Posting this on behalf of
Deck Knight:
--------
I have submitted a stat spread in nearly every CAP project since the beginning, and been succcessfully selected by the voters multiple times, long distant in the project's history and more recently. I think any official standard has to end after the statline and BSR limits,
and then allow further categories to be arranged as the submitter desires.
Stat Submissions have changed many times over the years. In earlier submissions, it was very common to have a huge wall of calculations from the Honchkalculator, and more recently it has been pared back to only a smaller subset of relevant calculations. There are huge elements of a successful submission that involve persuasion and emphasis, and a more open submission format allows the submitter to focus on the strengths of their spread.
Let me give a few examples of why this flexibility is needed:
1. Speed Tier is fundamental.
Speed Tier is probably the number one factor that impacts every submission. When I submitted my Krilowatt spread, one of my arguments was that Speed also functions effectively as a defense by causing Krilowatt to take fewer hits overall. