Policy Review Minor Fixes, Requests, and Ideas

[Birkal]

CAP MINOR FIXES, REQUESTS, AND IDEAS POLICY REVIEW

Credits to Quanyails for the image!
​

Have you ever been bugged about something in the Create-A-Pokemon Project's rules? Ever spouted off about it on Discord or Pokemon Showdown, only to hear esteemed moderator Birkal say "go make a PRC thread," but then the idea of having to make an entire thread dedicated to something you perceive as only a really minor issue suddenly feels like a large undertaking, to the point where you abandon the idea all together, ultimately feeling discouraged and unsuccessful?

...

That may sound hyper-specific, but it actually happens quite a bit in CAP. Hence this thread! If there's some tweak we could make to CAP that you don't feel mandates an entire thread, go ahead and post about it here. We'll use the following process:

1. Someone proposes a change. Please don't just post a one-liner, but provide some background and data on whatever it is you'd like tweaked.
2. This thread is open to discussion for all PRC members (apply in this forum) to provide their insights or drop a Luvdisc.
3. If three moderators approve the change, at least one of them will post here, approving of it in bold letters.
4. There will be a 24-hour minimum waiting period before the change goes live. Use that time to disagree with the change, or provide your own reasoning to why it shouldn't take place.

If there ends up being a lot of conversation about one specific change, the CAP moderators will make it its own thread here in the Policy Review forum. And as usual, please continue to make threads for medium-to-large policy changes to CAP. Here are some good examples of topics that would belong in this forum:

1. Changing one line of a rule in a thread OP.
2. Adding a new resource to the CAP or CAP metagame forums.
3. An idea for making the project more accessible/enjoyable.

Here are some good examples of changes that should probably have their own thread:

1. Adding or removing aspects of the CAP process.
2. Changing how we tier/nerf CAPs after they are released.
3. Shifting how CAP times certain events.
4. Proposing a change to how we conduct voting in our forums.

Remember, to post your own thread, make sure you have a moderator's permission to post (they will almost always grant it, providing you're willing to write an OP). Finally, do not use this thread as a way to vent or share negative criticism. This is for finding solutions, so please bring at least one to the table with anything you post. If you have any questions, send me (or any CAP moderator) a PM.

 

[Birkal]

Reserved for a compendium of completed minor changes. Please note that an entirety of small objective changes is logged by Quanyails in this policy review thread. You may want to check there first to see if your issue has been addressed.

 

[Bughouse]

reasoning

Can the smogon.com/cap page link to "Pokemon" point to the dex, since it's more up to date?
Then maybe the CAP format page on the dex can point to the current CAP subsite Pokemon page which has some additional information but is horribly dated?
The CAP subsite long term should probably be revamped and made more minimal now that analyses are on the dex, but this would be a quick interim fix to avoid the concerns of the poster above.

 

[quziel]

Good day, I have been told to post this here.

I think there's a general lack of a place for "long ramblings on the CAP process and general ideas" in this forum, which is something I'd think would be helpful. I think G-Luke 's thread on Overtuning of CAP creations is definitely one example of a useful thought that doesn't really have a home in the forum as while it is useful discussion, its not necessarily a proposal for distinct action.

My proposed fix is either to create a megathread to hold these philosophical thoughts, or to perhaps just designate the "Other" tag as acceptable for those.

 

[Birkal]

Good day, I have been told to post this here.

I think there's a general lack of a place for "long ramblings on the CAP process and general ideas" in this forum, which is something I'd think would be helpful. I think G-Luke 's thread on Overtuning of CAP creations is definitely one example of a useful thought that doesn't really have a home in the forum as while it is useful discussion, its not necessarily a proposal for distinct action.

My proposed fix is either to create a megathread to hold these philosophical thoughts, or to perhaps just designate the "Other" tag as acceptable for those.

Big fan of this. I love rambling about CAP Policy and spitballing ideas about it. Having this formalized in a thread sounds like a good way for us to put some thoughts down on paper. We recently added #prc as a public channel to the Discord, so having a matching thread for thoughts seems like a nice fit. Ideas that firm up into a proposal could even be scuttled to their own thread.

