Done Defunct CAPs, Free Time, and a Measured Approach

[dex]

I believe that in order to be counted as unviable and therefore eligible for a buff, a mon needs to be unrated. Furthermore, we should attempt to boost the CAP past the C tier into at least B-.

Looking at the current C tier, we see Miasmaw, Mollux, and Volkraken. In my opinion, none of these mons need a buff. All of them have a place in the metagame, though those places are quite niche. I think an argument could be made for Mollux to receive a buff, but that argument would essentially be saying that Mollux should be unrated.
I think this goes down to the core of why we are buffing CAPs to begin with: if a CAP has no place in the meta, it should be eligible to be buffed. So, in conclusion, only unrated mons should be buffed.

I’d also like to talk about how a CAP will get selected to be buffed. I think the best way to go about this is to have a public vote by the metagame council. This way, we ensure that people can’t claim that it’s rigged while also making sure that the CAPs that need buffs the most get it first. I think for our first time through this process it might be nice if the council picked a CAP that has a relatively simple path toward buffing it, but in the end it should be up to them.

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

What should determine the eligibility of a CAP for a buff. I would propose having the metagame council be behind this, just to ensure that its done fairly quickly, but a public process is also something I would be open to.
I'm somewhat ambivalent about this, although as someone not on the metagame council, I'd personally like to be able to participate in the selection of the Pokemon being buffed. Unlike nerfing, the buffing process isn't just about metagame health; it's directly linked to the CAP and its position in the metagame, and I think it's fine to let the public decide and contribute. I think the original proposal of the metagame council putting out a slate of Pokemon that are eligible, perhaps with some options trimmed at their discretion, is fine, although we could shorten the length of the poll to 24 (rather than 48) hours in order to expedite the process and accommodate any tiebreaker scenarios. However, I would be fine with the metagame council choosing which CAP to buff instead.

Should we factor in the perceived difficulty of moving a CAP into viability?
I don't think this should be a factor in whether a CAP is eligible for a buff. The goal of the buffing process is to find a niche in the metagame for Pokemon that don't have one; even if the buffing process ends up difficult and only carves out a small niche, that would still be considered a success.

What specific level of current viability should be open for a buff? Only currently unranked mons, or should C rank etc. CAPs also be eligible.
I think it's fine for us to go with strictly unranked CAPs. As dex18 said, C tier implies that there is a niche for those CAPs, no matter how small, and this would also help us focus on CAPs that really need the buffs. I do see the argument for allowing C rank CAPs in order to prevent them from being stuck in a weird limbo, but with the expected pace of buffs, I think it is unlikely we will reach the point where this is a problem.

 

[Rabia]

So long as the metagame council is deciding what qualifies for a buff and is putting up slates for voting what is being proposed for a buff, then I'm fine with a public voting process. I really don't think it's ideal to give the community at wide too large a say in what is getting buffed because you run the risk of too many uninformed opinions influencing metagame development; we should be looking to guarantee that more competent users are making that judgment call.

Perceived difficulty 1000% should come into play. Malaconda is a great example as to why because its concept is hilariously outdated, and unless you want to go full balls to the wall and give it Multiscale, then there's just so little incentive to bother with it. At a point, it just needs to be accepted that there will be CAPs that aren't viable. Only so many Pokemon can find a niche within the confines of a specific metagame, and there's no reason to make heavy pushes to try and insure that every CAP is always viable. This has too much potential to lead to a point where the buffs, which are meant to be fairly minor in scope, end up being far too grand.

I would probably go for unranked CAP Pokemon that have been unranked for at least six months (or some other time interval). Metagames fluctuate a fair bit, and there will be times where a Pokemon disappears but is determined later to have a niche worth reranking it for. I think this buff process should be reserved solely for CAP Pokemon that just haven't seen the light of day for a long period of time. If we were to go solely for "if it's not ranked, it qualifies," then Necturna and Aurumoth would have qualified as recently as a month ago. Situations like this should be avoided if possible.

 

[quziel]

Hello, I think its time to begin working on logistics here:

1) I am proposing for a preliminary list of "eligible CAPs" to be drawn up and posted by the 25th of April (this is composed of currently and long term unranked CAPs with a few exceptions for difficult CAPs as this is the first time we're doing this). This is factoring in perceived difficulty for at least the first round as I want this to be a success.

2) Once we have a slate drawn up, we should have a public vote on which CAP to buff occuring from April 25th through April 27th

3) We should open up signups for "Buff Leader" on the 25th of April, with voting occurring from April 28th through April 30th

4) We should begin the buff process, aiming to have it last for 1-2 weeks on the 1st of May, with the following scope:
a) Changes should be minimal and respect the current playstyle, the original design intent, and simplicity, in that order.
b) Changes should take the mon from Unranked to a range of C-B Rank, not aiming to make the mon a top meta threat, just viable overall.

Structure of the process is proposed to be:
1) Discussion of the CAP's playstyle as it currently is
2) Discussion of the intended role and playstyle of the mon
3) Discussion of expansions to the above.
4) Proposal of specific buffs
5) Buff leader creates a slate
6) 1-2 stages of voting on Major and Minor buffs

This is a fairly short schedule, but we need to fit the buff before CAP PL, and we also have the 2.0 release for 29 coming on the 22nd of May, so such is life.

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

I already had this list written up, so I figured I'd post this and things can be narrowed down from there. I based this on Rabia's proposal of a CAP needing to be unranked for at least 6 months prior to the buffing process starting before becoming eligible, which is why the list is divided the way it is.
Recently unranked (currently unranked, but was ranked within the last 6 months):

• Snaelstrom (last unranked Jan 4) - Snaelstrom is cursed to be a Stealth Rock-weak Pokemon that cannot wear Heavy-Duty Boots, due to relying on the Toxic Orb/Poison Heal combination for reliable recovery (and Spiky Shield to reliably trigger it). Combined with weaknesses to Volt Switch and common Flying moves, as well as lacking useful coverage, Snaelstrom is unfortunately deficient both as an offensive and defensive Pokemon, in spite of access to hazards, Rapid Spin, and lots of use on the ladder.
• Plasmanta (last unranked Jan 26) - Thanks to Body Press hitting from the physical side and its naturally high Defense stat, Plasmanta developed a small niche breaking certain common defensive mons. However, the matchup-based nature of this niche, combined with needing to invest in defensive EVs in order to maximize Body Press, means that Plasmanta is ultimately too unreliable as a wallbreaker to see consistent use.
• Fidgit (last unranked Feb 22) - Fidgit has a defined niche as a Trick Room setter, as its ability, Persistent, extends the duration of Trick Room, alleviating one of the issues that plagues this team archetype. However, Trick Room in itself is extremely niche, and outside of this, Fidgit struggles to carve out any kind of role.
• Naviathan (last unranked Feb 22) - Depending on the matchup, Naviathan can either be massively threatening or rather ineffectual. If it can get a Dragon Dance off, it's capable of firing off powerful Guts-boosted moves to sweep teams; unfortunately, its poor two-move coverage, combined with the general difficulty of finding setup opportunities, makes unable to punch through certain common walls before it falls, leading to its inconsistency.
• Smokomodo (last unranked Feb 22) - Even though its concept is based around abilities, Smokomodo rarely uses Technician in the wake of losing Hidden Power, preferring immediate power in its role as a stallbreaker that can spread Toxic. Unfortunately, even with an excellent STAB combination in Fire/Ground, Smokomodo is let down by its stats and weaknesses to common moves.

