Other CAP 25 Celebration!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Artistis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
Hello, everybody!

DougJustDoug , the Head Administrator of the CAP Project, and I, the Head Moderator, have an exciting announcement. The Create-A-Pokemon Project has been in existence since November of 2007. Over a decade later, we are still going strong. Our Topic Leadership Team structure allows for veteran, competitive users to have a direct say in how our Pokemon are built, while our polling methods get better and better with each project for determining the community consensus. Our flavor aspects have grown too, with TONS of artwork being submitted each CAP. We even have a CAP 3D Modeling team that has done some renowned work. Things have been growing and flourishing, and I couldn't be happier with how things are going.

To celebrate this Silver Anniversary CAP, we are announcing that CAP 25 is going to be a Celebration CAP! What exactly does that mean? That's precisely why I've made this thread! All of the rules that we have set in CAP are there for a reason: they help keep our discussions focused and our decisions competitive. While CAP 25 will certainly be made for the competitive CAP metagame, we are looking to bend the process rules this time around. It could include illegalities such as forme changes, banned abilities, predetermined features, and other curiosities that we have not yet explored in CAP.

Intrigued? Well, there are a few guidelines that we're going to keep in place:
  • This will still be a COMMUNITY project. We will vote on every step of the process, as always.
  • We will still have a TOPIC LEADERSHIP TEAM. There will be users guiding the process, however skewed it may be.
  • This will still be a COMPETITIVE project, made for the CAP metagame. We are not looking to break the metagame.
  • We will return to our original format for CAP 26.
Where we head from here is up to all of you. Please do not use this thread to discuss your conceptual ideas for CAP 25. Rather, I am interested in how we should start this process. I have a few ideas myself:
  1. Start the entire process off with Concept Submissions. These submissions are allowed to break some previous concept submission guidelines. The CAP Moderators will determine a slate. After a concept is chosen, we will elect for Topic Leadership based on interest. This has the benefit of not electing meaningless TLT members (e.g. Ability Leader with a concept that has a predetermined ability). It also benefits because we would choose a TL based on who is interested, instead of sticking a TL with a concept that they are unenthused about.
  2. Start the entire process off with Topic Leadership Nominations. Then concepts, then determine how to do the rest of the project.
  3. The CAP moderation team serves as a collective TL for the project.
    1. This could mean that we still have concept submissions, it just means that the CAP mods choose community consensus on every thread.
    2. Or, this could mean that we DON'T have concept submissions, but rather that the CAP mods just choose a feature outright, and THEN we have concept submissions.
  4. Any other alternatives you can think of could also work!
So, let us know how you personally think we should proceed here. For those of you that are a bit skeptical, I encourage you to enjoy "drawing outside of the lines" for just one project. Things will return back to normal (which is already a ton of fun) after this CAP. This will certainly be different for CAP as a whole, but different in the most fun way we can make it!
 
So, this is the exciting thread, huh?

The CAP mods could be the TLT this time around, which would be cool. A second Mega Evolution would be entertaining to work with; if not, I'd like to explore a custom form change that would not work in the actual games, even if it requires a bit of hardcoding. Either way, this is a fun idea. I hope to see what the rest of you think about celebrating the CAP Project with something special.
 

LucarioOfLegends

Master Procraster
is a CAP Contributor
Congratulations, CAP!

For this starting subject, I still very much believe that we should still have a TLT and TL leading most of the process. While I certainly have immense respect for the Mods here, especially the newly minted ones, not every experienced person in CAP is a mod, like most of our previous TLT for Jumbao, so limiting it to only those with actual power is a great way for some really great people to miss out on their chance to lead on this momentous occasion.

With that said, I think that the first option is the best approach given my stance, as it still gives the Mods a chance to really collaborate on something in CAP 25, while still giving the reigns over to TLT afterwards, which serves as a great compromise that still puts the community first. Having concepts before TLT nominations also allows us to cut out the unnecessary bits that we don't need as well, especially considering the oddity this process is likely to turn into based on our very special circumstances.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Artistis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
I would agree with LucarioOfLegends. Personally, my ideal process would look something like this:

1) CAP 25 commences with Framework Submissions.​
2) CAP moderators close Framework Submissions submissions and slate all "legal" frameworks.​
3) CAP community votes on them all (similar to Art Poll 1).​
4) Narrowed down voting brings us to one Framework.​
5) CAP 25 Topic Leadership Nominations go up.​
6) CAP 25 Concept Submissions go up.​
7) The entire process continues, with variations as seen fit by the TL, TLT, and CAP moderators.​
So let me define framework. Let's say someone's (lame) framework was that we should make a Normal/Flying Pokemon with Honey Gather and Big Pecks as its only two abilities. That would be a framework, meaning that it's the rules we're planning on breaking for this celebration. Once it gets voted in, the Topic Leadership team is then selected; in this case, we would have no Ability nor Typing TLs. THEN we would do concept submissions, very similar to previous ones. I would submit a concept like, "this Pokemon teaches us about the uses of Protect in the metagame." So that concept is now framed within the framework we previously decided (lame bird mon).

That way, we can go into this with SOME sense of direction, but also still keep it competitive and exciting enough to be a full project.

Thoughts? I'm also curious what people think about custom abilities, moves, and even typings (?!) in this thread. I'm personally opinionated on some of those, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 
I really like the basic process that Birkal submitted. However I would consider selecting the TL before the Framework submissions, as they would be the one that would have to lead the project, so I think they should have at least some weight on what Framework is picked for the poll. I'd also consider omitting the concept stage later, depending on what Framework we select, because some of them might end up being a challenge to accomplish by themselves, so adding another concept might end up being unnecessary.

