Policy Review Policy Review: CAP Revisions

Not open for further replies.
The entire reason for this argument right now is that what we're doing in this topic is really poorly defined. The main consequence of this now is that people are questioning each other's "ulterior motives" or whatever. It's pretty clear that this is just a matter of fundamental differences in opinion. Birkal, Theorymon, etc. generally want to give the CAP metagame more exposure to the rest of Smogon, while others like Rising_Dusk don't prioritize that goal. Conversely, Rising_Dusk wants to preserve the CAPs as they were as a testament to their processes, and keep the CAP community together, while his opponents don't prioritize that goal. The takeaway from this for me is that these goals do not actually contradict each other, but the measures that have been proposed may contradict one or the other.

It's really disingenuous to belittle the other party's credentials (e.g. "notice how everyone who agrees with this is not really a battler") or motives (e.g. "you just don't want progress"). Wanting to do nothing doesn't mean one "doesn't care" about the CAP metagame, just as wanting to revise the CAPs doesn't mean one "doesn't care" about the historical value of the CAPs. But at this point there seems to be nothing left to do other than more clarification. So that's what I'm going to do.

The way I see it, three main motives are in play here:

  • Learn something from tinkering with the CAP metagame in some fashion
  • Keep the flavour canon of the CAPs consistent
  • Retain the historical value of CAPs where they are seen the most (which presumably is right on the CAP ladder)

The currently proposed methods to achieve these goals can be summarized as follows:

  • Do nothing.
  • "Update" the CAPs. (i.e. Make minor changes to the CAPs so that they make more sense in this gen's canon)
  • "Engineer" the CAPs. (i.e. Make changes to the CAPs for competitively relevant reasons for the purposes of experimentation)

The proposal to make three CAP metagames attempts two or all three of these methods, but I see it as a clunky solution and a messy compromise. I think that it unnecessarily splits the playerbase just to have everyone satisfy themselves with their own versions of the solution. I think we can do a bit better than this. Again, I would like a new thread focusing on the revision policy itself before diving into any suggestions I might have, but as far as I see it, these are the issues and goals that the CAP community is working with as it currently stands.


is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Super Moderator
Please note that this topic is a continuation of the deviating posts in this thread. capefeather has graciously offered up his last post in that thread as the OP of this topic. He laid out some clear options and ideas for us to discuss and ponder. Again, feel free to grab some posts from the previous topic on our CAP Metagame discussion thread and quote them here.

As a final note, do not be personally offensive towards other users, whether it be here or on IRC. This goes out to every single PRC member, including myself. We all want what's best for CAP in the end; don't lose sight of that. Personal attacks will not be tolerated in any form. Thank you!
My problems with giving revisions to CaPs do not lie with preserving history, or anything stated in the OP at all. There are some solutions that can be made to such a problem to keep the idea of revisions. My problem has no such compromise, at least with frequent revisions. I actually find it strange that this wasn't mentioned at all.

CaP is an ever shifting metagame. It is constantly changing.

I'm under the assumption that we want the CaP meta to have at least some beneficial data to be gleaned from it? Well people are going to have more than enough trouble adapting to it with additional threats with the closure of each CaP project, never mind revisions on top. I seriously doubt that if revisions were added on top we would ever have the meta settle for long enough to get useful information from it.

There's also another problem added on top of this, accessability. The more updates we add to CaP/s the harder it will be for new players to keep up. Keeping the meta in a balanced state, updating the info and smoothing the transition to it's new, revisioned state for new players as much as possible is not something I can see being managed.

Finally, I can see one last potential issue. I have serious concerns that revisions will attempt to make all CaPs possible high OU. Other concepts may also be sneaked into them in a display of power creep. My experience with how these matters have been handled in the past has taught me that this will happen and it's likely to happen again.

My first concern is the most important one, but the others do add additional problems to overcome if we decide to go through with revisions. I want to see a solid, healthy CaP meta, not a confused one and believe our resources are better spent on researching the meta itself and providing support to new players. I say we keep the CaPmons as they are, if people want flavour revisions to keep past generations on topic I can at least support that but no more. I can stand flavour revisions because they do not affect how the CaP plays in the meta so will remain static for the purposes of study. This goes for whether we split the gens into 4th and 5th, or keep them together.
Okay, here is a proposal I've been developing for a while now:
  • When PS! gets DPP functionality, open a DPP CAP ladder where the DPP CAPs can be played absolutely unchanged.
  • After B2W2 comes out AND the DPP CAP ladder is open, make obvious flavor-based updates to the DPP CAPs for the BW CAP ladder.
  • Start a process for opening temporary playtest ladders where we can test various things. These would not affect the permanent CAP ladders.
The reasons for the timelines for the first two are simple. Without a DPP CAP metagame, the unchanged CAPs have no place to be played. With B2W2 around the corner, anything done to "update" the CAPs now could be wasted effort, as we'd have to readjust to something we have already been expecting for quite a while. Basically, I'm suggesting that we do nothing about the DPP CAPs until these important events happen.

