Policy Review Mega Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

nyttyn

From Now On, We'll...
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
CAP X - Mega Evolution Type Discussion / Poll
CAP X - Mega Evolution Ability Discussion / Poll
CAP X - Mega Evolution Stats Discussion / Poll
CAP X - Mega Evolution Art / Sprite Discussion / Poll

And that's just the stuff to get it on the server. Never mind if we want to get into the weeds of whether the Mega should fulfill a different concept than the Base form. Not to mention this assumes we don't have a separate poll for a Mega Evolution being pursued itself, but lets assume it does, we're still looking at 10 polls here, OR trying to run concurrent Type / Ability / Stat / Art / Sprite threads.

It's really more like throwing a barrel full of enraged monkeys into the process than a wrench, per se.
Precisely, and that is why I take such offense to the repeated calling of calling it such things like a "wrench." Yes, it adds a LOT more work, I agree with this, but in and of itself, the only problem I can see is the added complexity. Many of which will likely go significantly faster if we keep a policy of "knowing what the mega evolution is going to do" in mind before we embark on the thing, and only perform it after we finish the main pokemon itself. Art/Sprite will probably run in the background for awhile as always until it's ready (and if we force mevo to be decided at the start of the project, we can make it a requirement for mevo mons to also have mevo art submitted.), Stats won't take too long since the role and base stats it's modified off of will already be defined, there are only truly so many viable abilities for mega evolution (all of which are relatively straightforward for their role with a few exceptions), and typing will...probably take the longest actually, but probably not too long either. Finally, the "different concept then base form" will, if we force Mega Evolution to tie in with the inital concept, never happen (aside from cases that are somewhat similiar like Scout that turns into Sweeper), on account of the fact that we're all sane people and would never allow a Mega Evolution to flat out change the concept midway through.

Again, aside from issues with time ,logistics, and increased complexity, I'm not seeing any real issues here. Yes, it's always a pain to increase these three factors, but to use logistics as a reasoning to simply ignore such a major game mechanic that is featured in the lion's share of XY competitive battling is, in my opinion, a very weak argument.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Precisely, and that is why I take such offense to the repeated calling of calling it such things like a "wrench." Yes, it adds a LOT more work, I agree with this, but in and of itself, the only problem I can see is the added complexity. Many of which will likely go significantly faster if we keep a policy of "knowing what the mega evolution is going to do" in mind before we embark on the thing, and only perform it after we finish the main pokemon itself. Art/Sprite will probably run in the background for awhile as always until it's ready (and if we force mevo to be decided at the start of the project, we can make it a requirement for mevo mons to also have mevo art submitted.), Stats won't take too long since the role and base stats it's modified off of will already be defined, there are only truly so many viable abilities for mega evolution (all of which are relatively straightforward for their role with a few exceptions), and typing will...probably take the longest actually, but probably not too long either. Finally, the "different concept then base form" will, if we force Mega Evolution to tie in with the inital concept, never happen (aside from cases that are somewhat similiar like Scout that turns into Sweeper), on account of the fact that we're all sane people and would never allow a Mega Evolution to flat out change the concept midway through.

Again, aside from issues with time ,logistics, and increased complexity, I'm not seeing any real issues here. Yes, it's always a pain to increase these three factors, but to use logistics as a reasoning to simply ignore such a major game mechanic that is featured in the lion's share of XY competitive battling is, in my opinion, a very weak argument.
This issue here is that you are flat out ignoring the biggest argument against mega's and basically saying "the problems aren't THAT bad. So, why not do it?" Honestly, the problems with time, logistics and complexity, while enough to probably say no on them alone, are not really the big issue. The issue is that we would be creating these problems by significantly altering our established and very well made process without a good reason. We didn't rewrite our process so that multitype or any other forme changing ability could be done, even if they could be great projects in theory, because of all the things we could do, they are only a tiny, tiny fraction, and to alter the entire project to give us the opportunity to do them (again, ignoring all the other problems) would be foolish. It is the exact same thing with mega evolution.

What needs to happen if we are to do a Mega Evolution in a CAP is that the people arguing for it need to show why it is worth changing the process to do them. A lot of the thread has been people providing reasons not to, and people debating those reasons. And yet, I have not really seen much PRO mega evolution argument. Its almost all anti-anti-MEvo, and while that is nice and all, in the absence of any compelling pro-MEvo arguments the only responsible thing would be to say no to them. I mean, yeah, sure, people have said we could learn things from them. And I agree, this is true. But that does not mean we should change the process to do it. What I want to know is why anyone at all thinks that MEvo's are worth changing the entire process for when lots of other mechanics (other formes) or methods (two pokemon project, etc) are not.

---

On a different note, I have to say that, while I was very skeptical at first, after thinking it over, I actually really, really like Doug's suggestion of giving MEvo's to past CAPs. Yeah, its kinda seems odd when looking at the conventions we have followed in the past, but honestly, I have no problem with that. I mean, it might feel weird at first, but I think when it comes right down to it, adding to old Pokemon in a competitive setting can be a fantastic learning experience and one totally worth pursuing. The demand for MEvo's is going to be there, and while the CAP process can't and shouldn't handle them, a side project that gives them to old Pokemon would be a great opportunity to meet that demand while still focusing the project competitively.

Now, as I just implied, I think if we are to do this, we would 100% need to make it competitive. Prevos we can get away with being pure flavor since we already do other flavor parts of a Pokemon and prevos are a natural extension of this flavor. But going back and adding brand new things, rare things, years after the fact, for pure flavor reasons, just isn't going to fly. Besides, I think it would prevent the perfect opportunity to get all we can out of a MEvo project without having to screw with the main CAP process. Best of both worlds in that regard.

