Policy Review Principles Regarding Updating Past CAP Pokemon

[Deck Knight]

Final Proposal: (48 Hrs Discussion)

This post contains a finalized proposal for moving forward with CAP Updates. Please make any suggestions or concerns you have with it known in that time frame.

Principles​

1. Justification: GameFreak updates its "face of the franchise" (competitively) Pokemon at regular intervals in competitively significant ways. CAP should do the same with our "face of the franchise," our CAP Pokemon.
2. Definition: An Update is defined as an addition or removal to a Pokemon's Movepool, or a change in their Ability. Base Statistics Updates will not be considered. Abilities are to be replaced, not removed, consistent with in-game precedent.
3. Frequency: Movepool Updates should be conducted upon each new game release, Ability Updates should be considered upon each new generation's release.
4. Continuity: All Updates should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Established Identity (Metagame Role, "CAP-iness" of the CAP.)
5. Coherence: All Updates should have sound competitive reasoning and /or in-game precedent (ex. From BW2 Tutors Electric and most Bug types getting ElectroWeb).
6. Appearance: All Updates should consider the overall optics of that revision and how it will impact perception of the CAP Community.
7. Acclimation: All Updates should acclimate the CAP to baseline competitive play in that release's OU (or equivalent) environment.
8. Conservation: All Updates should be as conservative as possible in acclimating the CAPs to the new release's environment.

Process
(All Times are Approximate)​

Process Part I:
New Update Trigger Occurs (New Gen or Game Release) [~2 wks total]

Nominate and Select Update Leaders:
CAP Opens Applications for Update Leaders (4 Days)
Close Applications and Poll to determine selection order (UL's get choice in order of votes received) (24 Hrs)

Update Priority Discussion: [Opened By Moderators]
Open Discussion as to which CAPs should be updated in which way. (4 Days)
Poll update method of CAPs (3 Options: Ability + Moves Update / Moves Update / Flavor Only, One Selection only each subsection) (48 Hrs)
Poll is taken as to the priority of selected updates (sorted by competitive importance), and UL's choose from among the top options. (24 Hrs)
ULs select CAPs to be updated are prioritized based on complexity (Ability + Moves First, Then Competitive Moves, Then Flavor Only)

Process Part II:
Three Update Threads are opened simultaneously by ULs - [~1.5 weeks for Ability, ~1 week for Competitive + Flavor Updates, ~3 Days for Flavor Only Updates]
Update Leaders open their Pokemon-Specific Thread (preference for thread selection decided by highest vote-recipients in order.) - -

Ability Discussion Occurs (If None, Skip) (3 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Competitive Moves Discussion Occurs (If None [mid-gen update], Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Flavor Moves Addition Discussion Occurs (2 Days)
CAP Finalizes Movepool with a poll. (24 Hrs)

CAP Repeats Process Part II with the next highest priority CAP until updates on all CAPs are complete.

New Generation / Release Officially opens, and Ladder is reset.

Update Leaders​

1. Update Leaders are selected by the same nomination processed used for TL / TLT Members, which includes nomination, application (same application as TL / TLT), and moderator review.
2. Update Leaders are treated as a TLT member would be throughout the update, leading all phases of the update and utilizing the standard CAP Processes for Abilities, Competitive Moves, and Flavor Moves where applicable.
3. Moderators may veto Update Leader slates if necessary, using the same process/justification as they would for a TL / TLT slate in a regular project, or additionally any perceived violation of the Update Principles provided.
4. Update Leaders will be cycled through updates so that each UL gets an opportunity to lead an update before receiving a second opportunity. (E.g. If 5 ULs are selected, the UL who finishes their update first cannot lead another update until the 6th CAP is up for consideration.)

 

[jas61292]

Lets hold up here a second. Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that this thread is actually moving, but I feel like we have gotten so caught up in the process of how we are doing updates that we completely ignored real discussion on the policy of what we are updating. While I certainly believe there is consensus among the PRC that we want to do updates of some sort, in the first page and a half of this thread I saw posts supporting competitively aimed updates, post supporting only non-competitive updates, posts supporting only updates related to the concept, and posts supporting some mixture of the above. And yet, once we got near the middle of page two, it looks to me like people mostly stopped talking about this at all, in favor of talking solely about some sort of process.

Now, of course, having a process of some sort ironed out is good for when we do updates. But it is impossible to judge whether or not an updating process is good for what we want to do, without first coming to a conclusion about what it actually is we want to do. The proposed process here seems to be trying to take a conglomerate of the ideas, so as to please all sides, but I personally think this is a bad idea. All that does is push back making the decision about what it is we are trying to do until the actual update threads, which can lead to different CAPs updates essentially operating under different principles, based on who is leading and who is participating.

For example, while I personally am against any sort of competitively aimed updates to begin with, as shown by my first post, I am even more vehemently against removing anything from a CAP. And from just reading this thread, I know I am not alone in this. As I quoted from reachzero last post I think we should be looking to update, not revise. I know some other people may feel differently than I do, but regardless, from reading this thread I can say with confidence that at best this is hardly a settled issue. Yet here we have this conglomerate process proposal that in its very principles codifies removals as a type of update we can do.

Perhaps even worse the proposal has the very decision on whether a CAP should be updated be part of the process. That is what this thread right here is for. Just look at the title of the thread. Which Pokemon we update, or at the very least the reasons for how we will decide which we update, is the most important principle of all. If we end this thread without such a decision being made, if we push it back, this entire thread has failed to serve its purpose. If in the end, we decide to only do competitive updates, then yeah, we will need a thread to decide which ones need it. But both from the posts in this thread, and the proposal itself, I do not believe this is what people want. In fact, competitive only updates I would hazard are the least popular option. Rather I believe what the PRC as a whole will end up wanting is either non-competitive only, or some sort of mix. And in either of those cases, there would not need to be any discussion of which Pokemon we update. Only the order in which they are done.

