Other EVO Process Workshop III

[hydrolphin]

With concept first things will go like this:
poll 1:concept poll-> fanboy sees lots of words, this bores him and he ignores the topic
poll 2:pokemon poll-> fanboy scans the list of pokemon the TL made and picks his favorite pokemon from the list without even reading what the concept is and votes for it.

In my format, fanboy-ish pokemon are eliminated in the discussion. If all the pokemon in the poll are viable, then it shouldn't be an issue.

Doing them together will go like this:
Poll 1: concept + pokemon poll-> fanboy scans list and sees his favorite listed multiple times, he is now forced to read the concepts and decide which is better before voting, the fanboys who don't read have their votes split amongst concepts and their favorites lose the poll.

But we still might end up with a really sucky thing to EVO. What if there was only one submission with Farfetch'd. They all flock to it. What if we choose something when there is better stuff to work with.
My example with Dodrio and Farfetch'd shows that there is likely something better but not always the most poopular. In my format, badly explaind pokemon are eliminated all together.

 

[Icy Vegeta]

Well I 100% agree on doing Concept before Pokemon submission, so I'll re-work my process and factor in some chnages I see nescessary.

Here is pretty much a rough base of what I have in mind:

1. TL selection

2. Concept Submissions.

3. Pokémon/ evolution explanation (Pokémon must be relevent to the concept and fit it well.)

4. Pokémon niche selection
*4a. Typing Discussion

5. Ability Discussion/Vote

6. Stat Bias change/BST increase Discussion/Vote
*6a. Art submission thread opened

7. Movepool increase discussion/Vote
*7a. Art vote
**7b. Level-up move discussion/ Tutor(TM)/ New Move discussion (If necessary!)
***7c. Name Discussion

8. Sprite Submissions

*8a. Level-up move/ Tutor(TM)/ New Move Vote (If necessary!)
**8b. Name Vote

9. Sprite Vote

*9a. Pokédex discussion/Vote
**9b. Height/Weight Vote
***9c. Evolution method discussion Discussion/Vote

10. Finished Product, Final discussion

11. Implementation/Playtesting

 

[Objection]

a concept will not work just because we have declared it.

Agreed, but if you look at the process hydrolphin suggested, it's not just name and description as in CAP. It's name and sample pokemon, so the concept submitter has to ensure that there are a few pokemon that sort of fit the concept already. Yes, there are not infinite plausible concepts, nor are there infinite plausible concepts in CAP.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

In my format, fanboy-ish pokemon are eliminated in the discussion.

You're talking about during your Phase 2, correct? Then this should be a non-issue, since I'm assuming the TL would eliminate fanboyish submissions in the_arctic_one's proposal as well.

It works both ways.

If all the pokemon in the poll are viable, then it shouldn't be an issue.

Yes, it should.

By offering, say, five different pokemon under one umbrella concept, then an error has been made. The concept must have been too general to apply to that many different pokemon, and thus, it does not maximize any particular one's strengths. It may still be pretty good, but the pokemon will not reach its maximum potential had the concept been tailored to it and only it from the get-go.

I'd also like to point out how this began with just a Concept vote, but now incorporates five example pokemon. I believe this is going to show a natural progression to a "pokemon/concept" selection poll once we continue to reason this all out. Already, your proposal is basically the same as the_arctic_one's, just as a combination of five different submissions with the same concept.

EDIT: Also, don't forget the added bonus to the_arctic_one's -- it's faster. You get a more focused proposal in just one poll instead of two.

 

[Objection]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a concept supposed to be general? If a concept only applies to one or two pokemon, that suggests that it is too specific.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a concept supposed to be general?

In CAP, yes.

But we can only afford to be general in CAP because our pokemon selection process is as general as it can be -- we actually make up the pokemon.

In EVO, we don't. We're essentially "fixing" a gameplay role/niche to be relevant to the metagame. It doesn't serve well to be general when the focus is incredibly specific. We must tailor a concept to a particular pokemon.

Again, I suggest you take all of our previous CAP concepts and imagine how they would apply to EVO.

 

[hydrolphin]

You're talking about during your Phase 2, correct? Then this should be a non-issue, since I'm assuming the TL would eliminate fanboyish submissions in the_arctic_one's proposal as well.

But what if there is a good concept with a bad pokemon. Its possible, and in that format, people wouldn't vote for a concept just because they don't like the pokemon involved with it.

By offering, say, five different pokemon under one umbrella concept, then an error has been made. The concept must have been too general to apply to that many different pokemon, and thus, it does not maximize any particular one's strengths. It may still be pretty good, but the pokemon will not reach its maximum potential had the concept been tailored to it and only it from the get-go.

Concepts are always general things. And just because it isn't tailored to a pokemon at the begining doesn't mean it we can't make it work. We especially don't want the project to be decide before we begin.

I'd also like to point out how this began with just a Concept vote, but now incorporates five example pokemon. I believe this is going to show a natural progression to a "pokemon/concept" selection poll once we continue to reason this all out. Already, your proposal is basically the same as the_arctic_one's, just as a combination of five different submissions with the same concept.

