Policy Review Role Choices

[quziel]

Hey, was thinking about this when thinking about Venomicon-Epilogue in particular, but I think that voting for a specific single role is harmful to the process. We should either 1) vote for roles and have a specific preference ranking that is entirely non-commital, or 2) have the TL summarize discussion and list possible roles that we could fulfill.

That's it.

 

[Lasen]

seconding this, I dislike the idea that we have failed the CAP (process or mon) just because something like Chromera would rather be a bulky stallbreaker with Scald + Taunt or because Epipen being conceptualized as utility wallbreaker but then turned into a set-up sweeper. The less committal our role is, the better.

 

[dex]

I also agree, "role" is just an unnecessary requirement that limits the already limited design space we have with concepts. I think it would be particularly bad to determine role like this on more limited concepts.

 

[Da Pizza Man]

Agree here. Chromera and both of Venomicon's forms both ended up achieving their concepts just fine even though they all drifted away from their intended roles. Generally I think we should strive to make the process as flexible as possible, and restricting ourselves to having to hyper focus on one or two specific roles during the process only goes to work against that. Only argument I can really see against this is that it might make discussions less focused, but we already have the TL/TLT to help guide discussion so that's not really a huge issue here.