 

[MrDollSteak]

I've got a short suggestion for the move pool process, specifically around Legality checks.

There is in my mind, a lot of confusion and judgment needed surrounding when to ask for a legality check for a move that isn't explicitly banned. My submission for Miasmaw and it's Prevo was rejected due to the inclusion of Power Whip on the TM pool for Miasmaw as it was soon to be too powerful because of its 120 BP. I understand the competitive implications now, but because Grass was a coverage type that wasn't blacklisted and other users had submitted other Grass moves, I hadn't considered it in need of a legality check.

My suggestion to address this grey area would be to make the requirements for asking for a legality check more clear. I think since BP is a factor that has been mentioned, it may be worth suggestion that legality checks be required for any coverage move of over 80BP. I think this will allow for ample time to fix offending moves, by making it more clear to users which moves be seen as problems.

 

[snake]

I was reviewing the following rules for Concept Submissions, and one part stuck out to me:

• One submission per person. You may edit your Concept, but you may not change the fundamental premise after it has been posted. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.

Specifically, the bit about "not changing the fundamental premise" of your concept. This rule is ancient - stretching all the way back to CAP 5. Compared to a time where concepts were just a name and short description, this rule seems a little unfair now, especially when the concept submissions thread can be a place to workshop concepts. Currently, if you think you have a good idea, post it, and then realize it's flawed, you're stuck with your concept, and that's pretty discouraging. Therefore,I propose we change the rules to:

• One submission per person. You may change your concept any time before submissions close. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. If you choose to change your concept's fundamental premise, you forfeit your current claim to this concept, and it is still your responsibility that you are not duplicating someone else's concept. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.

This rule change would only increase flexibility in the concept submissions thread. Thoughts on this?

 

[MrDollSteak]

I was reviewing the following rules for Concept Submissions, and one part stuck out to me:

• One submission per person. You may edit your Concept, but you may not change the fundamental premise after it has been posted. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.

Specifically, the bit about "not changing the fundamental premise" of your concept. This rule is ancient - stretching all the way back to CAP 5. Compared to a time where concepts were just a name and short description, this rule seems a little unfair now, especially when the concept submissions thread can be a place to workshop concepts. Currently, if you think you have a good idea, post it, and then realize it's flawed, you're stuck with your concept, and that's pretty discouraging. Therefore,I propose we change the rules to:

• One submission per person. You may change your concept any time before submissions close. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. If you choose to change your concept's fundamental premise, you forfeit your current claim to this concept, and it is still your responsibility that you are not duplicating someone else's concept. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.

This rule change would only increase flexibility in the concept submissions thread. Thoughts on this?

I'm in favour. I can say that having a concept disqualified because youve changed its premise after having someone else post the same thing as yours within a 30 minute window is pretty rough from experience. Especially if the other person changes their concept too haha! It definitely also encourages new members to play around with ideas without being too punished which is great as far as the learning curve for the format.

 

[dex]

I'm also in favor. Getting disqualified because you changed your mind about what you want to submit doesn't really make sense, and isn't mirrored in any other stage. Hopefully this can help to improve submissions!

 

[Orig Stall Guy]

Im in favor. My thoughts mirror Dex.
If you want to change your submission after posting something, there shouldn't be a penalty.
As someone who constantly goes back and forth on ideas and edit existing posts, this would be appreciated greatly.
Plus this does not punish people for experimentation which is something I will always support.

 

[dex]

This was talked about in the discord a little, but I’d like to propose a 12-hour (this time can be changed as people see fit) length period after the concept submission post is released where posts are hidden. This is in the interest of fairness, as concept subs are released at a normal time for the Americans of the project, but not really the rest of the world, leading to inadvertent concept sniping. Hopefully this lets everyone get their best concept down, and in the event that two concepts are the same or are very similar, it would be up to the TL to decide which is most fleshed out/worded best, then let the other poster know that they should work on something different

 

[QxC4eva]

Currently the TL and TLT polls require voters to list all candidates, if they don't their ballot will be deleted. This rule was made long ago when the TL used to be voted by PRC members only, and the requirement at the time was to rank all candidates in order and provide a few lines of explanation - which was reasonable to expect from the committee, and necessary to get as much info out of a few members as possible. Eventually, TL polls opened to the public but the full ballot rule remains. Public voting is different to PRC voting as 1) there are more voters, and 2) keeping the same strict requirements will only lead to more ballots being deleted, and as a result the poll results become less accurate. I'd like to suggest we remove this rule for future TL/TLT polls so voters can list as many or few candidates they like (as is allowed for every other poll).