The second idea could be considered unsound, but the validity is definitely there. It hinges on how exactly we define the metagame. The fact that, for example, Electric-types are "supposed" to have Volt Switch (shut up, Stunfisk, no one likes you) could be considered part of the metagame. If this happens, though, I suggest that there should be a thread to establish "rules" for including new moves or whatever, so that updates are as clean, streamlined and mechanical as possible. Nothing should have to be put to a vote. It should also be noted that we'd likely only have to do this once (or, god forbid, twice) for the whole generation. This would be done strictly based on flavor/canon considerations.

The last idea is a reference to the weather tests that CAP did in DPP. I've found it a bit disappointing that CAP hasn't done more tests like these, since it is a very legitimate aspect of exploring the metagame that is outside the scope of the main CAP process. It's not like Deck Knight's CAP DW idea where we're experimenting with one metagame in a (imo) flawed manner, but rather, it uses the already existing playtesting process to test hypothetical metagames. A bunch of people seem to want something of this vein, and it turns out that we'd kind of already done it! For now, I won't elaborate on some of the more outlandish possibilities that we could take, but I'd say it's interesting enough to consider.


Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I just want to make the following point clear before starting so that it doesn't get lost in the inevitable clutter that is to follow:

We should not have any more than one permanent 5th Gen CAP metagame ladder open at any one time.

I feel that this is key, both for personal and for practical reasons. The CAP metagame has often suffered from lack of users available to play it - I don't see why it would be in our interests to in any way fiddle about with numerous ladders for the sake of pleasing lots of people who are at present at loggerheads with one another. This is more directed at those people who say that we ought to have two ladders to please both sides of the camp. Note that I do not consider playtest ladders of any description to fall under the umbrella of 5th Gen CAP metagames in this case as they are temporary, and designed to investigate various small factors rather than to exist as a larger, permanent entity. So I would be entirely fine with capefeather's suggestion of temporary playtest ladders for whatever we might like to test - however, I am not entirely sure I support the idea of testing hypothetical metagames, unless they are within the confines and jurisdiction of the CAP Project proper - that is to say, if we wanted to test Wonder Guard with Rock/Ice, or whatever, we would have a platform upon which to do so. Even then, I would not advocate this being a common practice - part of CAP's great design is to see what we can do with theorymon and knowledge alone, and then see how whatever we come up with performs in practice, which may be watered down if we are testing our ideas as we go along.


We should not consider giving revisions to the DPP CAPs until there is a platform for their original forms to be viewed and archived.

By "platform" I do not mean the EnCAPlopaedia, or even the CAP website, though both of these are decent starting points. These are not particularly visible to the casual CAP lurker, but more to the point, they run into issues of conflict with whatever updates we happen to give them - there is no reasonable way to house both of them together visibly, with the sole exception of two things:
  1. Tabs on the CAP website (or possibly the EnCAPlopaedia) to differentiate between DPP and BW
  2. A DPP CAP ladder
The latter of these is crucial regardless of whether or not we choose to run revisions, but is essential if we do. They are then both visible and relevant, but in an archive metagame, like ADV or RBY. In addition to the above, we also need a new place to house the old process threads, as well as outdated articles, such as those containing the DPP VGMs and movepool guides - but that's another topic for another day.

Once both of these are set up, we can begin to think about revisions. I am not sure whether I am in favour of them yet - but I am relatively confident that a metagame that houses all CAPs - all of them - is something that the community at large wants, and more importantly, expects the CAP metagame to consist of. We have, to be sure, hit a stage now where there are so many CAPs that the metagame is more or less unrecognisable - but I don't consider this a problem. On the contrary, I find it fascinating - that some of the most powerful CAPs from DPP are apparently nonexistent now says quite a lot about their ability to stand the test of time, outside of the metagame that we created them to perform in.

