Done CAP Flavor Consistency

[Da Pizza Man]

Approved by DHR-107
Posted on behalf of Darquezze (Any mentions of "I" or "me" are in reference to him, not myself)

CAP Flavor Consistency.​

Goals
Revamp areas in CAP with inconsistent and substandard portrayals of CAP mons
Standardize aspects of CAP to help prevent these sorts of things from happening.

Specifications
Many of CAP’s inconsistent portrayal of CAP mons came from the Generation 5 project, the CAP Sprite Revamp, in which CAP community members updated the sprites of all Gen 4 CAP mons. In this period, many elements of these Pokemon would change. And while these changes made sense for the time as generation 5 had a new art style the Pokemon needed to follow, many elements that got changed I think have an ethical issue that hasn’t really been brought up besides the first attempt at flavor consistency thread opened by MrDollSteak. CAP uses a democratic system to decide what aspects of a CAPmon stay and go. However, this system was not used during the revamp and many winners had their work arguably nullified. I will acknowledge that while the original winner’s works are still implemented on Pokemon Showdown for Generation 4 metas and due to the different art style it was necessary to change certain aspects like updating sprites to have less colors, it wasn’t just sprites that got changed. Design features, shiny colors, color palettes, and base stats that don’t follow the stat nerfs applied to their final evolutions all got changed. These contents may be considered downgrades to those that originally voted for the process, create inconsistencies in how these Pokemon are portrayed, and also complicated future processes but I’ll get into the specifics later.

3D Color Palettes:

Pokemon like Mumbao, Kitsunoh, and Volkraken have their shiny palettes changed in ways that are noticeably different from the originals. With 3D Pokemon models, there are many Pokemon who have had their shiny palettes altered while keeping the spirit of the original alive, like Espeon here. People don’t really seem to have a problem with these shiny palette changes so far but I think there should be some sort of standard as to what changes can be made. Volkraken is a much more significant change, going from a crimson red shiny to a magenta shiny compared to Mumbao and Kitsunoh. Modelers already communicate with the original creators of a design and the CAP moderators during the modeling process so I think a line of text on the 3D CAP Smogon page is all that would be required for this. Kitsunoh is an odd case where its shiny and sprite were revamped from Gen 4 to Gen 5 but the model makes a compromise for a mix of the two colors. Crucibelle had its eyes changed from purple and yellow for visibility reasons.

Design changes:

Syclant
Syclant’s design in its Gen 5 sprite was simplified, mainly the third pair of wings being significantly reduced in size and less spots on Syclant’s body. There is a model reference sheet by Yu IOTJ that fuses elements from the many Syclant depictions over the years and could be used as a standardization for both sprites and models of the Pokemon.

Flarem
The head frill leaf, the color of Flarelm's wood, skin color, and the head, cannon and feet designs and shapes are different. MrDollSteak created a set of sprites below the current sprites showcasing what the original design would look like in sprite form. The current sprites are a big change in design and a sprite update or an artwork update could be held as well like those similar to pre-evo processes with existing designs. How this would be held is something that could be discussed in how to approach. Especially in a project that requires other fan projects to follow their depictions perfectly.

Pyroak
The most complicated history out of all the CAP mons. First off, the design differences. The main one being the differently colored skirts. A yellow skirt is what’s seen on the original artwork but the CAP Sprite Revamp process changed the skirt’s color. This led to the pre-evos being affected from the sprite revamp like Flarelm’s green skirt. Other differences from the different sprites from Gen 4 to Gen 5 include a differently shaped head, eye, leg, feet shape, less numbered holes on its back, and shinies being changed. MDS made and I updated sprites for Pyroak to better reflect its original design but with room for interpretation if a vote on which skirt color and shiny colors happen. Pyroak and Flarelm do have gender differences so there could be a compromise made with having both skirts and shiny colors.

Another issue involves the Pyroak nerfs which made its line’s stat spread messy. Pyroak has 70 SP.ATK and 65 SP.DEF post nerf which leaves Flarelm with 75 SP.ATK and 70 SP.DEF and Embirch with 65 SP.ATK and 40 SP.DEF. For a simpler process in the future, if a CAP mon’s stats get changed in the future, the stats to the pre-evos should also be looked at as well. However there are cases like Torracat and Incineroar where the pre evolution has a higher Speed stat than its final evolution.

Fidgit
While I much respect how the sprite revamp team managed to make a sprite for this unique CAP mon, the result is a sprite much different than the original sprite and design. From inconsistent wristband shapes and colors, the sprite can be argued to be not up to par with the original. Art is subjective and while I have no statistical proof of the following claim, I’ve seen many people who are unsatisfied with the BW revamp sprite and I think it should warrant a new sprite poll. Below is a sprite by Modeling Clay in which it shows what a new sprite for Fidget could look like. Of course you can argue that there’s arguably other sprites in CAP that could use a revamp but Fidgit is in a unique situation where the process was not done via vote.

