Oh, what I was stating/agreeing is that we can use that tool as a preliminary way to narrow it down. Pokemon like Clefable have amazing movepools and are obviously UU not NU. Those Pokemon are pretty obvious. So we can use the tool and hand pick some out, to make things faster.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Policy Review Evolution Project Rules Workshop
- Thread starter DougJustDoug
- Start date
- Status
stats aren't an accurate indecater of a nu-uu border line. Typing should go into it ,too. also usage might spike for some pokemon because some users will play nu again.
spinda you should maybe look at it's move pool for stats if we get an evo.
on that note movepool options might give some evos more usage than others
spinda you should maybe look at it's move pool for stats if we get an evo.
on that note movepool options might give some evos more usage than others
Mhm, exactly...X-Act. The ones we aren't sure about, we'd use the calculator. Those are rather obvious ones that any idiot can determine.
I'd be happy to help as well.
It's summer for me, so I have a bit of free time.
I'd love to do something to move this project along more.
It's summer for me, so I have a bit of free time.
I'd love to do something to move this project along more.
Even assuming we adopt Dougs previously mentioned idea for a starting point (and I think we should), we will have nothing more than a list of possible pokemon to evolve, and we still run into the problem of whether to choose the pokemon or the concept first.
There has been a lot of argument over which to start first, but honestly I don't see why we wouldn't want to do them both at the same time. Just have people submit their concept along with the pokemon they want it attached to, and then hold the usual votes to determine the winner. This way, all combinations of concepts and pokemon could be considered. The pokemon and concept chosen are both equally basic elements of this process, so I don't see how either one could be done before the other.
It has been suggested that we do not need a concept poll; however I disagree. It's fairly common for a pokemon's role to change from one evolution to the next, even if it is subtle. I think it would be a good to have an idea of what we are aiming for before we start throwing around stat and movepool ideas, because otherwise those discussions will be severely unfocused and would likely result in a lot of useless arguing (even as simple as "it should be more offensive, defensive, etc"). If we know what kind of pokemon we are going for it will limit the number of possible discussion topics, and make the whole thing go more smoothly overall. You can say that "the pokemon makes the evolution," but looking at things like Shellgon-->Salamence and even Murkrow-->Honchkrow, this definitely is not always the case.
There has been a lot of argument over which to start first, but honestly I don't see why we wouldn't want to do them both at the same time. Just have people submit their concept along with the pokemon they want it attached to, and then hold the usual votes to determine the winner. This way, all combinations of concepts and pokemon could be considered. The pokemon and concept chosen are both equally basic elements of this process, so I don't see how either one could be done before the other.
It has been suggested that we do not need a concept poll; however I disagree. It's fairly common for a pokemon's role to change from one evolution to the next, even if it is subtle. I think it would be a good to have an idea of what we are aiming for before we start throwing around stat and movepool ideas, because otherwise those discussions will be severely unfocused and would likely result in a lot of useless arguing (even as simple as "it should be more offensive, defensive, etc"). If we know what kind of pokemon we are going for it will limit the number of possible discussion topics, and make the whole thing go more smoothly overall. You can say that "the pokemon makes the evolution," but looking at things like Shellgon-->Salamence and even Murkrow-->Honchkrow, this definitely is not always the case.
There really is no "best way" to start it. What we should do is poll active members of the project (read: "leaders" of the project), and start there. If it doesn't work as we planned the first time, we'll try a different method. Its democratic, and fair.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have become a BIG FAN of having a Concept, as a result of CAP 4. I know the Concept Submission thread was a pain to live through, but the end result was well worth it. This latest CAP project has been far more focused than any other previous CAP project. It really has been a joy to discuss this creation within the bounds prescribed by the Concept.
I don't know if the Concept for an evolution is sufficiently defined by the pre-evo. If not, then we really need to add it to the process. I don't want to go back to completely unbounded CAP creation threads -- even on an evolution project.
I don't know if the Concept for an evolution is sufficiently defined by the pre-evo. If not, then we really need to add it to the process. I don't want to go back to completely unbounded CAP creation threads -- even on an evolution project.