Of course, if we are going to give MEvo's we will inherently be editing past CAPs. And not just by adding a MEvo. Movepool would have to be updated. I'll say that straight up. If we are doing this competitively, which we should, we can't just take what we have. That would be too constrained for a competitive project. Obviously, we can't remove moves, and I think we could definitely limit what we add, but I am sure that a 6th gen movepool update would be needed to do this properly.

I know some people have a problem with this idea, but personally I do not. Well, to an extent at least. If we end up going through with the documentation suggested by bugmaniacbob in the Documenting Playtests PR thread, then I have no concerns at all. Things will be recorded for posterity, and with that there, I don't really see any good reason to oppose changes IF the changes are for a competitive project. With that said, I know some people will still object. I know a ton of people seem to think that we have had a PR decision in the past saying that we don't want to do this, and so they think we should stick with that. Unfortunately, that is just not true. There was some stuff on revisions, but generational updates really didn't get that same thing (And yes, there is a big difference. Revisions change what they were. Updates do not.). Now, I mean, maybe it was decided that way in the past at some point, but if so, whatever was decided was not done through a real dediacated PR discussion and decisions, and we didn't think it was good enough to stick with, because in the only Policy Review thread dedicated to potential generational updates, the consensus of the PRC was a resounding.... "lets decide later." Well, guess what? It's later. So I say, lets decide. While I in no way would mind if we didn't do any MEvos, period, I think Doug presented a great solution to the problems we have, and if we can implement this solution with the only real "downside" being that old CAPs get a generational update, then I say lets go for it.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Bookkeeping time!

I fear that this thread may start running itself in circles. Or worse, that it will come to a consensus about a future path that we should take without giving the base question some initial thought. Yes, I think that much of what jas61292 wrote in the post above me is sensible, but I don't think we should forsake answering the base questions that need to be answered within this thread. For those of you that need a review, they are:

Should we allow Mega Evolutions to be created concurrently with a new CAP?
Should we allow Mega Evolutions for the CAP Project at all?
Should we allow Mega Evolutions for past CAP projects?
Should these be competitive or non-competitive?
I feel that the answer to the first question has been a resounding 'no' throughout this thread (except from nyttyn). Butchering the CAP Process to introduce Mega Evolutions is not worth our time or effort, and the amount of information to be gained from it is dubious at best. The second question listed above, from my perspective, has been projected to be a 'yes' by the posters of this thread. There is no denying how central the Mega Evolution process is to this generation of competitive Pokemon. That dogma leads into the third question, which I believe has been answered with a 'yes, competitive' by the PRC. Although we don't know what sort of process will guide making Mega Evolutions for previous CAPs, there is an agreement not only that we should have them, but that they should be created for competitive use.

If you disagree with the above synthesis, please post within 48 hours or so. I don't want to rush this conversation if there is more to be discussed, but if we are all relatively on the same page, we should move forward with how we're to go about making a Mega Evolution for past CAP projects. If you object, speak out! But if you agree with my analysis, then wait it out by posting in some other PR threads, I s'pose.
 

Nyktos

Custom Loser Title
For posterity: I cannot completely agree with the apparent conclusions. My answers, for what they may be worth are: no, probably-not-but-maybe-some-day, and no. (The last one, obviously, being the major difference.) My reasoning for opposing Mega Evolutions for past CAPs is the same as I detailed in my last post; none of my opinions have changed. Anyone who's the sort to judge the merit of a post by its length can imagine the entire text of that post is inserted following this paragraph; I'm not going to rehash it. That being said, if that is the direction we're going in, it would be nice to see a real answer to the major question of my post, namely: How can we justify post-facto modifications to an existing project under the principles of CAP?

jas pointed out that there was never agreement that past CAPs shouldn't be updated. Equally, there was certainly never agreement that they should. I want to be clear that my objection was never due to an imagined previous PR decision; it was, in the lack of an official stance, based on my own convictions and my interpretation of CAP's purpose. Approving the creation of Mega Evolutions for old CAPs is, by definition, approving the modification of a previous final product. If, indeed, the tide in favour of doing so is too strong to stay at this point, I think that it's paramount that we can at the very least be clear on what exactly the goal of a past CAP Mega Evolution is, and how it fits in with the goals of the project. If this is to be a competitive project, "well we wanted to find a way to do megas and this seemed like it would be cool" does not cut it.

Edit: Since there was a little bit of confusion on IRC, I want to be totally clear that when I talk about post-facto modification, I mean the fact that adding a Mega Evolution inherently changes the way the Pokémon plays. The movepool updating issue is orthogonal, though for what it's worth I generally agree with jas that if we do the Mega we may as well go the whole nine yards.
 
Last edited:

nyttyn

From Now On, We'll...
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I will concede that I'm probably the only person here at this point who supports mega evolutions for new CAPs, and at the same time I am indeed saying that we should alter an already working process for them. My last counterpoint is that: Yes, we will have to heavily alter a working process. But Mega Evolution heavily altered an already working process in the game itself, and to disregard that with a "don't fix what ain't broke" mentality is, in my opinion, not the way to go about things. It is an argument, yes - but again, it in and of itself is flat out ignoring a major new game mechanic simply to retain a working process.