Again, I like a lot of the steps in the proposed process here, and I think something like this is necessary for orderly updates. But I think we are putting the cart before the horse here is trying to come to a conclusion on how the process works, before we come to a conclusion about what the process is really for.

 

[Deck Knight]

Counterpoint: In the OP of the thread (which was the original approved text), I specifically said this was not the thread for deciding what specific updates specific CAPs would get.

Right now that decision is deferred to an Open Discussion thread after UL Nominations are done, which I grant has an approximate window of 4 days. It is also unique in that it's being led by mods collectively instead of a single TL-like figure. The thing is, in order to ensure some level of conservatism in updates to adhere to the outlined principles, I really do feel that we need to treat that thread as collectively mod managed, but slated like we do flavor polls where we specifically slate all legal options (in this case whether to do Flavor Only, Competitive Moves + Flavor, Or Ability + Competitive Moves + Flavor) for each CAP.

That might be too short a window, maybe we should open that thread concurrent with the UL Nominations, which I think solves the issue of making a 22 separate decisions regarding our CAP Pokemon hastily. Either way, what seems apparent to me is that people want CAP Updates, and that people want CAP updates that regardless of their flavor value have competitive implications. There is no way getting around the large support given in this thread to make old CAPs "look like Gen 7 Pokemon" will necessarily require competitively relevant changes in some cases.

People also seem to like the idea of using a modified CAP Process to make these Updates, and inherent to that process is we're not deferring to the Mods, to the PRC, or to some other Council that will be "the best at updating CAPs," we're deferring to wholly public discussions which have a process leader and checks and balances.

I'm certainly amenable to such an edit, I'm also amenable to us breaking out which CAPs should get which kind of update to a separate PRC Thread - However I would warn that making such a decision PRC exclusive goes against the whole rest of the process (i.e. public gets to decide the final abilities/stats/flavor, but not WHICH of these things happens to which CAP.)

 

[HeaLnDeaL]

For example, while I personally am against any sort of competitively aimed updates to begin with, as shown by my first post, I am even more vehemently against removing anything from a CAP. And from just reading this thread, I know I am not alone in this. As I quoted from reachzero last post I think we should be looking to update, not revise. I know some other people may feel differently than I do, but regardless, from reading this thread I can say with confidence that at best this is hardly a settled issue. Yet here we have this conglomerate process proposal that in its very principles codifies removals as a type of update we can do.

So uh I honestly think we need to decide if removals are allowed or not within this thread once and for all before the update process starts. Jas is right that the problem is far from settled. But the problem leaving it unsettled is that it will probably never be settled until we get into a fervant, hasty debate in the actual update thread. Realistically, if we allow removals, in Aurumoth and Tomohawk updates there's going to be a shitstorm debate regarding removals that will never be resolved and forced to go to a poll. The problem? We'd essentially be letting the masses decide the result of move removals rather than an ICC. If we're going into updates with an issue that realistically cannot be solved by an ICC (which I think we will be unless we decide in removals are banned or not here in PRC) then it's just going to be a mess.

Quite frankly, I think removals should be banned. Why? Because the ICC of this thread has already determined that updates should not be done with the aim of balancing the CAPmons to all be viable/not broken in the CAP metagame. The people who are advocating removals are doing so while being motivated on viability. This is a clear conflict of interest. If we indeed want to make sure updates are not overly tainted with viability issues, and if we indeed recognize that GameFreak does not "delete" a move from a Pokemon completely (some moves are gen locked but still able to be transferred, thus the move is not deleted), then I believe we are forced to ban removals. Removals are revisions, not updates, and they run counter to the rather clear ICC that we don't want to make all CAPmons perfectly viable. Now, just because I say that the goal isn't viability, that *doesn't* mean that all competitive connotations should be ignored. If we're also aiming to keep most of the original concepts in tact, then competitive discussions will happen, but imo should be related back to the "concept" and "goal" and as little to viability as possible.

I will say though that it's better to have a discussion outside of PRC to decide which CAPs we want to update or the order or whatever. I think that we already have our (most of) guiding principles and that should be more than enough to guide a public decision thread. Deciding which CAPmons get updated here and how extensively seems a bit much. I'd imagine the public thread or the update assessments prior to real updates will determine the particular "direction" for each update. The directions, from my understanding, are limited to "Concept Aligned Updates" and "Role Aligned Updates" (and potentially just "Flavor Aligned Updates") with perhaps some middle variation that works with both (or all three or combination of two of the three). Obviously we've discussed that some CAPmons no longer have a surviving concept in the current metagame (such as Arghonaut) and thus this is the reason for why we need update assessments to clarify our direction. But clarifying that for every CAPmon now in PRC seems messy and should be done with more of public assessment discussions.

 

[Deck Knight]

I know this may be more splitting the baby, but as long as we're all clear-headed about what people have been discussing, the key objectives to allowing Ability changes are specifically nerfs to Aurumoth, Cawmodore, and for some, Tomohawk, and not really making old CAPMons adhere to past concepts that aren't fulfilled in their current abilities. The Theoreymonned changes are effectively purposeful nerfs.

These changes do maintain a lot of support, primarily because people believe some of the CAPs are executing their concepts a little TOO well, or in Aurumoth's case it never runs Weak Armor, it's only legitimately Risk/Reward balanced Ability. In other words, Aurumoth doesn't fulfill its concept because of its Abilities. We run into a Gordian Knot because if we allow the one change, we allow the others. Movepools have similar reasoning to this vein, where Hawk's offensive movepool generates momentum primarily by KOing whatever is in front of it (which is not its concept) - i.e. there shouldn't BE a viable 3 Attacks + Roost LO Tomo set, and yet there is.