Cyclohm/Pre Evos
While Cyclohm’s sprite stayed pretty much unchanged, there is however, an odd decision that happened during the CAP Sprite Revamp process, and that was the drastic change to the shiny which turned from a blue shiny, to a pink shiny. Shinies at the time were voted alongside sprite polls which means people would have voted for this shiny to win, but it got replaced later on. Unfortunately for people who like the original blue shiny too, bringing it back would be very messy due to the pre-evos’ shinies being influenced by the modern one. So to vote out the current pink shiny for the original shiny would ruin the theming the line has going on. I did suggest making the shinies a gender difference but it has been pointed out to be tacky. The simplest solution would be to just keep the current pink shiny but if people really want to have both shinies, I think a lot of people would have to argue for it. Cyclohm does have a gender difference which adds a swirl to the female so you could add the new shinies there, however the pre-evos do not so there would be no theming there. But I have made a sprite set to show how you could handle the shiny differences. But to reiterate, this seems messy.

Protowatt
I’ll be quoting MDS for the Protowatt. “Protowatt's is definitely the less egregious of the three and can probably stand as is, but now that its model has been recently finalized, it is clear that the extent to which its segments are pronounced is different between the model and its sprite and artwork. With both its sprite and artwork appearing to be completely flat, while the model has clearly raised segments with the yellow stripes wrapping around the bottom more like the real life anatomy of a shrimp. While I think it's generally less noticeable as a problem, I do believe that it will be harder to remodel the design than it would be to replace the sprites and artwork to be more pronounced. Another minor difference is that the model's eyes are red rather than black.”

Voodoll/Voodoom
Voodoom’s gender differences between the models and sprites are inconsistent. Due to technical difficulties, instead of adding the patches seen on the sprites, the model simply swaps the two main colors depending on Voodoom’s gender. MrDollSteak’s solution is to just replace the BW sprites to do the same thing as the models currently are and to also give Voodoll the same gender difference.

Conclusion/What changes could be made to prevent this from happening again?
CAP has usually been pretty consistent on how they represent CAP. This is mostly an issue seen in older CAPs that was brought upon because the lack of our current modern standards. All this could be touched upon by the CAP moderators or by the community and could fix all these inconsistencies once and for all. However, I do think slightly stricter rules or more clarification as to what can pass could also be improved. Pre-evos being looked at when their evolutions get a nerf process would also quicken situations like Pyroak if it ever happens again. Finally, I think some sort of CAP Flavor committee or a thread for people to post future complaints regarding CAPs that don’t age well or have inconsistent portrayal could help keep CAP more organized.

 

[Samirsin]

I fully support the idea of addressing the inconsistencies in CAP, especially when it comes to flavor. While our project is heavily focused on competitive aspects—and understandably so—flavor is what gives each CAP its unique character and soul. Ensuring consistency in how CAPs are portrayed, particularly with older creations, is essential to maintaining the integrity of the project. I also agree that implementing slightly stricter rules or clearer guidelines on what passes could greatly improve this process.

A CAP Flavor Committee or a dedicated thread for addressing these issues would be an excellent way to keep the project organized and ensure that any CAPs that don't age well or have inconsistent portrayals are addressed promptly. Flavor deserves just as much attention as competitive balance, as it's a key part of what makes CAP special.

This is as important for the flavor identity of the Pokémon as stats, abilities or moves for the competitive identity.

Many flavor parts have been overlooked for a while, and I wholeheartedly believe it deserves as much attention even if it is not as relevant in the meta. This is not only aimed at normal sprites, for example, but other parts as well, such as Pokédex entries, animated sprites or icons.

I think that this happened because there was not enough support for this, but people like Darquezze and me exist, and we care a lot!

 

[uppa]

Gonna chime in on this purely from the perspective of someone who's working actively to animate the cap roster's gen 5 sprites. Sorry to ruin the surprise for that, but this was a big talking point in our server that led us to a weird impasse that I'd appreciate a response to.

My main concern with some of these sprites, particularly from the Gen 5 Revamp era, is that the process doesn't seem to have been done with the same eye for future-proofing that the current sprite polls and models projects have. Taking Fidgit for example, as I believe it's the best example of a sprite visibily lacking in both quality control and accuracy to the original design.

To be perfectly clear, the following critiques don't apply at all to modern CAP sprites, and exclusively apply to those from the Gen 5 Revamp. This is simply looking back at older sprites with the QC sensibilities we have nowadays. The current fidgit sprite is both off-model and inconsistent with the style of other CAP, fanmade, and official gen 5 assets. The arms being two pixels thick with no discrete outline, disproportionately large head and body and the addition of a mouth make it a less than ideal static sprite. More to my point, however, is that this room for improvement makes our animators apprehensive to work with this era of sprites for fear of their work being replaced in an eventual resprite. The gen 6 sprite project has had its sprites qc'd and brought up to standard over the years, which is something we would be happy to provide for this small pool of sprites as well. The remaining concern, I'd imagine, is that this would give the impression that we're replacing older CAP work arbitrarily and going against the poll-driven, community-based nature of the CAP process. I agree that outright replacing work (like replacing the current sprite with the Modeling Clay Sprite) would be unethical and disparaging to what CAP stands for, so for transparency, that is not what I am asking about and I'd like us all to consider it completely off the table. I do, however, firmly believe that allowing a pass through quality control, something that's omnipresent for assets uploaded to PS, would be greatly beneficial in addressing both the concerns of less-than-standard and flavor-innaccurate sprites from mine and the above posts.