I would like to als say that past CAP Mega Evolution is an awful idea and will teach us very little about Mega Evolution itself, all it will do is give past CAPs a new lease on life. I agree with Nyktos that making past Caps mega is basically "well we wanted to find a way to do megas and this seemed like it would be cool" at this point, and ties in with my stance that we are very much trying to take a "don't fix what ain't broke" approach. The game has changed - either we change with it, or ignore the new mechanic entirely. Competitive Mega Evolution for past CAPs is like trying to have our cake and eat it, and it just damn doesn't work - the only way to justify Mega Evolution, and the only way to make it an exciting part of the mon that adds another layer of depth to how it plays and not just "oh hey Pyroak is no longer a PoS," is to base a mon with Mega Evolution in mind from the ground up. Otherwise, we really aren't doing anything GF already didn't do with all of the current Mega Evolutions aside from fanboying over our own past CAPs.

Perhaps we can justify non-competitive past CAP Mega Evolution a la the Pre-evo process (but as bugmaniacbob said this is likely a waste of resources), but it is my opinion there is not nearly strong enough of a case for competitive past CAP Mega Evolution. We can't half ass this - either fully go ahead with making CAPs from the ground up with Mega Evolution in mind, or we simply disregard the mechanic entirely outside of a funsies thing to do like with pre-evolutions.

Quick edit: And since I didn't address the claims of dubious information to be gained - I don't think we really can't make a solid verdict on that either way until we actually do a Mega Evolution. Theory can and often has failed us, both here at CAP and at smogon as a whole (kangaskhan, aurumoth, and talonflame anyone?).

I'll just quote what Bull of Heaven said from the op.

More importantly, the problems that I identified earlier describe ways that mega evolution could interfere with our attempts to explore other parts of the metagame, but ignore that fact that mega evolution is itself an important component of the game, and something that CAP might want to study. Is it reasonable to say that this project's goal is to learn about the metagame if we refuse to tackle such an important part of it? I'm always uncomfortable with the PRC restricting CAP's options more than is necessary, and eliminating a major mechanic from the process without ever trying to include it might be going too far.
 
Last edited:

Deck Knight

Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
I support Birkal's synthesis.

The issues we need to resolve will require different threads than this one. We cannot ignore Mega Evolution, but at the same time, running it concurrently with a project is not feasible. We have a great process for making CAPs and we can easily apply that to alterations of Past CAPs or Megas. Mega Evolution has the added benefit that it does actually require a competitive reconsideration of *every* kind, and Past CAPs, at least as a base, also allow us to expand on movepool elements we might need. It has its own perils (i.e. if you update one, the other 14 Past CAPs are not similarly updated), but that is something we can address once we have firmly made a decision on them.

Making a decision on concurrent Mega Evolution will bring this thread into an actionable conclusion, and that is what this synthesis does.
 

Bull of Heaven

Guest
I have very little time to post right now, but I might not have access to Smogon for the next week, so here are my last thoughts. I'm not convinced that the "butchering" of the process would be as problematic as some are making it out to be, but it certainly could be and we clearly won't know for sure without some experience making megas. Having given it more thought, I do agree that there's little to gain from current-gen megas, so not having them should be fine. Let's do competitive megas of past CAPs for now, and maybe revisit the question of current-gen mega CAPs at some later time.
 

DetroitLolcat

Maize and Blue Badge Set 2014-2017
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
Sorry if this post is going to be long, but there's a lot to say about Mega Evolution and I believe we're heading in the wrong direction. This is probably better as a few smaller posts, but with the 48-hour warning posted I have no choice but to waterboard this thread with text :P.So here's a Mega Post about Mega Evolution.

I'm heavily against making Mega Evolutions for existing CAP Pokemon. For years, CAP has been firmly against revising existing CAP Pokemon. Each CAP we make is a relic for a previous metagame. We did not do 5th-Gen updates for 4th-Gen CAPs and disallowed revising existing CAPs. We disagreed with CAP revisions so fervently that we undid any revisions that existed at the time. Mega Evolutions for existing CAP Pokemon are little more than revisions and should be treated as such. Although the Policy Review thread on CAP Revisions delayed the decision on revisions, there has been no outcry to deal with revisions until now. During the year and a half (and four CAPs) since we've had that Policy Review, nobody has wanted to go back and look at it. Birkal openly invited any PRC member to PM a mod and reopen the discussion and nobody has done so as far as I know. I assume if someone did so before now then the PRC would have already discussed revisions. It's not a coincidence that now we care about revisions since they represent a serious obstacle to Mega Evolutions to existing CAPs. Reviving (necromancing?) the thread on CAP Revisions seems more like a desperate attempt to reconcile existing CAP sentiment with a desire to shoehorn Mega Evolution into CAP than a desire to discuss revising CAPs. It is certainly not in the spirit of the original thread.

Mega Evolutions for existing CAPs are at worst a poor attempt to pay lip service to Mega Evolution and at best inferior to creating a Pokemon with a Mega Evolution from scratch. Besides the fact that giving an existing CAP a Mega Evolution would require upgrading it for the fifth and/or sixth generations, it would also prescribe a base form for us. We would already have at least one type decided for us, an idea of what our base stats would be, and, depending on policy, our movepool decided before we even got to the first discussion. Concerning the movepool, we would either have to break CAP tradition and update a CAP's movepool during the process or forgo any movepool discussion at all. If we were to make a Mega Evolution, we would likely choose the former option, as jas61292 stated. I agree with jas61292 that if we were to Mega Evolve existing CAPs, we would have to update their movepools to the sixth generation. I see that as a convincing argument against Mega Evolving existing CAPs rather than for doing so.

