Policy Review Evolution Project Rules Workshop

[X_Presumptuous]

I have a suggestion/question for the process that no one else seems to have submitted. I noticed this after EM mentioned types of evolution ( level-up, stone, etc. ) and I noticed that this does have an effect on movepool changes.

The most consistent difference ( only exceptions being Eeveelutions ) I've noticed, and perhaps the only one, is that stone evolutions tend to give you things like Vulpix/Ninetales and Growlithe/Arcanine, where the pre-evo has the "big movepool" and the evo has the "small movepool".

These seem to have the most potential for large impacts on the overall movepool; i.e Arcanine's Extremespeed/Thunder Fang, Togekiss' Sky Attack/Extremespeed/Aura Sphere/Air Slash. Changes in typing also have large impacts on movepool ( Surskit/Masquerain )

For this reason, I think it is worth discussing whether we should include a decision about this somewhere in the process. Or is it worth having at all? Perhaps simply a guide on how to add moves to a pre-evo like X-Act's current guide for entirely new Pokémon? The way moves are added in evolution lines seems to follow a set of rules that submitters should know about.

 

[tennisace]

I have a suggestion/question for the process that no one else seems to have submitted. I noticed this after EM mentioned types of evolution ( level-up, stone, etc. ) and I noticed that this does have an effect on movepool changes.

The most consistent difference ( only exceptions being Eeveelutions ) I've noticed, and perhaps the only one, is that stone evolutions tend to give you things like Vulpix/Ninetales and Growlithe/Arcanine, where the pre-evo has the "big movepool" and the evo has the "small movepool".

These seem to have the most potential for large impacts on the overall movepool; i.e Arcanine's Extremespeed/Thunder Fang, Togekiss' Sky Attack/Extremespeed/Aura Sphere/Air Slash. Changes in typing also have large impacts on movepool ( Surskit/Masquerain )

For this reason, I think it is worth discussing whether we should include a decision about this somewhere in the process. Or is it worth having at all? Perhaps simply a guide on how to add moves to a pre-evo like X-Act's current guide for entirely new Pokémon? The way moves are added in evolution lines seems to follow a set of rules that submitters should know about.

Really, its a nice thought but it's kinda pointless, seeing as we won't do those kind of evolutions to start with.

 

[X_Presumptuous]

Really, its a nice thought but it's kinda pointless, seeing as we won't do those kind of evolutions to start with.

Weren't we only "keeping it simple" for the first few EVO/CAPE/things until we had more firm a grasp on the process? I understand leaving it aside for now, but when we start doing alternate evos and stone evolutions and whatnot it should at least be considered. But you're right that it is pointless at the moment, so I'll give it time before I mention it again.

 

[ParadOxymoron]

Also, I don't want to abbreviate the evo project with "CAPE". It's too similar to CAP and might cause confusion if we have a "CAP 5" and "CAPE 1" going on at the same time. I'm thinking we should just call them "Evolution Projects" or "EVO" for short. In casual conversation, "EVO" is much easier to differentiate than "CAPE". Three capital letters is a little misleading, since it's not really an acronym, it's an abbreviation. But, prepending "EVO # -" to all the project threads seems more consistent with "CAP # -", than "Evo # -".

Then why not just call it the ECP – Evolution Creation Project.

 

[bumfacepik]

I'm all for ECP as the name.

 

[tennisace]

I prefer EVO over ECP, but it makes no difference.

 

[Hyra]

Evolve Various Objects - EVO. There we have a somewhat relevant acronym to support the better looking name. Also, its from Pokemon Pinball.

 

[tennisace]

Evolve Various Objects - EVO. There we have a somewhat relevant acronym to support the better looking name. Also, its from Pokemon Pinball.

That works. Although I can't help feeling we're forgetting something...

 

[Lorak]

That works. Although I can't help feeling we're forgetting something...

Probably Chemical X. Well, we'll find out what we're missing when we start. xD

 

[X_Presumptuous]

That works. Although I can't help feeling we're forgetting something...

Just a guess, but might it have something to do with including

"1. Type of Evolution Poll"

but not really discussing how we'll figure out the firm divisions between UU and NU? We talked about doing it in the distant future when we thought we'd only do it later on, but now that it'll happen right in the next CAPE/EVO/CPE/THING, we haven't actually figured anything out yet.