But mine isn't limited to those five, let alone a single pokemon. The 5 example pokemon are just to show that its a broad enough concept to work with, not being limited to a single one.

EDIT: Also, don't forget the added bonus to the_arctic_one's -- it's faster. You get a more focused proposal in just one poll instead of two.

Because EVO needs to be faster... This entire process is going to be fast enough as is. Speed isn't an issue.

 

[Deck Knight]

EVO cannot work like that. The pool of applicable pokemon is already established for us -- a concept will not work just because we have declared it. By your logic, every imaginable concept would be viable with our limited pool of candidates. Therefore, by [some sort of] transitive property, it would be as if suggesting that the pool of EVO candidates was equal in every way to the (near infinite) pool of CAP candidate, which would be rather demeaning to the whole idea of CAP, I think... (Err, not sure if I communicated that right, I can explain it more in-depth if I didn't...)

That is fallacious reasoning. The reason for selecting a pokemon after the concept is because not every pokemon can evolve into every concept.

To be honest, looking over this topic the hatred for fanboys is palpable. The idea that we somehow do better by pitting Camerupt against Farfectch'd against Golduck rather than Burn/Para eating Anti-Threat vs. Ultimate Baton Passer vs. Weather Ignoring Stat-Up, simply because "fanboys get dispersed ftw!" is ridiculous. The fanboy option still wins once you get beyond the first poll, they simply coalesce around their second favorite.

Point is, choosing the concept first and pokemon second is just shoehorning. I challenge you to apply the Mold Breaker concept to EVO and see what would happen. Would the result be superior to Stratagem?

Persian as special attacking Technician user. Heck, Persian even has a sleep move, U-Turn, Nasty Plot, Taunt, and Fake Out.

You can argue whether it would be superior, but it already has a leg up, and a useful secondary option of paralysis immunity.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

But what if there is a good concept with a bad pokemon. Its possible, and in that format, people wouldn't vote for a concept just because they don't like the pokemon involved with it.

The concept should be good because of the pokemon it is associated with. It should work because it takes advantage of that particular pokemon's strengths and niche. If the submission is good, one shouldn't be able to separate the two without it lacking something or needing to be revised. If you don't like one, you shouldn't like the other.

I'm... not sure I get what you're saying, though. I think I'm reading it wrong...

Concepts are always general things. And just because it isn't tailored to a pokemon at the begining doesn't mean it we can't make it work. We especially don't want the project to be decide before we begin.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work, just that it'd be a lesser project.

Also, most of the project has already been decided for us, as we are evolving a previously established pokemon. Again, we need to think of this as EVO, not CAP.

That is fallacious reasoning. The reason for selecting a pokemon after the concept is because not every pokemon can evolve into every concept.

Err, I think you must have misunderstood...

By allowing any conceivable concept to be submitted, then one is suggesting that any conceivable concept could be implemented with our pool of potential pokemon (the list tennisace developed). In other words, you give me ANY concept, and I should be able to find an adequate candidate that would fit it perfectly. I don't think this is possible in EVO, nor do I think that should be the goal of EVO.

I'm not saying that every pokemon should be able to evolve into every concept. I'm saying that, by the logic established by this proposed selection process, for any conceivable concept, there is at least one pokemon among our pool of potential candidates that could be perfectly evolved to fit that role.

I don't think that's possible. I believe only CAP could do that.

(I hope that clarified that particular statement...?)

To be honest, looking over this topic the hatred for fanboys is palpable. The idea that we somehow do better by pitting Camerupt against Farfectch'd against Golduck rather than Burn/Para eating Anti-Threat vs. Ultimate Baton Passer vs. Weather Ignoring Stat-Up, simply because "fanboys get dispersed ftw!" is ridiculous.

That's only an added bonus. (Plus, the fact that a lot of people seem to treat the_arctic_one's proposal as if it's the only one susceptible to fanboys prompts me to point out that this is far from the truth.)

As I mentioned before, I also think tying the concept and pokemon together result in a better product. It's not just the fanboys.

Persian as special attacking Technician user.

I wasn't aware that a Normal Special Sweeper was breaking the mold... *Eyes Porygon-Z*

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure a fast, frail special Rock sweeper is pretty much the definition of a mold breaker, and it'd be hard to do anything close to it via an evolution.

 

[Deck Knight]

Err, I think you must have misunderstood...

By allowing any conceivable concept to be submitted, then one is suggesting that any conceivable concept could be implemented with our pool of potential pokemon (the list tennisace developed). In other words, you give me ANY concept, and I should be able to find an adequate candidate that would fit it perfectly. I don't think this is possible in EVO, nor do I think that should be the goal of EVO.

There are enough concepts where any conceivable evolvable pokemon could meet them. If people can't see it going forward, they probably won't support it. Take Magmortified's "Partner in Crime" concept. Plenty of pokemon could do that. Some are already "paired" as it were.

