-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Policy Review Evolution Project Rules Workshop
- Thread starter DougJustDoug
- Start date
- Status
One thing I am wondering about is if we still have similar freedom as CAP, in the way that we could make new abilitys or moves, if it seem suitible for the evolutions concept or would seperate the new evo from its former similarities?
As a example, by giving Ledian an ability or move that would end weather. Not like Cloude Nine or Air lock that just stops the effect of it as long as the pokemon is on the field. More like Ttar switched in, "a sandstorm brewed". Next, Ledian switched in (with this new ability), "sandstorm ended".
This would seperate it from other baton passers alot and could (and would probobly) be its new niche as a pokemon. It is still a supporter as it stats mostly indicates it to be, but a new one.
So this is a question of how much freedom we want to give ourselfs. Do we want to be able to ad new things with our new Evos or should we more focus only on how to make NU and UU to OU by just applying what allredy exist?
As a example, by giving Ledian an ability or move that would end weather. Not like Cloude Nine or Air lock that just stops the effect of it as long as the pokemon is on the field. More like Ttar switched in, "a sandstorm brewed". Next, Ledian switched in (with this new ability), "sandstorm ended".
This would seperate it from other baton passers alot and could (and would probobly) be its new niche as a pokemon. It is still a supporter as it stats mostly indicates it to be, but a new one.
So this is a question of how much freedom we want to give ourselfs. Do we want to be able to ad new things with our new Evos or should we more focus only on how to make NU and UU to OU by just applying what allredy exist?
This is I kind of weird answer, but yes and no. Yes we will take creative license in that we'll do whatever we see fit. However, EVO projects will rely on more flavor than regular CAP because we're basing it off an existing project. I can see Ledian getting an ability like that. We won't do something stupid and make it part Rock with Sandstream though.
I know I'm not a regular here, but I do love my pogeymanz, and wanted to share a few thoughts if that's all right.
First, I don't think the first step of the EVO project should be a Concept Poll. As was mentioned, the idea of choosing to evolve a previously existing pokemon as opposed to just creating one from scratch is inherently "fanboyish". In regards to the metagame, it's irrelevant and arbitrary what a pokemon evolved from. If we wanted to begin with a Concept Poll, then we might as well just turn this into CAP.
(I think the above has already been established, but it's worth repeating.)
The purpose of the EVO project should be "fixing" previous pokemon and their respective gameplay mechanics by giving them a means to become viable in the metagame while retaining their identity and unique gameplay niche. This ideology treads less in competitive territory and skews more towards effective gameplay (re)design and (re)balance. The OCD in me loves this type of stuff, seeing as how I can't stand to see gameplay mechanics being underutilised or improperly balanced (in any game).
So, that obviously means the pokemon that we are to evolve should be selected first. By whatever means you all decide on.
However (and this is the real point of the post), I really think there should be a Concept Poll AFTER the the pokemon is selected. I can't stress how important I think this would be. Without a specific direction, all the EVO project might do is, say, buff a Lumineon evolution to Borderline because, despite adequate stats and movepool, fails to do anything others in OU can't do better.
Or something. The specific pokemon doesn't matter. The point is that a Concept or Role will ensure that a pokemon doesn't become redundant in its gameplay niche, and allows others to stand out from the pack better. Furthermore, some pokemon don't HAVE a definitive direction (like the previously mentioned Spinda), and a Concept will anchor the project towards a specific goal that will benefit both the pokemon and the metagame.
When considering an evolution, there should be three parts:
1) Consideration for the pokemon's previous role and gameplay mechanics.
2) Consideration for what parts of the pokemon's role could be expanded that would allow it to maintain a unique position within the metagame.
3) A bit of fan creativity (while still remaining competitively viable).
It would be a shame to see something like a Spinda evolution result in just a generic all-around stat buff with movepool expansion. Rather, it would be interesting to, say, expand on the idea of the confusion status and incorporate it into the already topsy-turvy Spinda, using gameplay mechanics ranging from buffs/nerfs based on confusion status, moves that have their efficacy (damage, accuracy, crit, etc.) depending on who is confused, or just a general expansion on what the confusion status entails. All in addition to the usual stat and movepool buff, of course.
Or, take Luvdisc, and do the same thing with the attraction status. It would be better than turning it into Starmie's twin or something.
(Also, take note that part 2 would certainly allow or even invite new type combos, while part 1 would suggest that at least one older type remain. Also: Moves and Abilities.)