I share the opinion we should not have viability as a central concern in principle, which is why our principles demand conservatism, coherence, and continuity with the CAP's established Metagame Role. I do however think if we're going to ban removals, we should also ban ability changes because the viability motivation is the same. Even if these changes would make the metagame objectively more enjoyable and remove a cloud from some of the CAPs, I want to pin down what people's specific thoughts on this are. I know what I see on Showdown!, but no one has been particularly bold on the forum in arguing that some level of viability affectation is structurally impossible to ignore, that they also see updates as a way to improve CAP's image by removing the broken aspects from former projects, and that by allowing but not mandating more flexibility in what Updates can do, this can be achieved.

Since I've be running the thread I'm not going to impose any such thing because I have my own biases, but I do think stating the motivations of Ability Changes and Move Removals are about more than just "buff/nerf X." Which is why my position is basically that I support the most flexible conservative option possible.

 

[Bughouse]

Here's a total list of Pokemon whose abilities have been removed and replaced over time:

Legendary Dogs went from Flash Fire, etc to Inner Focus... except the HAs were never released before anyway
Zapdos went from Lightningrod to Static... except the HA was never released anyway
Chandelure line went from Shadow Tag to Infiltrator... except the HA was never released anyway

Scolipede line went from Quick Feet to Speed Boost
Gengar went from Levitate to Cursed Body

That's the full list

While I can support adding abilities to DPP CAPs that only had 1 or 2, I do not support removing abilities. GameFreak has only ever done it to 2 fully evolved Pokemon.

These are updates of existing Pokemon, NOT a relitigation of the entire CAP process from concept onward. You can't "fix" Aurumoth to fit its concept. Aurumoth is Aurumoth; its concept is irrelevant at this point.

 

[Mova]

I'm not sure if the following will even be canon in these (upcoming?) Gen 4 CAP updates, but don't the first eleven have Hidden Abilities, at least in ASB? I have a feeling they don't count, but they exist somewhere on Smogon. Would that mean Syclant receives Technician and Cyclohm obtains Overcoat, for instance?

 

[Deck Knight]

I'm not sure if the following will even be canon in these (upcoming?) Gen 4 CAP updates, but don't the first eleven have Hidden Abilities, at least in ASB? I have a feeling they don't count, but they exist somewhere on Smogon. Would that mean Syclant receives Technician and Cyclohm obtains Overcoat, for instance?

ASB Stuff is entirely non-canon and ASB forum rules explicitly say if there are CAP Updates they will be the new canon. I know this because I was the one who founded the ASB and that rule hasn't changed, lol.

 

[Drapionswing]

These are updates of existing Pokemon, NOT a relitigation of the entire CAP process from concept onward. You can't "fix" Aurumoth to fit its concept. Aurumoth is Aurumoth; its concept is irrelevant at this point.

I really disagree with this point because in saying that aurumoth's concept is irrelevant at this point it means that EVERY cap's concept is irrelevant which is not true. Each caps concept is the heart of the cap and although some caps do not fulfill there concept it's still what they were meant to do and how they were meant to function. If we are to go forward with revisions we wouldn't want to stray from these intended goals for each CAP making flavor and/or viability updates which do not interfere with these concepts.

Now to touch on removals;

I don't think we can really say "we shouldn't do removals because gamefreak doesn't do it really" a lot of our process doesn't follow trends from gamefreak so why is this case any different to the main process? A really blatant example of this is with our BST's on our caps ranging in majority from 555-570 with a few exceptions such as kitsunoh or malaconda being 513 and 500 respectively. This is completely adverse to gamefreaks initial stating process in which pokemon with 570 and above listed as "legendary" giving them a special reason for having such a high BST. However similar to gamefreaks removal of abilities we have a few pokemon which are "regular" and have high BST's such as Arcanine and Archeops but these are still regular pokemon.

I personally support removals because if we are to make updates which adhere to a Cap's concept then it leaves a question on other Cap's which could be seen as removal worthy, the biggest example of this is Aurumoth which is the complete opposite of it's concept. Updates should be done to allow this pokemon to not necessarily fulfill it's concept but at the very least stray away from the concept less. And yes, while I am one of the believers that think aurumoth is broken this change is not competitively aimed however I am aware removals will definitely have an adverse effect on this Cap's viability, but this is still not a viability motivated change. I don't really think viability motivated changes can be made as long as we stick to the guidelines deck put in place as all changes must adhere to the 4th rule, Continuity: All Updates should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Established Identity (Metagame Role, "CAP-iness" of the CAP.). If a caps viability is hurt or increased by this then that's how it should.

Where does this leave Cap's such as Volkraken or Voodoom? I think these concepts can't be helped. I feel this way because meta trends will always hurt these concepts because aforementioned trends may be making there partners less viable however these Cap's themselves may be viable on their own which causes the problem with these concepts.

How to strengthen this process? I think that my main worry right now is people going overboard with changes so maybe a limit should be put in place upon the amount of things added and removed (if removals are approved). And I still think we need a council of people to choose what we update and why we're updating and for them to lead the process as a whole. I've already explained why I think we need this.

 

[jas61292]

With regard to my point on deciding which Pokemon we update, I think that absolutely is something we need to decide here. However, honestly, I don't think there is much of a decision to be made. I agree with HeaL's assessment that the concensus here is that updates shouldn't be aimed strictly at making the CAP pokemon viable. As such, what we update should not be based on how much they "need" it. Furthermore, if our very first principle outlined in the proposal is basically that Pokemon get updates with new games, so we should update our Pokemon, then even attempting to decide on which Pokemon get updated would run counter to our principles. If that truly is one of our principles, than the only thing to discuss is when we update each CAP, not if. Because leaving a single CAP un-updated would be counter to that first principle.