I'm not saying that every pokemon should be able to evolve into every concept. I'm saying that, by the logic established by this proposed selection process, for any conceivable concept, there is at least one pokemon among our pool of potential candidates that could be perfectly evolved to fit that role.

I don't think that's possible. I believe only CAP could do that.

I disagree. Short of some ridiculous, inapplicable concept like "break the mold," [Evolutions are about perfecting a mold, not breaking one] EVO should be able to perform admirably.

That's only an added bonus. (Plus, the fact that a lot of people seem to treat the_arctic_one's proposal as if it's the only one susceptible to fanboys prompts me to point out that this is far from the truth.)

As I mentioned before, I also think tying the concept and pokemon together result in a better product. It's not just the fanboys.

The_artic_one's is merely the most susceptible process to hijacking. I don't think anyone has suggested a fanboy-proof process. It's an impossibility.

I wasn't aware that a Normal Special Sweeper was breaking the mold... *Eyes Porygon-Z*

Omastar. That rock special sweeping thing was so novel, its only been around since RBY. Quite frankly you chose the most implausible EVO concept that could possibly be produced. The fact a pokemon evolves rather implies that its concept already exists.

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure a fast, frail special Rock sweeper is pretty much the definition of a mold breaker, and it'd be hard to do anything close to it via an evolution.

Stratagem is far from "frail" It's defenses are better than many of the bog standard special sweepers of OU, and it has Sandstorm SDef boost. Frail it ain't, average more like.

Furthermore: Lunatone evolution. Easily developed into a fast, frail rock special sweeper. Go figure, it's possible. And don't BS me with "but it's part Psychic, Psychic special sweepers blah blah." Rock/Psychic frail special sweeper would still be novel.

 

[gorm]

In other words, you give me ANY concept, and I should be able to find an adequate candidate that would fit it perfectly. I don't think this is possible in EVO, nor do I think that should be the goal of EVO.

yeah i agree 100%. the advantage of evo is in its refinement. picking an arbitrary concept and tacking on some pokemon to evolve and fit it is not only no different form CAP, it makes the project out to be a "more flavorful cap".

with concept followed by pokemon we have a more open project that can be "completely metagame oriented" but tacking on a pokemon to fit the concept seems counterintuitive when we could simply focus on an individual pokemons stregnths (i.e. focus EVO on an evolution and not a concept)

with pokemon followed by concept/pokemon+niche to improve on we are at least focusing on the strength of the evo project (the possibiity of refinement) imo.

Furthermore: Lunatone evolution. Easily developed into a fast, frail rock special sweeper. Go figure, it's possible.

this is kind of out there, i feel that we'd have to develop something that would restrict the stat biases of evolutions based on their previous iteration or else the whole thing is completely arbitrary =\

 

[Deck Knight]

yeah i agree 100%. the advantage of evo is in its refinement. picking an arbitrary concept and tacking on some pokemon to evolve and fit it is not only no different form CAP, it makes the project out to be a "more flavorful cap".

with concept followed by pokemon we have a more open project that can be "completely metagame oriented" but tacking on a pokemon to fit the concept seems counterintuitive when we could simply focus on an individual pokemons stregnths (i.e. focus EVO on an evolution and not a concept)

with pokemon followed by concept/pokemon+niche to improve on we are at least focusing on the strength of the evo project (the possibiity of refinement) imo.

You seem to have this fanciful idea that choosing a pokemon after the concept is "tacking on" rather than debating the merits of each viable candidate.

You are basically arguing "Camerupt ftw!" produces a better product than Para/Burn eating Anti-Threat + Discussion of possibilities does.

That is why I liked hydrolphin's sampling idea. It allows specific pokemon to be named as a confirmation the concept is well-thought out but not restricted to a single pokemon the proposer has in mind.

I do not believe we should tie a concept to a single pokemon in the first stage. That invites hijacking.

this is kind of out there, i feel that we'd have to develop something that would restrict the stat biases of evolutions based on their previous iteration or else the whole thing is completely arbitrary =\

X-Act has an entire topic dedicated to entertaining such proposals separate from this one.

 

[gorm]

You are basically arguing "Camerupt ftw!" produces a better product than Para/Burn eating Anti-Threat + Discussion of possibilities does.

yeah, i am, because for me "let's do camerupt" doesn't imply "he is cute :3", it already implies para/burn eating anti threat that could be useful itm. the niche has to be inherent to the pokemon, with as many pokemon+niche submissions as are deemed valid by whatever evolution parameters we set.

I agree with maximizing viable candidates though. i.e. two people could submit an alternate houndoom evolution à la:
"mixed flash fire anti-metagame threat evolution", followed by "special based glass cannon evolution"
camerupt would most likely be presented as "mixed tank/utility" given that his stat bias is reasonably well defined (high offense) but others (lunatone for example!) are slightly more ambiguous.