From this point, provided we have a DPP CAP ladder to emphasise, capefeather's suggestion of making minimal, flavour-based additions to the CAPs is a plausible goal. After all, we have revised the CAPs before - I do not talk of the ill-fated CAP revisions project, but rather the addition of move tutor moves from Pt and HGSS, and the subsequent movepool revisions to coincide with new movepool standards, which I believe are still in effect, unless we retroactively removed them. However, any and all of these revisions should under no circumstances be in response to or even considering the CAP metagame itself, or any other competitive concerns. Flavour on its own is the best way, I think, to avoid impartiality - to this end, the DPP CAPs, if updated, should only receive flavour-based Hidden Abilities. I would like the CAPs to remain static, for the purposes of study, as Wyverii put it - to see how they adapt to a new metagame every time a new CAP comes in.

So yeah, that's about the extent to which I am willing to support revisions. Also CAPs should only be revised if and when there is an event that causes Pokemon to gain access to new moves, such as the generational transition or indeed the introduction of new move tutors.

*Will edit later, must dash now*


What are CaPs? CaPs are creations made to study a metagame, and to understand what happens when it changes the metagame. CaPs are a relic, something to look at, a symbol of a old metagame.

I do not believe we should edit CaPs, in any way, shape, or form, aside from PURE flavor.

You want to use Voodoom in Gen V? Go ahead, good luck! Oh, you're having trouble using it? You want to edit it?

Voodoom was made for near-end of DPP. not mid-BW era. Why should we change what isn't broken, to try to make it more suited for a different scenario, especially if it ruins what metagame was made for originally? (think: changing Tail Glow to Nasty Plot on Scylant because it's +3 in BW - it'll completely change its role in DPP, what it was made for.)

As R_D will no doubt say, the DPP CaPs were not made for BW, and should not be edited just so it can be more usable in a completely different Generation it was fashioned for.

What I would prefer: Do nothing.

Aww, you want to use Revenankh in BW, but can't because of whatever reason? Submit it's concept again for a new CaP! That, as far as I know, is completely legal.



Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnus
It seems a lot of us are on the same page here. I guess I'll post my stance on this subject as well: Revisions should not be allowed in the CAP Project.

Up to this point, CAPs are not made for the CAP metagame. They are not made for anything larger than the OU metagame. As we all know, CAPs are not designed to interact with other CAPs at all, and any synergy that CAPs have with each other is merely coincidence. I'm not sure if this was ever a debated topic in the first place, but revisions should not be made in order to engineer CAPs toward the CAP metagame.

Now, that leaves us one more context in which revisions could be made: post-hoc revisions to better fit a CAP towards its concept. I am also opposed to this for two reasons. First, it detracts from the point of the CAP project. The goal of the CAP project is to create a fully functioning Pokemon from scratch by assembling it in different steps, while spurring discussion about the OU metagame in new ways. Once we get a finished product, however, comes the most important part of the process: reflecting over the CAP and playtesting it!

Once playtesting is over, we usually write an analysis and talk about what went wrong, what went right, and what we could have improved on. In short, we analyze the finished product from just about any angle we can think of when it's done. If we've already done all of that, what do we need revisions for? We usually realize what we could have done better by the time we finish the playtest, and we can apply any new-found knowledge towards future CAPs. Not every CAP is going to succeed in its concept, and we should accept that some CAPs might bust. However, we learn just as much from a bust as we do from a success, and no matter what, we'll know something going into the next CAP that we didn't know going into the previous one.

Whether a CAP fulfills its concept is not important. If a project inspires discussion and argument, then it's a success.

Now, this brings me to the more pressing issue: Revisions for Gen IV CAPs.

I'm against this as well. The reason being is that there's simply no point in bringing Gen IV ideas into Gen V. I fully support making a Gen IV CAP ladder because we spent years creating that metagame and those CAPs deserve to have a place to stay on Pokemon Showdown!. However, I would also like to bring this up:

Should we allow Gen IV CAPs into Gen V at all?

Why should Syclant-Voodoom even be in Gen V CAP at all? They weren't designed for the Gen V OU metagame, and they don't even have any Gen V moves on Pokemon Showdown!. As far as I'm concerned, they were made for Gen IV, and they should stay in Gen IV. We could always revise their movepools and throw on an ability for good measure for Gen V, but what would be the point in doing so?. The purpose of the CAP project is to impart knowledge about competitive Pokemon by designing new Pokemon, and simply upgrading CAPs 1-11 do not accomplish this goal.

It's food for thought at least. Why can't we just keep Gen V CAP and Gen IV CAP completely separate?


used substitute
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
I very much agree with the proposal presented by capefeather. All three points are important, and I think would offer the best overall solution. Having a DPP ladder would give the 4th gen CAPs a place to function in a 4th Gen game, and would be a way to keep the historical value of the CAPs preserved while allowing for changes to be made elsewhere. And, while I think flavor updates would be great, I will agree with cape and bmb respectively on the points that we should wait until after BW2 and until we have such a DPP ladder before pursuing such updates.