The concept poll isn't the problem. The problem is random people registering and making rediculous concepts, or people posting a ton of them. If we more strictly regulate the concept thread, the process will be much smoother. Also sometimes, as with Spinda or Luvdisc, the concepts could go any way. However, pokemon like Farfetch'd or Bannette's concepts are much narrower. As a blanket thing, I think that we should do a concept anyways. This would also force us to pick a pokemon ahead of time, which I like. Just my two cents.
Bump approved by Doug. As he said in his reply PM:
The CaP Process, save a couple of points, is quite stable and smooth. As an added bonus, both of those "trouble spots" (Concept/Role and Movepool) can almost entirely be skipped with an Evo project. I'd like to put this rough draft of a Process guide up for debate:
- Pokemon to be given an evolution discussion
Topic Leader Nominations - Part 1 (Pokemon Poll)
Topic Leader Selection - Part 2 (Main Type Poll)
- Part 3 (Secondary Type Poll)
Stat Spread Submissions
Art Submissions - Part 4 (Style Bias Poll)
- Part 5 (Build Bias Poll)
- Part 6 (Stat Rating Poll)
- Part 7 (Stat Spread Poll)
- Part 8 (Art Poll)
- Part 9a (Ability Discussion)
Sprite Submissions - Part 9b (Ability Poll)
- Part 10a (Attack Moves Discussion)
- Part 10b (Attack Moves Poll)
Part 11a (Defense and Support Moves Discussion) - Part 11b (Defense and Support Moves Poll)
- Part 12 (Complete Movepool Poll)
Part 13a (Name Discussion) - Part 13b (Name Poll)
Part 14a (Pokedex Entry Discussion) - Part 14b (Pokedex Entry Poll)
Part 15 (Sprite Poll) - Server Implementation
Finalize Analysis
Misc (Pre-Evos, Height, Weight, etc.) - Playtesting
I hope the only options in the main typing poll are those of the pokemon chosen to evolve. Or we could end up with a pokemon that shares no common typing between the two.
Using an Aggron evolution as an example it should work like this imo:
Typing Poll
Will this pokemon have a new typing or retain its pre evolutions.
New Typing
Retain Original Typing
If New typing option wins:
Main typing Poll
Rock
Steel
Secondary typing Poll
All typings+No Extra typing
I still believe having an opening discussion and poll allowing anybody to discuss any pokemon is a bad idea. We will just get a lot of single pokemon votes for everyones favourite pokemon that doesn't belong in OU.
Using an Aggron evolution as an example it should work like this imo:
Typing Poll
Will this pokemon have a new typing or retain its pre evolutions.
New Typing
Retain Original Typing
If New typing option wins:
Main typing Poll
Rock
Steel
Secondary typing Poll
All typings+No Extra typing
I still believe having an opening discussion and poll allowing anybody to discuss any pokemon is a bad idea. We will just get a lot of single pokemon votes for everyones favourite pokemon that doesn't belong in OU.
Yep covered that.
I see what your saying. Thats a good idea actually.
It would be open discussion from a set list of Pokemon. That means: No OU/BL Pokemon will get evos. (Sorry Plus, no Breloom evo.) It would be by favorites, but controlled.
The evo process should be MUCH more compact than a regular CAP project.
Typing (Parts 2-3) should be collapsed into a single part. An Evo should always share the same main type as its pre-evo.
Stats (Parts 4-7) should be collapsed into two steps. I don't think we need to evaluate every possible build and style. Our evo's should be very similar to their pre-evo in style and build. Yes, we might do a "Gallade-style" evo, where the build and style changes, but it still has many similarities to Kirlia and Gardevoir. It's just a Physical Attacker instead of Special. But the rest of the bias is quite similar. I don't think we should even allow the possibility of a Gyarados or Milotic type of evolution. Those aren't really evolutions, they are completely different pokemon from their pre-evo's. If we want to completely re-invent a pokemon, then we need to make a new pokemon in a regular CAP project. I think the evo project should be constrained to extending an existing pokemon concept. Therefore, the bias and stat process can be condensed.
Movepool (Parts 10-11) should be a single discussion step. There's no reason to have so many discussions when the movepools should be very, very similar.
In general, the entire timeline and length of discussions should be reduced from a regular CAP. There is much less room for change on a Pre-Evo, therefore not as many possibilities need to be analyzed and debated.
