Policy Review State of the CAP Metagame

bugmaniacbob

Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
So, I've had some words with Deck, and between this topic not having seen any real discussion for a while and the fact that it seems that most people are on the same page here, we will probably be ready to post a conclusion fairly soon. With that said, I'm just going to put a preliminary 48 hour warning on this thread. If anyone has anything else important to say on this topic, please get it in before then.
It's hard to say anything on the subject without having a vague idea about what this "conclusion" is going to be or what form it is likely to take - the whole of this topic is pretty wide-ranging and if we're concentrating on a particular area then trying to cover everything is a waste of time. If you are planning on implementing some form of procedure or new infrastructure to accommodate the CAP metagame, we can comment on it; if you're setting forward a set of long-term goals, we can comment on that; if you want us to merely agree on a philosophical standpoint to move forward from, then we can comment on that. But there's not a lot to say without some idea of what to expect from this conclusion, or what it might cover or else ignore.

And, yes, I surmise that the deadline is for any further comments on the topic in general, and yet I can't help but feel that the discussion thus far is not something that any conclusions can be drawn from, given the lack of engagement with existing problems or positive proposals to overcome them. Thus if there are ideas in your conclusion that have not yet been posted in this thread, they should be posted now, so that we can comment on and possibly improve them. On the other hand, if the conclusion is simply a summary of discussion thus far, I see no reason to not simply post it now - if the thread will remain open regardless until the next PRC cycle (do correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got from the other thread) then that is surely ample time in which for anybody who wants to add another point of view to have their say.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
It's hard to say anything on the subject without having a vague idea about what this "conclusion" is going to be or what form it is likely to take - the whole of this topic is pretty wide-ranging and if we're concentrating on a particular area then trying to cover everything is a waste of time. If you are planning on implementing some form of procedure or new infrastructure to accommodate the CAP metagame, we can comment on it; if you're setting forward a set of long-term goals, we can comment on that; if you want us to merely agree on a philosophical standpoint to move forward from, then we can comment on that. But there's not a lot to say without some idea of what to expect from this conclusion, or what it might cover or else ignore.

And, yes, I surmise that the deadline is for any further comments on the topic in general, and yet I can't help but feel that the discussion thus far is not something that any conclusions can be drawn from, given the lack of engagement with existing problems or positive proposals to overcome them. Thus if there are ideas in your conclusion that have not yet been posted in this thread, they should be posted now, so that we can comment on and possibly improve them. On the other hand, if the conclusion is simply a summary of discussion thus far, I see no reason to not simply post it now - if the thread will remain open regardless until the next PRC cycle (do correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got from the other thread) then that is surely ample time in which for anybody who wants to add another point of view to have their say.
Let me just give a general sense of the things being discussed for conclusion. So far in this thread we have pretty much been in unanimous agreement on the fact that we want to improve and encourage the metagame in some way. For the most part it would also seem like individuals would like to do this through the creation of a CAP Metagame specific subforum. While nothing was ever outright stated in a proposal, it seems obvious to me that this is the general feeling in the thread. Most of the rest of the stuff we have discussed is more administrative, such as moderation in such a forum, and not really policy issues in and of themselves.

With that said, the specifics of how things would be run are definitely something that I can see people posting on in the remaining time. While for the most part I'd personally like to think that leadership and structure is something that would arise out of individuals participating in such a forum, and would be hesitant to assign major roles right away, if people would like to propose anything related to that, then by all means, go right ahead. We can always extend the time before the conclusion if need be.

Also, for what its worth, I would have no issue with leaving the thread open for further comment and discussion after the conclusion, especially since I think this thread has addressed multiple things (such as tiering or revisions or whatnot) which I don't believe can be directly addressed thoroughly until some of the other issues we are talking about are sorted out first.
 

bugmaniacbob

Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Let me just give a general sense of the things being discussed for conclusion. So far in this thread we have pretty much been in unanimous agreement on the fact that we want to improve and encourage the metagame in some way. For the most part it would also seem like individuals would like to do this through the creation of a CAP Metagame specific subforum. While nothing was ever outright stated in a proposal, it seems obvious to me that this is the general feeling in the thread.
Fair enough.