 

[snake]

I was reviewing the following rules for Concept Submissions, and one part stuck out to me:

• One submission per person. You may edit your Concept, but you may not change the fundamental premise after it has been posted. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.

Specifically, the bit about "not changing the fundamental premise" of your concept. This rule is ancient - stretching all the way back to CAP 5. Compared to a time where concepts were just a name and short description, this rule seems a little unfair now, especially when the concept submissions thread can be a place to workshop concepts. Currently, if you think you have a good idea, post it, and then realize it's flawed, you're stuck with your concept, and that's pretty discouraging. Therefore,I propose we change the rules to:

• One submission per person. You may change your concept any time before submissions close. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. If you choose to change your concept's fundamental premise, you forfeit your current claim to this concept, and it is still your responsibility that you are not duplicating someone else's concept. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.

This rule change would only increase flexibility in the concept submissions thread. Thoughts on this?

There has been no visible dissent for this proposal, and it has sufficient moderator approval. Therefore, this motion will pass. The rule change will be effective for CAP29's concept submission thread and onwards.

 

[QxC4eva]

I want to propose a quick change based on the recent poll results.

Many of us know that non-final polls have a special exit condition where if there's a decisive win, the winner wins the stage immediately and there are no further polls. The trigger is when they have over 50% of first place votes. This made sense back in the days when a poll series was essentially one big IRV election split up into its elimination rounds, but we no longer have it like that. With polls now acting as separate elections, there's no longer any real significance to the 50% first place rule. I suggest we upgrade to one that's compatible with our condorcet voting system. Under this rule, a decisive win is when the winner has a head-to-head supermajority (>66.6%, or 2/3 vote share) over everyone else.

In other words if the winner achieves at least twice the opponent's votes in all their pairwise matchups, they instantly win the round. You may notice the pollbot declares a "landslide" when that happens, and I propose we follow that from now on. It's more accurate and less obscure.

Some of you have questioned whether the recent ability poll really needed a second poll. Well done - your gut feeling was right. Color Change had more than double the votes against every other ability so the initial win was already uncontested. However, the old rule forces us look at numbers from a different polling method which showed that Color Change was not actually a decisive win, so we ended up with an unnecessary poll 2.

This change will not cause polls to skip any more often or less. Chances of it happening remain about the same apart from a few exceptional cases - see below.

data

Decisive wins according to each rule are marked in yellow

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

As championed by Jho.

"Switch-in" is an awkward term for the Pokemon that our CAP wants to be able to come in on and force out. While it follows from the idea that we're switching in on the Pokemon, the other terms from the threats stage, "check" and "counter", invoke the idea of "check for CAP#" and "counter for CAP#", which naturally invoke the idea that the Pokemon in those lists should be checking or countering the CAP. "Switch-in for CAP#", on the other hand, is unclear, and potentially invokes the idea that the Pokemon should be switching in on the CAP, not the other way around.

Thus, I propose that the term be changed to "target" instead. While still not a perfect encapsulation of the idea that the Pokemon should be switched in on by the CAP and forced out consistently, "Target for CAP 29" at least implies that the Pokemon in question is something that the CAP should be aiming for and attacking.

Even if this particular renaming doesn't work out, I think making the terms more clear somehow would be a good change. When I was just lurking CAP, it was difficult for me to figure out what direction switch-in, check, and counter were going in. If not a term change, just explicitly spelling out the purposes of the lists (ex. "checks CAP#", "counters CAP#", "is switched in on by CAP#") could be helpful.