This seems like a decent compromise in my eyes, please let me know if this is something the CAP team would be interested in.
thanks love uppa. :] <3 <3<3

 

[Darquezze]

Thank you everyone to those who have left their thoughts in this thread andin the CAP Discord. I have recently explored the CAP Sprite Revamp thread (Linked here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/capmon-sprite-revamping.86078/ ) to have a better understanding of how the Sprite process went and try to figure outwhy there were as many inconsistencies in the sprites of the Gen 4 Pokemon.

Unfortunately I quickly noticed that many of the conversations related to the thread happened off Smogon, meaning it’s impossible to trace them down and we’ll have to stick to the CAP Sprite Revamp thread.. The first thing that stood out to me were the conversations with SilvanRaptor and Rising_Dusk and ToastTyrant13 and RisingDusk regarding the number of tentacles on Arghonaut’s arms and changing Arghonaut’s shiny. Rising_Dusk’s response was strange to me. Here they state “We're not changing the art concepts for these Pokemon. At most, we can change the poses, although we should try to retain as much of the original work as possible since it is the spriter's legacy in that CAP. I only made a few pose suggestions because I think a few of the sprites could use some touch-ups anyway and this is the best (and only) time we could ever make them” and “Toast, those colors were chosen for Arghonaut's shiny by the original spriter way back during Arghonaut's CAP process. They really aren't up for being changed. As a matter of fact, this is exactly why Wyverii never changed them when updating the sprite for BW.” These are interesting statements considering just before this, Rising_Dusk was asking for Shiny Cyclohm to be turned into a pink shiny, rather than the blue shiny it had at the time. But there were many sprites that changed the physical designs of the Pokemon, Syclant, Pyroak, Cyclohm, Kitsunoh and Fidgit were all impacted in this process.

It should be noted that Wyveri was a top community member that led this project, made some design changes and gave their blessing to changing design aspects of CAPmons. For example, Wyveri gave permission to change Shiny Kitsunoh as mentioned in the image below. They also made many of the sprites featured in the revamp process like the Fidgit, Syclant, and Pyroak sprites. Which have their many inconsistencies with the original portrayals but were technically approved as the head of the project. This approval would have counted towards Shiny Cyclohm and the sprites people were making as well, even if it was not mentioned in the thread.

While only a few quotes from this thread were brought up, that’s all we’ll be needing from this thread. I highly recommend you read the thread yourself as it’s not very long, and shares a lot about CAP’s history. So, if this thread is basically as official as any other process, why make a big deal out of it? Well the main issue is of course, the flavor inconsistency and quality of sprites. (I’d read Uppa’s response regarding the quality of the sprites introduced in this project.) We have a BW sprite that has a green skirt, differently shaped head, entirely different legs, missing design quirks like a hole on its back and a 3D model that matches the original artwork. This leads to Pyroak having many different portrayals and only complicates how to represent these Pokemon. Significant changes like these would not fly in CAP today. I can’t just change Chuggalong’s train cars into spheres or change Miasmaw to have 6 legs instead of 4. There are some artistic freedoms that come with making sprites and models that allow for the expressions of an artist and models, it doesn’t really allow for inaccurate portrayals. However, while I already stated what’s wrong with the representation of some of these Pokemon in my original write up, I would like to reiterate some problems and share my ideas on how I think these issues could be fixed.

In regards to 3D color palettes, in my opinion the solution on how to handle the portrayals from sprites to 3D models is to just introduce a new line to the CAP 3D Modeling Project Thread under the “Advice for Modelers” section. The line I have in mind is “Color Palettes (Texture) - in the case that the original palette or shiny palette does not work well in 3D, consult the winning artists and the CAP community on how much is appropriate to change.” There is precedent in Pokemon themselves altering shiny appearances going from sprites to 3D. But having something written down would allow the changes made to the palettes to feel more fair to the original winners, and be more organized. Out of all the following statements I’ll be making, this is the simplest and least controversial to implement.