I am against concept followed by pokemon because i believe as long as we define the goal of the evolution well from the outset of the project (given reasonable bounds set on these goals) we can achieve something different than what cap does with simple concept submissions. I think evo should be focused on the evolving pokemon and refining it, not a concept and finding a pokemon to fit it.

I do not believe we should tie a concept to a single pokemon in the first stage. That invites hijacking.

then we get a strict TL and set strict parameters and pass only pokemon+niche submissions that make sense ?_?;

 

[User 12783]

I do not agree with your points Deck Knight. All you are really saying is that gorm had a previous proposal which had stopped the other EVO project from continuing, and you are just plainly being a jerk about it. His insight helped us, since even the TL at the time had said he had issues with the project, you are not taking the time to actually read his proposal right now and disregarding almost everything he says, your only real issue with him was the Camerupt thing, which he had a solid basis to do. Of course he is fighting for his previous concept but that doesn't mean it is the only one people will vote for. You are basically using circular reasoning basing an argument around the fact that gorm should not belong in this workshop because of what he did, you fail to see the point that he actually has great reasoning.

At this point I'm going with gorm's suggestions and the_arctic_one's proposal. To prevent fanboys we can just have a very strict Topic Leader like darkie was. Fanboys can just vote for the Pokemon they like but what are the chances of them making through the Concept Discussion to the Pokemon Poll? Not very likely, for in this project you will have to provide more and more insight then a CAP project. The concepts will have to be almost the level at which gorm endorsed Camerupt to be in a great standing, gorm just made the bar higher, which is what we need don't we? If you can't do that, then how do we know we should vote for that concept?

 

[Objection]

yeah, i am, because for me "let's do camerupt" doesn't imply "he is cute :3", it already implies para/burn eating anti threat that could be useful itm.

Then say "Let's make a Camerupt EVO because he already has the typing to be a para/burn-eating anti-threat and just needs a few tweaks in his stats and/or movepool." Don't just say "Let's do Camerupt." because by asking us to use a specific pokemon, you are trying to argue something, and an argument needs reasons to support it. For all I know, if you just said "Let's do Camerupt." I would think you were just another fanboy.

 

[ferron]

the mood in here is just starting to get a little tense, so could a mod seriously just start a vote on if we should do concept or poke-niche first? all the reasons for doing it one way or another have already been used up and are being regurgitated now. if i can just be put to a vote, we can move on to making the last few changes to the process.

 

[Deck Knight]

I do not agree with your points Deck Knight. All you are really saying is that gorm had a previous proposal which had stopped the other EVO project from continuing, and you are just plainly being a jerk about it. His insight helped us, since even the TL at the time had said he had issues with the project, you are not taking the time to actually read his proposal right now and disregarding almost everything he says, your only real issue with him was the Camerupt thing, which he had a solid basis to do. Of course he is fighting for his previous concept but that doesn't mean it is the only one people will vote for. You are basically using circular reasoning basing an argument around the fact that gorm should not belong in this workshop because of what he did, you fail to see the point that he actually has great reasoning.

Where the hell did this come from? I've alleged no such thing, nor did I say gorm doesn't belong here or his contributions are not valuable, nor do I particularly care if, weeks from now if EVO is kicked off, a Camerupt based concept wins. I don't have a grudge against gorm or Camerupt, and don't appreciate your attempt at amateur mind reading.

At this point I'm going with gorm's suggestions and the_arctic_one's proposal. To prevent fanboys we can just have a very strict Topic Leader like darkie was. Fanboys can just vote for the Pokemon they like but what are the chances of them making through the Concept Discussion to the Pokemon Poll? Not very likely, for in this project you will have to provide more and more insight then a CAP project. The concepts will have to be almost the level at which gorm endorsed Camerupt to be in a great standing, gorm just made the bar higher, which is what we need don't we? If you can't do that, then how do we know we should vote for that concept?

Essentially what I currently support is gorm's idea with the caveat that it not necessarily lock us into a single pokemon. I want to integrate the_artic_one's idea with the sampling so that we can discuss exactly why this one pokemon best fulfills the concept. I do not think the minor delay will cause EVO to derail. It will probably be a mere formality. Given what happened last time with Farfetch'd however, I want a stoppage point to assess the efficacy of the selected pokemon for the concept.

Other people disagree, and I'm fine with that.

 

[gorm]

let's make sure we dont get too off topic with camerupt, he happens to be imo one of the most interesting candidates but that's not what this thread is about. in the meantime;

Then say "Let's make a Camerupt EVO because he already has the typing to be a para/burn-eating anti-threat and just needs a few tweaks in his stats and/or movepool." Don't just say "Let's do Camerupt."

yes, i would flesh out the implications of a camerupt evolution's potential if i was actually officially submitting. i was responding to dk saying i was saying "camerupt ftw". so yeah "camerupt ftw because (...)" as you said is an appropriate submission imo

I want to integrate the_artic_one's idea with the sampling so that we can discuss exactly why this one pokemon best fulfills the concept.

and i think that we're basically arguing for the same thing; under my reasoning many people can submit similar niches with different pokes along with reasons why the selected pokemon would best fill that niche.