Unless of course I've missed something?

 

[darkie]

When Doug first brought the idea up, there was no UU ladder. Now there is, so we just need to calculate the 75% in usage of the UU ladder. The rest is NU.

 

[UberMunch]

Uuh.......just posting my support for this. I was worried it might have been slightly forgotten or something. Looks like that certaimly isn't the case.

Also, perhaps EVO could stand for Evolution Verification Outlet; because it is a way (outlet) for us to verify that an evolution would add something to the metagame. Just a thought... and I know it is an abbreviation, but it could also be an acronym.

I can't wait to get started on this thing, I am just sad that it will not start for so long (after CAP 5's movepool).

 

[tennisace]

When Doug first brought the idea up, there was no UU ladder. Now there is, so we just need to calculate the 75% in usage of the UU ladder. The rest is NU.

Gimme about two seconds to link you to the NU thread in Stark. They have it figured out, they're just making a BL-type banlist.

Edit: Here it is. What is NU as of now would be Post number 155/156.

 

[Shelcario]

This sounds like a cool idea and I'd be more than happy to provide as much support as humanly possible to create some cool evolutions:)

 

[DougJustDoug]

The NU list should be derived from the 75% usage point of the UU usage statistics. We can use other metrics, but that method is very clear for everyone. That NU thread is a bit of mess, like most tiering discussions in Stark. I wouldn't try to base anything off of that thread. There's no conclusions or metrics; just a bunch of discussion and everyone posting their own lists. Let's just use a simple math formula based off the public usage stats.

We really don't have to be super-exact, since the tiering is just an organization tool for the EVO project. We aren't starting a ladder or anything. We're just trying to whittle down the list of pokemon before getting into specific pokemon discussions.

 

[Gorgoroth]

I don't have much say but I felt like saying this.

How does an evo benefit the CAP project. What you will pick a terrible pokemon and then upgrade it? I see no point as it doesn't help understand the metagame if that is even the true mission. All it is accomplishing is making a better pokemon which seems fanboyish.

If you aren't going to change it's role at then I don't see the point, because then you would be changing it's stats for the better which might inevitably change it's role.

"The Create-A-Pokémon project is a community dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokémon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokémon concepts."


Ok new concepts, all caps were UNIQUE whether it be typing or the role they play in the metagame such as CAP 4 ultimate utility.

Unless you completely overhaul a former Pokemon it may be worthless to do this, but then why wouldn't you just create a new pokemon anyway? Is the goal just to make some shitty poke usable.

sorry I'm not an experienced member but I have read through all of the pages of the CAP project starting from Syclant but I haven't been posting much. It took a really long time hehe. Any input or explanation would be appreciated for this decision.

 

[tennisace]

I don't have much say but I felt like saying this.

How does an evo benefit the CAP project. What you will pick a terrible pokemon and then upgrade it? I see no point as it doesn't help understand the metagame if that is even the true mission. All it is accomplishing is making a better pokemon which seems fanboyish.

If you aren't going to change it's role at then I don't see the point, because then you would be changing it's stats for the better which might inevitably change it's role.

"The Create-A-Pokémon project is a community dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokémon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokémon concepts."


Ok new concepts, all caps were UNIQUE whether it be typing or the role they play in the metagame such as CAP 4 ultimate utility.

Unless you completely overhaul a former Pokemon it may be worthless to do this, but then why wouldn't you just create a new pokemon anyway? Is the goal just to make some shitty poke usable.

sorry I'm not an experienced member but I have read through all of the pages of the CAP project starting from Syclant but I haven't been posting much. It took a really long time hehe. Any input or explanation would be appreciated for this decision.