As for physical design changes on sprites and models, this is where it gets complicated. We already have some models of Pokemon like Pyroak which match the original design and do not follow the Gen 5 revamp designs. But we can’t really expect the 3D modelers to go back and change the geometry of those models. Sure it’d be easier to change Pyroak’s skirt from yellow to green to match the Gen 5 revamp design but it’s harder to do that with the legs. But I do believe that every single design should match its original artwork. This means that I think Syclant should have its original 6 large wings instead of 4 large wings and 2 very small wings, and its body patterns should return, Pyroak should have its original skirt color, original legs, three cannon holes in its back, and many more Pokemon should have their original designs back to some degree. But I also can’t deny that these revamped sprites brought from the Gen 5 Revamp Project have legacies and are important to how people remember these Pokemon. We’ve had Pyroak with a green skirt for much longer than we’ve had Pyroak with a yellow skirt, and Syclant has had 4 wings compared to its original 6. Should we just remove the legacies these designs have had just for the sake of matching the originals? I think not! Did you know Zapdos grew an extra toe on each foot and Scizor had a different abdomen design? Well if you didn’t, now you do! I think the best outcome to preserve these legacies is to FUSE the elements of the two iterations of some of these Pokemon like the design changes Kanto and Johto Pokemon got in Gen 4 in ways that don’t impact your enjoyment of the designs. Why choose between Pyroak’s yellow or green skirt when you can have both on the gender differences? I understand people will find this tacky but I think an “everyone wins” scenario is the road with the least controversy. I will go over how you can change the following Pokemon and then the steps on how this process should go.

So how should the process go? The process should start by finding what flavor inconsistencies there are in CAP, most of them regarding designs, missing pokedex entries and classifications, and pre evo base stats not changing after nerfs to the main CAP Pokemon. Many are already listed here in this very thread but there could be more that still need to be found. After they’re all documented, then there should be an evaluation thread in the CAP Smogon Forums or by the CAP Moderators regarding what we think about these inconsistencies.
After an evaluation is done, the fate of each problem would be determined in that very thread and then continue on in individual threads which are focused on tackling each issue seperately. Since we have determined Pyroak’s issues here, let’s say we rule that Pyroak’s sprite is too inconsistent with its original design, that we should also keep its green skirt for the sake of preserving both designs, and its pre evos should get a stat nerf so they don’t have a higher special attack stat than Pyroak, Pyroak would then get a couple of threads focused on updating all of its issues. One for new Sprite Submissions that will be focused on replacing the Gen 5 Revamp sprites with new sprites that are closer to the original design, retaining gender differences the current design has, and updating those gender differences to include both skirt colors. With the option to reuse the original Gen 4 and Gen 5 sprites as a basis as that’s what the Gen 5 Revamp Project allowed for those updates. And then another thread for its pre evos focusing on the stat nerfs as Flarem has a higher Special Attack and Special Defense stat compared to Pyroak and Embirch has a Special Attack base stat of 65 compared to Pyroak’s base stat of 70. I will be covering Pokemon again and share how I think their evaluation should go and what should be done with them. I will note that I will be semi-repeating the differences I’ve already shared in my original post.
Some Pokemon are also lacking Pokedex classifications and entries. For example, Pikachu is known as the “Mouse” Pokemon. While Syclant has Pokedex entries, it has nothing like this. The Classifications could be done in its own thread or alternatively, by flavor mods interally as we’ve never done a classification poll before. I don’t think there would be much controversy for Mods naming Syclant the “Icicle” Pokemon over the “Mantis” Pokemon. The following Pokemon need a new classification. Syclant, Revenankh, Pyroak, Fidgit, and Stratagem. Voodoom on the other hand only has a singular Pokedex entry, so it would need two new entries for Pearl and Platinum. While I think the original pokedex entry should be preserved, the option to just replace it with a new Pokedex submissions thread where people submit 3 pokedex entries could also be another possibility.

I will now list every flavor inconsistency issue I've seen in CAP so far, please note that every example I will mention are not the only flavor issues within CAP.

Revenankh and Stratagem: Revenankh and Stratagem simply need new classifications.

Syclant: Syclant’s design in its Gen 5 sprite was largely simplified, mainly the third pair of wings being significantly reduced in size and less spots on Syclant’s body. There is a model reference sheet by Yu IOTJ that fuses elements from the many Syclant depictions over the years and could be used as a standardization for both sprites and models of the Pokemon. Syclant should get a new Sprite Submissions thread that is focused on making it closer to its original design. With the option of using its Gen 4 or Gen 5 sprites as a base for an updated sprite as that’s what the Gen 5 revamp project allowed. Syclant should also get a new classification for its Pokedex entries. Classifications are what the Pokemon are labeled as in the Pokedex entries.

Flarem and Embirch: The head frill leaf, the color of Flarelm's wood, skin color, and the head, cannon and feet designs and shapes are different. MrDollSteak created a set of sprites below the current sprites showcasing what the original design would look like in sprite form. The current sprites are a big change in design and a sprite update or an artwork update could be held as well like those similar to pre-evo processes with existing designs. Flarem would get a Sprites Submission thread focusing on making its sprites more accurate to the source material, with the option of using the current sprite set on Showdown as an option. Both Flarem and Embirch also need stat updates to lower their Special Attack and Special Defense stats in a way that is consistent with the Pyroak nerfs a few years ago.