I'd also like to say that I am completely with HeaLnDeaL when it comes to removals. These are things which are simply not done in actual Pokemon, and if our goal is not viability, as it shouldn't be, then removals have no justification to stand on.

 

[DarkSlay]

While I respect those who have the opinion of wanting to stick to non-removals and minimal update decisions, I cannot fathom the thought process behind those opinions, nor do I understand why such artificial barriers prevent CAP from making meaningful changes to their own products.

The idea that GameFREAK operates in a way where their past creations are barely touched is a complete farce. GameFREAK has a tremendously long history with updating and balancing their game, and have done these changes through arguably way more extreme measures than changing an ability or removing a move. Need some examples? Consider the following:

• Dark-types and Steel-types were introduced in Gen II to lower the effectiveness of Normal-type, Psychic-type, and Ghost-type attackers. In a similar vein, Fairy-types were introduced in Gen VI to lower the effectiveness of Dragon-type, Dark-type, and Fighting-type attackers, as well as buff the effectiveness of Steel-type and Poison-type offensive moves, two attacking types that were often laughed at previously.
• In Generation IV, GameFREAK decided to make the Physical/Special split, which meant that typings were not locked into one category of attack. This greatly benefited a slew of Pokemon while hindering some others (Fire Punch Gengar, for example).
  
• In Generation V, Team Preview was introduced, which changed the game of Pokemon forever. While this is more of a mechanical change, this did affect the performance of certain Pokemon, as things like Leads drastically reduced in usage and set-up sweepers became slightly easier to handle.
  
• In Generation VI, Gale Wings gave Flying-type moves +1 priority. In Generation VII, the ability was nerfed so that Flying-type moves only get that priority if the Pokemon is at full health.
• In Generation VI, -ate abilities provided a 30% additional boost in power to affected moves. In Generation VII, this was reduced to 20%.
• Dozens of Pokemon have had their stats altered, including both buffs and nerfs. I could list examples, but I think we're grounded in this game enough to know which Pokemon have been affected.

I could go on and on. Mega Evolutions. Alolan forms. Even some specific items like Thick Club. Point is, GameFREAK is very conscious about what is performing well and what is not performing well in their games. They want to keep all of their Pokemon relevant. The biggest difference between GameFREAK and CAP isn't that GameFREAK doesn't alter their past creations often, but GameFREAK has access to more powerful means of change that result in similar (if not more) impacting results as our proposed competitive updates could do. Once more, GameFREAK also is responsible for over 800 different Pokemon. We're just hitting our mid-20's here, and as someone who is in their mid-20's, I can agree that sometimes CAP tends to err too conservatively because the task either seems too impacting or too daunting. We should be more like GameFREAK, but use the tools available to us to make similar changes.

Furthermore, I think those who wish to strictly limit what is available during updates, including removals and major changes, fail to incorporate the will of the majority CAP populace AND are risking both invalidating past concepts within the metagame (Which, by the way, have we even decided what metagame CAP projects are operating under? That seems like a pretty big question mark, and it's very hard to justify not having impacting changes when past CAPs weren't even made for the metagame we're operating under.) and failing to capitalize on a potential energy boost and enticement for newcomers to investigate CAP for the first time. I genuinely believe that a majority of CAP's userbase would either be interested in or support competitive changes, and would be happy to participate in the production and process of creating such changes. Especially since OU is far from being stabilized, and the CAP project is currently in lull. If we limit what's available during the revision process too much, we risk having revisions "just for the sake of saying we did revisions", which will leave the metagame and its users unsatisfied. If we're going to be able to change our products so that they better reflect what Pokemon is in 2017/Gen VII, we had better do it fully, and we had better do it right. People need to stop looking at GameFREAK's literal changelog and need to start looking at the purpose behind GameFREAK's changes.

In conclusion, it's been brought up that this topic has yet to be resolved and that the "feeling" is that people don't want competitive updates. I beg to differ. I contend that it's actually quite the opposite, and I think I'm going to have to hear why some users are willing to let go of such an important opportunity to bring a rejuvenation to CAP and the CAP metagame, plus ensure that our own full line of products are available for community use. Ability change and move removal should absolutely be available tools. Keyword: tools. Not mandates. And we need to give the public the opportunity to get involved with its creations on a more personal level, in an effort to better our understanding of the metagame and shape how other users (potentially new CAPers) see our products.

 

[jas61292]

I think one major thing you are ignoring DarkSlay is that, frankly, a lot of what you suggest runs counter to the established principles of the CAP project. Simply put, CAP policy is to work within the framework that Game Freak had given us. That is why we banned custom moves and abilities. That is why we do not even allow talk of anything related to mechanics changes. The CAP project is about doing what we do, within the context of the game we are given. Yes, Game Freak has more tools that we do for updating pokemon, but they also have more tools than we do for making Pokemon, and in spite of that, we still do not operate outside the rules they established when creating our CAPs. Why should updating be any different?

The central principle when it comes to Pokemon updates done by Game Freak is "update by addition or change." And usually just addition. No Pokémon, when transfers are taken into account, has ever lost access to a move (looking at gen 3 onwards, at least). Have complications arisen due to cross generation illegalities? Sure, but anything that was possible in the past is still possible now, at least when it comes to moves. And as pointed out by Bughouse, this is almost universally true with abilities, with only four pokemon (in two families) out of the 721 that have existed in more than one generation have ever had an ability changed. Even stats, for which some Pokemon have seen adjustments in the past couple gens, has exclusively operated on the "update by addition" principle.

Yes, we have seen mega pokemon and Alola forms. Yes, mechanics have changed. But in every single instance, when it comes to Pokemon itself, the changes are ones of addition.