Something that would be very important with this model is that we should decide on what limitations the Frameworks should have. If we define them poorly, we might end up with a lot of people submitting their own more or less finished creations, or trying to limit the later stages for no good reason. While I know that Birkal was not serious, the example he gave (Normal/Flying Pokemon with Honey Gather and Big Pecks) serves a good model for what a bad Framework looks like, as it has no competitive basis, it's not something that couldn't be done on a regular CAP project, and its restrictions seems to be placed just to please the submitter's personal taste. If someone specifies a specific typing/move/ability on their framework, they should provide a competitive reasoning of why this would be a good project, and why this idea wouldn't work on a regular CAP.
 
I'm fine with the return of custom abilities and moves as we can explore more stuff with it. I don't really like the idea of a new typing and I don't really know why.
 
I'm fine with the return of custom abilities and moves as we can explore more stuff with it. I don't really like the idea of a new typing and I don't really know why.
I think that custom moves and abilities should be considered within the frameworks, as long as their used to achieve things that wouldn't be posible with the current ones. Typing are more tricky, because, unlike moves and abilities, there is no precedent for a single Pokémon family to have an unique exclusive typing (at least after Gen I), so I find it hard to justify from an optics perspective. That being said, I think that they should still be within what a framework is allowed, because if someone believes that they they can provide a good justification for doing a Custom-Type, they should be able do it.
 
Since we've worked with custom moves and abilities before they died off, I would not mind an exclusive typing made specifically for this CAP, even if we play the typing for laughs, as long as the custom typing is provided an excellent justification. Remember how people thought Fairy was a joke until it was revealed to be ridiculously broken? Think about it like that.

Okay, I realized that custom ideas are stupidly overpowered in a metagame and don't mesh well with CAP process or optics.
 
Last edited:

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Typically, when we ban thing in CAP it is for one of three reasons: Power, Process and Optics.

Power is pretty self explanatory, though it is actually probably the rarest one. Looking at the lists of things we don't allow, the only thing that seems to me to have been banned for power reasons as the main concern is Parental Bond, a stupidly good ability that adds both power and the ability to get around Subs and such. Most other powerful things that are banned are actually more of process concerns than power. However, Power is also largely the reason behind much of the secondary ability banlist, preventing us from doing too much on one Pokemon.

Process bans are those things we do not allow because they would interfere with the CAP process. This is definitely the most common kind of ban we have. It includes banning concepts with specific elements being predetermined, to abilities like Protean or Fur Coat which mess with stages beyond their own. And, of course, it also includes things like banning forme changes and custom moves and abilities.

Finally, Optics bans are things banned because they would make the project look bad to the public, harming the project in the long run. Stuff such as legendary abilities and moves are banned for this reason.

Personally, I think that if we want to do something cool and fun we should be looking to try something that we normally do not allow for process reasons. There are so many different fun options we could pick from, and if we determine what we are doing early on we can easily make a plan on how to change the process and leadership to accommodate whatever we pick.

On the other hand, I think we should avoid messing with things banned for optics reasons. It doesn't matter if we know in the present that this is some special project where we can do what we want; that will not change the way it is precieved externally. And we have to remember that this is something we will have to deal with for years to come. We won't make a Pokemon and then have it go away. Even though the project itself will be different, the creation will be a CAP like any other, and so we should avoid anything that will give us sever headaches down the road.

And that is the same reason why I will say definitively that we should absolutely not even entertain a custom type. I know it may sound fun. But will it still sound fun in 2 years when you have to explain all the details of a brand new typing to a new player (along with why only one Pokemon will ever have it) for the thousandth time. I don't think so.

Now, as far as the actual structure of how we do things, I think Birkal's outline is pretty good. We should absolutely determine how we are going to be warping the process first, before we choose leaders, both because we don't want people signing up for something they are not sure they want to do, and also because we don't want to select more (or fewer?!? who knows?) leaders than we actually need.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I agree with jas. Something that seems fun but would otherwise normally break CAP process wise seems the right approach, since we'll be able to adjust the process in advance, just this one time.

That could be a wide range of things. It could be a pre-selected ability. It could also be some other gimmick, like Necturna's Sketch Artist. It could be something very SM specific, like an Alola Form - heck an Alola Form of an existing CAP, or a Pokemon whose concept somehow revolves around Z Moves, wherein we'd probably need to pick the moves/sets first.
 

Drapionswing

Eating it up, YUMMY!
is a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I agree greatly with Jas, we shouldn't be going against our optics for this project. I think optics are actually more important for this CAP, because it's special so we need to make sure the public take it well as well as us in future wells. Therefore I think Custom Abilities, Moves and Typings should remained banned for this CAP.

I also am putting my support behind Birkals structure for how we're gonna do this CAP. It looks the most interactive for the players/contributors while giving the TLT a good base point to lead from. That being said, I don't think a TLT of mods would be good for this CAP, I think this would be upsetting to see after so many non-modded people played a big role in the creation of Jumbao.
 

LucarioOfLegends

Master Procraster
is a CAP Contributor
I couldn't agree more with what jas and those above have said about the rule breaks. We could try some really fun stuff with these breaks, but they absolutely should not be breaks that messes with Optics, even if it does kill some possibly really cool ideas. Being a professional process is one of the most important fundamentals of CAP, and breaking that will make us look like flavor-drived fanboys.

I also generally like Birkals plan for it all, but agree with mxmts that the idea of a framework is kinda vague and that we don't get a sense of the restrictions from it.
 

reachzero

the pastor of disaster
is a Top CAP Contributoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Let me first start off by saying that this is a really exciting announcement, and this project has a lot of potential, most of all because it promises to be unique, and CAP is all about exploration, which uniqueness helps with. That being said, I do have a few concerns, so let's talk about this, starting with the big process stuff and working down to some specifics.