Most of the rest of the stuff we have discussed is more administrative, such as moderation in such a forum, and not really policy issues in and of themselves.

With that said, the specifics of how things would be run are definitely something that I can see people posting on in the remaining time. While for the most part I'd personally like to think that leadership and structure is something that would arise out of individuals participating in such a forum, and would be hesitant to assign major roles right away, if people would like to propose anything related to that, then by all means, go right ahead. We can always extend the time before the conclusion if need be.
A flexible introduction to the new subforum and then allowing the issues to present themselves seems like the logical course of action, but I would recommend, if it has not been done already, that certain members of the CAP community are tasked with creating some preliminary content, such as basic rule threads, OPs for discussion threads, potential initial quick-tournament host, that sort of thing. A dedicated moderation team or leadership team will almost certainly sort itself out eventually. Other than that I don't have anything to say bar that the problems I highlighted in previous posts still need addressing at some point - but of course you are as aware of that as I am, and they are not perhaps as pressing as simply getting the thing off the ground.

Also, for what its worth, I would have no issue with leaving the thread open for further comment and discussion after the conclusion, especially since I think this thread has addressed multiple things (such as tiering or revisions or whatnot) which I don't believe can be directly addressed thoroughly until some of the other issues we are talking about are sorted out first.
From what I've gathered from this thread, both tiering and revisions require their own PR threads, but leaving this thread open would be ideal in any case if it happens that someone has some hitherto unforeseen issue with the conclusions as they are presented or, as is more likely to be the case, how they are worded.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
After talking things over with Deck Knight, the two of us have agreed on some conclusions from the discussion of this thread.

(Yeah, I know its a couple hours earlier than the warning would have indicated, but I wasn't sure if I'd be up then. It did not seem to me that anything else was going to be discussed, and the people I asked on IRC had no issue with it. The thread will remain open after this anyways if anyone still has anything to add).

Conclusion

The CAP community will provide greater support for the CAP metagame in the future, starting with the creation of a CAP metagame specific subforum. Leadership in this forum can be determined as the community there develops. Paramount on such a forum should be the creation of threads to help introduce people into the metagame, such as analyses and sample team threads, as the difficulty of entry is one of the major issues that we are trying to overcome. Rankings, projects, competitions and any other kind of thread that people are interested in can be done on a volunteer basis, similar to the forums for the various metagames around the site.

Tiering for the CAP metagame is still very much an option on the table, but we will not start any tiering activities at present. Rather, this will be revisited on a later date when the metagame has gone thorough greater development. Until that time tiering would be very difficult to do in any sort of prudent manner, and deciding on leadership for tiering would be premature, when we have yet to see who the stand out participants in the community are. Discussion of other similar issues (most notably the issue of revisions/updates as related to the CAP metagame) will also be put on hold at present, but can be similarly addressed if they become relevant to a more developed community.


(Just tagging Birkal and DougJustDoug here, since we will need one of you to do the actual forum creation)


EDIT: Until we get such a forum, if people want to plan ahead and get started on things, please feel free to send me a message about what you'd like to do, so that we can start off more organized as far as who is doing what.
 
Last edited:

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
I believe it is important that we name the CAP Metagame something else. Part of the confusion in the past is that the term "CAP Metagame" makes it sound like our official metagame. All the CAP Metagame is (currently) is a spin-off of the main project that we do for competitive fun. It is certainly not the meat and potatoes of this project. If anything, each playtest should be called out "CAP Metagame", as that's the metagame we're discussing throughout every single process. I think a rebranding might be in order to alleviate affiliation concerns and grant it more independence.

The name I dreamed up was Create-A-Pokemon Plus, or CAP+. It is much easier to type out CAP+ than its current name. The plus is also indicative that the metagame is a sort of add-on to the current process. It's something advanced that we run in our free time because we enjoy it. It's easily linked to the process because it has "CAP" in the name, but adding a plus sign indicates that it is something entirely different.