Why deprive ourselves of creating an entire Pokemon from scratch and apply the crutch of choosing a base form to Mega Evolve? Do we really want to rob ourselves of half a Typing Discussion, two-thirds of an Abilities Discussion, and most of our Movepool Discussion just to shoehorn Mega Evolution into a process? People are going to be demanding Mega Evolutions no doubt. However, we should not be pandering to the people who want Mega Evolutions for no other reason than wanting Mega Evolutions. CAP has always been about the process, not the product. Taking a CAP, gutting at least half of the discussions and trying to stick on a second concept would make for one of the worst processes imaginable. There is no way to properly explore Mega Evolution and have a decent process when we've already prescribed half of the Pokemon before the first discussion. The only way to do so is to create the base form and the Mega Evolution concurrently. Mega Evolution for existing CAPs is a "worst of both worlds" solution.

Seriously, can anyone here say it would be a fun or informative process to create a Mega Evolution without discussing anything about the base form besides moves introduced in the fifth and sixth generations? We wouldn't get to discuss the base form's typing, abilities, stats, or any moves introduced in generations 1,2,3 or 4. If we Mega Evolve a fifth-gen CAP, add 5 to that list. We wouldn't get to discuss the base form's concept, either. All we would do is possibly change one of the two typings (we wouldn't even get to choose which one), change the BST by an exact, predetermined amount (100*), and stick on one Ability. Furthermore, what about the new type introduced in Gen 6? Would we have a "Should We Make Cyclohm a Fairy-Type Discussion" when making these Mega Evolutions? Because that sounds like a train-wreck of a thread waiting to happen. If the process of updating past-gen CAPs is not a complete and utter bastardization of the CAP process then I don't know what is.

I'd like to respond to Doug's original post concerning Mega Evolutions for existing Pokemon.
DougJustDoug said:
Gamefreak only gave Mega Evolutions to pokemon from previous gens, so perhaps that is what CAP should do too. Consider the following:

  • CAP has been wrangling with "Evolve-A-Pokemon" proposals since the early DP days. The notorious "EVO Project" is the most famous, but definitely not the only time we have considered or tried to evolve existing pokemon.
  • CAP has done "revisions" to our previously created pokemon, to make them more powerful and more relevant in the competitive metagame. The results were generally considered to be not great, and we decided to roll all pokemon back to their originally created state. Since that time, there have been numerous requests to update past creations.
  • There have been multiple suggestions to do a "Create-An-Uber" project at various times in CAP history. These were generally positioned as "fun projects", but also were meant to experiment with pokemon power levels above the OU norm.

Perhaps Mega Evolution is the vehicle to tie this all together in a way that Create-A-Pokemon can actually use as the basis for a community project?
With all due respect, this seems like a way to get the most "bang for your buck" by getting the most product for the least process. As nice as that seems, that's not the thinking that's guided the CAP project since its inception. The EVO Project and CAP revisions are both considered failures and I'm not sure what facts back up the claim that "there have been numerous requests to update past creations". The only request I see in the past two years is the inconclusive CAP Revisions PR that jas61292 linked to, and I believe the PRC's silence since then has spoken volumes about how we, as a PRC, are largely anti-revisions. Trying to have Mega Evolution fill three roles at once seems like we're spreading ourselves too thinly, especially when two of those roles have been tried and failed in the past. Do you believe we have a legitimate change of evolving an existing CAP, making reasonable revisions, and fitting that Pokemon into the Uber metagame? Especially when we have the base form prescribed for us? I have no doubt that we could make a Mega Evolution from scratch and fit it nicely into the Uber metagame. But it would take countless amounts of Uber metagame study in order to create a Pokemon capable of fulfilling a concept selected for the Uber metagame. Not to mention that any Mega Evolution would almost certainly be an optics disaster: an Uber Mega Evolution of an existing CAP would need to be powerful enough to succeed in the Uber metagame without its item. Not only would we have the BST and half the movepool set in stone, we'd have to throw just about every trick in the book at this Pokemon to get it to work.

Before we see this policy through, we must question the feasibility of taking a Pokemon designed for a specific concept made for 4th Gen OU, adding 100 to its BST and switching one typing (not of our choice) while throwing as many Gen 5 and Gen 6 moves at it as possible and expecting it to fulfill a competitive concept in the Gen 6 Uber metagame. I see this as little more than a pipe dream. I believe flavor Mega Evolutions are enough of an optics disaster (is disaster a strong enough word?) that have been maligned enough on IRC that I don't need to respond to them. Competitive Mega Evolutions designed for the Gen 6 Uber metagame seem impossible to pull off. If we want to make a Mega Evolution for the Gen 6 Uber Metagame, we need to start from scratch. Not only will it be a much better process, we'll have a much better shot at a good final product.

One concession from my first post in this thread I would like to make is that Mega Evolution discussion should not be made an automatic part of the process. I am no longer in favor of a "Mega Evolution Discussion" that would appear in every CAP. Mega Evolution should be addressed in the Concept Submission stage and no later. This allows us to start planning for a Mega Evolution as early as Concept Assessment, nip all fanboy cries of "we need a Mega" in the bud, and it would still set the burden to TL Approval+Community Vote (in that for a Mega Evolution to be chosen the TL would have to slate the concept and the community would have to vote that concept the winner). It should be made explicitly clear whether or not a Concept will have a Mega Evolution attached to it. The TL could disallow Mega Evolution from the get-go or slate only a few Mega Evolutions, etc. Regardless, the TL would be able to decide the amount of influence Mega Evolution has on the project and let the community make the final decision through the Concept Polls. Regardless, if Mega Evolution is allowed for Gen 6 CAPs, then the "is this CAP going to have a Mega Evolution" question needs to be answered as early in the process as possible.