I'm not wholly opposed to "sampling+concept" but it seems to bring the project too close to CAP for my comfort. i really think we should focus on existing niches as opposed to new concepts.

 

[Yllnath]

Really, this is so much theory that it doesn't even make sense. Did any of the sides even think out how it would play out when the first thread was started and what would happen?

What I think will happen the moment the first thread starts based on Gorms/artic_one's idea:
First person comes in: My pokemon X + concept 1 it will fulfil.
First person comes in: My pokemon X + concept 2 it will fulfil.
Second person comes in: My pokemon X + concept 1 it will fulfil.
Second person comes in: My pokemon X + concept 2 it will fulfil.
You can say all you want about having a good TL, but I don't care how you say it or what you say, but if we do pokemon first, even if it's pokemon + concept, we will have a huge amount of submissions. Now not only does the TL (and all members that want to seriously judge all concepts) have to go through all of them to scrap those that will not work, we might also end up with a lot of pokemon remaining. Because seriously, what defines a good pokemon/concept combo and what doesn't? Any pokemon that is viable to be evolved and has decent speed and SpA with a few special based moves could be called a special sweeper. This IS not a faulty concept and thus should not be deleted. You could say this for most of the submitted pokemon. Anyone that can use it's brain can submit something that will not be deleted.
So after a TL spent countless of hours, while still leaving countless of pokemon/concepts combos, then what?
And this is my most important question for this path: On what basis from here on out will be decided which pokemon is going to be involved?
Because let's just say we have a list of 20 pokemon left (and I think there are going to be waaaay more), and quite a few also have more than one concept, will we chose by pokemon or by concept? Or by having people giving a reasoning for their pokemon+concept combo as to why that would work best? All 20+ of them? And now let's just say we did work it out by pokemon+concept, going all the way down to 3 options because the other options all were less good than these 3. We could very well have 3 completely different pokemon left and 3 complete different concepts for them to fill. Now what would decide which pokemon is chosen?
And now my 2nd important question: Even if we have these 3 pokemon left, what would prevent us from chosing one only because we want that certain pokemon while there might be another pokemon that better suits the concept tied to that specific pokemon?
Let me illustrate with an example. Let's say that of the 3 concepts that passes, pokemon a, b and c were chosen with concept d, e and f respectively. Now let's say that pokemon a would be the most popular, both on pokemon and on concept. But what if pokemon g, not even submitted in all of the submission because we totally forgot about him outclasses a by far in the concept we tied to him? Or the other way around. What if we chose a with concept d while concept x would be a far better choice for that pokemon? Would pokemon a + concept d still win because we just like to see that pokemon being involved into that certain concept?

Now onto the concept first option, proposed by Hydrolphin:
In contrast to the previous option, when the first thread is opened, it wouldn't be a mess. I assume that once a concept is submitted, anyone else doesn't have to submit the same concept. The way I read it, the only reason why you have to write down names of pokes is to show that the concept is viable enough for a larger range of pokemon. The list does not mean that it's restricted to only that list. I assume that once a concept is chosed, we start brainstorming about a list of all pokemon that fit well in the concept and then followed by eliminating the ones that least fit the concept. This would be a lot more orderly than the first option.
My first issue though: Going by concept means that there will always be certain pokemon who fall decently in any concept and thus will not fall in any concept at all when the concept described is too specific. Yet, when the concept is too broad, we don't have anything to work on, because a lot of pokemon could viably fit that broad concept, so how would we then continue to eliminate the list of pokemon in that concept?
My second problem is also closely tied to this: What if we have a semi-strict to very specific concept and choose a pokemon to work with for that specific concept, when the pokemon chosed could viably also perform other roles/niches/concepts? Would that not just be screwing the potential of that pokemon over?
Let me illustrate:
Concept 1: Special sweeper with good movepool and a way to boost SpA. Found pokemon: 3. Of these pokemon, all 3 could possibly also fulfil another role/niche/concept just as well, if not better. (just all examples). This concept is too strict because we are basically screwing over the 3 pokes in this concept, because even though we want a special sweeper with a good special movepool and a way to boost SpA, if we would continue to evolve either of these 3 pokemon to make a special sweeper while not working on his other aspects in which that pokemon excels is wasting resources in my opinion.
So we broaden the concept: We want a special sweeper, period. We now have a (much) larger list, and in the end we might still be screwing over any of the pokes we choose because of other roles it might be able to perform besides a special sweeper. And the much larger list means it's also getting more work and less orderly.
Broaden the concept even further, by saying "we want a pokemon to evolve that can do things" (bullshit concept ofcourse, but just for the sake of the argument), we basically just went into the territory that this concept is even far worse than just picking any pokemon blindfolded first and gorms/artic_one's idea would work waaay better than that. Even though we now have the freedom to fully utilize any niche a pokemon can perform (omastar for one can become a good special sweeper, yet also has very good potential to be a spiker. By not fully focusing on the special sweeper part in the following process, we might decide to give him more bulk instead of more speed and SpA so that he could viably perform both roles well instead of just the sweeper role.), we now have a list of basically every pokemon to work from.