Thoughts? Recommendations?
 

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
I'm... not a super big fan of CAP+ at the moment. The people in our showdown room refer to the metagame with 18 unique Smogon Fakemon and all of the non-ubers made by GameFreak as the "CAP Metagame" or the "CAP Meta." This thread’s own title even calls it the same thing. Now, I'm not exactly a veteran to the CAP process, but I personally haven't heard of anyone calling the individual playtests as the CAP meta; they show up on showdown as Playtests themselves. I completely understand that CAP creates Pokemon for a specific purpose, and that in a way each playtest creates its own 2 week long meta. It is very true; each CAP playtest is a unique meta... But how often do we actually refer to a CAP playtest as the CAP Metagame? To me (and I realize this is completely from the perspective of a PS CAP room player) it seems much more descriptive to call playtests by the name of the CAPmon being tested... Volkraken Playest, Cawmodore Playtest, etc. Yes, all of these playtests very much are individual CAP metagames. But we name a metagame based on some form of descriptive title... When we are talking about individual playtest metas, the descriptor clearly is the name of the new Pokemon being tested. When we talk about the CAP metagame, we can't really call it by one Pokemon's name and get a worthwhile descriptor, and cramming in all 18 CAPmon names into a single title clearly doesn't make sense either. But as it stands now, the "CAP Metagame" is the current term simply because we acknowledge CAP as the descriptor, and that CAP implies all of the CAPmons. When I look at CAP+, I really see the plus sign as a distraction... Does it mean it's some kind of evolution of CAP? For me, the connotations of the plus sign just don't sit right...

Yes, the CAP metagame is different from the CAP process, and yes it started as just an offshoot of the original goal. But I think part of the reason why this thread was even created in the first place is because the CAP metagame, despite being just an offshoot, has the potential to be something worth pursuing in itself. The CAP Metagame is not the meat and potatoes of the CAP Project, as Birkal said. But it's growing into something of its own regardless. There are people who actively play the CAP meta and who choose not to be involved in the CAP process. Rather than calling the CAP meta a spin-off, I think it serves just as a “different” project. Yes, it's a project largely dependent on the results of the main CAP process. But it isn't just something that some people choose to do in between CAP process projects anymore.

I just don't see how a plus sign gives the CAP meta any independence, and moreso I think it might just add to confusion. Essentially, what I'm inferring from Birkal's post is that the CAP Metagame shouldn't be called the CAP Metagame because the CAP Playtests are the real CAP Metagames. Unless there's been some sort of strong precedent that I'm unaware for these playtests to be referred to in conversation as CAP Metagames, I don't see why the CAP Meta should lose its name for their sake. (If we don't call the CAP playtests as "CAP Metagames" and we do call the 18 unique Smogon Fakemon and all of the non-ubers made by GameFreak as the "CAP Metagame" already, then why would such a change in names be necessary?)

Below is a chatroom log of a brief conversation that I had with some of the CAP meta players that happened to be online at this ridiculous hour that I’m writing at.

[03:51] %HeaLnDeaL: for now, I want to ask you guys... What do YOU think our meta should be called?

[03:53] +gday: whats wrong with CAP tho..

[03:53] +gday: i dunno isnt cap ok

[03:53] +gday: what do u think

[03:54] %HeaLnDeaL: I guess a subforum title is what's in question the most

[03:54] %HeaLnDeaL: Personally, I think CAP Meta or whatnot is the most logical name...

[03:55] %HeaLnDeaL: but Birkal suggested we call it CAP+

[03:55] +gday: oh rly

[03:55] Wolfandburger: its understandable

[03:55] +gday: hmm i dunno, i dont rly know anything about the subforum actually

[03:55] %HeaLnDeaL: apparently his logic is that the playtests are the "real" CAP metas

[03:55] +gday: but i would think that CAP meta would b the most logical

[03:55] +gday: i hated the playtest

[03:56] +gday: i didnt play for like 2 weeks after it either

[03:56] %HeaLnDeaL: Birkal also made a comment that the CAP meta is just something we do in our free time or whatnot...