I would like to make my position on Mega Evolution for the CAP process as clear as possible. Mega Evolution should be allowed for Gen 6 CAP Pokemon. Mega Evolution should be addressed in the Concept Submission step of the process: no later, no earlier. The TL should have the right to outright disallow Mega Evolution by leaving it off of the Concept slate. Mega Evolution should be disallowed for all Gen 4 and 5 CAP Pokemon. Gen 4 and Gen 5 CAPs should not be updated for future generations and should be recognized as relics of the metagames they were created for. Mega Evolving an already finished Gen 6 Pokemon later in the generation (i.e., creating a Mega Evolution for Gen 6 CAP 1 after Gen 6 CAP 3 is finished) is less objectionable (but still pretty objectionable) as long as that policy is created here and now.

jas61292 said:
This issue here is that you are flat out ignoring the biggest argument against mega's and basically saying "the problems aren't THAT bad. So, why not do it?" Honestly, the problems with time, logistics and complexity, while enough to probably say no on them alone, are not really the big issue. The issue is that we would be creating these problems by significantly altering our established and very well made process without a good reason. We didn't rewrite our process so that multitype or any other forme changing ability could be done, even if they could be great projects in theory, because of all the things we could do, they are only a tiny, tiny fraction, and to alter the entire project to give us the opportunity to do them (again, ignoring all the other problems) would be foolish. It is the exact same thing with mega evolution.
Are you seriously comparing Multitype or forme-changing Abilities to Mega Evolution? Multitype wasn't on 70% of OU teams last generation. Forme-changing Abilities were an afterthought attached to a couple of non-viable Pokemon. Multitype and forme-changing Abilities were a tiny, tiny fraction of all the things we could do. Mega Evolution is a very significant fraction of what we can do. Mega Evolution is the defining metagame upgrade of the generation. It is found on nearly 3/4 of all OU teams, and that percentage only goes up as the quality of play does. If Multitype and Zen Mode were on 24 different Pokemon, many of which OU-viable, we would have had a PR about it and likely accommodated it into the process. If 70% of teams had one of the 24 different Pokemon with Multitype, we would have done something about it. Comparing Mega Evolution to Multitype and Zen Mode is a blatant false comparison.

Mega Evolution, logistically, is not nearly as difficult to implement as some people are making it out to be. If the time factor is a big a problem as it's being made out to be, then let's revisit this issue after the Time Factor, Polling Options, and Review TLT System Policy Reviews are finished. During this PR cycle, we will be looking for ways to shorten the process and we will be looking for ways the leadership structure can cut out the delays. The Polling Options PR thread will likely discuss making polling more expedient. Deck Knight summed up the additions we would have to make to the process in order to fit in Mega Evolution.

Deck Knight said:
CAP X - Mega Evolution Type Discussion / Poll
CAP X - Mega Evolution Ability Discussion / Poll
CAP X - Mega Evolution Stats Discussion / Poll
CAP X - Mega Evolution Art / Sprite Discussion / Poll
...
we're still looking at 10 polls here, OR trying to run concurrent Type / Ability / Stat / Art / Sprite threads.
If Mega Evolutions were retrofitted into the process in a competitive manner, I assume the process would go something like: Typing Discussion+Poll->Mega Typing+Poll->Primary Ability Discussion+Poll->Stats+Poll->Mega Stats+Poll->Secondary Ability+Poll->Mega Ability+Poll->Art Poll->Movepool+Poll->Final Product. That sounds daunting at first, but it's not nearly as bad as it seems. A Mega Evolution Typing Discussion asks one question: whether or not the base form's secondary typing should change. Since we're only changing one typing (which we wouldn't get to choose once the main CAP's typing has been set), that means one short discussion and 1-2 polls. I bet the Polling Options PR will make that a definite 1-poll step, but I'll save the speculation. Regardless, Typing shouldn't add more than four days to the process. Mega Evolution Ability Discussion should be no longer. It's one Ability, and this step should occur after Stats and Secondary Ability have been decided. Four days, possibly five at the most. Stats might take a little longer, but with the prescribed BST change of 100 we're already locked into plenty. Stats might take up to a week, likely less.

Art and Sprites may be a little more challenging, but there's plenty of ways to go about this. We could combine base form and Mega Art and Sprites, thus adding zero days to the process. However, we could also handle base form Art normally, open the Mega Evolution Art Thread immediately after, and allow artists to submit Mega Evolution Art during the Attacking Moves Discussion, Attacking Moves Poll, Non-Attacking Moves Discussion, Non-Attacking Moves Poll, Movepool Submissions, Movepool Poll, and base form Sprite Submissions. That sounds like more than enough time for artists to create a Mega Evolution, but if it's not then we can just combine the two. I have no experience with CAP Art, so I implore artists to mull over this idea if Mega Evolutions are allowed for the CAP. My inclination is to believe that more art contests = more art winners = more happiness, but please feel free to disagree with me on this. If this art idea adds too much time to the process, feel free to dismiss it.