However, after those have happened, I see no reason not to go ahead with flavor based updates. As I have stated in the past, I am in no way in favor of competitive updates. CAP Pokemon were made to fill a role in a different metagame, and as such, any updates that change them for competitive reasons would be going against what they were originally made for. Yet, I see no harm in giving out flavor moves and/or abilities to let these Pokemon fit in in the new generation.

I would also like to address a few arguments that have come up that I feel have flawed reasoning, the first of which is the idea that we should just leave the gen 4 CAPs in 4th generation, and not allow them on the 5th gen ladder or update them at all. The problem I have with this is that it hinges on arguments that are flawed at the core, and goes against how Pokemon as a whole work. The thing is, sure, they were not intended for 5th generation, so sure, there is no real reason for them to be there. However, they were not designed for the CAP metagame either, they were designed for gen 4 OU. So unless we have a separate ladder for each CAP, they will always be in a metagame they were not intended for. I just don't see this as being a valid argument for keeping them out of 5th gen. Additionally, even if we do just consider them gen 4 Pokemon, why does that matter? Lucario is a gen 4 Pokemon, and like all Pokemon he was updated when the next generation came out. It's not like it is some strange and unusual thing we are contemplating, but something natural that happens to all Pokemon.

But that leaves us with one more major reason that people have put out there as to why we should not update. CAPs are the work of the CAP community of its time, and by changing it we are changing something that others made. Some might consider it inappropriate for us to take the work that others have put into the CAPs, and change them for the sake of flavor updates. While I personally do not see it that way, something interesting on the matter was brought up on IRC recently, and I really feel it needs to be touched on. Sprites. Here we are discussing and debating whether or not CAPs should be updated when in reality we have already gone ahead and done it. Sprites are just as much a part of the Pokemon as movepools. By accepting sprite updates we are outright saying that we do not care about changing, and, in fact, completely replacing the work of the original winners. Basically, this means that there are three different paths we could take:

1) We disallow all updates and revert back to the original sprite.
2) We allow updates and keep the new sprites.
3) We are hypocrites who are outright saying that we value the contributions of some of our participants more than others.

Now I'm not saying this means we should do anything major, but we cannot just sit around pretending we don't like updates while actually allowing them at the same time.

Overall, I feel that capefeather has it right as far as the best way to go about things. As long as we have some firm, established rules as to how updates will be done, I don't see any problem with changing the CAPs to have them fit in, like all gen 4 Pokemon before them. Votes should be unnecessary, and we should be able to get it done fairly easily based solely on the trends of Pokemon.


Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
This got a bit long so rather than edit my old post I decided to make a new one, hope nobody minds

I think at this point that a lot of us are talking at cross-purposes. Some of the arguments I am hearing at this point assume all manner of things, such as that these revisions will be a continuous process, that we will be making competitive updates, and whatever else have you. This applies to both sides of the debate. The problem here, I think, is that we're still not sure exactly to what extent or the manner in which these revisions will take place, which is bad when nearly everybody here has differing limits to how far they are willing to allow any possible revisions to proceed, if at all.

So, at this point there are really three different categories of revision, if we ignore all the other details like how we implement them and whether they are applied at all, which are:

a) Continuous Competitive updates
b) Competitive updates if and when new moves/abilities are released
c) Flavour updates if and when new moves/abilities are released

I am relatively certain that everybody is in agreement that a) is a terrible terrible idea. For sake of argument, however: If the CAPs are being continuously updated to stay relevant then this constitutes a power creep that cannot end, as they displace one another already, and we have come to a stage where any action we take to improve one affects the others, while we learn very little regardless. As for b), I find it too to be a bad idea, as updating to 5th Gen by competitive means risks demeaning what the CAPs already set out to achieve, trampling over the accepted movepool limits, and also introducing wasteful and time-consuming subjectivity into the process. We all know what happened with the CAP Revision Committee. Ergo, any kind of competitive updates based on the CAP metagame (or any other metagame for that matter) are divisive and more to the point offer us very little real gain.

So, from this point on, whenever I refer to "revisions" I will be referring to the most pertinent, reasonable, and dare I say likely, form that they may take - flavour updates that only occur at stages where new game elements are released, such as on the release of a new generation, or the presence of new move tutors.

