Policy Review Evolution Project Rules Workshop

Status
Not open for further replies.
Both of which are "side evolutions", so as long as we don't allow those (at least not until we finish hammering out the details of the evolution project) then we don't even need to worry about that.
 
Another thing, what about stuff (like Luvdisc), that could easily evolve twice? Should it be that we would vote to see what stage the evolution would be (second, meaning only the original and the new evo, or third, meaning a creation that, at a later date, could be supplemented with an "in between" stage). Personally, I wouldn't mind creating an evolutionary line for 1 stage only pokemon. I mean, a solo evo to Luvdisc that would redeem it to playable OU would be quite a jump, made more sensible by two evos.

Maybe this is useless, but something to think about, as is the theme with most of my posts thus far.
 
That would probably be similar to CaP, where we create the final product, and then if the artist wants they can make a stage inbetween (see: Pyroak).
 
Dane said:
That would probably be similar to CaP, where we create the final product, and then if the artist wants they can make a stage inbetween (see: Pyroak).
Click to expand...

Yeah I pretty much agree with this. An empire is set on order but enforcing this order to a break of useless control is an empire's downfall.
 
There is no need for a concept poll. I agree with the idea suggested by Jagged Angel. I think it is pretty similar to how the current process works (which is going good IMO) and doesn't specifically exclude any options based on type or TL discretion.

EDIT: Yeah Icebug, I would think that making a single Evolution is what will happen. It doesn't matter if it is a direct evolution or in a line seeing as how we would only play the final version either way. It wouldn't make any difference if there was a middle step, but if the artist wanted it would be fine.
 
I understand, and I was sure this would be the response. I'm just trying to throw ideas out there to spark conversation and stay active. Most of my posts are just supplementary stuff that may be included in later projects.
 
There's a catch.

Pokemon like Luvdisc are almost doomed to offensive, its in the stats.

However, what about something like Spinda? Base 60 all around, and a movepool out the wazzoo. An evo could just as easily end up a Tank as a Sweeper.

It depends on the pokemon, which is why it should be Pokemon, then concept, then types.

On an added note, the movepool will be mostly complete already, aside from maybe a couple more moves it would be complete, as Ability and Type would be.

Congrats on getting 2 badges Doug!
 
Dane said:
When Duscops evolved into Dusknoir, he wasn't the only Pokemon being introduced. In fact, he did so when the entire battle system changed. We're doing this on a Pokemon by Pokemon basis. By taking an OU Pokemon and evolving it, what are we accomplishing? Making it even more OU? Or changing it completely (see: Scyther to Scizor), in which case why bother evolving it instead of just making an entirely new Pokemon?

In the case of BL Pokemon, many can already stand on their own in the OU environment. Others generally can't (such as Houndoom), but how do we determine exactly which ones are in BL only to keep them out of UU, and which are BL because they're strong enough to compete in OU but aren't quite used enough?

Item split evolving would basically have the split end up like just a variation of the original. While this is theoretically acceptable, where do we draw the line on what we can evolve? Who's to say we can't evolve Pikachu into Pikablu using Aqua Stone (new item!)? At least for the first few projects, it's better if we don't allow split evolutions so as to prevent variations.

The point of evolving is to make Pokemon usable that would otherwise be relagated to UU or not even then.
Click to expand...

Yes. Along with dusnoir, many things that can kill him came together, and thing that kills this things came too. So a new generation would needed to be made ( which is a hard and long work) to make evolution of already OU pokemon

I also agree tha we should not make a concept poll. Some Pokemons, that we may choose, have also a decided concept.
Dragonair and Bannete are examples: Dragonair split evo could be both a Special Dragon and a Defensive dragon. I cant think in anything else for him, so a fast poll beetween this ideas would be fine.
Banetter is already offensive, so a Offensive Ghost would be the almost obivious choice
This was only an example.
 
Pombo said:
Yes. Along with dusnoir, many things that can kill him came together, and thing that kills this things came too. So a new generation would needed to be made ( which is a hard and long work) to make evolution of already OU pokemon

I also agree that we should not make a concept poll. Some Pokemons, that we may choose, have also a decided concept.
Dragonair and Bannete are examples: Dragonair split evo could be both a Special Dragon and a Defensive dragon. I cant think in anything else for him, so a fast poll beetween this ideas would be fine.
Banetter is already offensive, so a Offensive Ghost would be the almost obivious choice
This was only an example.
Click to expand...

Refer to my post.
 
The only thing that seems to be in the circle of debate here seems to be the Concept discussion ( haha, funny ). Now, doing it later or not at all makes everything go faster and narrows Pokemon down and that's all good and fun and stuff, but what about the big picture?