Speaking of adding time to the process, the "Mega Evolution takes too long" argument falls apart with a little analysis. Ignoring the fact that we have three different Policy Reviews coming up this cycle that have the potential to shorten the process, who says adding time to the CAP process is always a bad thing? Cawmodore has skewed our vision of CAP taking too long. There are a million different reasons why Cawmodore took 112 days to finish ranging from forum crashes to time zone issues to too many polls to somewhat absent leadership et cetera. There were dozens of "under the hood" issues that made Cawmodore take longer than it should. However, the problem with Cawmodore wasn't that it took 112 days, the problem with Cawmodore was that many of those 112 days contributed nothing to the process. If the day-long delays between OPs were replaced with days of intelligent, constructive discussion, then Cawmodore taking 112 days would not be a issue (at least not a major one). The problem with Cawmodore was that we'd finish a poll, wait a day for a moderator to open the next discussion, wait a day for the TLT to open the discussion, have a discussion that took too long to conclude, wait a day for the TLT to post a slate, wait a day for the TL to judge the slate, then wait a day for a mod to open a poll. The previous sentence may be an exaggeration, but it accurately captures the time delays with Cawmodore. Adding more steps to the process does not diminish the quality of the process or the product as long as those steps contribute quality competitive discussion or polling. Mega Evolution allows us to discuss competitively relevant concepts in a way we never have before. If it takes a little longer, so be it as long as the discussion is worth having. With all of the changes to the CAP process coming up this PR cycle intended to save time, CAPs taking too long will become the least of our worries.

Addressing the state of this PR thread:
Birkal said:
I feel that the answer to the first question has been a resounding 'no' throughout this thread (except from nyttyn). Butchering the CAP Process to introduce Mega Evolutions is not worth our time or effort, and the amount of information to be gained from it is dubious at best. The second question listed above, from my perspective, has been projected to be a 'yes' by the posters of this thread. There is no denying how central the Mega Evolution process is to this generation of competitive Pokemon. That dogma leads into the third question, which I believe has been answered with a 'yes, competitive' by the PRC. Although we don't know what sort of process will guide making Mega Evolutions for previous CAPs, there is an agreement not only that we should have them, but that they should be created for competitive use.
If it isn't obvious at this point, Team Gen 6 MEvos has doubled. I don't think we have the near-unanimous consent that Birkal's bookkeeping post implies we do, and if nyttyn's and my side continue to grow in number then I would prefer to see this issue go to a vote. nyttyn and I are definitely on the same side concerning concurrent Mega Evolutions for future CAPs. The two of us, Nyktos, and (IIRC) srk1214 do not agree with "yes, competitive" for updating current CAPs with Mega Evolutions. Hopefully this post and the posts preceding (succeeding?) this post sway some opinions. Regardless, Birkal's three questions seem controversial enough that a vote is necessary.

I don't want to fall into the trap jas61292 has mentioned of "being anti-anti-MEvo". The reasons why we should accommodate Mega Evolution for Gen 6 OU CAPs is as simple as "they're the most significant upgrade to Gen 6 Pokemon." If nearly three out of every four OU teams (and four out of four good OU teams) employ a certain type of Pokemon, it's ridiculous to disallow it in the CAP project just because it's hard to implement.

I believe people that want to disallow Gen 6 MEvos but permit revisions to previous CAPs fall into one of two camps: those that just want to disallow MEvos without looking like extremists and those that believe Mega Evolution can solve too many problems at once. Because Breaking Bad deserves a mention in just about every thread in this forum, revising CAPs is a "half measure". No half measures.

If you're looking for a tl;dr version of my post, go read nyttyn's and Nyktos' posts. They sum up my ideas pretty well.

*Mega Evolution adds 100 to the BST. Mega Alakazam only gets 90 points because regular Alakazam gains 10 points in its Special Defense when transitioning from Gen 5 to Gen 6. That counts towards the 100 as far as Game Freak is concerned, and, therefore, as far as we should be concerned.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
I agree with Birkal's summary. Like many CAP policy threads, I don't expect us to have unanimous consensus on this. What is most important is that we make INFORMED policy decisions, which means we have an open airing of the issues and allow our most active and knowledgeable members to weigh in on the discussion. In this case there is some general agreement, and there are some dissenting opinions. That's a good thing for policy-making. It requires us to examine the issues carefully from different perspectives. Whatever we pursue or don't pursue with Mega Evolutions, I don't think we'll be rushing in blindly.


Updating past CAPs in order to Mega Evolve them
On the subject of updating past CAP's, I agree that will be a requirement if we make one or more Mega Evolutions for past CAP pokemon. There have been concerns about revisiting past creations and altering them in any way, even if we just update their movepool for the current generation.

I do not think CAP should update past CAPs simply to "make them current" or "make them consistent" with the current generation. Doing so is inconsistent with the mission and principles of the CAP project. But if we do the update as a prerequisite to make an interesting, competitive Mega Evolution - I think that's a different situation, and it makes a lot of sense.

Why updating past CAPs is a bad idea
Each CAP project is intentionally timeboxed and created in isolation. We start a project with a competitive concept, a thesis of sorts, and over the course of the project and playtest we prove, disprove, and explore that thesis. When the project is over, we "put it away" and move on to the next project. We may learn lessons and reference past projects when making new pokemon, but we never attempt to balance CAP pokemon with each other or otherwise attempt to extend the experiment of any particular CAP beyond it's explicit project end date. When a CAP project is done -- IT IS DONE. Forever.

Not because there is nothing fun or interesting left to do with our past CAPs, but because we cannot really "continue the experiment" without completely recreating the conditions of the original experiment. And that just isn't feasible, if it's even possible at all. The OU metagame changes over time, new battle styles and strategies come to the forefront, project participants and decision influencers change, and CAP standards and rules change as well. We simply cannot take a previous CAP project and "open it back up" expecting to continue the project in any way that is consistent with the original experiment.