Anyway, long story short, I decided to list a bunch of arguments that I personally find decisive for and against revisions -

The Case Against

- The CAPs constitute an archive that is necessary both for future reference and as an outward display to newcomers

This point has already been laboured to death, but I'll go over it again as I feel that it is by far the most important. The CAPs are a representation of what we did once and what we learned, but more importantly, they exist as a creation that we made and should feel proud of, rather than just another toy that's fun for a month and then thrown aside. This may seem like it clashes with the idea of keeping the CAPs the same, but I would tend to disagree here. The objective of the Create-A-Pokemon Project is to explore the metagame, to see what we can come up with and then display it proudly. To change them, then, any more than is necessary would seem to be both insulting to the members who worked to make them what they are and also to, in a way, neglect the possibility of their concepts being revisited. I don't find these two points very convincing, though - what strikes me most is that the CAPs ought to be, in some way, able to be "retrosynthesised". I remember when I first came to CAP - just after the creation of Pyroak - trying to retroactively piece together exactly how the CAPs had been made and designed, as I could not actually find this information to hand. It's gotten better - we have a Process Archive now, and several places where the originals are displayed, but then there are still problems. I don't doubt that very few people know that Syclant's stat spread was ever changed, or that all of the movepools underwent revisions to comply with the new standards, leading to the horrendous and tragic loss of the beloved Stun Spore Cyclohm, amongst other things. The more cluttered we make our path in the present, the harder it is to trace the past - and I don't doubt that a lot of what we once had is now out of the community's memory.

- There is no "fair" way to go about doing revisions

This is the second point. Regardless of how we go about doing revisions, inevitably we have ended up with the potential for almost limitless "updates". For example, do we give Icicle Crash to Syclant? It certainly fits the flavour; much more so, indeed, than any other move released in the 5th Gen, and somebody could probably make a convincing argument that nobody uses Swords Dance Syclant anyway so Icicle Crash isn't really competitive. What do we do then? If we give Syclant Icicle Crash, possibly we are giving it more in the generational transition than, say, Revenankh with Hex, so we can't really fairly compare them in the context of the CAP metagame. The obvious solution to this is to, well, not give Syclant Icicle Crash, but then the problem still lies with "well where do we draw the line then?", especially - especially! - in the context of arguably obligatory flavour TMs like Volt Switch and Acrobatics.

Notice that I have deliberately used the word "fair" rather than something like "objective". We could easily make it objective - simply get a committee to work out what the Type-Move and Move-Move requirements are, similarly to how it was done in DPP, and then allocate the TM moves, while only providing little "obvious" flavour additions to level-up or egg movepools (ie. Drill Run Colossoil). However, this still is not "fair" - some Pokemon with certain typings will undoubtedly get more toys than others, and on another note, this prevents any chance of discussion, debate, or democratic resolution as to the flavour. You may not see any of this as a bad thing - I myself do not see it as an unworkable problem - but a problem it is and remains, and it is something that will have to be considered.

- Revisions take time and effort that could be otherwise allocated

This is a weak argument, to be sure, but even I could see that there is merit to be had in getting people to update all of the old outdated articles on-site or even writing new ones, or starting on new projects like analyses or pre-evo flavour, which will undoubtedly be held up by any revisions we should choose to make. This would also mean a rather large contingent of 5th Gen analyses to do, rather than the three that would result otherwise. This does give more people an opportunity to write and test and whatnot, but the point stands.

- We can't even agree on how we would go about doing these

Even the decision to revise the CAPs opens up a huge can of worms. To what extent do we "update" them? Should they all get 1 VGM to make it fair, or should they all get no VGMs at all? Do we do this democratically or by committee, or should we assign one person to do each CAP, as was done in the DPP movepool revisions and Move Tutor additions? This is a headache that we can do without. Personally I don't find this so convincing simply because there are people who are willing to stomach the headache for sake of the CAP metagame, but I do know that some people - myself included - would be greatly annoyed if any revision process turned on its head and started churning out things that we weren't happy with, and we were stuck with them.

- What the hell is Paleo Wave?

An argument which I don't approve of but find interesting in its own way is the idea that not doing revisions allows us to "move on" from DPP and indeed to focus on what is more important, which is the exploration of further uncharted territory through the creation of new CAPs, and hence leaving behind what we had previously as an archive. I don't find this particularly convincing purely because it clashes with the first point, to an extent - the CAPs should be an archive, but trying to move on from them risks leaving them and their important messages behind. Still, food for thought.