[03:57] +gday: i dont even participate in the actual making at all, the only contribution i have actually made is voting on sprites

[03:57] %HeaLnDeaL: blah I'm just feeling really defeated at the moment

[03:58] %HeaLnDeaL: essentially we just spent a month trying to get the CAP meta to be better/more officialize/get a subforum

[03:58] +gday: there are those who mainly work on the creation of the caps an then those who mainly battle

[03:58] +gday: i dont think its mainly about the creation of them at all

[04:00] %HeaLnDeaL: ugh I dunno

[04:00] %HeaLnDeaL: maybe I'm just too biased atm or just reading into things too much

[04:01] +gday: meh neither i dont rly know anything about cap other than the meta

[04:01] %HeaLnDeaL: but it seems that if they call our meta something other than the CAP Meta it's almost like taking away a part of our identity

[04:01] +gday: yeah thats true

[04:01] Wolfandburger: it depends how much they will change it

[04:01] %HeaLnDeaL: CAP+ doesn't say anything about what we really are. It sounds like a new CAP process entirely, not a CAP meta

[04:02] %HeaLnDeaL: I mean we already get questions about what we are as a room, do we really need to make it harder?

[04:02] +gday: yeah and its more like 50/50 half the creation and then half battling with them

[04:02] +gday: we get so many questions a day

[04:02] Wolfandburger: it sounds like its mixing something completly different like monotype or something with it

[04:04] %HeaLnDeaL: so is there anything else that you'd like our meta to be called? Or are you pretty set on it being just the CAP Meta?

[04:05] Wolfandburger: i think calling it CAP+ will confuse people to the point the point were a million more questions will come

[04:05] +gday: yeah i would just go with cap meta

[04:05] +gday: no point in changing i think

[04:05] +gday: is that what u want as well

[04:06] Wolfandburger: why change what works perfeclly


I’m not entirely opposed to rebrandings, and I think they have their use. But I’m not really sold on CAP+, and I think it could just make it even harder for casual players/forum goers to understand what the CAP metagame is at a glance. I can understand the symbolic nature of the plus in CAP+, but I think new players would not catch on to this symbolism and that it would be a point of further confusion rather than being a helpful descriptor.
 
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 don't like CAP+ for the simple reason that ultimately this is an independent project and is only an "extension" in the sense it is effectively cataloging what can happen to a metagame when new, theoretically OU relevant threats are added every four months or so. We've been calling it the CAP Metagame for years. We explicitly say we don't make CAPs for the CAP Metagame, we make them for the current iteration of OU at the time the project starts.

What I think we should stress is that the CAP Meta is an independent project rather than a "side" project. Yes, it builds a metagame around the CAP Pokemon, but they aren't a part of the CAP Process itself. It's a way to keep old CAPs in the spotlight, and it might have potential for some more canonized effects on the CAPs later, but for now it's a tier developed out of the results of the CAP process and introduced Pokemon over long periods of time.

I view the CAP Metagame as a way to familiarize players with all the CAP Pokemon and give them a fun environment to check out what our old and new CAPs can actually do in a new framework. When we make CAPs during generation shifts / updates (like we will when ORAS comes out), our CAP is already not relevant to OU by the time it is released. I think the more views and people we can bring in who want to battle with CAPs, the better our projects are going to be.

In short I think it's more important to talk about the independent nature about the project rather than treating it solely like a secondhand spin-off. The goal is to increase awareness of the project, our CAP Pokemon, and the forum - not to bury support in timid legalisms or half-hearted gestures to the people who want to make it an operable, respected metagame.
 