Pyroak: Pyroak's original design is a yellow skirt is what’s seen on the original artwork but the CAP Sprite Revamp process changed the skirt’s color. This led to the pre-evos being affected from the sprite revamp like Flarelm’s green skirt. Other differences from the different sprites from Gen 4 to Gen 5 include a differently shaped head, eye, leg, feet shape, less numbered holes on its back, and shinies being changed. Pyroak would get a Sprite Submissions thread that will be focused on replacing the Gen 5 Revamp sprites with new sprites that are closer to the original design, retaining gender differences the current design has, and updating those gender differences to include both skirt colors. With the option to reuse the original Gen 4 and Gen 5 sprites as a basis. Pyroak would also need a new classification for its Pokedex entries as it is currently lacking one.

Fidgit: Fidgit's wristbands have never been correctly shaped or colored before. Its smile is more prevalent than it's ever been in any media and in general the sprite has not aged well quality wise. But in regards to quality, I’d read Uppa’s statement above this post. Fidgit should get a Sprite Submission thread focused on fixing its consistency issues and due to its sprite quality. With the option to use its Gen 4 and Gen 5 sprites as well. Fidgit should also get a new classification as its never had one.

Cyclohm and Kitsunoh: Cyclohm does have a gender difference that was added in Gen 5 which adds a swirl to the female, I believe it was added as the original artwork for Cyclohm had swirls so you could say it was a way to make Cyclohm’s design more accurate. But I think you could add the new shinies through the gender differences. Male Cyclohm would have the blue shiny as that was the design Blue Cyclohm was introduced in, which leaves female Cyclohm with the pink shiny. Some did point out that no gender differences have ever had drastically different shinnies, unless both males and females had different palettes. While I don’t think this is much of an issue, I made the clouds of male Cyclohm neutral gray as seen in Battle CAPacity so it could pass for the likes of Hippowdon. Again, very tacky, I know. But I really would like both shinnies to remain. And I’ll be making the same argument for Kitsunoh. Kitsunoh had its shiny replaced during the Gen 5 Sprite Revamp and I made a sprite set of an alternate gender difference you could do to have both the original shiny, and the Gen 5 Revamp shiny. Basically one of the Kitsunoh's gains purple fur seen in the 3D model (which is unusually purple compared to the original design's and sprites' blue. Which then has one of the alternate shinnies. But basically, the process here could be introducing both shinnies via their existing gender variants, maybe slightly adjusting their gender variants to be consistent with the likes of Hippowdown, or simply keep Cyclohm’s and Kitsunoh's main shiny as pink shiny and cyan shiny but mention in a post that what occurred with Cyclohm and Kitsunoh was very strange as shinies have never been replaced via sprites. No need for Sprite submissions Thread.

Protowatt: Very minor compared to the rest of the design differences but the segments are shaped differently between the 3d models and sprites. The eye colors are also different. But the sprites are technically accurate to the artwork, so either we determine that the model is wrong and the model is the one that’s in need of changing, or create new artwork and make a new Sprite Submissions thread. While I prefer the model design more, I can’t deny that the former would be simplest.

Voodoom: Voodoom’s gender differences between the models and sprites are inconsistent. Due to technical difficulties, instead of adding the patches seen on the sprites, the model simply swaps the two main colors depending on Voodoom’s gender. The solution here is to just give the sprites the same differences. Would not need a Sprite Submissions thread as it’s just a very simple palette change to achieve this. Voodoom does only have a singular Pokedex entry though, so it would need two new entries for. While I think the original pokedex entry should be preserved, the option to just replace it with a new Pokedex submissions thread where people submit 3 pokedex entries could also be another possibility.


As for Pokedex Classification and Entries, while I’ve briefly covered them already, I thought I should give them their own segment as well. Syclant, Rev, Pyroak, Fidgit, and Stratagem all have their pokedex entries already. But some of them go above the character limit for Gen 4 and also aren’t formatted as well as they could be. Here’s an example in the image below, this is what I mean by formatting. Look at Syclar which was made a few years ago and then Syclant. Very different. You could update the formatting to be along the lines of the pre evos on the same page, aka having the game label to the corresponding entry without needing a poll and including the classification. What you could poll are just the classifications for these mons but I also think it’d be simplest for a CAP Flavor Mod to rewrite the entries to fit the character limit, fix the formatting, and give these mons a classification as well.. Voodoom on the other hand already has its classification, but it only has one pokedex entry. So I think you could make a pokedex poll that's 2 pokedex entries and we keep the old one for Diamond or Platinum. Any mention of Voodoom would need its name in all capitals as well.