"Long term" unranked (has not been ranked in the past 6 months):

• Revenankh - Despite boasting an unresisted STAB combination and a powerful ability-move combination in Triage Drain Punch, Revenankh has been unable to make much of a mark in its intended role as a Bulk Up sweeper. In addition to its low speed making it difficult to find setup opportunities, it is unable to deal with a number of the walls in the tier (particularly Flying types like Zapdos and Tomohawk) or fast Ghost types even once it is set up.
• Pyroak - Pyroak is perhaps one of the starkest examples of not weathering the generational changes well, with its original role as a Leech Seeder being long gone. A crippling Stealth Rock weakness forces it to be reliant on Heavy Duty Boots, and even then it is reliant on 8 PP recovery in the form of Synthesis, and is outclassed as both a defensive/support Pokemon (despite access to Lava Plume, Stealth Rock, and Aromatherapy) and as an offensive Pokemon (despite its good STAB combination).
• Kitsunoh - Kitsunoh's main niche is as a Scarfer that can revenge kill and pivot, but it is outclassed in this role by Dragapult. Even with a good typing and a decent utility movepool, its stats let it down in both offensive and defensive aspects.
• Voodoom - Voodoom's middling attacking stats mean that, even with Life Orb and Nasty Plot to help it as a setup sweeper, its power is severely lacking in comparison to its peers. In addition, it suffers greatly from 4MSS, being forced to choose between Nasty Plot, its STABs, and its two useful coverage moves in Thunderbolt and Flash Cannon. It has a few good traits (Electric immunity via ability, decent speed tier, and the aforementioned coverage), but they don't come close to compensating for its inability to make progress.
• Malaconda - Malaconda's one niche in the metagame is as a sun setter, but it is outclassed as a secondary setter by Jumbao and outclassed in general by Torkoal. A crippling weakness to U-turn, in combination with its awful physical bulk and low speed, make it difficult for it to have any semblance of a role outside of this, despite its high special bulk and access to support options like Parting Shot and Glare.
• Caribolt - Caribolt is a physical Swords Dance sweeper hampered by how many commonly-used Pokemon resist its STAB combination and its lack of meaningful coverage to get past those resists. The loss of Return has also made its spot more awkward, as it now has to rely on either the less powerful Body Slam, or Double-Edge, which worsens its survivabiliity issues.

In terms of difficulty, we could potentially cut Malaconda because of its deep-seated issues (including its typing, which is out of scope for this process). Pyroak is in a somewhat similar boat, although it seems to be generally regarded as easier to do and can probably stay on the list. We could also cut the recently unranked CAPs if we're following Rabia's suggestion. Otherwise, I think this list is fine as-is, although I'm open to suggestions.

EDIT: Jewvia pointed out on Discord that it would probably be helpful if we provided some context for each CAP, so that voters who are less familiar with these CAPs can get a better understanding of how they are viewed in the metagame, so I wrote some short descriptions, and added them to the list.

 

[snake]

Just to be sure that we wrap up this thread in a timely manner, I'm placing a 24 hour warning on this thread.

Just to make some comments on quziel's process, the difference between a Major buff and a Minor buff should be up to the Buff Leader's discretion. Also I think we need some way to allow Metagame Council to ensure that all buff options are reasonable and within the scope of this buffs process, similar to how a TL approves a slate. Thus, the final process would be (see Structure steps 5 and 6):

Hello, I think its time to begin working on logistics here:

1) I am proposing for a preliminary list of "eligible CAPs" to be drawn up and posted by the 25th of April (this is composed of currently and long term unranked CAPs with a few exceptions for difficult CAPs as this is the first time we're doing this). This is factoring in perceived difficulty for at least the first round as I want this to be a success.

2) Once we have a slate drawn up, we should have a public vote on which CAP to buff occuring from April 25th through April 27th

3) We should open up signups for "Buff Leader" on the 25th of April, with voting occurring from April 28th through April 30th

4) We should begin the buff process, aiming to have it last for 1-2 weeks on the 1st of May, with the following scope:
a) Changes should be minimal and respect the current playstyle, the original design intent, and simplicity, in that order.
b) Changes should take the mon from Unranked to a range of C-B Rank, not aiming to make the mon a top meta threat, just viable overall.

