EVO 1 - Process Vote

[LoftyTheMetroid]

I know I don't have much clout here, and I'm relatively late in saying this, but...

Any notion of making this a project with the competitive metagame fully in mind went out the window the moment we decided to make this an EVO project and not a CAP project.

The fact that we want to evolve a pokemon and not just create one is intrinsically fanboyish. There is no reason to fill a metagame niche with an evolution when we can just create a pokemon to fill it.

With that in mind, it really doesn't matter which pokemon it is we choose to evolve. Honestly, it should be a popularity contest. We pick an underpowered pokemon, we buff it up to OU standards, and then we're done. We take a pokemon's intended role or gameplay and make it relative to a competitive environment.

That's not to say we couldn't kill two birds with one stone, no problem with that. We can make an underpowered pokemon competitively viable and have it fill a needed niche. But that's just a side-benefit, not the main purpose.

You want a Fire/Ground that will place a check on Skymin/Heatran/Zapdos/Scizor/Blissey/Tyranitar? Fine. Do it in the CAP. You want a Camerupt evolution? Do it in EVO.

Obviously, those two can be one and the same. But they don't have to be. You shouldn't fault those who vote for a pokemon they want to see evolved just for the sake of the pokemon itself. Really, if that's the problem, I suggest we just abolish EVO and stick with CAP.

Now, there's that. However, if the problem was with Camerupt not being on the poll despite its popularity, then I can understand that. He should have been on the poll, and I wouldn't mind a redo because of that. But that's a completely different issue.

-----------

Anyway, some final notes. First, as I mentioned before, I do believe there should be a concept/niche discussion and vote, but not until after the selection of the pokemon to evolve.

If we do it first, then this is just a more restricted version of CAP in disguise.

If we don't do it at all, then the project will lack direction and focus, resulting in just a haphazard buffing of stats and movepool. (I could go into more detail on this, but I posted about it in the policy discussion thread.)

Also, I've always been in (silent) favor of saving flavor polls for last. It really is illogical to do the art before the gameplay, unless you're taking into consideration efficiency and time.

One last final note: Even if Camerupt doesn't win in the revote, there will be other EVO projects. (It may even be better to test out the project and process on a simple pokemon that won't impact the metagame too much, like Farfetch'd.) CAP 6 is right around the corner if you can't wait that long.

And don't criticize people for wanting to evolve their favorite pogeymanz. (Or just throw out EVO and have two concurrent CAP projects.)

 

[Lawman]

I don't have time to debate, but I have to say I disagree with your notion to do the concept after selecting the pokemon. There should be one niche the community feels a need to be filled that can be filled by several pokemon, not just selecting a pokemon that can fill one of several niches. What you are proposing is to limit the fashion to fill several possible options, but it would be better to determine the option we want to go through with before seeing what means can accomplish it.

In other words,, its like you want decide what tool you should use to put something together when you don't know if you need nails or screws, let alone what you are trying to build.

 

[tennisace]

This should be in a different thread I.E. stop the EVO project and completely remake the process together, since a bunch of you weren't around/didn't care for the last thread. Maybe we'd get somewhere with more people helping than last time?

I'm also going to give a closing arguement. We shouldn't stop the project now, because if we do, who's to say we won't overlook something big somewhere in the middle of the project. I say continue with the project, if only to test the process so we can correct all the mistakes at once. It would waste more times to mess up in the middle of three projects, than to just mess up multiple times in a test run.

 

[RBG]

I agree tennisace, but this is the most important step in the project and we need to do it right.

 

[tennisace]

I agree tennisace, but this is the most important step in the project and we need to do it right.

So if we do it right but the rest of the project wrong, what have we gained?

 

[RBG]

I have faith that we will do this step right. I doubt that with Darkie+'s experience with the project, he will handle this will and there will be no more problems

 

[tennisace]

I have faith that we will do this step right. I doubt that with Darkie+'s experience with the project, he will handle this will and there will be no more problems

But isn't the whole point of this poll and the follow up because people DIDN'T have faith in the project? I'm not saying I don't have faith in Darkie's abilities, I'm saying that the process isn't perfect, but we should test it all out first, then change the not working parts. You wouldn't rotate the tires on a car, then go back two weeks later because you're brakes are shot and you told the mechanic not to check earlier. You'd get the full check up because you saw the brakes were a little unresponsive.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

I don't have time to debate, but I have to say I disagree with your notion to do the concept after selecting the pokemon. There should be one niche the community feels a need to be filled that can be filled by several pokemon, not just selecting a pokemon that can fill one of several niches. What you are proposing is to limit the fashion to fill several possible options, but it would be better to determine the option we want to go through with before seeing what means can accomplish it.