I'll be using Spoo's TLDR of this write up which is basically:

• 3d sprites have different color palettes than some 2d sprites
  • add a blurb to the cap 3d modeling thread about consulting the community in cases where original palettes don’t translate to 3d
• certain sprites are inconsistent with the original design of the pokemon
  • create a documentation thread wherein all inconsistent or incomplete design elements are documented
  • create threads for each pokemon with an inconsistent design, where a conclusion will be made about how to handle the inconsistencies
  • create further submission threads for each individual inconsistent/missing element
  • alternatively, have cap mods internally decide some inconsequential missing elements like classifications
• when necessary, run polls to decide the final outcomes

Alternatively Spoo shared that instead we should:

• create threads for each pokemon with an inconsistent design, where a conclusion will be made about how to handle the inconsistencies
• create further submission threads for each individual inconsistent/missing element

Thank you for reading this giant essay! I really hope we'll be able to do something about this soon.

 

[MrDollSteak]

Hello all, thanks very much to Darq and those who have replied so far. Having first attempted to resolve some of these questions before stepping down as mod, I am pleased to see some steps to actually implement some of the proposals.

What had originally been proposed was the following:
"In terms of resolving the discrepancies between the artwork, models and sprites of certain CAPs, a thread will be opened in order to discuss and implement changes to existing resources to standardise their designs. This thread will be run by the flavour moderation team, and discussion on the areas that need to be addressed will be sorted sequentially in order of priority. The moderation team will propose various suggestions about how to resolve the discrepancies, and when consensus is reached by the community, further action for that specific CAP will be determined and implemented, and the next area of discussion will also be opened. This will ideally remove bloat in terms of polls and allow for these discrepancies to be resolved and the new resources to be implemented as soon as possible."

For a variety of reasons this did not happen, mainly because myself and other flavour mods at the time ended up stepping away from CAP and a thread was never created. With this in mind, I would suggest that this thread be used to fill such a purpose in the meantime. I think Darq has suitably categorised and bullet pointed the various problems and separated the examples in to order of severity. As such I would suggest that the next step would be to open suggestions and discuss which is the preferred option for each case. I would argue that further or contradictory suggestions should require some specificity and clear proposals as Darq has done, such as QC'd sprites, or updated stat lines as an example.

I will now reply and respond to some of Darq's identifications with suggestions of my own, and to provide any further examples or considerations as general points.

Sprite palette discrepancies

In regards to 3D color palettes, in my opinion the solution on how to handle the portrayals from sprites to 3D models is to just introduce a new line to the CAP 3D Modeling Project Thread under the “Advice for Modelers” section. The line I have in mind is “Color Palettes (Texture) - in the case that the original palette or shiny palette does not work well in 3D, consult the winning artists and the CAP community on how much is appropriate to change.” There is precedent in Pokemon themselves altering shiny appearances going from sprites to 3D. But having something written down would allow the changes made to the palettes to feel more fair to the original winners, and be more organized. Out of all the following statements I’ll be making, this is the simplest and least controversial to implement.

I think this is perhaps the least serious flavor discrepancy, and this is a clear and elegant solution. I support this change, and do not think that any other proposal is needed for this point

Importantly, there is enough precedent from the 3D Pokemon Games and Pokemon Home itself that show Gamefreak is open to modifying shinies. Charmeleon, Gengar, Combusken and Garchomp to name a few have all had obvious palette changes, with Gengar and Garchomp being the most similar to Volkraken's situation, namely where elements of a shiny were hard to distinguish from the base palette being modified. In the case of Kitsunoh, due to the differences between both, it was decided that a mid ground between the two shinies would resolve the discrepancy between them and reduce the need to change either sprite. Combusken is the closest analogy to this situation with its Home and 3D shiny being closer to its original Gen 3 shiny than its Gen 4 and 5 shinies which were much lighter and harder to read. Furthermore, since there have been no significant issues with recently released shinies, and I can't imagine more will be needed in the future. Importantly, I do not think that any palette changes are needed on the existing mentioned sprites with this proposal in place.

Sprite design discrepancies

As for physical design changes on sprites and models, this is where it gets complicated. We already have some models of Pokemon like Pyroak which match the original design and do not follow the Gen 5 revamp designs. But we can’t really expect the 3D modelers to go back and change the geometry of those models. Sure it’d be easier to change Pyroak’s skirt from yellow to green to match the Gen 5 revamp design but it’s harder to do that with the legs. But I do believe that every single design should match its original artwork. This means that I think Syclant should have its original 6 large wings instead of 4 large wings and 2 very small wings, and its body patterns should return, Pyroak should have its original skirt color, original legs, three cannon holes in its back, and many more Pokemon should have their original designs back to some degree. But I also can’t deny that these revamped sprites brought from the Gen 5 Revamp Project have legacies and are important to how people remember these Pokemon. We’ve had Pyroak with a green skirt for much longer than we’ve had Pyroak with a yellow skirt, and Syclant has had 4 wings compared to its original 6. Should we just remove the legacies these designs have had just for the sake of matching the originals? I think not! Did you know Zapdos grew an extra toe on each foot and Scizor had a different abdomen design? Well if you didn’t, now you do! I think the best outcome to preserve these legacies is to FUSE the elements of the two iterations of some of these Pokemon like the design changes Kanto and Johto Pokemon got in Gen 4 in ways that don’t impact your enjoyment of the designs. Why choose between Pyroak’s yellow or green skirt when you can have both on the gender differences? I understand people will find this tacky but I think an “everyone wins” scenario is the road with the least controversy. I will go over how you can change the following Pokemon and then the steps on how this process should go.