- We are setting a precedent here

Consider the Sixth Generation, if ever it is to arise. If we do decide to update the DPP CAPs to BW, we have set a precedent that we shall be adding all CAPs to this new 6th Gen CAP metagame as well, and resigning ourselves to all the update processes that come with it. There are two big problems that come with this. One is the inevitable total influx of CAPs into the metagame - the point at which our CAP metagame is so overburdened with CAPs that it no longer bears any resemblance to standard OU. The second relates to the point about the CAPs constituting an archive - in this case, our "5th Generation" archive metagame also happens to include 4th Gen CAPs! Of course, we could remove them, but then, what's to stop us from simply creating one additional ladder which has all CAPs playable, and no longer worrying about different-metagame problems? (My answer to this, for what it's worth, is that this is an unacceptable slashing of the playerbase). Still, we have to give real consideration to the precedent we're setting as it could seriously affect the CAP metagame's long-term composition. I've listed it last here, however, because "Well why don't we change it if and when it becomes a problem?", and to be honest, yes, I have always subscribed to that pragmatic school of thought.

The Case For

- There is an interest in a metagame where all CAPs are playable

Whatever we may disagree on, the following point is, I feel, unchallengeable - the CAP metagame represents the competitive face of the CAP Project. When a newcomer enters the fray, they may well marvel at the art and the polls and the stats, but really, when it comes down to it, the end result of all CAP Projects is the way that they perform in a competitive context, and the CAP metagame is the only permanent place where this occurs (PS! randbats are tosh), and thus more or less represents what the CAP Project is, in an active sense. Want to try out one of these Pokemon? Then the CAP ladder is the place to do it. With that being said, there is a fundamental interest to seeing how all of our creations work together in one big happy pile. It doesn't really matter if some of them aren't used much - they are there for our enjoyment and seeing how they interact with one another is marvellous. I do think it would be a shame if we had to segregate them, certainly - especially considering that basically none of the CAPs were designed for the same metagame regardless. It has very little to do with the CAP Mission Statement - and that is its greatest weakness - but then the CAP metagame itself never had much to do with the mission statement anyway. It's something that most people would want, I think, which is why I would be inclined to favour it.

I should repeat here that I am absolutely against the splitting of current-generation CAP metagames for sake of pleasing everybody as the playerbase is already fragmented enough - I very highly doubt that any DPP CAP ladder will get much traffic regardless, and ensuring a busy ladder is an important step towards getting lots of people playing it. Far more people will be inclined to build teams and battle if they can just click "Find Battle" rather than asking in the chat or any other such thing. Thus it is something of an "all or nothing" issue with me.

- We can learn from how the CAPs function in a metagame other than that which they were designed for

This is something I am particularly interested in. I was genuinely surprised when RD mentioned that Colossoil was rarely seen in the CAP metagame due to the presence of Tomohawk - knowing how powerful it was in DPP, even so far as to be considered near-broken, I was taken aback, but on reflection I can see how such is the case. "Stop the Secondary" has been effectively removed as a niche, or at least in the way we did it, with stuff like Team Preview and Magic Bounce, and more to the point, we put the burden on Colossoil's typing to enable it to remove the secondary threats, which means that if it can't hurt something it's a bit stuck - especially something as dangerous as Tomohawk. Where am I going with this? Well, this is something we stand to learn a lot from - how a CAP works outside of the metagame we designed it for, or essentially simulating a generational transition, in the case of the BW CAPs. This is the single biggest thing we stand to gain from studying the CAP metagame, I feel - and regardless of whether or not revisions are implemented I feel that this is something that should be emphasised. However, in this instance this is an argument for the inclusion of updated DPP CAPs, rather than their exclusion from BW ladders - I feel we stand to gain a lot from seeing how they interact and how their power levels compare, or whether they can find niches other than those we specifically designed them for.

- We have already done flavour updates to existing CAPs before

As I have mentioned before, I dislike the argument that CAPs should be separated by the metagame that they were designed for simply because all CAPs were designed for slightly different metagames, and recreating all 13 playtest ladders (and rising) is unfeasible in the extreme, and that I feel that, as I said above, we have a lot to gain from learning about the CAPs in metagames other than those they were designed for. This is not, of course, an argument for updating them as opposed to leaving them as-is - but I would like to draw attention, again, to the points that I made the last time, that we have already "updated", as opposed to "revised", CAPs in the past. These took the form of the additions to the movepools on discovering the Platinum, and subsequently HGSS, move tutors, as well as removals to comply with the new movepool guidelines on their creation. Hence I don't see that any particular "purpose" we may have had for the CAPs necessitates their use in one generation only. There are other, more pragmatic reasons to keep them there though, which I have outlined above.

- Any movepool-related flavour updates are unlikely to greatly change the Pokemon, with some notable exceptions.