Now by this I mean, the purpose of this project, which is to change/balance the metagame by adding new Pokemon ( unless we're making a whole new policy for the CaPE ). So if we don't decide on what we want beforehand, what makes us so sure the end result will be something we wanted?

I think it makes much more sense to decide what we want beforehand, be it a sweeper that can take care of x overcentralizing Pokemon, tank, what have you, and then go looking for UU/NU Pokemon that could become that. The CaPE would at least share a common purpose with the CaP that way.
 
About the Spinda example...

Wouldn't it make more sense, at least in the ways of the "lets not make this first CAPE too complicated" idea to make a spinda evo fill the same niche as spinda (whatever that is...) and give it improved stats but similar or the same distribution?

sorry for the wordy sentence...
 
X_Presumptuous said:
The only thing that seems to be in the circle of debate here seems to be the Concept discussion ( haha, funny ). Now, doing it later or not at all makes everything go faster and narrows Pokemon down and that's all good and fun and stuff, but what about the big picture?

Now by this I mean, the purpose of this project, which is to change/balance the metagame by adding new Pokemon ( unless we're making a whole new policy for the CaPE ). So if we don't decide on what we want beforehand, what makes us so sure the end result will be something we wanted?

I think it makes much more sense to decide what we want beforehand, be it a sweeper that can take care of x overcentralizing Pokemon, tank, what have you, and then go looking for UU/NU Pokemon that could become that. The CaPE would at least share a common purpose with the CaP that way.
Click to expand...

This was the primary reason I argued for doing the Concept poll first.

See, my thought process is this: Our first poll should limit the amount of choices we have to evolve to somewhere around 4-8. A Type poll where we decide to evolve a ghost leaves us with all of Banette, Sableye, and Rotom. A poll with Dragon leaves us with Altaria alone.

Concept accomplishes this while leaving room to bring up and discuss some lesser known pokemon. Everyone knows about Banette and Farfetch'd, but how many people are honestly going to think about Dunsparse, Mightyena, or Mawile unless you force it into their minds with a Concept poll that allows you to search out the pokemon that would best fit that role?

Type is one of the worst ways to start a CaE because 90% of the time, people will have a specific pokemon in mind. A vote for Ghost is almost implicitly a vote for Banette, a vote for Dragon is by default a vote for Altaria. Granted we could just make Dragon not an option and go for Flying instead.

If we all voted for Normal I would almost certainly assume we're doing a Farfetch'd evolution, even if our "awesome physical sweeper" could probably be better executed by evolving Granbull, who already gets a load of physical attacks and two great abilities, plus lots of BST already devoted to Atk.

As far as split evolutions and the like, what I tried to craft in my original response were general rules. I wouldn't mind exceptions to them as long as they are logical, but you have to have solid general boundaries before you should consider breaking one or two of them for a good creative project.
 
Is this going to affect Little Cup? If we evolve Dunsparce, would it be allowed?

Speaking of evolving Dunsparce I think it would end up like a physical Togekiss. But maybe the person that voted for normal didn't want a physical Togekiss, maybe they were thinking of the next Hariyama in a Farfetch'd evo or a full sweeper from the Granbull line. This is why I think we should do a concept poll first, because typing != role. When I voted for a Ghost in Revenankh's poll I was not thinking of something like Revenankh, or I would have chosen Dark for a similar but slightly less broken type. The idea of a concept poll first has really helped the CAP project and I think it would help this one too.
 
If someone votes for ghost because they want to get a bannette evo, its because they like the concept behind bannete- a physical attacking ghost.
 
Is this going to affect Little Cup? If we evolve Dunsparce, would it be allowed?
Click to expand...
Mmmm... good point, I will open up a discussion thread in the LC forum, but my opinion is: Yes on the CaP server, but no on other servers. Of course if we evolve something like Heracross or something that would be equality broken in LC it would be banned. I could see Farfech'd working decently there..

Edit: Done, it is Here.
 
Ok, alot of the ideas for this project regaurding what comes first or how to arrange them are good in that they attempt to make a smoother and/or quicker creation process.

It's a nice concept but its very limiting. Restricting the options of what should be evolved by a type poll or concept poll isn't good. I've been involved in group creation processes before and limitation is bad. Rules are necessary but with a more open field, there will be more room for great ideas.