So how should the process go? The process should start by finding what flavor inconsistencies there are in CAP, most of them regarding designs, missing pokedex entries and classifications, and pre evo base stats not changing after nerfs to the main CAP Pokemon. Many are already listed here in this very thread but there could be more that still need to be found. After they’re all documented, then there should be an evaluation thread in the CAP Smogon Forums or by the CAP Moderators regarding what we think about these inconsistencies.
After an evaluation is done, the fate of each problem would be determined in that very thread and then continue on in individual threads which are focused on tackling each issue seperately. Since we have determined Pyroak’s issues here, let’s say we rule that Pyroak’s sprite is too inconsistent with its original design, that we should also keep its green skirt for the sake of preserving both designs, and its pre evos should get a stat nerf so they don’t have a higher special attack stat than Pyroak, Pyroak would then get a couple of threads focused on updating all of its issues. One for new Sprite Submissions that will be focused on replacing the Gen 5 Revamp sprites with new sprites that are closer to the original design, retaining gender differences the current design has, and updating those gender differences to include both skirt colors. With the option to reuse the original Gen 4 and Gen 5 sprites as a basis as that’s what the Gen 5 Revamp Project allowed for those updates.

This is the most important by far. I would agree that each individual case be treated separately here, as the situations of Syclant, Flarelm and Pyroak, Fidgit, Cyclohm, Protowatt and Voodoom are quite different. I would suggest that once documentation is completed in a thread, they should be ranked in order of priority and the various options polled after being discussed in respective. Precedent should also apply where possible however. For example, if sprites or gender differences are recognised as the inconsistent element and a decision is made to correct or QC the sprite, this should also inform the treatment of future CAPs with a similar issue.

As for my own general preferences, I would suggest that action be taken on the basis of preserving where they exist, models, then artwork, then sprites, with the former being the most difficult to change or QC, and the latter the easiest. With this in mind, I would personally recommend the following action for each case in order of priority, and you can quote me on this in any future threads.

1. Pyroak - Preserve the original design from the model and artwork, and vote on my QC'd sprites, and/or other sprite submissions. Vote on choosing to keep the green skirt as a gender difference.
2. Flarelm - Vote to either change the artwork or sprite, and then resubmit accordingly. Based on the result of Pyroak's gender difference, decide on a gender difference. Currently there is one for Flarelm, but not for either Embirch or Pyroak.
3. Embirch - Based on the result of Pyroak's gender difference, decide on a gender difference for Embirch.
4. Fidgit - Preserve the original design from artwork and model. Vote on new sprite submissions for Fidgit.
5. Protowatt - Preserve the design from the model. Vote on new artwork and QC'd sprites. Decide about eye colour separately.
6. Cyclohm - Vote on gender differences and shiny colours proposal. Currently worth noting that neither Monohm or Duohm have gender differences nor different shiny sprites.
7. Syclant - Tweak sprites according to Yu IOTJ's model reference sheet. Treat the slight differences in the artwork and Gen 4 as stylistic.
8. Voodoom - Preserve the gender difference from the models, retroactively apply to existing sprites and Voodoll

Pre-evolution stat discrepancies

And then another thread for its pre evos focusing on the stat nerfs as Flarem has a higher Special Attack and Special Defense stat compared to Pyroak and Embirch has a Special Attack base stat of 65 compared to Pyroak’s base stat of 70. I will be covering Pokemon again and share how I think their evaluation should go and what should be done with them. I will note that I will be semi-repeating the differences I’ve already shared in my original post.

I also briefly mentioned this at the end of the other thread. Unfortunately since then, a similar issue has recently occurred with Chuggalong's stat nerf. Although not as egregious, the original winning stats for Chuggon and Draggalong no longer match a stat pattern with Chuggalong, and as a result Draggalong has an irregular stat interval for Speed. Furthermore, with Kitsunoh's buff, the same irregularity will also apply to Nohface. This has also occurred for Miasmaw. While there is precedent in some Pokemon having similarly messy stat progressions, I would argue that since many CAP stat flavour entries for prevos have been designed in relation to the fully evolved forms they should be preserved. Importantly, gamefreak has only ever really buffed stats by increments of 5 or 10, where CAP has tweaked numbers less aesthetically due to its competitive.

