Done Quick Nerfs prior to PPL

[quziel]

Hey,
We currently do not have a procedure for nerfing a Create-A-Pokemon (CAP) prior to its Post-Play Lookback (PPL). This is a bit of an issue, as CAP releases often tend to sync up with our major team tournaments, and having a CAP that's either a bit too strong, a bit too good at matchup fishing, or is just unfun to face does not paint our project in a perfect light. Hence, here's my attempt at "fixing" this. I'm also not explicitly centering this around Chuggalong, but rather just want us to have a procedure in case we do have to make these changes.

My proposal is this:

1) A CAP is released in a state that appears to be OP
2) There is an ongoing tournament that makes returning the CAP to a balanced state necessary
3) Council will vote on whether we should conduct a quick nerf prior to the PPL
4) If the vote passes, council and TL will deliberate on which elements appear OP, and remove them
5) The results of the quick nerf will be reviewed as part of the PPL process.

Notes:
I'd view this as aiming to take a mon that is clearly either op, uncompetitive, or just very straining on teambuilding, and not necessarily trying to ensure its perfectly balanced, but to just push it closer to that state. If we take a mon from Zamazenta-Crowned level to Zamazenta level (aka clearly OP to arguably OP), then that's fine with me as long as it ensures that the meta is better.

 

[spoo]

Yeah I think having a procedure in place to quickfix any obviously ridiculous elements before the PPL, which can finish up to a month or two after the initial release, is ultimately a good thing for everyone. I also like the idea of looping in the TL/TLT on the meta council's proposed nerf, since the mon is technically not yet complete and therefore still under the TLT's jurisdiction at the end of the day. The meta council should have a really limited role here - this shouldn't be a standard procedure thing, more of an emergency button, and if it ever does become a standard event then that should genuinely sound alarms about the community's mindset during main processes.

and not necessarily trying to ensure its perfectly balanced, but to just push it closer to that state.

I think this is also really important; the actual balancing procedure happens during the PPL, the goal here would just be to get stuff in an immediately playable state (read: not necessarily 100% balanced) so that players aren't pulling their hair out every game.

I support this proposal. I'd also like to get this settled (if possible) within the next 24-36 hours, for, uh, reasons. So, if folks have any thoughts on this then don't be shy.

 

[shnowshner]

toiled over this during work and have a couple thoughts

the ability to make rapid changes like this is useful to have, though we do run the risk of "overdoing" things just because we haven't had time to fully address or adapt to what a new/buffed CAP is capable of. it is less of a hassle for a CAP to be very weak than very strong, but also not ideal given we use tournaments to test and showcase our creations.

i think it'd make sense if we limited what can be immediately changed prior to PPL. core aspects of the mon like typing, stats, primary ability, and defining moves shouldn't be touched during this time, but secondary abilities or moves added during movesets/movepools can be cut freely. i agree with quz's stance of "take something from clearly OP to arguably OP," this proposal shouldn't replace PPL as much as it gives us a way to address a CAP that is drawing significant ire from knowledgeable users.

i would like to see a sort of "checks and balances" system enacted as well, as letting council members + tlt very quickly change properties of a CAP could find itself getting abused depending on what tournaments are currently happening, and the stakes at play in them. especially for team tours, i'd want to have additional input from participants so that the go-ahead for a nerf is as close to unanimous as possible.

 

[Zetalz]

i would like to see a sort of "checks and balances" system enacted as well, as letting council members + tlt very quickly change properties of a CAP could find itself getting abused depending on what tournaments are currently happening, and the stakes at play in them. especially for team tours, i'd want to have additional input from participants so that the go-ahead for a nerf is as close to unanimous as possible.

Asking the current player-base of any ongoing major tour for input on emergency action does provide valuable insight, and does sound nice on paper, but if you wanted to get any insight more valuable than a simple "nerf, y/n?" out of players you'd essentially just be kickstarting the main discussion for the PPL anyway. I get the idea behind this but it feels like an unnecessary roadblock to a process which at it's core is attempting to be expeditious. This emergency action being asked to be employed in the first place should already indicate a greater want from the community for something to be done. We shouldn't need to tie-up the hands of the people deliberating on this sort of action any more than what the original proposal already outlines.

I also don't agree with the notion that the TLT + council could end up abusing this kind of system, intentionally or not, as these groups have already been entrusted by the wider community to make decisions on this kind of level. Even if a catastrophically bad nerf was made for the CAP in question, it's not like it would completely tank the health of any ongoing tournament (the main crux of this whole proposal). A brand-new CAP becoming worse will cause a significantly less impactful meta shift than one that's been ingrained in the tier for a longer time. And if there's not enough majority consensus amongst these trusted and informed individuals for any emergency action to go through, then it simply doesn't. Either way, PPL proper will come around and we can fully address the situation then.

Nothing to remark on the sentiments of the rest of your post, or the rest of the thread, as I agree with them wholeheartedly.

 

[spoo]

Closing this and marking it as passed. Shnow brought up some fair points but mods are generally of the same mind as zetalz; this process is intended to be a quick one first and foremost, and shouldn't be something we do without an obvious desire among the larger community anyways. In the unlikely and worst-case scenario that the council + TL abuse this process, the nerf will ultimately be revisited during the PPL.

We will be going ahead with nerfing Chuggalong along quziel's proposed format in the OP. Depending on how this first run goes, this thread will be reopened to suggest or document any changes to the process.