ginganinja

It's all coming back to me now
is a Community Leader Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Essentially, what I'm inferring from Birkal's post is that the CAP Metagame shouldn't be called the CAP Metagame because the CAP Playtests are the real CAP Metagames.
Actually, I think its more the issue that with every single CAP thread (during the process) be it movepool, abilities, typing and so on, someone will attempt to use reasoning such as "can we give this thing Flash Fire because it can better switch into Mollux" or something, and someone has to explain the difference between the CAP meta, the OU Meta, the Playtest Ladder, and everything else to do with what we do and don't build the CAP for. I think CAP+ is just Birkals way of finding a way to easily differentiate between the two of them, though I obviously apologies if I am just taking words out of his mouth.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Personally, I have a weird mix of opinions on this whole idea. On the one hand, I get the intent behind the suggested name change. Yes, the CAP metagame is not the official metagame of the CAP creation project, and avoiding confusion on this matter would be ideal. If there were a good way to change the name, I would probably not be against it.

However, I disagree with a lot of the reasoning as to why we should change the name. While it may not be the official meta of the creation project, if we are taking it in and supporting it with a forum, then in my mind, it very much becomes an official metagame of CAP. Just because we don't create for it does not mean we don't take ownership of and support it. Furthermore, I think to try and say the playtests are the "CAP meta" is just wrong. No one calls them that, obviously, but more importantly, we don't make CAPs for them either. If we did, each CAP would be chock full of anti-counterteaming measures, since the playtests are 90% counter teaming, with 90% of the rest being counter-counterteaming. No, the official metagame of the CAP project is not the playtest. The official metagame of the project is OU. But there is no real reason we can't have another metagame officially supported in a different way, and that is what we are doing right now.

Furthermore, if the name "CAP Meta" causes confusion, I would find it hard to believe that something such as "CAP+" would not cause even more confusion. Not only is the most crucial part, "CAP" still right in the name, but the additional word does nothing to symbolize what it actually is. If people nowadays call it the CAP meta, and we change it to CAP+, I have no doubt the "+" part will be dropped from the common usage all too quickly, which, if anything, only makes confusion worse.

Overall, I'm kinda torn on this. I hate the mindset of "its a spinoff" because if we are trying to support it officially, then that shouldn't matter in the slightest. It is still an official CAP meta, and I see little harm with calling it the "CAP meta" as opposed to other equally confusing things. At the same time, I do understand the potential benefits of rebranding. I just do not believe "CAP+" is a good name, and I have not been able to come up with a name that I think is good enough either.
 

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
That's fine. Thanks for the quick responses. If we can't think of a better name, I will go ahead with creating the forum tonight. Just understand that we need to be explicit from the start that we do NOT create pokemon for the CAP Metagame. If we are to rebrand it, now is the time to do it.

I also need a forum description.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Well, to go with the style of the other descriptions we have something along the lines of "The subforum for discussion and analysis of the CAP Metagame" would work. Not exactly the most exciting though. Anyone have any other ideas?
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I think one thing that is important to keep in mind is that, regardless of the name, the word "Metagame" or "Meta" will get tagged on to the end very frequently. While people say OU, UU, RU, etc to refer to our tiers, each one has its own metagame, and people refer to them as such. Things like "the OU metagame" are heard all around on a daily basis.

Basically, what I'm saying is that, even if we call it ALL CAP (not really sure where that capital S is coming from, but w/e), I would bet a lot that it would be referred to as the "ALL CAP Metagame", or, for short, the "CAP Meta." While I personally have no issue with that specific name, if what people want out of such a name is to change what it is referred to as in the vernacular of Smogon, I don't think we can use CAP in the name at all, and that makes it very hard to pick out a name.
 

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
ALL CAPS Metagame is hilarious, brilliant, catchy, and perfectly descriptive -- all in one name. If it gets colloquially shortened to the "CAP Meta" in chats and other discussions, that's fine. The key is that in official descriptions and the like, the name will be descriptive of what it actually is -- the metagame composed of all the past CAP creations made to date.

I don't think there will be any confusion with playtesting, because we usually call that metagame, duh... "Playtesting" or "the CAP X Playtest". And that meta lasts for a whopping total of two weeks anyway, so it's not like there is much time for confusion.