My suggestion is then, when stats are changed as a result of buff or nerf processes, equivalent stat changes should also applied to pre-evolutions in order to maintain the flavour intentions and compatibility of submitted designs. Despite being a former CAP LC leader, the competitive potential of CAP prevo should always be a secondary concern to flavour, and as such, the relationship between stats should prioritise the intervals voted in. At the risk of appearing arbitrary, I would suggest such changes be kept between +1 and +10 to avoid getting particularly ridiculous or powerful prevos. For example the -7 Speed on Chuggalong could be treated as either a -7 or -2 on both pre-evos to maintain the pattern of the originally intended stat increase intervals. In the case of Miasmaw's -27 SpA and +20 SpD, Miasmite may receive -7 SpA and +10 SpD. Most recently, Kitsunoh's +14 Atk and +18 Speed, may translate as +4 and +8 on Nohface. Where possible such consultation would be made with original submitters, and if not with the broader community at large, although I would say that the Buff leaders could easily be responsible.

Incomplete Pokedex data

Some Pokemon are also lacking Pokedex classifications and entries. For example, Pikachu is known as the “Mouse” Pokemon. While Syclant has Pokedex entries, it has nothing like this. The Classifications could be done in its own thread or alternatively, by flavor mods interally as we’ve never done a classification poll before. I don’t think there would be much controversy for Mods naming Syclant the “Icicle” Pokemon over the “Mantis” Pokemon. The following Pokemon need a new classification. Syclant, Revenankh, Pyroak, Fidgit, and Stratagem. Voodoom on the other hand only has a singular Pokedex entry, so it would need two new entries for Pearl and Platinum. While I think the original pokedex entry should be preserved, the option to just replace it with a new Pokedex submissions thread where people submit 3 pokedex entries could also be another possibility.

Syclant, Rev, Pyroak, Fidgit, and Stratagem all have their pokedex entries already. But some of them go above the character limit for Gen 4 and also aren’t formatted as well as they could be. Here’s an example in the image below, this is what I mean by formatting. Look at Syclar which was made a few years ago and then Syclant. Very different. You could update the formatting to be along the lines of the pre evos on the same page, aka having the game label to the corresponding entry without needing a poll and including the classification. What you could poll are just the classifications for these mons but I also think it’d be simplest for a CAP Flavor Mod to rewrite the entries to fit the character limit, fix the formatting, and give these mons a classification as well. Voodoom on the other hand already has its classification, but it only has one pokedex entry. So I think you could make a pokedex poll that's 2 pokedex entries and we keep the old one for Diamond or Platinum. Any mention of Voodoom would need its name in all capitals as well.

I personally think these should be resolved in a single thread, with polls running separately if necessary. I would suggest that in the case of fixing entries to match established rules per generation the intent should be to preserve as much of the original entry as possible without going to a poll. In the case of missing classifications, prevo information should also be used where possible to avoid having to go to a poll.

With all this in mind, I would like to offer some amendments to Spoo's TLDR of Darq's write up. I've listed them in order of ease to implement and provided further suggestions about what actions to take.

• 3d sprites have different color palettes than some 2d sprites
  • add a blurb to the cap 3d modeling thread about consulting the community in cases where original palettes don’t translate to 3D
• Stat discrepancies between CAPs and prevos caused by buff and nerf processes
  • require that equivalent stat changes between 1 and 10 be applied to pre-evolutions to maintain the flavour compatibility of submitted stat intervals in prevo stats.
• Inconsistent, missing or illegal pokedex data
  • create a documentation thread wherein all inconsistent or incomplete pokedex entries and categories are documented
  • create either new threads per CAP or a broader suggestions thread where amendments are made together. Maintain integrity of existing entries where possible to address legality, poll only when necessary to reduce bloat and mod stress.
• Certain sprites or models are inconsistent with the original design of the pokemon
  • create a documentation thread wherein all inconsistent or incomplete design elements are documented with suggestions and proposals discussed and then polled.

 

[spoo]

Approving this proposal and locking the thread. These solutions probably won't happen immediately, but they're officially on the to-do list.

TLDR:

• Problem: some 3D sprites have different color palettes than some 2D sprites
  • Solution: add a blurb to the CAP 3D modeling thread about consulting the community in cases where original palettes don’t translate to 3D
• Problem: stat discrepancies between CAPs and pre-evolutions caused by buff and nerf processes
  • Solution: require that equivalent stat changes between 1 and 10 be applied to pre-evolutions to maintain the flavor compatibility of submitted stat intervals in prevo stats
• Problem: inconsistent, missing or illegal Pokedex data
  • Solution: create a documentation thread wherein all inconsistent or incomplete Pokedex entries and categories are documented. Create a broader suggestions thread where amendments are made together. Maintain integrity of existing entries where possible to address legality, poll only when necessary to reduce bloat and mod stress
• Problem: certain sprites or models are inconsistent with the original design of the CAP
  • Solution: create a documentation thread wherein all inconsistent or incomplete design elements are documented with suggestions and proposals discussed and then polled