Typing (Parts 2-3) should be collapsed into a single part. An Evo should always share the same main type as its pre-evo.
Stats (Parts 4-7) should be collapsed into two steps. I don't think we need to evaluate every possible build and style. Our evo's should be very similar to their pre-evo in style and build. Yes, we might do a "Gallade-style" evo, where the build and style changes, but it still has many similarities to Kirlia and Gardevoir. It's just a Physical Attacker instead of Special. But the rest of the bias is quite similar. I don't think we should even allow the possibility of a Gyarados or Milotic type of evolution. Those aren't really evolutions, they are completely different pokemon from their pre-evo's. If we want to completely re-invent a pokemon, then we need to make a new pokemon in a regular CAP project. I think the evo project should be constrained to extending an existing pokemon concept. Therefore, the bias and stat process can be condensed.
Movepool (Parts 10-11) should be a single discussion step. There's no reason to have so many discussions when the movepools should be very, very similar.
In general, the entire timeline and length of discussions should be reduced from a regular CAP. There is much less room for change on a Pre-Evo, therefore not as many possibilities need to be analyzed and debated.
So that leaves us with:
- Pokemon to be given an evolution discussion
Topic Leader Nominations - Part 1 (Pokemon Poll)
Topic Leader Selection - Part 2 (Type Poll)
Stat Spread Submissions
Art Submissions - Part 3 (Style/Build Bias Poll)
- Part 4 (Stat Rating Poll)
- Part 5 (Stat Spread Poll)
- Part 6 (Art Poll)
- Part 7a (Ability Discussion)
Sprite Submissions - Part 7b (Ability Poll)
- Part 8a (Movepool Discussion)
- Part 8b (Movepool Poll)
Part 9a (Name Discussion) - Part 9b (Name Poll)
Part 10a (Pokedex Entry Discussion) - Part 10b (Pokedex Entry Poll)
Part 11 (Sprite Poll) - Server Implementation
Finalize Analysis
Misc (Pre-Evos, Height, Weight, etc.) - Playtesting
Bumping my suggestion from earlier about picking a pokemon. A lot of people have agreed with this idea.
The thing that bothers me here is that the NU tier is not currently defined. I suppose we could use the 75% cutoff from the UU usage statistics if we wanted to.
Other than that concern, I support making "starting tier" the first poll.
Other than that concern, I support making "starting tier" the first poll.
Please do not let this workshop thread devolve into a spam-fest of posts for evo suggestions. This is not the time for it. Let's focus on coming up with a process for an evo project, not throw out every "cool idea" for an evo. I cleaned out the off-topic posts that were accumulating already.
Good point. So, adding the Different styles of evos in, we have:
1. Type of evolution Discussion
Topic Leader Nominations
2. Type of evolution Poll
Pokemon to be given an evolution discussion
Topic Leader Selection
3. Pokemon Poll
4. Type Poll
Stat Spread Submissions
Art Submissions
5. Style/Build Bias Poll
6. Stat Rating Poll
7. Stat Spread Poll
8. Art Poll
9a. Ability Discussion
Sprite Submissions
9b. Ability Poll
10a. Movepool Discussion
10b. Movepool Poll
11a. Name Discussion
11b. Name Poll
12a. Pokedex Entry Discussion
12b. Pokedex Entry Poll
13. Sprite Poll
14. Server Implementation
Finalize Analysis
Misc (Height, Weight, etc.)
Playtesting
I couldn't get the bullets to work but thats what it would look like.
1. Type of evolution Discussion
Topic Leader Nominations
2. Type of evolution Poll
Pokemon to be given an evolution discussion
Topic Leader Selection
3. Pokemon Poll
4. Type Poll
Stat Spread Submissions
Art Submissions
5. Style/Build Bias Poll
6. Stat Rating Poll
7. Stat Spread Poll
8. Art Poll
9a. Ability Discussion
Sprite Submissions
9b. Ability Poll
10a. Movepool Discussion
10b. Movepool Poll
11a. Name Discussion
11b. Name Poll
12a. Pokedex Entry Discussion
12b. Pokedex Entry Poll
13. Sprite Poll
14. Server Implementation
Finalize Analysis
Misc (Height, Weight, etc.)
Playtesting
I couldn't get the bullets to work but thats what it would look like.
- Status