I think it will be easy to make clear that we do not build new pokemon for the ALL CAPS meta. There will be newcomers that assume wrongly on that front -- but that happens anyway. We correct them or, if they post it in the forum (which is where this usually happens), we delete/moderate the post. That's what we have always done, and we will continue to do so.

ALL CAPS is just brilliant, srk you clever bastard. Well done, sir.
 

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
That's fine. Thanks for the quick responses. If we can't think of a better name, I will go ahead with creating the forum tonight. Just understand that we need to be explicit from the start that we do NOT create pokemon for the CAP Metagame. If we are to rebrand it, now is the time to do it.

I also need a forum description.
Might I suggest "CAPTION goes here." for the description?

Oh, something serious - "Independent discussion forum featuring analysis and teams for a metagame featuring all of the CAP Creations."
 

bugmaniacbob

Was fun while it lasted
is an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
"ALL CAPS" is a terrible name. Largely because of the pun. I hear it and I can't help immediately getting the impression that "there is no way that this could be taken seriously by anyone if they decided to make the name into a pun" would be the default response from any random passerby. The name, whatever it happens to be, only needs to be descriptive. That's it. Nothing else. Well, all right, maybe "short". 3 characters, as in CAP, is easy enough to spell out. ALL CAPS will inevitably be shortened to AC. Or, indeed, simply referred to as "CAP", because that's what it has always been, and "CAP" literally could not be used to refer to anything else.

I don't understand any suggestion that we need to re-brand the CAP metagame at all. "ALL CAPS" is no more indicative of the metagame we're building for than any other option we've been given, including "CAP+" - as Doug has rightly pointed out. We're not building for "a CAP metagame", we're building for the current OU. In this case there is no reason to call it anything other than "the CAP metagame" or, simply, "CAP".
 

HeaLnDeaL

Let's Keep Fighting
is an Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
As a quick sidenote, there might be players who think that ALL CAPs means you have to use a team full of only CAPmons. Even as it is now, some new players get confused with this detail, and I can see ALL CAPs just making this even a bigger issue. Not to mention people will likely come in and troll while speaking in all capital letters...
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Since ALL CAP seems to have a decent amount of support, I would like to make a proposal with it.

First off, I think it would be better to go with "All CAP" than "ALL CAP," as the former is less annoying to look at, and is less likely to attract trolls posting in all caps. At the same time, CAP being in caps still gets the pun across, for those worried about that. And of course, it keeps the same overall meaning.

Secondly, this name of the Forum should be "All CAP Metagame." Yes, I know some people don't want "metagame" in the name, but I think it is actually necessary with a name like this. We need to make sure people understand what it is, and "All CAP" by itself is far from clear. Without "metagame" in there, I would expect a ton of people to come in expecting a more free version of the CAP project where they can make what they want, or something to that effect. While other official mentions can leave out "metagame," for the forum name itself, I think it is pretty important.

Third, no changes should be made to the presentation on Pokemon Showdown. The tier on there is currently known as CAP. Since it is our only active metagame, and no one is likely to confuse it with a labeled playtest, there is little reason to change that. What's more, by leaving it as is, we completely avoid the problem of people who only go on PS and not the forums thinking the metagame is only for CAP Pokemon. At the same time, with the forum being named as it is, the only people who could misconstrue the point of the meta are those who don't participate in the project to begin with. Beyond this, the PS room itself is for all things CAP, not just the metagame, so it should remain named as is.


EDIT: On second thought, after talking more with people, I am pretty against the name. I just don't see any benefit to it, besides making a few of us chuckle, while I really do get the feeling that it could have negative effects based on how people interpret the name. It also seems to me like the vast majority of people who actually play the meta actively dislike this name. If people in general do like the above proposal, I do think it is the best way to use this name, but I would prefer if we didn't.
 