What you are proposing would better suit CAP.

Before you continue, you should ask yourself: Why are we evolving a pokemon in EVO rather than creating a new one with CAP? (No, really, you should give yourself an honest answer to that question.) You have to understand that evolving anything is going to be more limiting than just creating something from scratch, especially if we are trying to fill a competitive niche.

In other words,, its like you want decide what tool you should use to put something together when you don't know if you need nails or screws, let alone what you are trying to build.

Again, that analogy works for CAP, but not EVO.

No, it's more like I want to build a house with Legos, but all I have are Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs. Rather than deciding that I HAVE to build with Legos off the bat, I should look at my choice of materials, pick the one that looks like it'd be most fun to use, and do the best I can with those materials. I can't decide how best to use those materials until AFTER I have chosen which materials I am going to work with in the first place. And, if I really wanted to work with Legos, I should have just bought my own bucket of Legos in the first place rather than work with what I had.

Or something.

See, here's the fundamental difference between CAP and EVO: We are evolving pokemon that already exist, pokemon that already have gameplay types and niches and roles (just ones not relevant to the OU metagame). We can't just pick a concept or role and shoehorn an existing pokemon to fill it. Why force a square peg into a round hole when we have a separate means of carving a round peg (CAP)?

In EVO, the pokemon should be chosen first. Then we clearly define its current role, and how we are going to adapt that role to the metagame:

When considering an evolution, there should be three parts:
1) Consideration for the pokemon's previous role and gameplay mechanics.
2) Consideration for what parts of the pokemon's role that could be expanded that would allow it to maintain a unique position within the metagame.
3) A bit of fan creativity (while still remaining competitively viable).

Here's the other stuff I said: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1471172&postcount=156

------

tl;dr This is EVO. Ya work with what ya got, and not force it when it ain't fitting. :P

 

[RBG]

Tennisace, I have said I believe that the process should be similar to the CAP, but the only stage that needs drastic changes (imo) is the first stage.

 

[Solstice]

But isn't the whole point of this poll and the follow up because people DIDN'T have faith in the project? I'm not saying I don't have faith in Darkie's abilities, I'm saying that the process isn't perfect, but we should test it all out first, then change the not working parts. You wouldn't rotate the tires on a car, then go back two weeks later because you're brakes are shot and you told the mechanic not to check earlier. You'd get the full check up because you saw the brakes were a little unresponsive.

Yes, but most of the Fetch'd voters where riding their bikes down to the candy shop. Just wanted to use that metaphor.

 

[tennisace]

Tennisace, I have said I believe that the process should be similar to the CAP, but the only stage that needs drastic changes (imo) is the first stage.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about testing all the stages because "close" to the CAP project means that some of the stages are quite different. I know you think it should be similar, as do I. However, it all should be tested just in case something unforseen comes up.

EDIT:

@Chaos Blade: A ton of the country is uninformed about the elections, but that doesn't mean their votes don't count.

 

[RBG]

And how would we test it? By doing it once and failing? I think that this one mistake should have been fixed and it looks like it might be. If we allow more discussion, then we should be OK. IMO there was not enough discussion at the beginning of this project. If we make sure to have more in every stage, handle it with care, and not rush through, it will be ok.

 

[Solstice]

Well CaP and EVO are essentially the same thing, we're still Creating a Pokemon. Just EVO will have more rules and guidelines, we'll have to stay inside the lines of the original evolution. It will changes the other stages, but the first one is the one that needs the drastic change. The nomination, discussion, and poll results will greatly benefit the project. While it might just come down to argueing over Fetch'd and Camerupt again, we need to do some testing before the process is without its holes.

 

[tennisace]

And how would we test it? By doing it once and failing? I think that this one mistake should have been fixed and it looks like it might be. If we allow more discussion, then we should be OK. IMO there was not enough discussion at the beginning of this project. If we make sure to have more in every stage, handle it with care, and not rush through, it will be ok.