My first and largest concern is this: if we are building this for the CAP metagame and investing three months, more or less, in it it is not an easter egg. We need to build it competitively and seriously, and while it should be fun, let's not build something that will embarass us later--meme power is strong, and it'd be easy to read this project as in invitation to make an overpowered Ghost/Normal Voodoom evolution named Ohmagod. That leads directly into my second concern.

This is going to be crazy leadership intensive. We are going to get so many off-the-wall suggestions, so many ideas that would threaten to make this project into either Aurumoth or Malaconda. I think we are going to need a veteran TLT for this, so as much as I'm always hyped for new leaders, I think having the CAP Moderator team highly involved is a good thing. I don't think the TL must be a mod, but I do think having the moderator team as TLT would be helpful.

CAP is all about community involvement, so I'm opposed to any process that subtracts from community power. I like Birkal's framework suggestion, but I think we have to beware of letting the TLT or moderators make too many decisions that should be decided through community discussion or submissions. The leadership team needs to make sure that things don't get out of hand, but this is after all a celebration, so I'd like for as many stages to be democratic in nature as possible.

My other major concern regards custom elements--they are an awfully deep rabbit hole to go down. The option of using custom elements makes the kind of suggestions we'll get 100% more crazy (Auto-Trick Room! Auto-Rapid Spin!), while giving us an out to avoid using what we already have, elements that we can't use for the reasons jas stated quite well above. I think of the possible options, custom moves (like what Kitsunoh and Stratagem have) are the least harmful in terms of both optics and power, but generally I feel that custom elements simply aren't needed.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate that this should be an actual competitive project; its fun to wildly throw out obviously overpowered ideas, but I'd like to make sure that CAP 25 is actually playable.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Artistis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
Let's move forward with the sentiment that we are going to create this celebration with optics and competitive competence at the forefront of our minds. We will make CAP 25 viable (and not overpowered) for the CAP metagame, while also making sure not to overstep our bounds.

I think reachzero hit the nail on the head with the phrase: no custom elements. Something like the invention of Paleo Wave and Shadow Strike isn't too far fetched -- I would even go so far as to say something like a Special Attack lowering version of Intimidate is on the table. Just something that brings in an entirely new element to the metagame is too far. Having a move that restores Knocked Off items, while potentially good for the metagame, is taking things too far. I think the word intuitiveness should guide our conversation. Having an automatic Trick Room setter is intuitive -- you know exactly what that is, and what its implications are. An ability that inverts the type chart, on the other hand, is convoluted and nonintuitive, meaning we should avoid it.

This is why I feel that having some direct leadership involvement is good too. We should absolutely use the veteran members of the community, but we are truly going to need all hands on deck to make sure something like this isn't completely broken. Having further shared leadership with moderators also helps us avoid an Aurumoth-like situation where one user is getting too much "special snowflake" treatment. This doesn't have to be anything formal, but we should continue to talk as we go through the process.


A few commented on what I mean by Framework Submissions. Let me show why this is, in my opinion, necessary. Let's say someone wants us to make a Protean CAP. The ability is currently banned due to how it skews the CAP Process -- it can make the Typing stage almost negligible, and also mess significantly with steps afterwards. So someone's framework could be, "Let's make CAP 25 with the ability Protean." This isn't a fully fleshed out concept, just a simple idea of which rule to break (and I believe we should really only break ONE rule) for this celebration.

THEN we add in the Topic Leadership Team. Afterwards, we need more of a concept than "Protean," which is why we head into Concept Submissions. A concept submission is within the realms of our framework. In this example, people will submit concepts about "The Ultimate Stall Protean Pokemon" or "a Pokemon that promotes the keeping of momentum by changing its typing." Then we have an actual competitive concept going forward, not just a simple inclusion of a CAP-banned proceeding.

What do you guys think of this process?
 

G-Luke

Sugar, Spice and One for All
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributor
Moderator
Let's move forward with the sentiment that we are going to create this celebration with optics and competitive competence at the forefront of our minds. We will make CAP 25 viable (and not overpowered) for the CAP metagame, while also making sure not to overstep our bounds.

I think reachzero hit the nail on the head with the phrase: no custom elements. Something like the invention of Paleo Wave and Shadow Strike isn't too far fetched -- I would even go so far as to say something like a Special Attack lowering version of Intimidate is on the table. Just something that brings in an entirely new element to the metagame is too far. Having a move that restores Knocked Off items, while potentially good for the metagame, is taking things too far. I think the word intuitiveness should guide our conversation. Having an automatic Trick Room setter is intuitive -- you know exactly what that is, and what its implications are. An ability that inverts the type chart, on the other hand, is convoluted and nonintuitive, meaning we should avoid it.

This is why I feel that having some direct leadership involvement is good too. We should absolutely use the veteran members of the community, but we are truly going to need all hands on deck to make sure something like this isn't completely broken. Having further shared leadership with moderators also helps us avoid an Aurumoth-like situation where one user is getting too much "special snowflake" treatment. This doesn't have to be anything formal, but we should continue to talk as we go through the process.


A few commented on what I mean by Framework Submissions. Let me show why this is, in my opinion, necessary. Let's say someone wants us to make a Protean CAP. The ability is currently banned due to how it skews the CAP Process -- it can make the Typing stage almost negligible, and also mess significantly with steps afterwards. So someone's framework could be, "Let's make CAP 25 with the ability Protean." This isn't a fully fleshed out concept, just a simple idea of which rule to break (and I believe we should really only break ONE rule) for this celebration.