That is why I am suggesting that instead of starting with type or concept to narrow down the possible pokemon, we should start by allowing ideas as to what pokemon should be evolved. Yes, youre thinking "Oh that's much too broad," but it really isn't. Think about it like a concept poll: Everyone can submit their idea for possible evos. There is an unlimited number of concepts that could be suggested, but their not; and, while there is a large number of pokemon that could get an evolution, it is limited.

There shoul be some rules. Obviously some pokemon (ones that have already evolved, ones that evolved with a stone, or ones that are already OU) shouldn't be included in this process. Also, the "bad" ideas either wouldn't get voted for or would be thrown out by the TL (just like the current concept poll).

I also think it should be limited to one idea submission per person. It would force people to really consider their own concept before posting and it would cut down the number of submissions (specifically fanboyish ones). With the submission though should be some reasoning similar to the concept poll and people would be able to lobby their idea and "sell" it if you will. The reasoning should answer something like: "What would an evolution of this pokemon add to the Metagame?" or "Why does X Pokemon deserve an evolution?"

In conclusion I think this would open up the CAPE to a broader range of ideas withthout slowing it down too much.
 
I'd like to bring up something.

Since we already have the main CaP project we're able to create any Pokemon for any purpose already so isn't this whole evo project just a way to make some of the lesser Pokes usable and in a way study how we're able to do so with current stats and move trends currently used? In that light it would make more sense to start with discussion on what Pokemon to evolve rather than the concept.

So following that line of thought it could be following through somewhat like this:
Pokemon selection -> Extra Discussion -> Stat Spreads -> Art design -> Final Thoughts

Once the Pokemon has been selected we may have to have extra discussion on whether there should be moves added, abilities changed and such. The "concept" of the Poke can be melded with the stat spreads if it's the sort than can bend into several categories.

Creating a rigid process for something like this is difficult. There are so many new factors to consider but I do believe that a free selection of Pokemon should be brought forward like UberMunch said. We could go the other route and make it similar to the CaP projects current system starting with concept but I feel that's more restricting.
 
UberMunch said:
About the Spinda example...

Wouldn't it make more sense, at least in the ways of the "lets not make this first CAPE too complicated" idea to make a spinda evo fill the same niche as spinda (whatever that is...) and give it improved stats but similar or the same distribution?

sorry for the wordy sentence...
Click to expand...

Spinda doesn't exactly have much of a roll, except dying and attempting to support the team. How would you change the stats without making it a 100/100/100/100/100/100 BST 600 build? Because that is the distribution as of now.

Deck Knight said:
This was the primary reason I argued for doing the Concept poll first.

See, my thought process is this: Our first poll should limit the amount of choices we have to evolve to somewhere around 4-8. A Type poll where we decide to evolve a ghost leaves us with all of Banette, Sableye, and Rotom. A poll with Dragon leaves us with Altaria alone.

Concept accomplishes this while leaving room to bring up and discuss some lesser known pokemon. Everyone knows about Banette and Farfetch'd, but how many people are honestly going to think about Dunsparse, Mightyena, or Mawile unless you force it into their minds with a Concept poll that allows you to search out the pokemon that would best fit that role?

Type is one of the worst ways to start a CaE because 90% of the time, people will have a specific pokemon in mind. A vote for Ghost is almost implicitly a vote for Banette, a vote for Dragon is by default a vote for Altaria. Granted we could just make Dragon not an option and go for Flying instead.

If we all voted for Normal I would almost certainly assume we're doing a Farfetch'd evolution, even if our "awesome physical sweeper" could probably be better executed by evolving Granbull, who already gets a load of physical attacks and two great abilities, plus lots of BST already devoted to Atk.

As far as split evolutions and the like, what I tried to craft in my original response were general rules. I wouldn't mind exceptions to them as long as they are logical, but you have to have solid general boundaries before you should consider breaking one or two of them for a good creative project.
Click to expand...

See, I don't agree with this. Typing restricts the process to certain pokemon. If you go pokemon or even concept first, it widens the field of pokemon that fit it. Case in point: Dragon gives us Altaria, Bulky Sweeper gives us Fardfetch'd, Spinda, Altaria, Dunsparce, Mightyena, ect.

UberMunch said:
Ok, alot of the ideas for this project regaurding what comes first or how to arrange them are good in that they attempt to make a smoother and/or quicker creation process.

It's a nice concept but its very limiting. Restricting the options of what should be evolved by a type poll or concept poll isn't good. I've been involved in group creation processes before and limitation is bad. Rules are necessary but with a more open field, there will be more room for great ideas.