Now, rather than just waffling generally about idly toddling up and down and updating all of these CAPs I did, in fact, have a go at it myself to see how easy it was to do without giving the CAPs too many new toys, or whatever the issue of the day happened to be. Now, if I were Rising_Dusk or Doug I'd probably have nicked a load of data from veekuna and endlessly fiddled about with it before presenting a cogent and well-thought-out set of mathematical averages for movepool additions - but I'm not, I didn't, and as a student who is equally poor in both sciences and humanities I am unfortunately only capable of working in vague, hand-wavy rough estimates and general overviews. I won't dwell on this for too long, but I found that the following was a pretty good rough estimate of how the DPP Pokemon were updated:

1. Each Pokemon got at a rough maximum 1 new 5th gen move in Egg moves or Level-up, or both, or neither
2. New 5th Gen TMs and HMs

Note that this is discounting legendary signature moves. Interestingly enough, the majority of 5th Gen moves are either legendary signature moves, and therefore off-limits, or competitively unviable, without some big help, like Inferno. We have no need to include 5th Gen competitive moves in the level-up or egg move sections, and there are very few non-TMs-or-exclusives that are actually worthwhile competitively (the only real exception being Icicle Crash). So, long story short, I found that only the obligatory flavour TMs really presented problems. Here are the most noteworthy ones:
  • Hone Claws Kitsunoh
  • Scald/Volt Switch Krilowatt
  • Dragon Tail/Volt Switch Cyclohm
  • Smack Down Colossoil
  • Flame Charge Pyroak (unlikely to be of concern, but...)
Whether or not these are of concern is up to us, or whether or not we decide to implement revisions. But these are a useful benchmark of where flavour alone will lead us - and it is hardly apocalyptic as far as I am concerned, but others may well disagree.

- The CAP metagame is hard to grasp regardless

Lastly and quickly, this is more in response to the claims that the CAP metagame will become out of the depth of the casual passer-by. I would say that the CAPs have influenced the metagame to such an extent already that the metagame is nigh-on unrecognisable - anybody would have trouble getting into it, even with one CAP alone. It really is that difficult to make the jump - it is essentially an entire generational transition.


So, that's what I've been thinking about for the however many hours it's been I've spent compiling this. What's my personal opinion? Well, I think that, once there is a DPP CAP ladder and a provision for something like analysis tabs, or another place to store the information for the 4th gen CAPs, it might be a nice idea to update the CAPs with only flavour in mind, and to see how they perform. I'll admit I'm curious to see the results, even though they'd likely be the same as what already exists. But I can only support this happening once I feel that the DPP CAPs have sufficient material to their name both on-site and in actuality to constitute an archive. That's my opinion; take with the well-loved pinch of salt.


Assuming that each CAP gets 1 inconsequential move added to either its level-up or egg movepool, here is what I came up with:

Syclant - Struggle Bug
Revenankh - Hex
Pyroak - Incinerate
Fidgit - Magic Room, Wonder Room
Stratagem - Quick Guard
Arghonaut - Heavy Slam
Kitsunoh - N/A
Cyclohm - Electro Ball?
Colossoil - Drill Run
Krilowatt - Soak
Voodoom - Foul Play?

For quite a lot of these there are some problems. Krilowatt and Fidgit were mildly inspired by their original concepts - theoretically Soak Krilowatt could check anything by making it Water-type and then frying it with Thunderbolt, while Fidgit gets the two new arena condition moves (I claim to have come up with that term, by the way). All the others aren't particularly inspired - Voodoom's Foul Play is most controversial, but fits flavour-wise, while Colossoil and Arghonaut are self-evident in terms of flavour. For the others, Syclant, Revenankh, Pyroak, and Cyclohm just have the least useful moves of one of their types (Syclant has Struggle Bug over Icicle Crash here due to potential problems with partiality). Kitsunoh has nothing because nothing really fits, and Stratagem has Quick Guard for lack of anything better. Maybe to annoy Scizor, I dunno.