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

I don't think we ever ironed out how the post-play lookback would affect prevos, so I want to try to get it settled before we potentially end up with prevos for CAP29.

Miasmaw received Aromatherapy, Poison Jab, Sludge Bomb, and +3 Speed through its post-play lookback. However, Miasmite was finished before the post-play lookback happened, and no decision was made regarding the changes. What ended up happening on Showdown is that Miasmite also received the three moves (Aromatherapy, Poison Jab, Sludge Bomb), but it did not receive the speed increase.

In the future, what we could do is run a poll for the added moves to see if they should be added to the prevo(s). The poll can be in the Allow/Disallow style, so an example ballot would be:
Disallow Aromatherapy
Allow Poison Jab
Disallow Sludge Bomb
Abilities could also be done via poll, like how Justyke's ability change from Bulletproof to Stalwart was done.

Stat changes I am less sure on, but whenever Game Freak has done stat updates to Pokemon, it has generally been to only the fully evolved member of the evolutionary line, with two exceptions: Pikachu (who got buffed alongside Raichu) and Woobat (where Swoobat did not get buffed). You can see this in these lists compiled by Serebii:
Gen 6: https://www.serebii.net/xy/updatedstats.shtml
Gen 7: https://www.serebii.net/sunmoon/updatedstats.shtml
Gen 8: https://www.serebii.net/swordshield/updatedstats.shtml
As a result, I think we could default to leaving the stats of the prevo(s) alone and not mirroring the changes done to the fully evolved form, although I'm open to hearing arguments to the contrary, especially, if the stat change somehow helps for flavor reasons.

EDIT:
As for Miasmite, I think we can just settle it as part of the Prevo Updates.

 

[quziel]

Mod Post: Blizzard accidentally made its way into Chromera's final movepool, and given that chromera's fairly weak atm, that the poll 2 only specified removing Ice Beam, and that Blizzard won't make Chromera OP (8 pp really sucks), the moderation team has elected to allow Blizzard to stay.

 

[Darek]

Hey we should get rid of Air Lock as one of Revenankh's abilities and replace it with something else that would be pretty cool I think

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

This suggestion comes as a result of this conversation on the CAP Discord.

Sketch is an egg move for Necturna in every generation (except Gen 8, where Sketch is snapped). The original implementation of Necturna's concept of getting to Sketch exactly once was to make it an egg move, preventing it from being relearned and thus preventing Sketch from being learned multiple times. However, in Gen 6, relearner mechanics changed so that Pokemon would be able to relearn any move it learned when it hatched, which would mean that any Necturine that hatched with Sketch could relearn it however many times it wanted. Thus, Necturna Clause was introduced, which artificially imposed a one-Sketch limit on Necturna to maintain its original concept and prevent it from potentially running over the metagame.

While this is a functional solution, it's also rather awkward, as it is a rather unnatural rule that lacks parallels in other metas. Instead, I'd like to suggest removing Sketch as an egg move from Necturna in all generations after Gen 5. This would mean that Sketch stays as an egg move in Gen 5, but is unlearnable without transfer in Gen 6 and Gen 7. This maintains the clause due to hatch data not being maintained for any games before Gen 6, meaning that even if a Necturna is transferred with Sketch, it will not be able to relearn the move, as no data indicating it hatched with Sketch will be present. However, Necturna will still be able to transfer either its Sketched move or Sketch itself, so this should not have an effect on it in those metagames. It will also stay unrelearnable in Gen 5, for the same reasons it was made an egg move in the first place, and remain unaffected there. It should also have no ripple effect on Gen 8.

A relevant quote from Bulbapedia (emphasis mine):

Any Pokémon hatched in Generation VI onward can relearn any move it knew when it hatched. This includes not only Egg Moves, but any other moves it knew when hatched as well (e.g. level-up moves known upon hatching, Volt Tackle bred onto Pichu, etc.). Pokémon hatched in earlier generations do not flag these moves as relearnable, so cannot relearn moves of this type even if they are transferred to a Generation VI or later game.