THEN we add in the Topic Leadership Team. Afterwards, we need more of a concept than "Protean," which is why we head into Concept Submissions. A concept submission is within the realms of our framework. In this example, people will submit concepts about "The Ultimate Stall Protean Pokemon" or "a Pokemon that promotes the keeping of momentum by changing its typing." Then we have an actual competitive concept going forward, not just a simple inclusion of a CAP-banned proceeding.

What do you guys think of this process?
This is a good example, but I gotta reiterate what others have said, in that you got the find the right balance between having a firm, very strong leadership / organizational powers, and an open sense of democracy to the common public, as while this particular project demands a higher degree of leadership, you have to make sure the public is not alienated, or it won't feel like a celebration at all.
 

Dogfish44

You can call me Jiggly
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributor
Moderator
I really like Birkal's idea of "Intuitive Custom" when it comes to that front. I think maintaining access to Mountaineer, Shadow Strike, etc. is something that for an anniversary CAP we should do. In particular, I'd love to have Custom Z-Moves available to us, since they're an aspect that we can't at all explore in the standard CAP process.

The idea of a "Framework" Step also makes sense, however I'd like to add a caveat somewhere that each Framework must have at least 1/2 Sample Concepts attached that actually makes usage of the Framework we select (Even if it's just the concept title + description), mainly so that we have a guarantee that we're not pigeonholing ourself to a given Concept in the Framework step, for what should be a CAP where we're not at all pigeonholed beyond the rules that we break.
 
I'm not sure how to react to this, to be honest. I feel like there's no real defined consensus of what a "framework" would entail and I find myself agreeing with Jas a lot while disagreeing with Birkal a fair bit.

No custom elements is a must, I agree with that. I also think that if there's a Framework stage then we should attempt to keep it from becoming "Concept Lite". I'm very wary of this somehow projecting the feeling of the mods/PRC/TLT/whatever shutting off part of the community, and Frameworks can potentially do that as well.

In my opinion, a proper Framework would be something like what we did with Crucibelle. Before the concept, it was decided that it was gonna be a Mega concept. The framework itself would have been something like "This pokemon has a mega evolution that can utilize both its mega and its normal ability". That kind of framework gave an added goal to the project but did not close off any concept options (as far as I can tell) and also did not disrupt or eliminate any stage. Now, obviously some frameworks would have to remove stages (on Discord there's been much talk about a 'make an Ultra Beast' framework, and that'd require Beast Boost as an example) but I think that we should endeavour to keep the framework from locking away/closing off any of the stages. That should come in Concept, in my opinion.

Taking Birk's "A pokemon that uses protean" as an example, that doesn't feel like a framework to me. That feels like an actualization concept that would be illegal normally but not in this case, since we're allowing for stages to be trivialized since the buildup. If that's the point of frameworks, then there's no need to have them. A framework should be a place to put a floor and a ceiling to the rules we break, so that it doesn't become Megaquaza the CAP or something similar.

Now as someone who was hoping to be part of the TLT this CAP (before it was announced to be Party CAP), I can't deny that the idea of the mod team just being the TLT or fulfilling that role leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth. It also does because I believe that the community's right to elect its leaders should be sacrosanct. However, given the fact that we've essentially cracked open the banned cask of options with this CAP I can't deny the need for careful moderation of all topics and threads.

I understand the excitement at being able to play with the new toys and/or make something unique, but as reachzero said this is a CAP that will be added to the simulator and last way longer than the Silver Anniversary thoughts will. The moment "Party CAP" starts sounding like not quite an excuse is when we should take a hard stop and think.
 
When it comes to custom elements, Birkal really hit the nail on the head with his comment about intuitive design when it comes to custom moves, abilities, etc. What we create as a community should not require new players to learn drastically new mechanics. It risks turning away people that are interested in getting involved. If we decide to include custom elements in the CAP25 process, we should limit its implementation. This would be a fun way to pay homage to the custom elements implemented in earlier CAPs.

Move and ability exclusivity should be reconsidered to allow the community to further experiment with the CAP formula. However, this should be executed in a way that does not drastically upset the current state of the tier. I feel like there are obvious moves/abilities that would be absurd to allow, but there are many that, I would argue, could be implemented in a way that is both fair and fun for everyone.

The last point I'd like to bring up is more "wishful thinking" on my part so please take it with a grain of salt.

I’d like to entertain the idea of making more than one mon for this celebration. I’m sure with these new freedoms, there will be many fantastic frameworks submitted. If the intention is to fall back into the same routine following this project, I say go all in. Take advantage of this opportunity. Who knows when we’ll get to again. Trios, starters, multiple forms, megas, alolans: you name it. It would even be fun to work on two unique options in tandem. Let’s celebrate.
 
Last edited:
I would like to take a moment to talk about Frameworks.

I quite like the idea of having Framework Submissions for this CAP, but I feel like a good example of how to implement them has not been brought up yet. The way I see it, we can run Framework Submissions similarly to Concept Submissions, but without as much overlap as Birkal had previously suggested (i.e. a Framework that requires Concepts to use Protean).

Take a look at our current Concept Submissions requirements, as I have stolen from the CAP 24 Concept Submissions Thread:
Concept Submission Format Use this format for all concept submissions: Here is the format with tags. Just copy/paste this into your post, and fill it out:
  • Name - Don't get too clever with the name. If the essence of the concept is not intuitively obvious in the name, then you are hurting your chances of people understanding it. If the essence of your concept cannot be expressed in a few words, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your concept.
  • Description - This is the official description of the concept, and must follow ALL the content rules listed above. Do not make this a long description. Long descriptions are invariably too specific or too convoluted. Keep it short. Any more than a sentence or two is TOO MUCH. Do NOT include your Explanation of the concept in the Description. See "Explanation" below.
  • Justification - Utilizing the CAP Concept Toolkit, craft a concept that can fit into at least one of the following categories: Actualization, Archetype, or Target. Please explicitly state the category names as applicable to your specific justification and explain.
    • Actualization: What is the feeling your Concept Pokemon INSPIRES when used properly in the metagame, do existing Pokemon come close to that, and why or why not?
    • Archetype: What does your Concept Pokemon DO - functionally - in the metagame, and why does the metagame need something with that role? Use Smogon's Pokemon Dictionary to assist with role definitions.
    • Target: What does your Concept Pokemon ADDRESS in the metagame, and why is addressing that target important?