How DOESN'T an evo project benefit the CaP project? FYI, if you had read this thread, you would have seen Doug's post about different types of evolutions. We probably will pick a terrible Pokemon and evolve it the first time. Also, what is understanding the metagame? I have no clue what you're saying here. What this is accomplishing is taking a Pokemon, making it better, and using it to fill a hole in the metagame. Yes it's inherently fanboyish. So what? Also, changing it's stats won't change its role. You again, didn't read the thread. The stats and movepool will be upgrades, not full changes. We aren't going to make Luvdisc a tank. So really, why NOT do this? Just because we're working off of something pre-made doesn't mean that it's not in our philosophy. An evolution of an old Pokemon is a new concept, simply because Nintendo and Game Freak hadn't thought of doing it, or didn't do it yet. The goal is to expand the metagame ultimatly, and this does just that.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Ok thanks I guess I'll wait to see the final product.

 

[UberMunch]

diablo, the point of the EVO project is not to just "make a pokemon better," it is to see whether an already established strategy or concept would stand up in the standard metagame. It fits quite nicely into the CAP philosophy because it is exploring the competitive metagame.

 

[jagged_angel]

Also, what is understanding the metagame? I have no clue what you're saying here.

Tennis, what he said about understanding the metagame is in reference to the copied text from the CAP mission statement so I hope you Do understand it when you think about it.

As I see it any holes or imbalances in the current OU metagame are best filled by pokemon designed from scratch. That way you don't have to worry about staying true to and not deviating too much from the unevolved Pokemon, which limits creativity.
When building a pokemon from scratch you can focus entirely on what is best for the metagame. That would be my answer to your question of why Not to evolve pokes.

That said, I am happy to contribute to the EVO project as it is blatantly a chance to unleash my inner fanboy.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I think the EVO project *could* be very good, if the community focuses on the same goals as regular CAP projects. The advantage of evos over new pokemon, is that evos already have established roles. The concepts have already been decided, for the most part. They usually just need a "boost" to become viable in OU. So, if the right evos are chosen, we *could* get a pokemon that fills a need in the metagame AND has a stronger concept than a new CAP creation.

Note the emphasis on "could".

I'm worried that the EVO project will not focus on competitive goals much at all. I fear that it will be a fanboy-fest and will not follow the same level of competitive rigor we try to encourage on new CAP projects. But, that remains to be seen. We won't know until we give it a try.

 

[the_artic_one]

It may help to set one of the goals of the EVO project to be creating an evolution that is "mid to low OU" as in we should aim "less for garchomp and more for roserade".

This would help to balance out the fanboyism that would otherwise gravitate the project toward gigantic movepools and enormous bsr's.

It's like a golf course vs a driving range, it a takes a lot more concentration and precision to hit a hole in the ground than to just hit the ball as far as you can. Having to be careful to avoid overshooting makes people more conscious of their descisions the closer they get to the goal.

 

[tennisace]

It may help to set one of the goals of the EVO project to be creating an evolution that is "mid to low OU" as in we should aim "less for garchomp and more for roserade".

This would help to balance out the fanboyism that would otherwise gravitate the project toward gigantic movepools and enormous bsr's.

It's like a golf course vs a driving range, it a takes a lot more concentration and precision to hit a hole in the ground than to just hit the ball as far as you can. Having to be careful to avoid overshooting makes people more conscious of their descisions the closer they get to the goal.

You can't viably make a Pokemon fit into a level of the metagame using theorymon and just theorymon. I feel that the community as a whole has been doing a good job with not making Garchomp 2.0s, as evidenced in Pyroak and Fidgit. If we just do it like a normal CAP project, then level heads will prevail and it will come out around Mid-OU.

 

[TVboyCanti]

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.

That's not neccessarily true, as when pokemon change forms, they gain access to new attacks and typing that they would not have had in their previous form i.e. becoming bipedal.

What if an evolution was made for Tauros that had fists and walked on two legs (minotaur anyone?). Tauros+ would now be biologically entitled to a slew of new attacks that it could not use as a quadroped. It's typing might even change to a dual type to reflect it's new form, just the way charmeleon gains flying type to reflect it's new wings and pineco gains steel type for it's new armor.

 

[Petope]

I'm agreeing with the majority, CaE doesn't need a concept thread/poll. Deciding which pokémon we want to evolve should be the first poll(s), then add another type if applicable, then stats, etc.

Also, I don't think pokémon that evolve from rocks or special items, or fossils should be left out... But let's keep them aside for at least the first project, so that we can concentrate in make the process good with the basic evolutions and then add things in next projects.

Couldn't agree more.