I have already made my position clear with regard to whether the updates should take competitiveness into account at all with updates (we shouldn't), but even if we do, we absolutely should not allow any removals. Sticking to within the framework Game Freak has given us is a huge guiding principle of the project as a whole, and no side project should be allowed to break the rules that a main project is bound by.

EDIT: And to anyone thinking this is somehow different from the idea that we do not change existing game mechanics, please, feel free to explain how a Pokemon could lose access to moves that can simply be transferred over from past games, within the established game mechanics. I'd love to see that.

EDIT 2 (just because I don't want to make another post): Kyubics post below makes some great points. While I disagree with a lot of the conclusions, the framework it establishes for the decision that needs to be made is spot on. Which kinds of updates, from the three it mentions, is the absolute most important thing to discuss and decide on, before anything else.

 

[Kyubics]

As an initial disclamer, Dark Slay and Jas have made some big posts just as I was finishing this but I hope that they don't impact too significantly on what I'm trying to say.

So I'm in agreement with jas61292 previous post that we need to define what the changes are going to be rather than how we are going to carry them out, at least for now. This isn't a post about whether we do removals or not, so please don't criticise me for how I use them as examples - it would work just as well if removals were... removed.

The words 'update', 'revision' and 'concept' have been thrown around way too freely so far, and no-one so far (at least that I can see) has defined them in the context of what we are trying to achieve. If we conclude this without a clear consensus, all hell could break loose when we come actually doing it and people have vastly different ideas about what 'update' means. In fact, I think that even some of the 'Principles' Deck Knight suggested conflict in regards to what we want to change. Just to put it out there, I fully expect to be corrected on what I'm going to say in this post - it was mainly born out of my confusion due to the seemingly conflicting views of what we should 'update'.

The general consensus has been 'update not revise' but I think that people have different ideas about what these terms would mean. The word 'update' alone has so many interpretations that seem not to have been defined. What some people consider 'updating' might be what others consider 'revising'; people seemed to switch to using the word 'update' without actually changing what they meant when others suggested 'revising' wasn't the right thing to do. From what I can gather, there are three types of update in two categories that people want to see, or in a lot of cases, don't want to see, done. I'll outline what I think they are first, and then afterwards go through what I think we should do and why.

Non-Competitive Updates:

1. Update in terms of flavour: This is based purely on non-competitive reasoning. The desired outcome is for the CAP Pokémon to appear more realistic, such as with the addition of flavour tutor moves, hidden ability or moves unreleased at the time of the CAP's making. An example would be giving Fidgit a hidden ability and the move Sludge Wave.

Competitive Updates:

1. Update in terms of concept: This is a continuation of the CAP's original concept and it is an effort to make the CAP fulfil its concept in the current metagame, despite the role it currently has. It is up for debate what kinds of changes (eg addition/removal of moves and/or abilities) this would entail. Consistent with the main CAP process, flavour is not taken into account when making these changes.
2. Update in terms of viability: This type of update aims to 'buff' or 'nerf' a CAP Pokémon based on how it currently functions in the metagame. This type of update tries to preserve the 'essence' of the Pokémon - namely it still has the same role both before and after the changes, but the result is that it performs that role either better or worse. Again, flavour is not taken into account when making these changes.

Yes, I know this might be oversimplified. Yes, I know updates might be a combination of these aspects. I just wanted to try and boil it down to the main ways people are looking for our CAP Pokémon to be updated. Even if this is completely incorrect, I hope it will at least spark discussion on this topic so it does not go unnoticed.

What do I think we should do? Updating in terms of flavour was originally a big no for me, but now, I'm not so sure. On the one hand, flavour is something that the CAP project is not primarily concerned about, and it never has been. Why should we risk making our CAPs overpowered or fundamentally changed for the sake of making them appear realistic? However, I also appreciate the fact that the wider Smogon community's perception of our CAP Pokémon is very important, and making them more realistic could be a part of improving this. I am currently undecided about this, but I don't think that this alone should be a reason for an entire update process and perhaps competitive updates should take priority, if they occur.
Competitive updates are a lot more in the vein of what CAP is about - making competitively viable Pokémon. However, in some peoples' minds they may be too drastic and may in fact be a dreaded 'revision'. In my opinion, they are merely updating the CAP Pokémon to function in the current metagame. There are two main ways that people want this to be achieved, and in my opinion they might not be clear what each would entail. First is updating in terms of concept. This I think is one of the main problems. Doesn't saying 'concept' just feel inherently right when discussing CAP? The word itself is so central to the CAP Process that I believe some people use it without really knowing what the implications might be: the concept of a CAP Pokémon can be and often is far removed from the role it currently performs. Bughouse pretty much summed it up in his post:

These are updates of existing Pokemon, NOT a relitigation of the entire CAP process from concept onward. You can't "fix" Aurumoth to fit its concept. Aurumoth is Aurumoth; its concept is irrelevant at this point.

I really disagree with this point because in saying that aurumoth's concept is irrelevant at this point it means that EVERY cap's concept is irrelevant which is not true. Each caps concept is the heart of the cap and although some caps do not fulfill there concept it's still what they were meant to do and how they were meant to function. If we are to go forward with revisions we wouldn't want to stray from these intended goals for each CAP making flavor and/or viability updates which do not interfere with these concepts.