Structure of the process is proposed to be:
1) Discussion of the CAP's playstyle as it currently is
2) Discussion of the intended role and playstyle of the mon
3) Discussion of expansions to the above.
4) Proposal of specific buffs
5) Buff leader creates a slate and receives approval from the CAP Metagame Council (approval should be a formality, honestly)
6) 1-2 stages of voting on Major and Minor buffs (Major vs. Minor buffs up to the Buff Leader's discretion)

This is a fairly short schedule, but we need to fit the buff before CAP PL, and we also have the 2.0 release for 29 coming on the 22nd of May, so such is life.

Other than that, I'm excited to see a controlled buff process!

 

[quziel]

CAP 30 is slowly nearing its end, so I'm reopening this thread so that we can pool ideas for the second buffing process. Some things I noticed about the previous one were that the Major/Minor dichotomy was a bit awkward as it didn't fully allow for conditional buffs, and that we may have slighty rushed it. Any further thoughts are welcomed.

 

[Rabia]

buffs should be kept to council only or have much more say from the council given the current inability for much to be done beyond "+ x" changes. this system was really hard to work with as the buff leader because many people wanted to propose a major buff alongside a minor buff, and that was not doable because of this format. if council is given more or full control of the process, this becomes a non-problem. additionally, nerfs are already handled fully by council, although we give a thread beforehand where the masses can address what they feel makes a CAP too overbearing and possible solutions to fix that; I feel this would work wonders for the buff process too, and while it does eliminate some ways for the community to be directly involved, I believe it'd be the best going forward despite that to ensure smooth buffs.

 

[Brambane]

Agreeing with quziel that the major/minor dichotomy was awkward; I think in hindsight it was a failing in the process that should be eliminated entirely going forward. Instead of splitting individual buff components to independent stages, I would rather see users submit a collective list of changes to be made to the CAP. I say changes because while additions make the most sense in a buff process, removals may be situationally useful and there isn't much harm in leaving that option in. In that sense it would be similar to the stats stage, where the Buff Leader decides the slate on the various merits of the different proposed changes. Some of them might have substantial overlap (i.e. maybe every single Pyroak submission includes +Recover.) But ultimately, if we can entrust the stats leader to create a fair and balanced slate of spreads for a CAP, we should also entrust a buff leader to create an equally effective slate of proposed changes.

This process would breakdown as:
1. Buff Leader Sign-Ups/Vote
2. Buff Recipient Discussion/Vote
3. General Discussion (aka why this mon is bad, what are interesting directions, should we stay faithful to concept, etc)
4. Buff Submissions/Vote
5. Post Play Lookback

I disagree with Rabia that the buff process should be council only. Ultimately CAP should be a discussion and community-based project, and the buff process should be an extension of that. The existing CAPs have had time to grow their own fans among the community, and we should cordially invite them to take part in and learn from the process. The more aspects of the project we take away from the community, the greater fissure we create between the prospective playerbase/non-council contributors and leadership/council. Considering how some users were rubbed the wrong way about how Chromera's Blizzard addition was handled, making the buff processes more exclusive would be almost certainly offensive. I have no desire to see the CAP project shift in such direction.

 

[dex]

Edit:

I see now that my original comment was a bit too strong. I've rethought it, and come up with this:

1. Metagame Council decides which CAPs are eligible to be buffed
2. Community votes on CAP to be buffed
3. Community votes on a buff leader
4. Buff Process thread is created and led by the buff leader
5. Possible buffs are decided by the community through the thread
6. Buff leader sends slate of buffs to the Metagame Council
7. Buffs are voted on by the Metagame Council

As I said before and as Rabia said, buffs are harder to realize than the actual process. It takes a pretty accurate and deep knowledge of the current metagame to appropriately ascertain which buffs would have the best impact. I do believe that the vote itself for the buff should be up to the metagame council, though which buffs should be put up to the vote should be decided upon via community discussion as they were for the Voodoom buff.

 

[Lasen]

Firm believer of utilising the metagame Council for the buff process. Knowing the nuances of what would absolutely break something or if a certain buff is not as impactful as the community thinks is a valuable asset and we'd be hard pressed to find a reason not to use it. Dex's idea involves community interaction, so I'm gonna back up his idea.