To be honest, after some thought, I decided to propose a third option for the entire process, actually combining the two (but still keeping the concept first).

Stage 1: See Hydrolphins post. Basically a pretty specific concept and have people list a few pokemon to illustrate that the concept is indeed viable.
Stage 2: Pokemon + Niches (Note: not concepts, but niches the pokemon could viably fulfil).
Some clarification:
Let's say we still chose "Special attacker + movepool + CM/Etc." as a concept: Let's say we also chose Espeon (screw the fact of him being an Eeveelution), Omastar and Persian. (just examples).
We now discuss the niches in which they can perform:
If we choose to evolve Espeon, we should keep in mind that it can: Baton Pass CM and Wish, it could viably become a sweeper, it could etc.
If we choose to evolve Omastar, we should keep in mind that it can: Be a spiker and offer team support, it could viably become a sweeper, it could etc.
If we choose to evolve Persian, we should keep in mind that it can: Be a lead with Technician/STAB boosted Fake Out and Hypnosis, it could viably become a sweeper, it could etc.
We choose a pokemon and while still keeping in mind that when evolving the thing, we want to emphasize the fact that we want a special sweeper, in the following stages, we should also keep it's niches in mind.

Stage 3 and on, see either Hydrolphins or Gorms/the_artic_one's posts, since I believe that everyone is quite on the same page on what steps should follow.

Basically after stage 2, the entire concept assesment to work from is Concept to fulfill + pokemon to evolve into that role + other niches to be aware of and possibly work on expanding as well.
I still say that concept should come first for the very simple fact of guidance, reducing a load of submissions and making people think of more than one pokemon if they want to see their pokemon evolved into a certain concept.

Anyway, even if this third option should suck for everyone, if you still can't answer the bold questions in this post, then how do you think your proposed process could work. So I encourage both sides to at least think of what kind of outcomes/consequences your process options have, because both have things that will cause problems and if those can not be worked out, we should at least chose the lesser of the two evils.

 

[the_artic_one]

Yllnath, I think I need to clarify that there would be a limit of one pokemon+concept submission per user. With that limit, I don't think it would be too much worse than the CAP concept submission thread, look at the current one, we already have three pages of ideas and that's not counting the duplicates/invalids that were deleted earlier. That's around 70 concepts in two days. If it really turns out that the number of EVO submissions is overwhelming, then the TL can choose to close the topic early. Concepts that don't make it in time can be saved for the next EVO (assuming there is one).

 

[Yllnath]

Even if it were only 70 submission, it will only take one of the issues away, namely the initial chaos. The others possible issues still stand.

 

[beej]

I've been reading through this, and I fully support having the Concept Selection and then the Pokemon Selection. It has many benefits over picking our Pokemon first or picking the Pokemon and the concept at the same time. When there's nothing to base the Pokemon decision on, it is fully open to fanboyism and bandwagoning for destructive reasons. For those of you that say "we'll have a strong TL", darkie has proven himself to be quite able in that area with his excellent handling of CAP6 and yet Farfetch'd was chosen for reasons that most would agree are absurd. I think that CAP6 clearly showed us a serious flaw in selecting the Pokemon first, all following conflicts aside. Depending on what we pick, we will either be faced with a Magikarp -> Gyarados evolution type (massive overhaul), which is essentially a CAP with flavor restrictions, or we will be faced with a Dusclops -> Dusknoir evolution type (a simple enhancement), which is an arbitrary project that has little benefits other than giving power to a Pokemon that's been shafted by GameFreak.

On the other hand, selecting our concept first and then the Pokemon to evolve allows us to come up with an idea of what exactly we want our evolution's role to be in OU before anything else, and so we remained focused throughout the project. Our product Pokemon will have unknown affects on the metagame (as in, there is a learning experience) and the community will be selecting the base Pokemon that best fits our concept, hence we will not be making another CAP and it won't necessarily be a Farfetch'd or a Magikarp.

Now that I've expressed many of the pros for this system, I would like to discuss some of the possible cons that have been brought up.

Going by concept means that there will always be certain pokemon who fall decently in any concept and thus will not fall in any concept at all when the concept described is too specific. Yet, when the concept is too broad, we don't have anything to work on, because a lot of pokemon could viably fit that broad concept, so how would we then continue to eliminate the list of pokemon in that concept?

This is a legitimate concern and I can see where it comes from. However, I do not think it is without a simple solution. For example, we could add a part to the concept submission form where the person submitting said concept discusses possible Pokemon to be evolved provided it gets picked. This allows the community the freedom to overturn the logic of the person submitting the project later if they believe there is a better option, yet it helps to ensure that we aren't going to be stuck with a concept that has no suitable candidates other than Pokemon that will have to be competely revamped, such as Farfetch'd.

