be plausible in some cases (actually, only Porygon2 comes to mind) but giving our creations proper names, even if they're a bit stupid like Spiffy, is more interesting than the bland CAP8.
And it seem like each CAP's name is getting worse and worse. I started to believe that referring to them by their project name seem more effective.

BTW, Fidgit and Arghonaut could be considered bad spelling mistakes as well. Actually, Fidgit is a bad spelling mistake.

Edit: Flying Nimbus, I had to get that out of my system.
 
#11
And a message to all those who are opposing Atmosfere purely because of the spelling:
According to darkie, it would be up to the TL to chose whether or not to hold a poll to change the name if it wins.
Therefore there is a chance of the spelling of the winning name being changed.
 
#13
Because we're creating a pokemon and every pokemon has to have a proper name.
This is terrible reasoning ._.

Not that I don't agree that CAP's need a name, but hell, Doug has said that we don't even need a sprite, the only reason we do it is for flavour, not because "We're creating a pokemon", same goes for a name =/
 
#15
We're building Pokemon for the competitive environment. A pokemon's name has nothing to do with competitive play, and thus is completely irrelevant to what we're doing. We're not building Game Freak pokemon, we're building competitive pokemon, so you can drop your argument now.
 
#16
Voting Atmosfear, as of the ones listed, it's really the only one that both fits and sounds good. Nimbus isn't too bad, but it's a bit bleh (there's not even a pun there), and Cyclohm really doesn't work for me for some reason. Teslacoatl is good, but a poor fit to this Pokemon, and Spiffy is, well, terrible.

The spelling I listed above is my preferred spelling, and definitely would like to see it changed.
 

Korski

Distilled, 80 proof
is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
#17
Yeah CAP pokemon don't need anything but typing, stats, abilities, and a movepool. Everything else is just for fun, which is ironic, because that's where most of the heated arguments come from. What differentiates "competitive pokemon" from the Game Boy pocket-monster game is that competitive play is strictly math. The enchantment of cool-looking monsters who can fight each other that brings most people into pokemon is really not a necessary aspect of competitive play. In fact, that's why we even have artwork, sprites, names, pokedex entries, etc., so that people will be enchanted and drawn in to the CAP process. Once they're here, though, we make it perfectly clear that it's all about the math, so that they don't get confused and muddle up the process with flavor. (Note: not sure yet whether or not this post is sarcastic. You decide?)

Voted for Nimbus, if anyone needs to know.
 
#19
Voted Nimbus despite getting annoyed by this trend of naming every other CAP an actual word. We hit our peak with Pyroak (with apologies to Fidgit haters).

I find it unsettling the zealousness with which some members proclaim the utter irrelevance of any and all esthetic considerations. I realize this is a competitive project first and foremost, and have come to terms with this instance of divorce of form and function, but I'm tired of this derisive tone taken towards anything that can't be represented with dry numbers. "Thanks for everything spriters, but really, we'd be just as happy with monochrome squares."? What's the point of architects when we have engineers, right?




Stellar: edit: Right, I didn't mean to come off as bitter, I guess it's just my reaction of the reactions of our fundamentalists against the people who would sacrifice a competitive addition for a flavour argument. On that note, I think we've actually come a long way in being able to separate flavour from competitive value (remember Rock Head Pyroak?). I don't think there is any danger of us reverting back to more flavour based reasoning, which is why some of these attacks on the esthetic aspects just seem out of the blue. The naming of this Pokemon, would, ideally, appeal to the part of human nature that appreciates poetry and humour. Even if we fall short of that ideal, I just don't see how some people would be okay with disregarding that aspect altogether.
 
#20
Voted Nimbus despite getting annoyed by this trend of naming every other CAP an actual word. We hit our peak with Pyroak (with apologies to Fidgit haters).

I find it unsettling the zealousness with which some members proclaim the utter irrelevance of any and all esthetic considerations. I realize this is a competitive project first and foremost, and have come to terms with this instance of divorce of form and function, but I'm tired of this derisive tone taken towards anything that can't be represented with dry numbers. "Thanks for everything spriters, but really, we'd be just as happy with monochrome squares."? What's the point of architects when we have engineers, right?
The fact is, the original intent of the project was to consider the "mechanical" simulation of various "concepts" and their effect on the overused metagame. The competitive concepts, numbers, stats, etc were the focus of the project. However, over time, the esthetic and "flavor" aspects have become the main focus and "fanboyism," for the lack of a better word, has dominated the polls. Many new members see this as an opportunity to create a "cool" new Pokemon instead of creating something that has a positive impact on the OU environment.