Actually there was almost no discussion in the formation of the process (not the beginning, after I dug the thread up). But yeah we would test it by continuing and MAYBE failing. I know I've been using the whole "we could horribly screw up without seeing it" arguement, but it doesn't mean its true. The only way we can find out is through a test. To quote Aerosmith (xD)- "You have to learn to crawl/before you learn to walk." More discussion will help, but the test is where it counts.

Well CaP and EVO are essentially the same thing, we're still Creating a Pokemon. Just EVO will have more rules and guidelines, we'll have to stay inside the lines of the original evolution. It will changes the other stages, but the first one is the one that needs the drastic change. The nomination, discussion, and poll results will greatly benefit the project. While it might just come down to argueing over Fetch'd and Camerupt again, we need to do some testing before the process is without its holes.

Which is what I've been saying forever.

 

[Solstice]

Actually there was almost no discussion in the formation of the process (not the beginning, after I dug the thread up). But yeah we would test it by continuing and MAYBE failing. I know I've been using the whole "we could horribly screw up without seeing it" arguement, but it doesn't mean its true. The only way we can find out is through a test. To quote Aerosmith (xD)- "You have to learn to crawl/before you learn to walk." More discussion will help, but the test is where it counts.



Which is what I've been saying forever.

Yes, and I heartedly agree. This is my first CaP experience, but I did some research, and the others were so much more organized it went smoothly. While CAP1 and 2 were rough, this is a different element and once we decide the crucial aspect, which Pokemon to evolve, it will take the regular course that was taken before.

 

[ParadOxymoron]

while it might just come down to argueing over Fetch'd and Camerupt again, we need to do some testing before the process is without its holes.

But if we already know that this is a hole, (or at least, probably is - the way I interpret your argument is as saying, "holes are okay, so let's go through with this," which implies that the this is a hole,) then why don't we just fill it now?

 

[Solstice]

But if we already know that this is a hole, (or at least, probably is - the way I interpret your argument is as saying, "holes are okay, so let's go through with this," which implies that the this is a hole,) then why don't we just fill it now?

And how would you suggest going about filling the "this" hole? Im saying that holes in the systematic endeavor of CaP are inevitable, but it doesnt mean we should give up.

 

[tennisace]

But if we already know that this is a hole, (or at least, probably is - the way I interpret your argument is as saying, "holes are okay, so let's go through with this," which implies that the this is a hole,) then why don't we just fill it now?

Because there might be holes elsewhere, so why not find them all at once and fix them all at once?

 

[ParadOxymoron]

And how would you suggest going about filling the "this" hole? Im saying that holes in the systematic endeavor of CaP are inevitable, but it doesnt mean we should give up.

Because there might be holes elsewhere, so why not find them all at once and fix them all at once?

Okay so look.

holes = bad

going with Farfetch'd = probably more holes than going with Camerupt.

So you're in a truck! And ahead of you are several holes. Or rather, there are two paths you can take: one with a bunch of holes and potholes, and one that looks a bit smoother. Would you really take the nastier one just for the experience, if you knew it would lead to a less steamlined product by the day's end? Nah..

I'm just saying that by the end of the day, you guys are saying that a rough experience will teach us more. Which makes sense. But what I'm saying is, there's nothing the roughness will be able to teach us if we already know how to avoid the roughness, and all roughness would teach us anyway is how to avoid roughness later.

In short: If the goal is a smooth path, and we already know how to avoid the rough path, then the only reason to take the rough path would be to "smooth out," so to speak, the future roughness of the paths ... but that's silly if that's the decision we're making in the first place!!

 

[tennisace]

Okay so look.

holes = bad

going with Farfetch'd = probably more holes than going with Camerupt.

So you're in a truck! And ahead of you are several holes. Or rather, there are two paths you can take: one with a bunch of holes and potholes, and one that looks a bit smoother. Would you really take the nastier one just for the experience, if you knew it would lead to a less steamlined product by the day's end? Nah..

I'm just saying that by the end of the day, you guys are saying that a rough experience will teach us more. Which makes sense. But what I'm saying is, there's nothing the roughness will be able to teach us if we already know how to avoid the roughness, and all roughness would teach us anyway is how to avoid roughness later.

In short: If the goal is a smooth path, and we already know how to avoid the rough path, then the only reason to take the rough path would be to "smooth out," so to speak, the future roughness of the paths ... but that's silly if that's the decision we're making in the first place!!