 

[spoo]

Edit:

I see now that my original comment was a bit too strong. I've rethought it, and come up with this:

1. Metagame Council decides which CAPs are eligible to be buffed
2. Community votes on CAP to be buffed
3. Community votes on a buff leader
4. Buff Process thread is created and led by the buff leader
5. Possible buffs are decided by the community through the thread
6. Buff leader sends slate of buffs to the Metagame Council
7. Buffs are voted on by the Metagame Council

As I said before and as Rabia said, buffs are harder to realize than the actual process. It takes a pretty accurate and deep knowledge of the current metagame to appropriately ascertain which buffs would have the best impact. I do believe that the vote itself for the buff should be up to the metagame council, though which buffs should be put up to the vote should be decided upon via community discussion as they were for the Voodoom buff.

I'm not sold on this proposal; right now, it feels like a more roundabout way to implement Rabia's suggestion. Eg, what I see happening is the meta council deciding what buff(s) they'd like, someone submits it to be slated, and then the rest of the process is essentially just a formality.

I think it's clear that the meta council should have some increased agency here, though. The council is already in charge of nerfs, and those are arguably much clearer and easier processes than buffs to begin with. Perhaps we can go through with the buff process as we did before, with the council having full control of any further tweaks/fine tuning in a PPL afterwards. Perhaps the council has some degree of influence over the slated buffs, with only three-four options being slated instead of the usual larger final slate. If we can't find a happy medium between meta council involvement and community involvement, then genuinely just getting rid of the major/minor dichotomy and letting users submit "packages" would go a long way as well.

 

[quziel]

I would like to propose the following structure for the buff process.

1) Vote on a buff leader (this is optional, council could do this if required) (2 days)

2) Discuss the mon, its shortcomings (typing, stats, moves), and the context (historical use, original design) (3-4 days)

3) Discuss specific buffs and how they could fix shortcomings. (3-4 days)

4) Community members put together "buff packages" out of the individual buffs suggested in 3). Of note is that these packages can revert SM buffs if necessary. (3-5 days)

5) Buff Leader puts together a slate (4-8 options) of the submitted buff packages, opening for discussion (1-2 days)

6) Community votes on the slated buff packages (2 days).

7) Metagame Council + Buff Leader discuss how to tune the winning package, and propose a set of changes (1-3 days)

8) Community votes whether to accept or reject proposed changes (only if changes are proposed).

This brings the buff process to roughly 14 days, or 2 weeks in duration.

The controversial element here imo is going to be the inclusion of buff packages, but I think they would work better than the major/minor dichotomy as it changes the voting incentives. Aka under the previous a Major buff should "solve" the mon, as people were fearful that minor buffs wouldn't be enough if the major buff was too weak.

 

[Voltage]

Lots of my thoughts have been covered, but as a Metagame council member, I feel inclined to weigh in on this.

My short answer is basically, for what my opinion is worth, that a buffing process should be very similar to a nerfing process, with a specific focus on how we can thoroughly improve the mon as a whole, and not just for a specific metagame. I also think that if we have a metagame council, we may as well make use of it, right?

And now for a longer elaboration.

There are two parts of this to consider, in my opinion, and those are how the community plays a role and how the council plays a role. It's no secret that the previous buffing process, while interesting, yielded a process that was confusing and hard to follow. This ultimately was compounded over the course of the buffing process, and Voodoom's new state in the metagame is barely any different from before. Now this isn't to say that Voodoom wasn't buffed in a meaningful way, but I think it shows how tricky the buffing process can be to get right, and it certainly wasn't helped by a confusing process of having "Major" and "minor" buffs. Despite this though, those community members that WERE involved had very good ideas and were active and useful in progressing the discussion.

In contrast, the metagame council, as I recall, had minimal input on the buffing process which ultimately feels very backwards to me given that the council is supposed to oversee the metagame as a whole. Obviously the council isn't supposed to be the end-all-be-all authority on general processes, but in my opinion, for buffs and nerfs the council should have a far greater say in what ultimately happens.