While Drapionswing's response is reasonable - and obviously this is not the case with all CAP Pokemon - but in my opinion you are missing one key aspect: the CAP's concept was not meant to function in the CAP Metagame. I first got my head around this idea and its implications with a simple analogy. Imagine that a CAP Pokémon is a building. The metagame is the ground it is built on, and, as it is based on the current metagame, the concept is the foundations. We build the rest of the CAP based on the foundations and on all the floors below it, for example, the typing is based on the concept, the abilities are based on the typing and the concept, et cetera. But over time, the ground that is the metagame shifts (especially as we dump them into a completely different one - the CAP metagame) and the foundations may not be suitable and may collapse. What is left is not the building that we intended to make and there's no use trying to fix it, let alone trying to build it up again on top of broken foundations. We might have to go back to the very beginning to get something that conforms to what the concept wants, and I don't think that this is what anyone is looking for from this scheme. Is an ultimate partner for sun teams really what we want Malaconda to be? Because if it is, then a few moves aren't going to make it one, at least, not that I can see. It is for this reason that I personally don't think that all CAP Pokémon should be made to conform to their original concept. Obviously, if some Pokémon (such as Naviathan) that still have the potential to carry theirs out are updated in terms of viability, this should be kept in mind, but I don't think that it should be a primary goal.
The third type of update, and the type that I think we should focus on, is updating in terms of viability. What use is it trying to cling onto the memory of what the building was meant to be when we can look at what we've got and improve on that? This way, we can preserve the CAP Pokémon that we actually use whist still making minimal adjustments. The original project did not know what the creations would become so how did they know what tools to give them? This is our opportunity to do just that. If this means nerfing a Pokémon after seeing what a monster their rubble has turned out to be, maybe that is the thing to do? But anyway, that is a whole other argument, one I am not intending to cover in this post.

As I said at the start, I don't expect what I said to go unchallenged - I think I could probably pick myself apart pretty well - but I hope what I said sparks discussion regarding what people want. If not, this is a waste of a post, but this is the first time that I have been on the PRC I will have learned from it if nothing else.

 

[Deck Knight]

Kyubics made an excellent post as far as clarifying the various kinds of updates people want.

The central issue seems to be "we should do viability updates" vs "we should not do viability updates."

The core concern causing resistance, I think, is especially in those updates that would lower viability is that in some sense it is overriding the wishes of the original project submitters when they voted for the movepool, ability, etc. I do not think there is much concern about the updates that would bring older Generation CAPs into Gen 7, where the parameters of viability from their origin today are so different that even if it were a "relitigation of the CAP Process" as Bughouse describes it, the metagame we're acclimating them to is totally different than the one those decisions were made in. Which speaks to something that hasn't been mentioned explicitly, that we're updating CAPs for viability chiefly in the CAP metagame which is intended to be roughly the power level of SM OU (thus the way the Acclimation principle is phrased.) Our process at this point has also changed to the degree that both Ability and Competitive Movepool are no longer submission based, but discussion based with the only user-tied submission being the surrounding flavor movepool. "Relitigating" old CAPs to follow this model is in one sense quite sensible, as our older CAPs would have been completely different competitively if different submitters were ultimately victorious - which is no longer the case after many reiterations and battles over how to do the Movepool process right.

As far as Archiving, that's what our Final Product threads are for. We've never retconned them with changes and we're never going to. As to what goes on in the CAP Website, that's currently updated by DougJustDoug and I am certain he shares our concerns for documenting our original creations.

Now, as to concept / viability updates, my chief concern in monitoring showdown and engaging in some of the discussions there is that I really do not want people to go into these updates with the mindset that this is their chance to "fix" or "buff" or "nerf" a CAP creation rather than this is OUR chance as a community to make our CAPs look more like competitive Gen 7 Pokemon that also fit their original concept or role. If Aurumoth or Tomohawk or Cawmodore are as broken (uncompetitive) as Genesect or Aegislash or (hypothetically) Tapu Lele, we would want to make changes that bring them in line with competitive Pokemon. Broadly stated this means they have the tools to perform their roles and niche properly without being so overpowering or so threatening through multiple viable sets that they would be suspected.

Fundamentally our CAP creations are our "Face of the Franchise" and it is ideal that all of them have their niche within the metagame. Some of those niches will be intrinsically better than others, but they should all "look" effective in some sense. Quagsire is a good example of a Pokemon that most of our CAPs completely dwarf as far as options and general competitive merit, but even Quagsire got a stint in OU because it had the right niche for a moment in time. If our CAPs are more balanced this might be the case more often as the metagame shifts.

I think as long as this process is not being run during a CAP Project (which is what people want), then even with "relitigating" old CAPs competitively through the new process we will be adhering to our principles, not overstepping the original intentions of the submitter, and making our CAPs conform to our new, less competitively volatile process.

One other thought that just popped into my mind: We could actually have 2 Update Leaders per CAP, thread the first selects the update by vote totals and the second selected remaining ULs at random. The two update leaders would then have to come to a consensus, much like the TL and TLT member do. While I submit it is still possible to have the collusion we wanted to avoid by splitting up the TL and the TLT, this now creates another barrier to Mods having to step in.

As far as the Final Proposal Discussion, It's still got a few hours left to go, but I want to assure everyone that a conclusion to this thread is not forthcoming after that phase. CAP Staff wants to be exceedingly careful in how we handle this subject.

 

[HeaLnDeaL]

As far as Archiving, that's what our Final Product threads are for. We've never retconned them with changes and we're never going to. As to what goes on in the CAP Website, that's currently updated by DougJustDoug and I am certain he shares our concerns for documenting our original creations.

It's already been said here before but I just want to make it crystal clear that most of the metagame players want an additional archiving mechanism by keeping all of the mons unchanged in the gen6 CAP format. This makes things like CAPTT way easier to run.

I disagree that CAP needs all of its mons to be good "because our mons are the face of the franchise." Pikachu surely isn't all that viable in GameFreak's formats. We have no obligation to inflate or deflate how much a particular CAPmon is the face of our franchise. We will always have good CAPmons in the metagame which will always advertise our creations. No need to artificially change that.

I briefly talked to Deck about the two UL thing and didn't like it but I never actually posted it here so I might as well now. It seems really really weird to have a co-UL randomly selected. Like what happens if the two don't agree on anything or what happens if we get a Co-UL who just doesn't want to work on that particular mon.