Actually its more like you're in a truck and you see two paths. However its foggy, so you don't know how many holes are in each path.

This isn't about Farfetch'd/Camerupt anymore. This is about learning from our mistakes so we don't repeat them.

 

[Lawman]

What you are proposing would better suit CAP.

Before you continue, you should ask yourself: Why are we evolving a pokemon in EVO rather than creating a new one with CAP? (No, really, you should give yourself an honest answer to that question.) You have to understand that evolving anything is going to be more limiting than just creating something from scratch, especially if we are trying to fill a competitive niche.

Of course it is, I won't deny it. But isn't that the point of EVO, improving what we have already?

Again, that analogy works for CAP, but not EVO.

It very well works with both, but truth be told, I found it slightly more applicable to EVO than CaP o.o

No, it's more like I want to build a house with Legos, but all I have are Tinker Toys and Lincoln Logs. Rather than deciding that I HAVE to build with Legos off the bat, I should look at my choice of materials, pick the one that looks like it'd be most fun to use, and do the best I can with those materials. I can't decide how best to use those materials until AFTER I have chosen which materials I am going to work with in the first place. And, if I really wanted to work with Legos, I should have just bought my own bucket of Legos in the first place rather than work with what I had.

But its not about legos being just preferred. The style of house you are trying to build is best built with legos, but you don't have any. If you already had legos, there would be no trouble. However, what you fail to see past your own little paradigm. Of course you go and buy legos, or you can work with what you have and improve what you have. You may think CaP is better, but EVO is essentially providing that other option for improving the metagame. Why limit ourselves to one option when several can get us to the same place but in a different fashion, especially when which is "better" isn't extremely relevant.

Or something.

Likewise

See, here's the fundamental difference between CAP and EVO: We are evolving pokemon that already exist, pokemon that already have gameplay types and niches and roles (just ones not relevant to the OU metagame). We can't just pick a concept or role and shoehorn an existing pokemon to fill it. Why force a square peg into a round hole when we have a separate means of carving a round peg (CAP)?

Why carve a new peg when you can slightly carve what you have?

In EVO, the pokemon should be chosen first. Then we clearly define its current role, and how we are going to adapt that role to the metagame.

Current role is indeed important, but not until we figure out what can potentially fulfill a new role and easily transition from a similar or even undefined role. You are saying that we should figure out how a pokemon can improve the metagame, while I am proposing finding what needs improvement first then figuring out which pokemon can best do so. In other words, you propose "What problem can this tool fix?" And I propose "Which tool can solve the most important problem?"

tl;dr This is EVO. Ya work with what ya got, and not force it when it ain't fitting. :P

We aren't forcing it, we are figuring out what mold it can be to better fit, and reshape it from there, rather than making a new piece and not making use of old ones.

 

[ParadOxymoron]

Actually its more like you're in a truck and you see two paths. However its foggy, so you don't know how many holes are in each path.

This isn't about Farfetch'd/Camerupt anymore. This is about learning from our mistakes so we don't repeat them.

but ... okay. I just feel like the argument is that? you shouldn't make mistakes on purpose just so that you can learn from them.

If we start over, would it really be so bad to let the community ... revote? How fair is that?

 

[billymills]

You will never run out of holes, what the main problem now is how we should deal with current problems.

 

[Lawman]

but ... okay. I just feel like the argument is that? you shouldn't make mistakes on purpose just so that you can learn from them.

If we start over, would it really be so bad to let the community ... revote? How fair is that?

Wholeheartedly agreed. If early on in an exam you realize you made a mistake on the first question, which lead your first few answers to be wrong as well, do you ignore the mistake and put it off until you are running out of time, or correct it when there is plenty of time left?

Same here. Its the first EVO, and we made a mistake right at the start. Why wait until its over to figure out how to prevent it when it can be remedied right now?

EDIT: Oh, and tennisace, going along with the two roads analogy, this situation is like knowing one foggy road will have bumps, and the other road having less, not neccessarily meaning the less bumpy road will be considerably less bumpier or have no bumps for that matter.

 

[zfs]

How about this analogy:

If a path splits into two, and one side looks clear, but the other has a fallen redwood tree blocking it, which one will you take?

Sure, the "clear" path might end up being more dangerous in the end, but does it really matter at that point in time? No, you avoid the obvious danger.