I would appreciate feedback on this idea.

What if we have a semi-strict to very specific concept and choose a pokemon to work with for that specific concept, when the pokemon chosed could viably also perform other roles/niches/concepts? Would that not just be screwing the potential of that pokemon over?

I honestly do not agree with this concern. I could care less if we end up "screwing over" Pokemon because they could've been evolved for other purposes. There are hundreds of Pokemon that are viable for evolutions, and there is no feasible reason to believe that we're going to run out with suitable candidates for our concepts. Whether or not a Pokemon could've been doing something else just as well is irrelevant, as we can easily find something else for the job and the Pokemon that is being "screwed over" is being put to good use, is it not?

I would also like to note that just as GameFreak has done in the past, we also have the potential ability to come up with branching evolutions, such as Kirlia -> Gardevoir and Gallade, so if we were to end up in a situation where we didn't want to waste anymore potential of a Pokemon that we had already evolved, we are fully capable of using that potential by evolving it a second time.

I am against concept followed by pokemon because i believe as long as we define the goal of the evolution well from the outset of the project (given reasonable bounds set on these goals) we can achieve something different than what cap does with simple concept submissions. I think evo should be focused on the evolving pokemon and refining it, not a concept and finding a pokemon to fit it.

I really do not see the value in refining existing Pokemon and simply making them better at what they already do. GameFreak has been softly mocked for evolving Dusclops into Dusknoir and Rhydon into Rhyperior because they seem to fit the exact same niches that they already occupied; they're just better at their jobs. I believe that Concept Submission -> Pokemon Submission is the only way to find a middle ground between massive overhaul evolution (a flavorful CAP) and a slight enhancement evolution (not productive).

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

To be honest, the best approach to EVO from a game designer's perspective is to select the pokemon first, and then define a proper concept or niche afterwards. Unfortunately, I'm afraid too many people in the community are under the impression that the last attempt at EVO failed because the pokemon was chosen first, and not due to the lack of a concept discussion afterwards. That's why I support the_arctic_one's proposal, because it's the closest I think we're going to get to that.

But now, I think, there's such a backlash to the previous EVO attempt that many feel it would be safer to simply apply what works in CAP to EVO, without realizing the two are completely different approaches to metagame balancing and expansion.

In any other game, the gameplay mechanic to be addressed is chosen first, with suitable concepts and niches developed afterwards. Not the other way around.

Hell, take one of my other favorite games, Team Fortress 2 (which is getting updates both this week and next...!). Valve didn't develop a concept first, and then try to shoehorn it into one of the classes. Instead, they pick whichever class they want to update, and then design new weapons and gameplay mechanics with that particular class in mind. I'm sure if they developed a brand new concept, it'd probably be applied to some potential 10th class in the future.

------

On the other hand, selecting our concept first and then the Pokemon to evolve allows us to come up with an idea of what exactly we want our evolution's role to be in OU before anything else, and so we remained focused throughout the project. Our product Pokemon will have unknown affects on the metagame (as in, there is a learning experience) and the community will be selecting the base Pokemon that best fits our concept, hence we will not be making another CAP and it won't necessarily be a Farfetch'd or a Magikarp.

Beej, I think you want this to be CAP, not EVO. I won't reiterate my previous points.

However, if you want a learning experience, why make it the exact same as CAP's? Is there nothing else we can learn about the metagame other than implementing "unknown effects", ala CAP? I know you probably didn't read my post in the other thread, but if you look at this from the right perspective, there is plenty to be learned from analyzing and revising broken gameplay mechanics.

Really, everything I read in your post made me think, "Why even have EVO?" Everything you mentioned would have been better in CAP. Just even this -

There are hundreds of Pokemon that are viable for evolutions, and there is no feasible reason to believe that we're going to run out with suitable candidates for our concepts.

- shows that you're not looking at this from the perspective of making individual pokemon and their respective gameplay mechanics competitively relevant, but rather treating them as empty "slots" with which we can fit in CAPs in disguise.

I really do not see the value in refining existing Pokemon and simply making them better at what they already do. GameFreak has been softly mocked for evolving Dusclops into Dusknoir and Rhydon into Rhyperior because they seem to fit the exact same niches that they already occupied; they're just better at their jobs.

First, you don't need to use examples from GameFreak. They're the ones that created the pokemon in need of evolutions in the first place, so obviously not all of their designs are completely adequate or worthwhile. (That said, it's not like those evolutions were exactly unwelcome...)

Second, it's not simply a matter of "buffing". You don't make them "better at what they already do". It's about identifying the core idea behind a pokemon, its unique spot in the fabric of the pokemon gameplay system, and making it relevant to the OU tier. Sometimes, this requires an expansion on base mechanics, or perhaps completely new ideas to prevent it from being redundant with the role another pokemon already fulfills.

I dunno. I think I've said most of what I was going to say. I guess I'm just afraid that EVO will be tossed to the side after just a run or two with people saying, "Yeah, I knew it'd just be a more limited CAP."