If you cannot justify your concept utilizing one (or more) of the three tools above, then your concept is illegal for the CAP project. (More at the end of the OP)
  • Questions To Be Answered - The purpose of the CAP project is to learn new things about the metagame, and each concept submission is a proposed "experiment". Each tool has its own specific set of questions, but good concepts often can explain other facets of competitive Pokemon. Use this section to pose those additional questions. Note that this is different from Justification where you are answering tool-related questions, in this section you are proposing questions.
  • Explanation - This can contain just about anything. This is where you can explain your concept without restraint. You may make suggestions, even specific suggestions, regarding the possible implementation of the Concept. This explanation should help facilitate discussion of the Concept -- but the Explanation is NOT part of the Concept and will be omitted from the polls and any future use of the Concept. Since your explanation is non-binding, regarding future polls and threads, it will not be evaluated for purposes of determining if your concept is legal or illegal. Although it is tempting, refrain from making too long of an explanation; it will deter readers from fully considering your concept.


I like using this format as a base for what our rules for Framework Submissions could look like for at least two reasons. First because it gives us a decent reference point on how to go about CAP 25's process in a way that doesn't go out of line with the mission of CAP in general, and secondly because the methodology laid out in these requirements has been shown to be highly effective in weeding out broken and noncompetitive ideas out from those that will actually allow us to have fruitful community discussions and debates and grow in our knowledge and understanding.

With this in mind, I might suggest that Framework Submissions have requirements that look something like the following, an edited version of Concept Submissions, with copied text in red:
Framework Submission Format Use this format for all framework submissions: Here is the format with tags. Just copy/paste this into your post, and fill it out:
  • Illegality - What process rule do you think that CAP should break on this onetime occasion? Please review the list of rules that generally apply to CAP, and choose something to break. Please make it clear and precise as to what rule you would like this project to disobey so that no confusion occurs further down the road.
  • Questions To Be Answered - The purpose of the CAP project is to learn new things about the metagame, and each framework submission is a proposed "experiment". What kinds of questions can we explore with your framework? What topics can we explore with your framework that make breaking the usual rules of CAP on this occasion worth it?
  • Explanation - In this section, you will be permitted to provide examples of concepts that might be proposed under your framework. This explanation should help facilitate discussion of the Framework -- but the Explanation is NOT part of the Framework and will be omitted from the polls and any future use of the Framework. Although it is tempting, refrain from making too long of an explanation; it will deter readers from fully considering your framework. Please note that, unlike the Concept Submissions that many are used to, this is not the place to be demonstrating things like specific typings or abilities that may be used in the process, unless your framework is to break something like typing or ability rules, respectively, and this is certainly not an invitation to build an entire Pokemon in the explanation.


Any feedback on the above would be greatly appreciated.

I feel like this greatly increases the freedom in the Concept Submissions stage, and also does a better job of getting to the heart of the CAP Process and asking questions about just why it is that we should do things, instead of explicitly determining how from the get-go. We may be aiming to break a process rule in this Silver Anniversary celebration, but I am stalwart in the belief that we should not break the process itself or undermine our fundamental principles.

Under this proposal, a Framework Submission may be based around the idea of breaking the rule on pre-determined abilities. However, the user is not allowed to state which specific ability they would like on the Pokemon, just that they would like to break ability rules. With such a framework, legal concept submissions could range from "Defensive Protean" (defensive not meaning any stats bias, but rather it takes advantage of the resistances it can gain via Protean) to "Slush Rusher" (a Pokemon which aims, finally, to make Hail a viable strategy) instead of locking us into a hundred different minute variations on the uses of Protean.

Some may be disappointed to realize that, under this proposal, Framework liberty will be restricted. There are limited options to choose from, as we are essentially showing our users a list of rules and saying, "Break one." To anyone who would be disappointed by this, I would like us to take a second to remember that this is the single biggest liberty any user in CAP history will ever be granted. Lest we get swept away by the celebration on this occasion and start thinking about just how far we can go, we should also take a look at how far we are already going. Given the stakes of this singular decision, I think it is appropriate that there should be very clear and defined guidelines in place for Framework Submissions.

However, this raises the question to me: should Frameworks run with methodology similar to Concept Submissions, in which users author their ideas, or should Frameworks run with methodology similar to something like the Typing Discussion, in which options are slated based on community discussion and consensus?

Personally, I actually prefer the sound of the former. Although I spent the time outlining how Framework Submissions might look should we choose to do things that way, I think that such methodology would lead to discouragement to participate in a theoretical Framework Submissions thread, as all rules to be broken could theoretically be exhausted, and people would be unsure of what to discuss.

For that reason, I think that Framework Submissions should run as an open discussion, in which Birkal, in his duties as Head Mod, proposes questions to the community to be answered, such as (hypothetical and extremely vague and not fleshed-out examples incoming):
  • Why, in your opinion, have the rules of the CAP Process worked for so long?
  • What is there to be gained in breaking one of these rules? What can we learn about not just the metagame, but also the CAP Process itself in doing so?
In this way, we have room for lively discussion before people actually get to start introducing specific rules they would like to break into the conversation, and then once the embargo on specifics is listed, they can start deciding which ones they would like to pursue for the project. After discussion, the CAP Mod team will slate Frameworks, which will then be voted on in traditional style.