Remember that all of these could theoretically be replaced by any of the moves from their new TM lists. So:

- Hone Claws
- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Acrobatics
- Retaliate
- Struggle Bug
- Frost Breath
- Work Up

- Smack Down
- Round
- Retaliate
- Work Up

- Flame Charge
- Low Sweep
- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Incinerate
- Retaliate
- Bulldoze
- Work Up
- Snarl

- Venoshock
- Sludge Wave
- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Acrobatics
- Bulldoze

- Hone Claws
- Smack Down
- Round
- Telekinesis
- Incinerate
- Acrobatics

- Hone Claws
- Smack Down
- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Scald
- Retaliate
- Bulldoze
- Work Up

- Hone Claws
- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Acrobatics
- Retaliate
- Snarl

- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Incinerate
- Volt Switch
- Dragon Tail
- Wild Charge
- Snarl

- Smack Down
- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Bulldoze
- Snarl

- Round
- Echoed Voice
- Scald
- Volt Switch
- Wild Charge

- Psyshock
- Smack Down
- Low Sweep
- Round
- Retaliate

NB. Criteria:

Hone Claws: Stuff with claws or claw-based moves, or a better boosting move
Psyshock: Most Pokemon with Psychic also have Psyshock
Venoshock: Only Poison-types tend to get it
Telekinesis: Meh. Stratagem is floating, I guess
Smack Down: Most important Rock-, Ground- and Fighting-types get it
Sludge Wave: Again, Poison-types
Flame Charge: Most Fire-types seem to get it
Low Sweep: Things with discernable two legs, or humanshape, tend to get it
Round: Fricking everything gets this move
Echoed Voice: See above, except without stuff I can't imagine having a voice
Ally Switch: Only Psychic-types get it and we don't have any of those
Scald: Water-types, things that look like Water-types but aren't, and Emboar for some reason
Sky Drop: Really big flying stuff (so nothing here)
Incinerate: Fire-types and things that get Fire-type moves
Quash: To be quite honest I see no correlation at all
Acrobatics: Flying-types and other acrobatic things. I just gave it to speedy Pokemon here, but not to Voodoom because *Heracross*.
Retaliate: Most Normal- and Fighting-types, but nobody uses it so who cares
Volt Switch: Electric-types, basically
Struggle Bug: ...
Bulldoze: Ground-types and general heavy things
Frost Breath: Ice and things
Dragon Tail: Big ugly things with tails, which we have surprisingly few of
Work Up: Just about everything, but I only gave it to the ones where it would be outclassed for sake of argument
Wild Charge: Lots of things, but I only gave it to Electric-types to save trouble
Snarl: Well, it doesn't exist yet so it doesn't really matter, but I gave it to the mean-looking stuff


That's what I've got, not counting new DW abilities.


Robot from the Future
is a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Pokemon Researcheris a Smogon Media Contributor
Orange Islands
Revisions have already been done. Everyone has already posted saying so. Platinum/HGSS move tutor moves were added to CaPs. Sprites have been revamped etc... At its core, Updates have already happened to the CaPs.

I have no objections to CaPs getting *small* move pool additions. I do not see why we cannot use the Gen 4 CaPs to experiment with now (Even to the limited amount that Cape has suggested). We already have some examples of Pokémon getting Moves/Abilities into 5th Gen which changes how they play (Just look at Politoed or Rotom). I just don’t get why we are shutting out a potential learning opportunity. GameFreak updated one of our CaPs in the form of Voodoom’s ability. Why is this any different to us updating our own creations? Other move affects have also changed. I think it is a huge shame that we are locking off a potential slew of experiments to see how the Gen 4 CaPs change into Gen 5 with the addition of a few moves. This list that BmB provided is a good example.

I will state that I am totally against changing stats or abilities (unless GF changes them). Movepools are the only place (generally) where Pokémon change every generation.

If no compromise can be made, then I totally support a Gen 4 CaP game and a Gen 5 one when it is available. If the CaP meta stays primarily for fun, then I do not see why updates can’t be done either.

I’m pretty much with Cape/Jas/BmB with most of my views, and they explain them far better than I do. GF has already changed some of our Pokémon (and intrinsically changed how they could be played). Also: I’ll link to my post in the other thread because this is basically a repeat of that with fewer words.



is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Super Moderator
I'm going to tentatively close this topic for now. While this is something that definitely should be discussed more, now is not the time. For starters, we don't have all the technology available for all plausible options. Pokemon Showdown! is going to be getting Past Generation support somewhere down the line. Until then, we can't really look into doing a "Gen 4 Only" and "Gen 5 Only" CAP metagame system.

Furthermore, this is more an act of spring cleaning than anything. I know there are some PRC members eager to discuss more pressing matters of the main CAP project once CAP3 is done. I'd prefer we wait this one out while we discuss some other issues. Until then, I implore you to play the actual CAP metagame and continue to think about this thread. This issue is far from dead. Locking for now with the future outlook of "do nothing until we have more time/resources."

As always, if you have any points that you feel should be addressed immediately in this topic, PM a CAP moderator about potentially reopening this for discussion.
Not open for further replies.