Last edited:

paintseagull

pink wingull
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Can we just save this thread a lot of postcounts and words? None of these names are seriously considerable, people are going to call it CAP Meta anyway and it doesn't need a rebrand. "ALL CAPS" is a hilarious and amazing joke that we absolutely shouldn't use, CAP Plus is confusing, "ALL CAP" takes the super awesome joke and just hits it with a hammer and implies that people are making teams full of CAPs. Being afraid to associate the CAP Meta with CAP process goes against the spirit of this policy review, which is basically to remove this weird communication gap that we have and support the thing that makes use of all our great creations permanently. Some people will never read rules, but they are already clear as day. No matter what you do there'll always be some new guy who comes in and makes a post that's clueless. We don't need to cater to such people.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
The backlash against All CAP as a name is pretty fierce and I agree with the reason behind it. It gives the impression that the only mons allowed are CAPs and the last thing we want to encourage in order to improve the meta is MORE teams of 6 CAP mons.

also the ALL CAPS thing was a bad pun and I didn't intend for that to be taken quite so seriously as it was, though I did like All CAP at first.

 
Last edited:

jas61292

used substitute
is a Community Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
Just as a follow up to the edit in my post above, I would just like to show some of the IRC reaction going on right now:

Code:
<paintseagull> though i can't believe anyone is taking it seriously enough to say anything except "LOL"
<DetroitLolcat> If we actually consider calling it that I'll post against it

<DetroitLolcat> tbh I just like keeping CAP Metagame
<DetroitLolcat> That's what people are going to call it anyway

<DarkSlay> I'm realistic, though, and understand that a name in itself isn't what drives self-interest, which is the main culprit in people choosing poll items.
<DarkSlay> We have artists, ASB players, CAP meta players, OU players, UU players, Firebot posters...
<DarkSlay> Can't really believe that "CAP Metagame" as a name alone drives unwanted support for something we don't build for.

<srk1214> I think it's an important distinction to have if we're going to seriously ever attract good competitive battlers to CAP
<jas61292> If we want serious battlers though we should not be naming our tier base on a joke
<jas61292> that's basically screaming "we don't take this seriously"
<srk1214> (I wasn't expecting to be taken seriously)

<DarkSlay> All CAP, All CAPs, ALL CAPS, doesn't matter, it encourages six-CAP teams for new players. And for those that disagree/don't care, I kind of think you haven't laddered on the CAP metagame ladder recently. x_x
<DarkSlay> As that is one of our major problems.
EDIT: And apparently two of the individuals in the quotes posted as I was making this. Their posts are better than these quotes, but I'll just leave them here for reference.
 

Vryheid

fudge jelly
So the current Suspect Test for Aegislash is highly relevant to this discussion as it provides a near perfect example of a Pokemon which functions as a significantly reduced threat in the CAP metagame in comparison to OU. These points are pretty much universally agreed on by the CAP meta community:

-Aegislash has a number of highly effective checks/counters that do not exist in the OU metagame (Mollux, Colossoil, Tomohawk, Volkraken, Arghonaut, etc), rendering it far easier to deal with than standard OU teams
-Fairies are one of the biggest threats in the CAP metagame right now, due to their ability to effortlessly plow through the standard "bulky trinity" of CAPmons (Tomohawk, Cyclohm, Colossoil)
-Aegislash is one of the best checks/counters to practically every Fairy type in the game, and the few Fairies it cannot stop reliably (Azumarill, Mega Mawile) are all countered by Mollux
-Aegislash is one of the only reliable and metagame viable offensive counters to standard Belly Drum Cawmodore (that lack Knock Off, anyways), due to its ability to tank a +6 Acrobatics, immunity to Drain Punch, and ability to OHKO with Shadow Ball

What this means is that an Aegislash ban could have unpredictable and potentially negative impacts on the CAP meta at a time when it is already in a state of flux. I am not trying to argue one way or the other on this specific Pokemon, but I believe this is a very strong piece of evidence in favor of at least having a process in place to consider whether or not we should always follow exactly the same rules as OU when deciding what Pokemon we allow.
 