Following this point, I believe that the process should continue as usual, with the regular methodology of selecting a TL and TLT. I understand that there is some uncertainty as to who will be qualified enough to contain this project and its ramifications and who will be able to lead thoughtful and fruitful conversations. However, I believe that anyone that wants to step up to the plate of leading this historic process more than has the right to have their name in the Goblet of Fire, so to speak. As I stated before, I would like us to focus on breaking CAP rules, not breaking CAP, and part of that is maintaining the fairly democratic standards we have held since inception with regards to choosing leaders.

In any event, the fact that, under this proposal, the regular CAP Mod team would be slating Frameworks means that they can prevent anything excessive for the scope of CAP from slipping through the cracks in the first place before passing things off to the TL and the TLT.

I have more thoughts on how we could handle possible changes in the process (e.g. if the ability is determined in the process, what happens with the ability stage?), but I would like to limit the scope of this post to the questions at hand. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on frameworks; please let me know your thoughts whether you agree or disagree so that we may work together to find the optimal path for CAP 25.
 

david0895

Mercy Main Btw
However, this raises the question to me: should Frameworks run with methodology similar to Concept Submissions, in which users author their ideas, or should Frameworks run with methodology similar to something like the Typing Discussion, in which options are slated based on community discussion and consensus?
Using the Concept Submissions method seems problematic, because this format leaves no discussion on what the people propose.
We can't simply put the list of the rules that we use and say: "Ok guys, vote for the rule that we will break", we need to know if it can be a good move to start with a predetermined type/ability, or using a legendary ability or everything else.
 

reachzero

the pastor of disaster
is a Top CAP Contributoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I like both EpicUmbreon's proposal to model Framework on Concept Submissions and Zephias' characterization of Framework as "a place to put a ceiling and a floor to the rules we break". The way I am picturing it, using these ways of thinking in concert, Syclant's framework would have been pitched as "You know how there are so typing that could be strong if Stealth Rock weaknesses didn't suck? What if we base a Pokemon with one of those types, and found a way to decisively deal with the Stealth Rock weaknesses?" I think that would actually work as a method. Note that even in a normal process, discussion of Concept Submissions is allowed and encouraged, it just didn't happen a lot in the last few projects (it used to happen a lot more). I think posting the Framework as a challenge to be met or as some concrete idea to be actualized, without being intensely defining, is the best possible guidance for the CAP without it making this process unnecessarily short.

To respond to Wulfanator's point, I think making multiple Pokemon would create insane time drag, drag we can't really afford considering the big questions regarding when the next generation of Pokemon will come. I'd be happy to take on the extra challenge if it's something organic and cool like a new single Mega (Crucibelle, not Charizard) or a single forme change (Shaymin, not Zygarde). But making starter trios, etc. would drag the process so much that we would be at serious risk of CAP 26 being a Generation 8 Pokemon.

Finally, let me express a proposed principle regarding custom abilities, based on both reason and precedent:
"Custom elements should be a last resort when a concept element can be fulfilled no other way, never a first option".
Syclant got Mountaineer because it really needed Magic Guard, but Magic Guard Syclant would have been busted. Stratagem got Paleo Wave because there were no even decent special Rock moves, which the concept demanded. Shadow Strike came because Shadow Claw was the best Ghost physical attack at that time, so there were no good alternatives. I think it is desirable to avoid custom elements whenever possible--we want to explore Pokemon, and working with what we have allows us to explore more at one time. Since custom elements are in play for this however, I'd like for us to agree not to simply make them our first choice, our Deus ex machina to address concerns that could be addressed adequately if not perfectly be existing elements. I'd rather not invent "Dank Wave" if Steam Eruption is on the table.
 

snake_rattler

Quanyails’ tapewyrm <3
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
Moderator
Hi guys,

After thinking about this CAP process, I'm really not liking the idea of custom moves/abilities. It's already burdensome enough to have to explain to every new person that we used to allow custom moves/abilities but now we do not. As awesome as auto-Trick Room or other custom elements sound, I find it really odd that we want to throw away the custom moves/abilities restriction, even if it's a celebratory CAP. We've been trying to keep an image that CAP's been done with customs since Gen 4, and I really don't think it's a good idea to resurrect them - we'd lose that image, people will clamor to mods/drivers in the PS! room that they missed the one time we did customs again, etc. Not to mention that this process will be all over the place with whatever customs people come up with, and with that, polls will be extremely divisive, even moreso than some CAP Process polls. I'm a little afraid of poor project morale in that kind of circumstance. Don't get me wrong, I think a celebratory CAP is in order - but we can still do really cool things with frameworks that change up the CAP formula process just WITHOUT the custom elements.
 
Last edited:

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a member of the Site Staffis a Top Artistis a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnus
CAP Head Mod
This PRC thread reminds me of a typical relationship arch. I posted the thread, and we as a community went hot and heavy into it. Both Discord and Showdown exploded with crazy ideas, many of which were simply too farfetched, but some that could hold some legitimate weight. But after that honeymoon period of a few days, CAP veterans started sitting down and picking apart what wouldn't be a good idea. It got to the point where this thread has become filled with well-meaning, yet overly complicated rule making about how CAP should best go about making an unbroken celebration.

The point of this entire celebration is to break some rules and conventions. The more rules we implement about legal submissions and allowed frameworks, the further away from that point we get. So while I value posts here by users like EpicUmbreon and snake_rattler, I can't help but feel that they are pulling us further away from what excited us in the first place. We can sit here and narrow down the broadness of frameworks, but if we continue down that path, this will be identical to any other CAP we do.

I want to get started on CAP25, since a stalled CAP is an unhappy CAP. But I also want to do right by what has been suggested here. Therefore, I am making the following proposal with your feedback in mind.