Per precedent, we on the council do not ban caps in the current gen metagame, only doing so eventually for old gens, (see Aurumoth and Cawmodore in ORAS CAP). Therefore, if a CAP is either overcentralizing we don't have the means of actively banning it. This, raising awareness to an issue, is what more or less happened with the nerfs on Equilibra and early stages of Astrolotl, and the council ultimately decided the best course of action for how to "fix" these CAPs. While the effectiveness of these nerfs isn't the subject at hand, it does yield a glaring inconsistency between how CAP conducts buffs compared to how we conduct nerfs.

My take is basically this: We should have our buffs and nerfs follow a similar process, with the community discussing how a CAP should either be buffed or nerfed, with the council ultimately deciding what changes actually occur. This would include the community coming to a consensus somehow on picking a mon to be buffed or nerfed, though each respective voting process would have to be different somehow due to the nature of how different something overcentralizing is versus how thoroughly bad something is. I don't have a great idea or suggestion for this process at this time, though I think Rabia's suggestion is ultimately the simplest, and therefore, presently my favorite. It includes the community offering suggestions on how they would change the mon for the better, while still making use of the, otherwise underused, metagame council to make the final verdict.

To rebut those who are saying that the council shouldn't have the final say in the buffs and/or nerfs, I argue that the metagame council are the most thoroughly invested players of the metagame. That's isn't to say that there are very skilled players not on the council, but that the council is guaranteed to have players from the playerbase making up 100% of the votes. I do not mean to disparage the voterbase or the CAP community on the Voodoom process, but of the 71 votes in Major Change Poll 1, I am confident that at least a 1/3 (if not over half), of those voters have never played regular circuit tournament matches in the CAP circuit or are not well-informed of the CAP metagame. While this qualification ultimately does not matter for a regular process and SHOULD NOT matter for a regular process, buffing and nerfing are essentially and inherently strictly competitive changes. With the restriction on the final voting process to just the metagame council, there is a guarantee that every single person voting is well-informed. One could also perhaps argue that a "suspect testing-esque" requirement could work, but that's not something I would discuss now only because I haven't given it considerable thought.

To summarize again I think buffs and nerfs ultimately should have similar processes and I think the metagame council should ultimately have the final say in which buffs/nerfs are accepted. As for a slate of buffs/nerfs, I think it is extremely important that the community has a say in what is brought to the council overall as CAP is a community based project so I do think that having a period of thorough discussion to determine what COULD be done is essential.

EDIT: I'm also not opposed to adding more members to the metagame council too.

 

[Brambane]

Upon substantial thought, I think quziel's proposal is a solid base for the buff process. The bit about tuning a submission after it won the vote originally irked me, but the reasoning is more the principle vs practicality of it. The rest of the proposal is strong enough and allows for both community engagement/involvement and additional oversight from tiering leadership/well-versed and invested people in the metagame.

 

[spoo]

Hello, this PRC thread has suddenly become much more urgent with the next buff process in the imminent future. That said, here is my opinion on quziel's proposal as outlined above.

I would like to propose the following structure for the buff process.

1) Vote on a buff leader (this is optional, council could do this if required) (2 days)

A public vote on buff leader is best IMO. Council could do it, but I don't think that's necessary. I appreciate their role here as a body that's more for broad oversight and final tuning.

2) Discuss the mon, its shortcomings (typing, stats, moves), and the context (historical use, original design) (3-4 days)

3) Discuss specific buffs and how they could fix shortcomings. (3-4 days)

4) Community members put together "buff packages" out of the individual buffs suggested in 3). Of note is that these packages can revert SM buffs if necessary. (3-5 days)

No comment on first two steps, they're good. Step #4 is where this proposal begins to diverge from the previous buff process, but I am in favor of this change. Rabia has mentioned earlier in this thread how the previous structure for buffs was constraining and difficult to work with as the buff leader, and that's a difficulty I'm sympathetic of –– this move towards "packages" is a change that allows for more nuance with how buffs are constructed, and I think reduces constraints on this process overall.