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
My deal with jas61292 and Deck Knight was that I will allow the CAP metagame to retain its name under one condition. If I note continual problems with users confusing the CAP metagame with the CAP process, and the CAP metagame refuses to rebrand, then I will remove the forum and metagame entirely. That ultimatum may seem extreme, but that is how seriously I take this issue. It is not within our best interests to sacrifice the integrity of the project for a single name. If people are helping create Pokemon under the misconception that we're making them for the CAP metagame, then we have failed. Just caught this in #cap today:

Code:
[16:52] <Birkal> we're not here to pander to other rulesets
[16:53] <Birkal> we're making a Pokemon for OU
[16:53] <RODAN> its not even ou tho is it
[16:53] <RODAN> isnt cap its own metagame
[16:53] <RODAN> with other caps
[16:53] <@DarkSlay> No RODAN.
[16:53] <BaseSpeed> Oh lord
[16:53] <@DarkSlay> Projects are for the OU metagame.
[16:53] <@DarkSlay> The CAP metagame is something separate.
[16:53] <RODAN> o
[16:53] <RODAN> i thought they were one in the same
[16:53] <RODAN> gotcha
[16:54] <Birkal> jas ^
[16:54] <Birkal> remember the deeeeeeeeeeeeaaallll~~~~~~~
[16:54] <@DarkSlay> I've got to make lunch some time today. x_x brb
[16:54] <Birkal> seen it twice now within a week
[16:54] Nick change: DarkSlay -> LunchSlay
[16:54] <@LunchSlay> That's not a name problem, that's a problem with understanding the point of CAP.
[16:54] <@LunchSlay> :P
[16:54] <@LunchSlay> Which is fair.
[16:55] <Birkal> the name isn't helping the confusion
[16:55] <Birkal> at all
[16:55] <&@jas|Away> Yeah. The name has nothing to do with that. The only things I have seen are either name independant or sarcasm
[16:55] <@LunchSlay> It is either the CAP Metagame or CAPcom.
[16:55] <@LunchSlay> Nothing else.
[16:55] <@LunchSlay> :P
[16:55] <Birkal> nah, rodan wasn't wrong
[16:55] <Birkal> CAP is its own metagame
[16:55] <Birkal> it's just that our metagame and our project have the exact same title
[16:56] <&@jas|Away> Also, there is a big difference between asking a question and making posts assuming something wrong.
[16:56] <Birkal> I don't see how that is a problem with understanding CAP
[16:56] <RODAN> just change the cap metagame to smogmons
[16:56] <RODAN> ther u go
[16:56] <Birkal> he had a misconception over a name; I don't see how there is an confusion here
This is RODAN we're talking about. He's a moderator on Smogon who has been participating lightly in CAP for at least two years. As a user who is supposed to be "with it", I was surprised that he was confused by our nomenclature. He's not wrong in thinking that CAP has its own metagame. It's because the names are an absolute mess that these misconceptions are drawn. So your options here are pretty clear, CAP Metagame people.

1) Advertise the crap out of the fact that CAP metagame =/= CAP. Get the mods to put it in OPs. Spread it in bold on the simulator.
2) Change the name.
3) Pray that I don't see this pop up on more occasions and end up removing the community (hint: I really don't want to have to do this).
I don't mean this as a threat, but a foot needs to be put down here. Sacrificing what CAP is all about for a side project (or more specifically, refusal to change a name) is not going to happen. So please, resolve it before further action needs to be taken. I'm not really open to discussing this specific scenario (or any other). If I don't see an effort from the CAP metagame to differentiate themselves publicly or make a name change, and this sort of thing keeps coming up, we don't have any other options to take. Thanks for your understanding.
 
Last edited:

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'm fully with Birkal on this one. We are not going to sacrifice the focus of the CAP project just to protect the name of a niche project on the side.

I agree this sort of confusion is toxic to the project. I also suspect that for every time we clearly see evidence of confusion (like the log above) there are probably MANY more occurrences happening unseen.

I'm a bit surprised that every mod and CAP veteran does not see this as a significant problem OR you think the CAP metagame nomenclature is actually worth the damage to the CAP project itself. But yeah, like Birkal said, to me this is a glaring issue that needs to be solved swiftly and completely. If others can't cut it out with a scalpel, then we'll have to do it with a broad sword...
 

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

Top