Yet, as is the case with any project, CAP has evolved over time into its current state and it is hard to find a balance between the contrived goal and the democratically desired creation. I think those members who "proclaim the utter irrelevance of any and all esthetic considerations" are just the CAP "fundamentalists", if you will. Although they aren't voicing their views in the most acceptable manner, they are merely expressing their desire to "get back to the basics". There will probably always be a rift between the two groups that I just described and it will be a difficult, or possibly even impossible, task to achieve a happy medium.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the "flavor" aspects of the process (art, sprites, name, etc) are definitely the most entertaining and fun. I really don't think anyone is trying to belittle your efforts (speaking to both you specifically and artists as a whole), so I wouldn't take it too personally. I know that I, at least, have a great respect for the artists and a deep admiration for their talents. I just think that many of the "fundamentalists" will need to come to terms with the growing importance of flavor on this process. It's bound to be a major part with any project that caters to a user base filled with newer members.
 
#22
Voted Nimbus despite getting annoyed by this trend of naming every other CAP an actual word. We hit our peak with Pyroak (with apologies to Fidgit haters).
And what's so awful about naming a Pokemon off an actual word or a corruption of an actual word? Some Pokemon names are just corruption of actual words and we don't have a problem with them.

What's the point of architects when we have engineers, right?
Because engineers aren't artistic enough to design anything not named a box assuming that's the main role behind an architect. The architect helps create the blueprints and construct said project while the engineers gets all the scientifically stuff done.

There are many overzealous anti-flavor members here, agreed, but I think most people understand where flavor belongs and doesn't belong in the process. It's important in the art poll, not the stat spread poll, in the naming poll, not the movepool discussion. The problem is that the vehemently anti-aesthetic members are the "loudest" (and typically "elder" members), so they get more of the attention.
Well sorry for being anti-aesthetic towards the act of naming a Pokemon. It seem like the names after Pyroak got terrible in one way. I'm all for naming a pokemon, but slapping an forced on names when we had time to think it out drive me away from using said Pokemon. Hopefully this will change as CAP8's design might make me use it despite the name. I'm not 100% anti-flavor towards the project as I greatly enjoy the art polls though prefer if we broke some sterotypes when it comes to pokemon appearances.
 

Korski

Distilled, 80 proof
is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
#23
@ Cartoons!: I think I was trying to touch on that in my post (which was intended to be ironic). Flavor (i.e. aesthetic considerations) is treated like the plague around here, which is why a lot of people who come in to CAP for the enchantment of creating a pokemon get disappointed when they find out it's really all about creating a matrix of numbers that interacts with another matrix of numbers to create another matrix that then moves on to interact with another matrix...

There are many overzealously anti-flavor members here, agreed, but I think most people understand where flavor belongs and doesn't belong in the process. It's important in the art poll, not the stat spread poll, in the naming poll, not the movepool discussion. The problem is that the vehemently anti-aesthetic members are the "loudest" (and typically "elder" members), so they get more of the attention.
 
#24
...and ironically tennis comes up with the name Spiffy.


Backing Atmosfere (though Atmosfear would be cooler!). Reasoning being SpecsSpiffy sounds like garbage while SpecsMosfere sounds kinda cool.
 
#25
And what's so awful about naming a Pokemon off an actual word or a corruption of an actual word? Some Pokemon names are just corruption of actual words and we don't have a problem with them.
Nothing awful there. I didn't mean for that to be taken as a serious grievance. If I felt strongly about it, I wouldn't have voted for Nimbus.

Because engineers aren't artistic enough to design anything not named a box?
I won't pretend I wasn't being overly defensive in that post, but my point wasn't to knock on the value of competitiveness as a goal (or engineers). I recognize that the artistic elements have their place, I was simply defending it against the opinion that it has 'no place'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.