Step 1: Post CAP25 Framework Submissions
It has been much more heavily argued that we should not allow custom elements of any sort for CAP25. snake_rattler summarized this well in the post above mine. And while I feel that his post has good intentions, I also feel that it again puts restraints on this sort of a celebration, even arbitrarily so. When people ask about why we don't do custom abilities anymore, it has nothing to do with Gen4, but everything to do with how CAP changed over time. There wasn't anything magical about the upgrade to Gen5 that disallowed the necessity for custom moves. In fact, this exact logic is what people argued about when we attempted to convert the metagame we build for from OU to CAP, citing this thread as "the way it has always been." Putting up these sorts of restrictions can be dangerous, and in this case, I find them needlessly limiting. Going forward, we can just as easily say that custom elements are only allowed on Celebration CAPs, which isn't too difficult to explain, I hope. If anyone should be against this, it's the moderators, since we're the ones that will need to moderate any confusion that this may cause in regular CAP process threads.

In response to EpicUmbreon's post, while I am appreciative of all the work that went into building a believable OP for Framework Submissions, I can't help but feel that it is simply too much. We will have a Concept Submissions process later down the road to fully hash out the competitiveness of our selected framework. Let me demonstrate what I think is an appropriate Framework Submissions OP:

WARNING: The following thread is intentionally designed as an offshoot of the typical Create-A-Pokemon Project. If you are new to the CAP Project, please read through previous processes to gain a full understanding of what is different here. Join us on Discord if you have any further questions!

---

Hello everyone and welcome to twenty-fifth iteration of the Create-A-Pokemon Project. Unlike all other CAPs, this CAP is a Celebration CAP, meaning that it will be allowed to break some of the previous conventions we have for Pokemon creation. As a result, this thread will be for framework submissions to determine which rules we would like to break. As always, please read all of the rules before making your post.

However, we will adhere to the following for the duration of CAP25:

This Pokemon will be playable in the CAP Metagame. Furthermore, it will be reasonably balanced for competitive battles, specifically not a broken threat that negatively centralizes the metagame.
The creation of this Pokemon will ONLY break CAP creation guidelines based on the framework we select. For example, if we choose to create a Pokemon with an illegal ability as our framework, we will not also allow a custom move for it during Movepool Submissions.
This creation will not allow any non-intuitive custom elements. This includes custom typings, abilities with entirely new mechanics, or moves with entirely new mechanics. For example, an ability that changes a Pokémon's form based on terrain would be allowed, but not an ability that summons a new type of weather.
This creation will be designed with positive optics in mind. As this Pokemon will join the past 24 Pokemon in our playable metagame, it needs to be something we are proud of presenting to the public.
This Pokemon will have a framework that trivializes, at maximum, two stages of the process. An example of this would be a framework that dictates CAP25's typing and primary ability. An illegal framework would also mandate a specific stat bias on top of those restrictions.

For a fully detailed list of responses to each of these rules, please consult this thread. Other rules that will continue for Framework Submissions are as follows:
  • One submission per person. You may edit your Framework, but you may not change the fundamental premise after it has been posted. If editing your framework, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Framework after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
  • Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Framework already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.
  • Do not refer to any part of the Pokemon's artistic design. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
"This is a bright blue Pokemon..." "The Pokemon looks like a..." "The Pokemon uses its long tail to..."​

  • A Concept Submission must be submitted in the proper format. The format is described below. If the proper format is not used, the moderators will not evaluate the submission, regardless of content.
Framework Submission Format Use this format for all concept submissions: Here is the format with tags. Just copy/paste this into your post, and fill it out:
  • Name - Unlike Concept Submissions, your name CANNOT be anything cutesy. Please list EXACTLY which process rule(s) you intend to break with the name. Some examples would be "Pure Power CAP" and "Fairy-type Boltbeam CAP."
  • Description - This is the official description of the concept, and must follow ALL the content rules listed above. Do not make this a long description. Long descriptions are invariably too specific or too convoluted. Keep it short. Any more than a sentence or two is TOO MUCH. Do NOT include your Explanation of the concept in the Description. See "Explanation" below.
  • Explanation - This can contain just about anything. This is where you can explain your concept without restraint. You may make suggestions, even specific suggestions, regarding the possible implementation of the Framework. This explanation should help facilitate discussion of the Concept -- but the Explanation is NOT part of the Framework and will be omitted from the polls and any future use of the Framework. Since your explanation is non-binding, regarding future polls and threads, it will not be evaluated for purposes of determining if your framework is legal or illegal. Although it is tempting, refrain from making too long of an explanation; it will deter readers from fully considering your framework.
It is the submitter's responsibility to figure out how to make a legal submission within the rules listed above. Do not complain about the difficulty of making a submission in this thread. There are many, many legal frameworks that can be presented within the rules.

The framework is a very basic guide for the creation process. It is hard to provide solid concept descriptions without basically designing the entire Pokemon right off the bat. Submissions should be written and chosen very carefully to avoid these problems.

In one week's time, the CAP moderators will make a large slate of CAP25 frameworks into a large, multibold vote, similar to Art Poll 1. In order to be slated, make sure that you are following the guidelines listed above.
Again, this is PURPOSEFULLY left to be open-ended. The idea here is that we start with some wild, crazy idea, similar to a sculptor using an irregular medium. But through the CAP process, we form and shape that idea into something competitive and balanced. There is a lot of trust that needs to be involved here, in both the CAP moderators and the CAP community. I suspect that with a more simplified process for making frameworks, we will have lots of room to discuss each framework, much moreso than concepts. If you are against custom abilities or movepools, you should make that clear, with both your vote and your voice. The same principle applies for anything that bugs you about framework submissions. It is much more effective to state those things then to merely ban them.