That is why I am suggesting that instead of starting with type or concept to narrow down the possible pokemon, we should start by allowing ideas as to what pokemon should be evolved. Yes, youre thinking "Oh that's much too broad," but it really isn't. Think about it like a concept poll: Everyone can submit their idea for possible evos. There is an unlimited number of concepts that could be suggested, but their not; and, while there is a large number of pokemon that could get an evolution, it is limited.

There shoul be some rules. Obviously some pokemon (ones that have already evolved, ones that evolved with a stone, or ones that are already OU) shouldn't be included in this process. Also, the "bad" ideas either wouldn't get voted for or would be thrown out by the TL (just like the current concept poll).

I also think it should be limited to one idea submission per person. It would force people to really consider their own concept before posting and it would cut down the number of submissions (specifically fanboyish ones). With the submission though should be some reasoning similar to the concept poll and people would be able to lobby their idea and "sell" it if you will. The reasoning should answer something like: "What would an evolution of this pokemon add to the Metagame?" or "Why does X Pokemon deserve an evolution?"

In conclusion I think this would open up the CAPE to a broader range of ideas withthout slowing it down too much.
Click to expand...

That I see what you're getting at, but allowing people to submit fleshed-out ideas limits it greatly, and generally isn't a good idea as a whole.

Wyverii said:
I'd like to bring up something.

Since we already have the main CaP project we're able to create any Pokemon for any purpose already so isn't this whole evo project just a way to make some of the lesser Pokes usable and in a way study how we're able to do so with current stats and move trends currently used? In that light it would make more sense to start with discussion on what Pokemon to evolve rather than the concept.

So following that line of thought it could be following through somewhat like this:
Pokemon selection -> Extra Discussion -> Stat Spreads -> Art design -> Final Thoughts

Once the Pokemon has been selected we may have to have extra discussion on whether there should be moves added, abilities changed and such. The "concept" of the Poke can be melded with the stat spreads if it's the sort than can bend into several categories.

Creating a rigid process for something like this is difficult. There are so many new factors to consider but I do believe that a free selection of Pokemon should be brought forward like UberMunch said. We could go the other route and make it similar to the CaP projects current system starting with concept but I feel that's more restricting.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sorry if this is tl;dr, but I've been at camp so I haven't had the chance to respond to these individually.
 
I`m sorry to ask this, but: Are split evo unallowed?
Wiverii, i agree with you, where extra would be typing, style (altaria could became both a Defensve dragon and a Speed dragon, And dragonair can become both Special dragon and defensive dragon too). It would also include moveset upgrade. Art may be at the same time, just like CAP 4 was.
Sorry for my bad english.
 
this does sound like a good idea on paper, but what if it deducts fromt he capacity of the original CaP? I mena if we evolve pokemoin into the roles we were going to create eventually, then wouldn't it defeat the point of having both? or is the sole reason to have different typing on some pokemon but have a pokemon of a completely different type do the exact same thing?

sorry if that sounded umm...mean.
 
It seems to be a toss up between Concept or not. I have an alternative, though I doubt it will be well received. What if we did a "pitch" nomination, allowing each member to make a suggestion to the TL or reserve a poll spot for the community to decide.

Example: Proposed evolution: Pokemon here
Reasons: blah
New type/ability suggestions (note the bold, suggestions): blah

Who knows? For this project it might work. Just putting this on the table.
 
IceBug, that sounds good but similar to my and Wyverii's suggestions.

I would say your idea is also a bit more restricting, in the way that tennis was saying; "allowing people to submit fleshed-out ideas limits it greatly, and generally isn't a good idea as a whole."

If people just submit Pokemon, 1 per person (and can obviously explain their reasons if they want) then we have a list of candidates for evolution and a poll (a two parter) to narrow it down.

IF a pokemon like Spinda was chosen, there would no doubt be discussion influencing the votes, suggesting very exciting avenues a Spinda evo would go down.

My hunch though is that the pokemon that are most popular would be the ones that obviously fit a role but dont have good enough stats to perform that role in OU.

Remember this isn't CAP, if we spot a niche in OU for a Normal type support poke who can run a boost and sweep moveset, it would be best to create it from scratch rather than shoving something like Spinda into that role. To that end I suggest the evolution candidate should be decided instead of concept, or at least Before concept.

There is nothing to stop us having a concept discussion and pool for a pokemon that has already gained enough popularity to motivate people to carry it through to the finish line. That may be slightly redundant for Banette but compulsory for Spinda.
 
tennisace0227 said:
Spinda doesn't exactly have much of a roll, except dying and attempting to support the team. How would you change the stats without making it a 100/100/100/100/100/100 BST 600 build? Because that is the distribution as of now.
Click to expand...
90/90/90/90/90/90 would be cool. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top