Admittedly, there is a drawback in that it further obscures the one-Sketch limit of Necturna to new players, whereas at the very least the Necturna clause puts the one-Sketch idea restriction front and center. However, I don't believe this will be a very large difference, as the validator will still inform players of any Sketch issues. I don't believe there are any metagames where Necturna is allowed without Necturna Clause active, so there shouldn't be any repercussions there. Ultimately, I think this change provides a cleaner solution to the one-Sketch problem, and is at least worth considering.

 

[dex]

This suggestion comes as a result of this conversation on the CAP Discord.

Sketch is an egg move for Necturna in every generation (except Gen 8, where Sketch is snapped). The original implementation of Necturna's concept of getting to Sketch exactly once was to make it an egg move, preventing it from being relearned and thus preventing Sketch from being learned multiple times. However, in Gen 6, relearner mechanics changed so that Pokemon would be able to relearn any move it learned when it hatched, which would mean that any Necturine that hatched with Sketch could relearn it however many times it wanted. Thus, Necturna Clause was introduced, which artificially imposed a one-Sketch limit on Necturna to maintain its original concept and prevent it from potentially running over the metagame.

While this is a functional solution, it's also rather awkward, as it is a rather unnatural rule that lacks parallels in other metas. Instead, I'd like to suggest removing Sketch as an egg move from Necturna in all generations after Gen 5. This would mean that Sketch stays as an egg move in Gen 5, but is unlearnable without transfer in Gen 6 and Gen 7. This maintains the clause due to hatch data not being maintained for any games before Gen 6, meaning that even if a Necturna is transferred with Sketch, it will not be able to relearn the move, as no data indicating it hatched with Sketch will be present. However, Necturna will still be able to transfer either its Sketched move or Sketch itself, so this should not have an effect on it in those metagames. It will also stay unrelearnable in Gen 5, for the same reasons it was made an egg move in the first place, and remain unaffected there. It should also have no ripple effect on Gen 8.

A relevant quote from Bulbapedia (emphasis mine):


Admittedly, there is a drawback in that it further obscures the one-Sketch limit of Necturna to new players, whereas at the very least the Necturna clause puts the one-Sketch idea restriction and center. However, I don't believe this will be a very large difference, as the validator will still inform players of any Sketch issues. I don't believe there are any metagames where Necturna is allowed without Necturna Clause active, so there shouldn't be any repercussions there. Ultimately, I think this change provides a cleaner solution to the one-Sketch problem, and is at least worth considering.

While I admit that this is a fairly elegant solution to the Necturna problem, I would prefer for this to not happen because it removes Sketch from Necturna in BDSP, which has yet to be started in the CAP format but should be soon. To my knowledge, BDSP uses the gen 7 egg moves to determine what a mon can learn, and at the moment there is no way to transfer to and from the game. This would leave Necturna Sketch-less, so for the time being, the Necturna clause should remain.

That said, if Necturna is not allowed in BDSP CAP, then this is fine and I support it.

 

[snake]

While I admit that this is a fairly elegant solution to the Necturna problem, I would prefer for this to not happen because it removes Sketch from Necturna in BDSP, which has yet to be started in the CAP format but should be soon. To my knowledge, BDSP uses the gen 7 egg moves to determine what a mon can learn, and at the moment there is no way to transfer to and from the game. This would leave Necturna Sketch-less, so for the time being, the Necturna clause should remain.

That said, if Necturna is not allowed in BDSP CAP, then this is fine and I support it.

As far as I know, Necturna (a Gen 5 CAP) will not be allowed in BDSP CAP, as only CAPs made in Gen 4 will be allowed. Thus, the suggestion posed by kj should be sound.

 

[Da Pizza Man]

I would like to propose replacing Water Veil with Guts on Caimanoe, or at least hold a vote on whether or not we should do that. As far as I can tell, this was never really discussed at all during the Gen 7 updates so it doesn't really look like there has ever been much consideration into doing so. Plus, given that Caimanoe is intended to receive the same abilities as Naviathan and that I can easily see both with this ability, I think it would make sense to make this change for both consistency and for flavor.