Step 2: Post CAP25 Topic Leadership Nominations
mxmts argued here that we should vote on the Topic Leadership Team beforehand. I feel that the community consensus however has approved of the idea that we have a large slate of frameworks selected by the CAP moderators. This, again, gives us the advantage of having a leadership team that knowingly signs up for the specific framework voted on by the community.

I should also make it publicly known that I personally will not be running for any sort of leadership position for CAP25. I certainly doubt I would win, but I think it's important to note here to disband any notion that what I'm proposing here with our CAP Celebration is that I am trying to make some personal pet project. I am much more interested in CAP as a community project than as a personal fakemon project.

Step 3: Post CAP25 Concept Submissions
This is the real meat and potatoes of this celebration. All of the zaniness of frameworks comes back to Earth here. As mentioned before, we will completely follow the CAP process from here on out. We will not add any custom moves or abilities not dictated in the framework, we will vote on every possible stage, and we will post all threads in an identical fashion to CAP24. The only exception will be omissions based on the framework we selected.

People have argued that the framework model I have proposed is too broad. This is entirely true, but Concept Submissions are where we focus in that framework, hard. By making frameworks intentionally vague and broad, we are allowing for greater creative flexibility in our celebration. The Concept Submission, conversely, is a chance for us to start narrowing in that framework.


At this point, the process continues as normal. If you agree with this general process, please "like" this post. If you have any strong objections to what I've posted here, please write them out now. As stated previously, I would like to get started with CAP25. I hope that the majority of my proposal here has encapsulated the community consensus, which was especially hard to find on custom abilities and moves. At the end of the day, this is simply going to take trust. None of us are professionals at this sort of a thing, which is why we're doing it exactly once. The worst case scenario is that we have a broken and horrendous process, but CAP26 will revert us back to normalcy. However, I doubt that scenario will be the case with how excellent this community has grown to be!
 
Last edited:
So, before I get into my personal opinions (which I've been encouraged to post for the sake of posting *grumble grumble*), I'd just like to make a quick comment on Birkal 's outline thingamajig. For the section of "Non-intuitive" stuff, I feel like the phrasing is a bit nonspecific. I personally understand it (I think), but I could also see it being interpreted as "We won't allow a custom ability that isn't a renamed version of an existing one." I might be the only one that sees it that way, but maybe just in case add a specification like, "For example, an ability that changes a Pokémon's form based on terrain would be allowed, but not an ability that summons a new type of weather."

Anyways, I'll be bouncing a bit off of some discord discussion I've seen lately - and this isn't really a planned post like some of my others so... yeeeah. I guess I'll start with custom moves/abilities. Personally, I think that they should be allowed, but only if deemed necessary by the framework/concept analysis. For example, if we do a framework of "Mega Pokemon" and a concept of "Viable in both forms, but with different roles" you obviously don't need custom anything. At that point you'd just be complicating the process. However, consider a scenario like this: a framework of "Has a Form Change" and a concept of "Uses terrains in an interesting way." The most obvious (though by no means only) way to approach this is to create an ability that allows for changing forms with terrain changes. Similar interactions between framework and concept can lead to this sort of situation where a custom is strongly desirable, at which point I say sure, go ahead and have a blast. Additionally, the framework itself could call for a custom move/ability with some not-too-limiting parameters. Something like "Uses a custom ability to make an unviable field effect usable" or as Discord suggested "Uses a custom move with an unusually high base power" could all be examples of not-too limiting custom frameworks.

I guess with that I'll shift over to my opinions on framework. I honestly have an extremely strong distaste for the current "Only limits two" and would like to see it changed to "Only limits one." Even looking at the example in Birkal's format: dictating both primary ability and typing is obscenely limiting! That wipes out two stages of the process, and I would argue trivializes secondary ability as well, since you're explicitly designing the Pokémon to work for one ability. And I know now I'm just getting convoluted, but I'd also like to put a restriction on typing frameworks, so that they can't specify the entire typing. This stipulation would avoid completely marginalizing the typing stage. I understand that this is meant to be a celebration of CAP, but I can't seriously be the only one thinking that part of the fun of CAP is going through the entire process without too many foregone conclusions. It's about exploration of a game we all love, and in my opinion, giving the middle finger to an entire stage is just not something a framework should be doing, especially when I can think of plenty of non-intrusive frameworks that achieve high interest levels.

I'll also mention here, I guess, that I side with reach on the idea that the project should only build one mon. Sure, we have a year and a third-ish until gen 8 comes out, probably. However, I think that time could be better spent moving on to a new CAP. It's not quite the same as updates, but I distinctly remember that spending too long on one specific project led to a drag in interest, and I'd rather not take the risk of that happening to what's supposed to be a Party CAP because we decided to do a legendary or starter trio because 'LOL PARTY CAP'

Um, and I guess in regards to the TLT and TL stuff, I'm fine with what Birkal has currently, with Framework Subs, a large slate chosen by mods, then a normal TL nomination process with anyone who wants to try leadership able to run. Then concept subs and the process as semi-normal.

Sooo… yeah. I think that's everything I wanted to say?
 

reachzero

the pastor of disaster
is a Top CAP Contributoris a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I'm fine with most of the post, though I strongly agree with Okamu that one trivialization is as far as we should go, and I feel that both frameworks used in Birkal's example are terrible frameworks--they dictate direction too strongly, leave no room for a concept, and teach us little. I'd rather see something more guided--something like "this Pokemon has an unusually strong custom STAB move" or "this Pokemon has base 255 speed"--something that doesn't make the process unnaturally brief and which allows us to learn something about Pokemon. From a basic process standpoint, I agree with Birkal's post otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top