If you don't extensively recreate the foundations of the experiment to revisit it, then it begs the question -- "What's the point?" Why do an experiment in a rushed, half-assed way (compared to the original experiment) and somehow kid yourself that the results are comparable, consistent, or even acceptable with the original goals? And if you DON'T want to be consistent with the original experiment, then why revisit the experiment in the first place? Why not start a new experiment entirely, instead of polluting the results of the original experiment? I just makes no sense to take a project that took months of work by the combined efforts of hundreds of people, and then add in some haphazard changes by a fraction of the original participants, in a fraction of the original time, under vastly different competitive conditions.

Updating a past CAP pokemon has little value for the CAP project. The main driver for it is because people play with past CAP pokemon on the simulator, and they may be underpowered or inconsistent with the current gen. But it's really a big flavor-versus-competitive shitstorm waiting to happen.

You'd have to be brain dead to not agree that a pokemon like Cyclohm should probably have Hurricane in it's movepool from a flavor standpoint, but we all know that could possibly be a big shift for it competitively. If Cyclohm was made in the 5th gen, would it have gotten Hurricane? I have no idea, and neither do you. Do we really want to have decisions like that made by some small group of people, most of whom were not around when Cyclohm was originally created and have no idea what drove the original decisions in the first place? No. And if anyone is thinking that significant competitive changes would be disallowed for any update, then why update it at all? If you aren't going to make the pokemon more useful for the people battling with it on the simulator, then why change it? To make the dex page on the CAP website prettier? Of course not. It's a no-win situation. You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either you fuck with the pokemon and alter it significantly with little to no proper understanding of the pokemon's concept and competitive foundations -- OR you do a bunch of busy work that doesn't really change the pokemon at all for the people that actually use it.

Updating past CAP's just for the sake of updating them is a bad idea. But, updating past CAPs in order to Mega-Evolve them is a different story.

The "CAP Universe" with Mega Evolutions
If we choose to Mega-Evolve a CAP, I would suggest we frame our fictional "CAP Universe" like so:

By default, each CAP pokemon "exists" ONLY in the generation in which it was created, at the time it was created. Syclant does not "exist" in the Black/White generation of games. Neither does Pyroak, Kitsunoh, Voodoom, and all the rest of the CAP pokemon from the Diamond/Pearl gen. On the simulator, past CAP pokemon may or may not be playable in later generations, but that is simply a fun exercise by the CAP community and the sim maker. It has no bearing on the canon of the CAP universe.

If we Mega-Evolve a past CAP pokemon, a base version of that CAP will be created for the current generation. We will not "fill in the gap" of any previous gens or game versions not covered.

For example, if we Mega-evolve Syclant, we will make an XY Syclant, using the DP Syclant as a base. We will not concern ourselves with making a BW Syclant, or giving Syclant version-specific Move Tutor moves or whatever. We will completely ignore the gap between the DP Syclant that exists in the CAP pokedex today and the Gen 6 Syclant to be created. CAP will have a Gen 4 pokedex with Syclant in it, and a Gen 6 pokedex with an updated Syclant. But they are two different dex entries, just like real pokemon. DP Syclant remains frozen in time, completely unchanged as a result of anything we do in the 6th gen. The simulator would presumably have the appropriate version of Syclant, depending on the Gen you are playing. If you are playing DP or BW, you would see the "DP Syclant". If playing XY, you will see the new Syclant, presumably with an updated movepool and the capability to hold "Syclantite" and Mega-Evolve.

We will not concern ourselves with updating ALL past CAPs, just because we want to Mega-evolve one or more past CAPs. We do not care about having a "balanced" CAP metagame, nor do we care if CAP pokemon are consistent with each other. If some past CAPs have Gen 6 updates and some do not, that's fine. As we decide to add Mega-evolutions to past CAPs, we will replace their Gen 6 implementations on the simulator as necessary when the time comes.​



The point is that we would not be updating past CAPs for no reason. The update to the past CAP would not be revisiting the original experiment of their creation -- it would be part of a new experiment, an experiment with making a competitive 6th generation Mega-Evolution. Since the base form of a pokemon is very relevant to how the Mega-Evolution plays competitively, it makes perfect sense for us to include the base form as part of the Mega-Evolution experiment. I am not saying we WILL OR WILL NOT make significant changes to the base form. I have no idea what goals, restrictions, or rules we'll use for determining what is acceptable or unacceptable for the updating the base pokemon form -- that's a lengthy subject for another thread. But the update to the base form should be conducted as an integral part of the Mega Evolution project, not as a project unto itself.

For all the reasons I stated above, I think an update project by itself is a bad idea. But when paired with a Mega Evolution project, I think a base form update would have direction, purpose, and value that is consistent with CAP goals and principles.
 

DougJustDoug

Knows the great enthusiasms
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Artistis a Programmeris a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Smogon Discord Contributor Alumnusis a Top Tiering Contributor Alumnusis an Administrator Alumnus
Moderator
Sorry for the double post, but after reading DLC's post I want to comment on the relevant driving principle for Mega Evolving existing CAP pokemon, and NOT making a new Mega-Evolution pokemon from whole scratch.