If we're thinking of having some sort of shared power system, I suggest that we have a Generational Update Leader who functions like the TL and CAPmon Update Leaders who function like the TLT. The Generational Update Leader would be responsible for doing some grunt work and compiling which new moves/abilities are allowed to be on any genX cap mon (essentially just compiling the list of new and competitively changed moves since genx) and would be expected to help guide discussion in each of the CAP Update threads. Maybe we could even give the Generational Update Leaders the same +1/-1 powers as a TL. Since we have 3 outdated gens of CAPmons, there would be 3 GULs. Just an idea... They would be voted in, so it gets rid of randomized side effects of co ULs.

 

[Deck Knight]

Yeah, so I really didn't mean to leave the thread hanging this long, but two jobs + a trip + reorienting will do that to you.

To revisit, basically the elephant in the room the whole thread is whether doing viability updates once per generation is justified. The balance we've been trying to strike as mods is not just to buff old CAPs of it but to make sure any updates we do keep within the principles of the CAP. I think that can be achieved quite effectively.

I still think updating CAPs to apply their concept within the metagame is good philosophically. As Kyubics said, their original concept is built on a different foundation. There's no reason we can't update them to fit the new foundation in each generation building the same kind of house.

Finally, I think HeaL's suggestion of a generational UL allows us to balance properly by keeping our current system of checks and balances in place.

Here's the super-up-to-date proposal:

Updated Proposal: (48 Hrs Discussion)

This post contains a finalized proposal for moving forward with CAP Updates. Please make any suggestions or concerns you have with it known in that time frame.

Principles​

1. Justification: GameFreak updates its "face of the franchise" (competitively) Pokemon at regular intervals in competitively significant ways. CAP should do the same with our "face of the franchise," our CAP Pokemon.
2. Definition: An Update is defined as an addition or removal to a Pokemon's Movepool, or a change in their Ability. Base Statistics Updates will not be considered. Abilities are to be replaced, not removed, consistent with in-game precedent.
3. Frequency: Movepool Updates should be conducted upon each new game release, Ability Updates should be considered upon each new generation's release.
4. Continuity: All Updates should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Established Identity (Metagame Role, "CAP-iness" of the CAP.)
5. Coherence: All Updates should have sound competitive reasoning and /or in-game precedent (ex. From BW2 Tutors Electric and most Bug types getting ElectroWeb).
6. Appearance: All Updates should consider the overall optics of that revision and how it will impact perception of the CAP Community.
7. Acclimation: All Updates should acclimate the CAP to baseline competitive play in that release's OU (or equivalent) environment.
8. Conservation: All Updates should be as conservative as possible in acclimating the CAPs to the new release's environment.

Types of Updates:​

Non-Competitive Updates:

1. Update in terms of flavor: This is based purely on non-competitive reasoning. The desired outcome is for the CAP Pokémon to appear more realistic, such as with the addition of flavour tutor moves, hidden ability or moves unreleased at the time of the CAP's making.

Competitive Updates:

1. Update in terms of concept: This is a continuation of the CAP's original concept and it is an effort to make the CAP fulfill its concept in the current metagame, despite the role it currently has. It is up for debate what kinds of changes (eg addition/removal of moves and/or abilities) this would entail. Consistent with the main CAP process, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.
2. Update in terms of viability: This type of update aims to 'buff' or 'nerf' a CAP Pokémon based on how it currently functions in the metagame. This type of update tries to preserve the 'essence' of the Pokémon - namely it still has the same role both before and after the changes, but the result is that it performs that role either better or worse. Again, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.

Process
(All Times are Approximate)​

Process Part I:
New Update Trigger Occurs (New Gen or Game Release) [~2 wks total]

Nominate and Select Generational Leaders and Update Leaders:
CAP Opens Applications for Generational Leaders (GL) and Update Leaders (UL) (4 Days)
Close Applications and Poll to determine selection order (UL's get choice in order of votes received) (24 Hrs)

Update Priority Discussion: [Opened By Moderators]
Open Discussion as to which CAPs should be updated in which way. (4 Days)
Poll update method of CAPs (3 Options: Ability + Moves Update / Moves Update / Flavor Only, One Selection only each subsection) (48 Hrs)
Poll is taken as to the priority of selected updates (sorted by competitive importance), and UL's choose from among the top options. (24 Hrs)
ULs select CAPs to be updated are prioritized based on complexity (Ability + Moves First, Then Competitive Moves, Then Flavor Only)

Process Part II:
Three Update Threads are opened simultaneously by ULs - [~1.5 weeks for Ability, ~1 week for Competitive + Flavor Updates, ~3 Days for Flavor Only Updates]
Update Leaders open their Pokemon-Specific Thread (preference for thread selection decided by highest vote-recipients in order.) - -

Ability Discussion Occurs (If None, Skip) (3 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Competitive Moves Discussion Occurs (If None [mid-gen update], Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Flavor Moves Addition Discussion Occurs (2 Days)
CAP Finalizes Movepool with a poll. (24 Hrs)

CAP Repeats Process Part II with the next highest priority CAP until updates on all CAPs are complete.

New Generation / Release Officially opens, and Ladder is reset.

Generational / Update Leaders​

1. Generational / Update Leaders are selected by the same nomination processed used for TL / TLT Members, which includes nomination, application (same application as TL / TLT), and moderator review.
2. Generational Leaders are treated as a TL would be throughout the update, able to exercise vetos over a slate. Update Leaders are treated as a TLT member would be throughout the update, leading all phases of the update and utilizing the standard CAP Processes for Abilities, Competitive Moves, and Flavor Moves where applicable.
3. Moderators may veto Generational Leader / Update Leader slates if necessary, using the same process/justification as they would for a TL / TLT slate in a regular project, or additionally any perceived violation of the Update Principles provided.
4. Update Leaders will be cycled through updates so that each UL gets an opportunity to lead an update before receiving a second opportunity. (E.g. If 5 ULs are selected, the UL who finishes their update first cannot lead another update until the 6th CAP is up for consideration.)