The point about reverting SM buffs is an important one as well; we shouldn't be afraid to admit we made a mistake and attempt to fix it. Some of the old buffs aged poorly while others were probably the wrong decision even for their time, and having an outlet to deal with this issue is useful. One thing I am ambivalent about is how specifically to go about this, though. I think we have two decent options. The first being: the community discusses whether or not to remove the buff, and if we decide "yes," the buff leader (maybe with approval from the meta council?) reverts the SM buff for all submissions, meaning all buff packages are in the same starting place. The second option being, after discussion, the buff leader decides whether or not to allow reversal as an option for buff submitters, at which point each submitter individually decides if they would like to revoke the buff in their buff package. There may also be other avenues for this that I'm not thinking of. Ultimately, I am not sure which route would be best and am mostly raising this point to get clarification / spark more discussion on how the SM reversion would work.

5) Buff Leader puts together a slate (4-8 options) of the submitted buff packages, opening for discussion (1-2 days)

6) Community votes on the slated buff packages (2 days).

7) Metagame Council + Buff Leader discuss how to tune the winning package, and propose a set of changes (1-3 days)

8) Community votes whether to accept or reject proposed changes (only if changes are proposed).

This is good as well. 5 & 6 are relatively straightforward, but 7 & 8 would be new additions. I am a fan of increasing the metagame council's involvement in the future; they're a vital asset that we should be taking advantage of here, and are clearly experienced and capable for this sort of thing as we've seen with nerf processes. Having the community + BL propose a general buff with additional tweaks from the meta council if needed is a healthy balance between those two bodies. I would perhaps add the additional clause of "with intent to preserve the original buff's identity" to #7 but that's more of a semantic thing. Finally, I appreciate #8 as a formality more than anything. I'm not wholly sure if the extra vote is necessary, strictly speaking, but it adds legitimacy to the process and final result.

Overall I am in favor of the outlined proposal with a few very minor changes / process clarifications.

 

[dex]

I would like to propose the following structure for the buff process.

1) Vote on a buff leader (this is optional, council could do this if required) (2 days)

2) Discuss the mon, its shortcomings (typing, stats, moves), and the context (historical use, original design) (3-4 days)

3) Discuss specific buffs and how they could fix shortcomings. (3-4 days)

4) Community members put together "buff packages" out of the individual buffs suggested in 3). Of note is that these packages can revert SM buffs if necessary. (3-5 days)

5) Buff Leader puts together a slate (4-8 options) of the submitted buff packages, opening for discussion (1-2 days)

6) Community votes on the slated buff packages (2 days).

7) Metagame Council + Buff Leader discuss how to tune the winning package, and propose a set of changes (1-3 days)

8) Community votes whether to accept or reject proposed changes (only if changes are proposed).

This brings the buff process to roughly 14 days, or 2 weeks in duration.

The controversial element here imo is going to be the inclusion of buff packages, but I think they would work better than the major/minor dichotomy as it changes the voting incentives. Aka under the previous a Major buff should "solve" the mon, as people were fearful that minor buffs wouldn't be enough if the major buff was too weak.

I think this is absolutely the way to go here. It nicely blends community involvement with metagame expertise in a way that is inclusive and helpful. While I do have some fear that a buff that may be the best option but isn't flashy may get left behind by the community, I have faith that the metagame council will pick up the slack, if any, in that regard. I would hope that the council would give reasonings as to why each buff was selected or not selected, but this is not totally necessary. This process should, in theory, lead to a more informed buff process while retaining the public vote aspect that defines CAP.

I also think that the Buff Leader should be a community vote rather than a council vote. I don't think it is necessary to limit the vote in any way given that the council will have an expanded role in this process, so opening the Buff Leader role up to the community should be fine. It's also a good way for users who have not been on TLT to get some experience in leading a section which is nice.