*Insert something about expectations becoming reality here.*

 

[beej]

I don't want to play quote ping pong, so I'll try to make this short and sweet.

Lofty, if you read the end of my post, I say this:

I believe that Concept Submission -> Pokemon Submission is the only way to find a middle ground between massive overhaul evolution (a flavorful CAP) and a slight enhancement evolution (not productive).

Honestly, this is my main concern here. I desperately want to make something NEW of this EVO project. One of the reasons why I had voted against it in the PRC vote was because I didn't think we were capable of it (I really don't want to discuss whether EVO has any merits at all, so I'm ending this here), but it's happening, and it should be worthwhile. Having it run smoothly is obviously an issue, but is it really productive if we have a system that spews out Pokemon that don't tell us anything new?

Quite simply, I am very afraid of EVO becoming nothing more than a "make things better" project. The idea, which you've stated here -

Second, it's not simply a matter of "buffing". You don't make them "better at what they already do". It's about identifying the core idea behind a pokemon, its unique spot in the fabric of the pokemon gameplay system, and making it relevant to the OU tier. Sometimes, this requires an expansion on base mechanics, or perhaps completely new ideas to prevent it from being redundant with the role another pokemon already fulfills.

- is that every Pokemon was made the way they were for a deep competitive reason, that there's a core idea behind every Pokemon GameFreak made and that they just failed to make it effective (and that this is where we come in with EVO to make it relevant to OU). Honestly, I think we're kidding ourselves when we say that we know why Pokemon x was created and what the idea behind it was. Obviously there are concepts behind the Pokemon that GameFreak makes, but they could very easily be some of the most childish concepts around, the kinds of things that would be deleted if they were posted in concept submission threads. We can't prove otherwise. We can't even prove that they know about the metagame we play in. Bottom line is, we can't ask the makers what they intended and anything we come up with is just speculation so trying to identify these core ideas is a futile effort.

Camerupt has the potential to be an anti-threat Pokemon if it is evolved, but the idea that this is what was intended and that this was the core idea behind it is silly on so many levels. No, the reason why it is being boasted as a potential anti-threat Pokemon is because it is very capable of becoming one if it's enhanced, as its type is very useful and its base stats facilitate the kinds of changes we would want to make. We are judging Camerupt to be a useful base to evolve, based on our concept of "anti-threat". I fail to see how having the Concept Selection before the Pokemon Selection is much different from this.

If I am misinterpreting you, please let me know because if I'm not, I don't understand what is going to be accomplished by EVO unless we are going to be learning something from the way our Pokemon perform in OU (which would require a concept or "core idea" that WE come up with).

 

[hydrolphin]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid too many people in the community are under the impression that the last attempt at EVO failed because the pokemon was chosen first, and not due to the lack of a concept discussion afterwards.

Discussions have no power over fanboys. They would have controled the project no matter what.
The last EVO failed due to a lack of set guidelines. No one realized that 50 or so people would actually be using these pokemon. If some sort of idea is set in stone first, at least you can pick out the fanboys and delete their posts.

But now, I think, there's such a backlash to the previous EVO attempt that many feel it would be safer to simply apply what works in CAP to EVO, without realizing the two are completely different approaches to metagame balancing and expansion.

My plan is nothing like CAP. The concept goes first as a safeguard so we don't get blindsighted by fanboys.

Second, it's not simply a matter of "buffing". You don't make them "better at what they already do". It's about identifying the core idea behind a pokemon, its unique spot in the fabric of the pokemon gameplay system, and making it relevant to the OU tier. Sometimes, this requires an expansion on base mechanics, or perhaps completely new ideas to prevent it from being redundant with the role another pokemon already fulfills.

What was Farfetch'd core idea? To suck? I doubt the core idea behind camerupt was to take status well, but it does anyway. And why lock ourselves into one pokemon. For the Baton Passer idea, lets say someone proposes Farfetch'd as a Baton Passing Bulky Sweeper. They give reasonable support, get to the first poll, and then it gets bandwagoned by fanboys. Next time we do EVO, someone proposes Drifblim in the same concept. This is obviously a better choice, seeing as the balloon already is a good baton passer, and is somewhat bulky. This won't win because we had just done a baton passer. Under my format, we wouldn't be locked into Farfetch'd and after a discussion, which would decide which pokemon go into the poll, he would be elimated by smart posts about why he shouldn't be included. Drifblim, along with Ariados, Hypno, and othe viable pokemon would advance.

I dunno. I think I've said most of what I was going to say. I guess I'm just afraid that EVO will be tossed to the side after just a run or two with people saying, "Yeah, I knew it'd just be a more limited CAP."

2 reasons why EVO won't be thrown aside:
1. We gain attention. The 20% of fanboys who actually test EVO will likely become more involved in CAP in general.
2. We mix it up a bit. CAP could get more boring if we don't change it a bit. EVO will be more challenging every time we do it.

EDIT: Yay 50 posts!