 

[Mova]

Deck Knight That proposal sounds like a great idea. However, how will update priority be determined: current viability, order of creation, or something else that is to be decided?

 

[Deck Knight]

Deck Knight That proposal sounds like a great idea. However, how will update priority be determined: current viability, order of creation, or something else that is to be decided?

"Competitive importance," which is basically shorthand for complexity of the update (so Abilities + Competitive Moves supercedes all Competitive Moves supercedes Flavor Only.) Then the best way forward is to let ULs pick among the Top 3 as determined by total votes.

 

[Deck Knight]

Conclusion:

This subject has been talked about at length among Staff and every moderator has been given a chance to weigh in on it.

This is a massive change from our previous policy which has been in effect for four years and running because of our issues the last time we did it.

We will be following the principles and processes outlined in the most recent iteration of the proposal, reproduced below:

Principles​

1. Justification: GameFreak updates its "face of the franchise" (competitively) Pokemon at regular intervals in competitively significant ways. CAP should do the same with our "face of the franchise," our CAP Pokemon.
2. Definition: An Update is defined as an addition or removal to a Pokemon's Movepool, or a change in their Ability. Base Statistics Updates will not be considered. Abilities are to be replaced, not removed, consistent with in-game precedent.
3. Frequency: Movepool Updates should be conducted upon each new game release, Ability Updates should be considered upon each new generation's release.
4. Continuity: All Updates should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Established Identity (Metagame Role, "CAP-iness" of the CAP.)
5. Coherence: All Updates should have sound competitive reasoning and /or in-game precedent (ex. From BW2 Tutors Electric and most Bug types getting ElectroWeb).
6. Appearance: All Updates should consider the overall optics of that revision and how it will impact perception of the CAP Community.
7. Acclimation: All Updates should acclimate the CAP to baseline competitive play in that release's OU (or equivalent) environment.
8. Conservation: All Updates should be as conservative as possible in acclimating the CAPs to the new release's environment.

Types of Updates:​

Non-Competitive Updates:

1. Update in terms of flavor: This is based purely on non-competitive reasoning. The desired outcome is for the CAP Pokémon to appear more realistic, such as with the addition of flavour tutor moves, hidden ability or moves unreleased at the time of the CAP's making.

Competitive Updates:

1. Update in terms of concept: This is a continuation of the CAP's original concept and it is an effort to make the CAP fulfill its concept in the current metagame, despite the role it currently has. It is up for debate what kinds of changes (eg addition/removal of moves and/or abilities) this would entail. Consistent with the main CAP process, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.
2. Update in terms of viability: This type of update aims to 'buff' or 'nerf' a CAP Pokémon based on how it currently functions in the metagame. This type of update tries to preserve the 'essence' of the Pokémon - namely it still has the same role both before and after the changes, but the result is that it performs that role either better or worse. Again, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.

Process
(All Times are Approximate)​

Process Part I:
New Update Trigger Occurs (New Gen or Game Release) [~2 wks total]

Nominate and Select Generational Leaders and Update Leaders:
CAP Opens Applications for Generational Leaders (GL) and Update Leaders (UL) (4 Days)
Close Applications and Poll to determine selection order (UL's get choice in order of votes received) (24 Hrs)

Update Priority Discussion: [Opened By Moderators]
Open Discussion as to which CAPs should be updated in which way. (4 Days)
Poll update method of CAPs (3 Options: Ability + Moves Update / Moves Update / Flavor Only, One Selection only each subsection) (48 Hrs)
Poll is taken as to the priority of selected updates (sorted by competitive importance), and UL's choose from among the top options. (24 Hrs)
ULs select CAPs to be updated are prioritized based on complexity (Ability + Moves First, Then Competitive Moves, Then Flavor Only)

Process Part II:
Three Update Threads are opened simultaneously by ULs - [~1.5 weeks for Ability, ~1 week for Competitive + Flavor Updates, ~3 Days for Flavor Only Updates]
Update Leaders open their Pokemon-Specific Thread (preference for thread selection decided by highest vote-recipients in order.) - -

Ability Discussion Occurs (If None, Skip) (3 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Competitive Moves Discussion Occurs (If None [mid-gen update], Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Flavor Moves Addition Discussion Occurs (2 Days)
CAP Finalizes Movepool with a poll. (24 Hrs)

CAP Repeats Process Part II with the next highest priority CAP until updates on all CAPs are complete.

New Generation / Release Officially opens, and Ladder is reset.

Generational / Update Leaders​

1. Generational / Update Leaders are selected by the same nomination processed used for TL / TLT Members, which includes nomination, application (same application as TL / TLT), and moderator review.
2. Generational Leaders are treated as a TL would be throughout the update, able to exercise vetos over a slate. Update Leaders are treated as a TLT member would be throughout the update, leading all phases of the update and utilizing the standard CAP Processes for Abilities, Competitive Moves, and Flavor Moves where applicable.
3. Moderators may veto Generational Leader / Update Leader slates if necessary, using the same process/justification as they would for a TL / TLT slate in a regular project, or additionally any perceived violation of the Update Principles provided.
4. Update Leaders will be cycled through updates so that each UL gets an opportunity to lead an update before receiving a second opportunity. (E.g. If 5 ULs are selected, the UL who finishes their update first cannot lead another update until the 6th CAP is up for consideration.)

We will have to work out some kinks as we go along, like every other aspect of the CAP Process. The thread for GL / UL nominations will be going up shortly, and will run for a week while we work with the new moving parts of this process.