On the Create-A-Pokemon project, we put ourselves in the position of the game maker. We act like we are in Gamefreak's shoes, and we pose the question: "What would Gamefreak do if they actually had a clue about competitive battling and they could make good-but-not-overpowed competitive pokemon?" We look at the EXAMPLE of the game given to us by Gamefreak, we make ASSUMPTIONS about certain essential "rules" for making pokemon, and then we presume to become Gamefreak and make a good pokemon, while observing those assumed rules.

With Mega Evolutions, we are doing the same thing: "What would Gamefreak do if they actually had a clue about competitive battling and they could make good-but-not-overpowed Mega Evolutions?"

However, there is a key example in Gen 6 from Gamefreak, that I think should be a RULE for Create-A-Pokemon -- You can only Mega Evolve a previously existing pokemon. Every single real Mega Evolution is on a pokemon from a previous Gen. I have no idea what rationale Gamefreak used in picking which pokemon would get Mega Evolutions. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be based on power, type, number of forms, or any other discernible pattern. The only pattern that is apparent and consistent is that they did not give Mega Evolutions to any new species of Pokemon.

CAP should do the same.

Imagine that we are the part of the design team for the game maker, we are Game Freak (with the added caveat that we are deeply concerned and knowledgeable about competitive battling). The programmers downstairs just came up with a cool new mechanic that allows a pokemon to evolve in battle and stats to be changed, typing to be altered, and a new abilities to be given to the battle-evolved form. For whatever reason, this new mechanic can only be applied to pokemon species from previous gens. The marketing guys upstairs love this new mechanic, and they will call it "Mega Evolutions". They think it will be a huge hit, and all the executives are seeing dollar signs. Now the task is on us to figure out which pokemon to give this new mechanic to, and how they will change when they evolve in battle.

What are we going to do in order to implement this change in a way that is consistent with our mission to make good-but-not-overpowed competitive pokemon?

If you accept that Mega Evolutions are a requirement (ie. We must make one or more Mega Evolutions), then we have an interesting competitive experiment on our hands. Which existing pokemon species are best suited as the base for this new mechanic? That's a great question, and one that would be fun to debate. What aspects should be changed to make it better? Which aspects should not be changed without making it overpowered? How much change would make the pokemon unrecognizable to avid players? Is that a good or bad thing? All great questions also, and would be interesting to discuss as a group.

Yes, we could also have an interesting competitive experiment by making a completely new pokemon and giving it a Mega-evolution. But that has a lot of added complexity for our project, and I can make the argument that it is INCONSISTENT with the example of the real game of pokemon. By forcing ourselves to make Mega-Evolutions AND to restrict it to existing pokemon species, we can do what CAP has always done -- put ourselves in the position of the game maker, abide by the example of their creation, and add competitive battling focus and knowledge to create a new addition to the game.
 
I feel the need to ask: How "new and exciting" is Mega Evolution, really, from a competitive perspective? From a flavour standpoint, it seems like a Very Big Deal(TM). However, I highly suspect that it came about because the people at Game Freak realized that making regular evolutions of old Pokemon would become awkward now that Eviolite exists. Notice how there were no regular evolutions of old Pokemon in this generation. That isn't to say that it isn't still a big idea, but a lot of the apparent novelty of it is deflated upon close inspection. I think that we need to put the competitive aspect of Mega Evolution under the same scrutiny.

I wonder whether the base form gets all that much important play if it has its Mega Stone. I'm certainly not denying the competition between Mega Stones and other items. I'm talking about a Pokemon that's holding a Mega Stone and intends to Mega Evolve during a battle. The base form only seems to matter for switching into one attack and maybe using an ability like Intimidate or Scrappy. Generally, a base form seems to need a very good reason not to Mega Evolve the first or second chance it gets. In that case, how different is it really from Pokemon with alternate formes, like Giratina, or even from regular evolution?

I think that by ridding the mechanic of Mega Evolution of undeserved mystique, we'll be better able to make good decisions concerning its place in CAP. Considering this, I think that the impact on the process is the most important factor to consider. In terms of impact on the process, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between Mega Evolution and Multitype. Maybe we could do it if we really tried, but is it worth it? I don't have a strong opinion on having Mega Evolutions as side projects, but since it sidesteps the issue of its impact on the process, I don't see why not.
 

Birkal

We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
This thread has come to a conclusion. While there are still numerous topics to discuss within the realm of Mega Evolutions, I think there is one key takeaway from this thread that we can implement immediately. As a result of the discussion here, we will not be creating any Mega Evolutions for a new CAP during that CAP's process. Essentially, there will be no process set in place where a MEvo will be created alongside of a CAP. All concepts that require a Mega Evolution will be banned, similar to illegal ability submissions.

The reasons for this policy are numerous. It would be more efficient for you to read the posts before mine. capefeather correctly addressed the improper mystique that these MEvos have within competitive Pokemon gameplay. There's no reason for us to include a truly minor mechanic (in comparison to other mechanics), and as a result, ruin our CAP process and discussions entirely. As jas61292 stated, MEvos would make the CAP process needlessly complex and a logistical nightmare. I know we don't see eye-to-eye on this 100% as a Policy Review Committee, but I truly believe that this is our consensus. It is the best move forward that we can make as a community.


If you've been paying attention thus far, this thread does not conclude with any sort of Mega Evolution policy in terms of creating them for past projects or after-the-playtest projects. The Create-A-Pokemon Project has not yet outlawed the creation of MEvos entirely. That's a discussion for another Policy Review Committee thread. But before that one, we need to readdress the revising of previous CAPs, which is a touchy subject that we've touched on quite a bit as a PRC. I'll have a thread up to discuss revisions hopefully within the next few days.

Thank you all for your contributions to this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top