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

The point about reverting SM buffs is an important one as well; we shouldn't be afraid to admit we made a mistake and attempt to fix it. Some of the old buffs aged poorly while others were probably the wrong decision even for their time, and having an outlet to deal with this issue is useful. One thing I am ambivalent about is how specifically to go about this, though. I think we have two decent options. The first being: the community discusses whether or not to remove the buff, and if we decide "yes," the buff leader (maybe with approval from the meta council?) reverts the SM buff for all submissions, meaning all buff packages are in the same starting place. The second option being, after discussion, the buff leader decides whether or not to allow reversal as an option for buff submitters, at which point each submitter individually decides if they would like to revoke the buff in their buff package. There may also be other avenues for this that I'm not thinking of. Ultimately, I am not sure which route would be best and am mostly raising this point to get clarification / spark more discussion on how the SM reversion would work.

I talked to quziel on Discord to get a better understanding about what exactly it means to revert an SM buff, and the clarification that I got regarding this is that everything that was added in the SM updates is up for reversion. Not only does this include abilities such as Drought Malaconda and (pre-Poltergeist and revival) Triage Revenankh, but also competitive moves like Volt Switch Krilowatt/Cyclohm, Wish/Bullet Punch Kitsunoh, and Spiky Shield Malaconda. (I am just listing examples for illustration purposes, not all of them are eligible.)

This is a rather large potential scope for removal, and if these are the terms being used, I don't think it makes sense for us to take the first option. Reverting everything at once, when a number of the competitive moves seem unlikely to be problematic, seems extreme, and having a long discussion trying to pick out everything to allow or disallow would extend the process unnecessarily. The second option of determining whether to allow the option of removing the SM buff, then letting individuals decide whether to personally revoke the buff, seems better and easier to manage. I would take it one step further to let submitters choose what things to revert, based on what competitive aspects interact, and take feedback from other users on the thread on whether certain reversions are unnecessary or other reversions need to be done. This could even be extended to any moves given in the SS updates (ex. Parting Shot Malaconda).

I think I would also explicitly add the caveat that these removals should be relatively conservative and only done if necessary. We determined earlier that the buff process in general should be relatively minimal in what changes it makes, and while this opens the door to buffs that are a bit like reworks, we should be more careful regarding outright reworks that involve larger numbers of removals.

As for the overall proposal, I don't really have any objections. It maintains community involvement in the buff process while also allowing the council oversight on the buff.

 

[quziel]

Sorry I intended that you could specifically target one or two of the SM buffs if you feel its necessary for balancing, not that the slate would be wiped clean. And yes, the individual SM buffs would be something I feel like could be removed on a package level. Eg if a Malaconda buff is chosen the user would have the power to say "-Solar Blade, +Fire Lash" as their package.

 

[quziel]

7) Metagame Council + Buff Leader discuss how to tune the winning package, and propose a set of changes (1-3 days)

8) Community votes whether to accept or reject proposed changes (only if changes are proposed).

Whoops we never did this in the past. I'd like to bring this up again given that Miasmaw is still a bit off where it could be, and sorta ask if we want to revise our buffs at all. A tweak here is that step 7 would take place about a month after the buff is out, rather than immediately, just cause its hard to tell how strong stuff is before playing with it.

Any thoughts?

 

[Brambane]

Whoops we never did this in the past. I'd like to bring this up again given that Miasmaw is still a bit off where it could be, and sorta ask if we want to revise our buffs at all. A tweak here is that step 7 would take place about a month after the buff is out, rather than immediately, just cause its hard to tell how strong stuff is before playing with it.

Any thoughts?

Seems fine. Probably better as an insurance policy for when a buff overshoots to act upon it, but making an adjustment to a mon that undershot a bit looks appropriate in practice.

 

[Amamama]

I think this is fine, if we give the Mon time to be tested a bit so the council has material to base their decision on (replays, usage etc).
Also this tuning has to be relatively small if it’s to buff further.
Mons like Voodoom and Miasmaw are already useable if you want to flex and imo miasmaw is not super far off of being solid and reliable, with it actually being able to make a difference in a game (if played well).