Basically, I'm saying that new gameplay mechanics that further expand what the game of pokemon is capable of depth-wise would not be possible without a Concept vote. Without it, we may find ourselves struggling more than once to differentiate a great many pokemon that are all too similar, with only the best of them being promoted to the OU tier (and leaving the rest of our efforts in vain).
Bah, I'm done.
First, I don't think the first step of the EVO project should be a Concept Poll. As was mentioned, the idea of choosing to evolve a previously existing pokemon as opposed to just creating one from scratch is inherently "fanboyish". In regards to the metagame, it's irrelevant and arbitrary what a pokemon evolved from. If we wanted to begin with a Concept Poll, then we might as well just turn this into CAP.
(I think the above has already been established, but it's worth repeating.)
The purpose of the EVO project should be "fixing" previous pokemon and their respective gameplay mechanics by giving them a means to become viable in the metagame while retaining their identity and unique gameplay niche. This ideology treads less in competitive territory and skews more towards effective gameplay (re)design and (re)balance. The OCD in me loves this type of stuff, seeing as how I can't stand to see gameplay mechanics being underutilised or improperly balanced (in any game).
So, that obviously means the pokemon that we are to evolve should be selected first. By whatever means you all decide on.
However (and this is the real point of the post), I really think there should be a Concept Poll AFTER the the pokemon is selected. I can't stress how important I think this would be. Without a specific direction, all the EVO project might do is, say, buff a Lumineon evolution to Borderline because, despite adequate stats and movepool, fails to do anything others in OU can't do better.
Or something. The specific pokemon doesn't matter. The point is that a Concept or Role will ensure that a pokemon doesn't become redundant in its gameplay niche, and allows others to stand out from the pack better. Furthermore, some pokemon don't HAVE a definitive direction (like the previously mentioned Spinda), and a Concept will anchor the project towards a specific goal that will benefit both the pokemon and the metagame.
When considering an evolution, there should be three parts:
1) Consideration for the pokemon's previous role and gameplay mechanics.
2) Consideration for what parts of the pokemon's role could be expanded that would allow it to maintain a unique position within the metagame.
3) A bit of fan creativity (while still remaining competitively viable).
It would be a shame to see something like a Spinda evolution result in just a generic all-around stat buff with movepool expansion. Rather, it would be interesting to, say, expand on the idea of the confusion status and incorporate it into the already topsy-turvy Spinda, using gameplay mechanics ranging from buffs/nerfs based on confusion status, moves that have their efficacy (damage, accuracy, crit, etc.) depending on who is confused, or just a general expansion on what the confusion status entails. All in addition to the usual stat and movepool buff, of course.
Or, take Luvdisc, and do the same thing with the attraction status. It would be better than turning it into Starmie's twin or something.
(Also, take note that part 2 would certainly allow or even invite new type combos, while part 1 would suggest that at least one older type remain. Also: Moves and Abilities.)
Basically, I'm saying that new gameplay mechanics that further expand what the game of pokemon is capable of depth-wise would not be possible without a Concept vote. Without it, we may find ourselves struggling more than once to differentiate a great many pokemon that are all too similar, with only the best of them being promoted to the OU tier (and leaving the rest of our efforts in vain).
Bah, I'm done.
Meaningful bump. We're on Part 8 of CAP 5. EVO TL threads, type of evolution poll, and Pokemon discussion threads are set to open in conjunction with Part 12. I want to make sure everything is set and ready to roll. Here is the process that almost everyone agreed on, from page 5.
If there's anything to add or change, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you have an idea, just post it, if it's absolutely atrocious I'll tell you (nicely). All I ask is that you back it up with SOLID reasoning. Wall o'text's are welcome but not necessary. Just back up your statements with cohesive logic, so we can get this rolling at the correct time.
If there's anything to add or change, speak now or forever hold your peace. If you have an idea, just post it, if it's absolutely atrocious I'll tell you (nicely). All I ask is that you back it up with SOLID reasoning. Wall o'text's are welcome but not necessary. Just back up your statements with cohesive logic, so we can get this rolling at the correct time.
A couple things:
1-Is the topic leader going to be selected BEFORE the second poll?
2-Are we going to implement the discussions (all of them) during a previous polling process (ex: ability discussion during art poll, etc.), or just some of them.
Because I would like to do as many as we can during the previous step's polling to make things go faster. As of right now, the movepool, name, and pokedex entry discussions don't seem to be like that in the process. The polls preceding them don't have significant influence on those discussions, so I don't see why we should have them as separate steps.
1-Is the topic leader going to be selected BEFORE the second poll?
2-Are we going to implement the discussions (all of them) during a previous polling process (ex: ability discussion during art poll, etc.), or just some of them.
Because I would like to do as many as we can during the previous step's polling to make things go faster. As of right now, the movepool, name, and pokedex entry discussions don't seem to be like that in the process. The polls preceding them don't have significant influence on those discussions, so I don't see why we should have them as separate steps.
TL is chosen first, then they open the poll.
Just some of them. We already have the basic framework, we're just "buffing" the Pokemon, so to speak.
This follows the same structure as the regular CAP process guide. Read it.
Are we going to have all 17 types on the initial Type Poll? I assumed if the Type Poll was put into the design process, there would have to be a discussion thread for that as well...
I did read the process guide, but thanks for the suggestion.
I don't have the exact format memorized.
Anyway, Tennis, "buffing?"
How would you define that?
Because I could understand more emphasis on a certain part of the project if that's what you're trying to get at.
Buffing as in making upgrading stats+movepool+possibly typing. Upgrade is a more appropriate word really. Its not a full on new Pokemon, its just revamping an old one.
Oh.
That's what I thought at first, but that didn't make sense to me.
I get what you're saying though.
I think we should discuss and vote on if there is a secondary type change, such as when Pupitar evolves into Tyranitar (eg- ground to dark), or when Shelgon evolves into Salamence (no second type to flying), etc.
I should explain this more. The poll will run the same as normal CAP, but with "keep primary typing the same" in the Primary typing poll, and "keep secondary typing the same" in the secondary poll. Every Pokemon shares at least one type with its prevo, save Eeveelutions. However, since we won't be doing eeveelutions just yet, it doesn't matter. So yes, all 17 types will be on it, and yes, it could have a secondary type change.
It should go like this:
Main Typing poll one(Keep first typing,Keep second typing,Keep Both)
if either of the first two options are picked then go to a standard secondary typing poll.
Main Typing poll one(Keep first typing,Keep second typing,Keep Both)
if either of the first two options are picked then go to a standard secondary typing poll.
The problem I'm having with this is you have the Type Poll before the Pokemon Poll, so we're voting on which types to keep without even knowing which pokemon we are dealing with...
They are't talking about types as in types like Grass or Fire, they are talking about DJD's idea in the previous pages.
As comatose said, the "Type of Evolution" poll refers to a NU->OU evolution, UU->OU evolution, or BL->OU evolution, not the actual type of the Pokemon.
Just nitpicking, but Azurill -> Marill. :)
Also, I've made a visual aid to see a comparison between most fully-evolved Pokemon:
http://labs.pokecombat.net/stats
It's sort-of a graph of the Base Stat Rating (à la X-Act) vs. Base Stat Total. So generally, NU is the bottom-left and OU is the top-right. I thought it would be a neat way for people to see the Pokemon who need the most help in terms of stats.
(You need to scroll down and to the right to see it)
Rating = x, Total = y?
EDIT: Nevermind, got it. I inverted them. Nice work, but could you try to do it also (or only) with pokémon with one or two evolution stages? It's nice to see Dustox and Kricketot, in example, need help, but we can't do anything to help Dustox anymore >_>
EDIT: There's something behind Sableye. What is it?
EDIT: I didn't know Lopunny sucked so much... We sure have plenty of crappy pokémon with potential to be evolved, eh?
EDIT: Nevermind, got it. I inverted them. Nice work, but could you try to do it also (or only) with pokémon with one or two evolution stages? It's nice to see Dustox and Kricketot, in example, need help, but we can't do anything to help Dustox anymore >_>
EDIT: There's something behind Sableye. What is it?
EDIT: I didn't know Lopunny sucked so much... We sure have plenty of crappy pokémon with potential to be evolved, eh?
Other way:
^
|
|Rating
|
|
|____________>
. . . . .BST . . . .
Edit: Ack I know, it's hard to tell who's where, the way it's arranged. Corsola is behind Sableye. I'll see what I can figure out for trimming uneligible Pokemon (side note: I'm using veekun's SQL dump for the data)
Edit2: Thanks for checking that, hinode (below), it should be fixed now (I was doing shoddy calculations for the speed rating)
^
|
|Rating
|
|
|____________>
. . . . .BST . . . .
Edit: Ack I know, it's hard to tell who's where, the way it's arranged. Corsola is behind Sableye. I'll see what I can figure out for trimming uneligible Pokemon (side note: I'm using veekun's SQL dump for the data)
Edit2: Thanks for checking that, hinode (below), it should be fixed now (I was doing shoddy calculations for the speed rating)
- Status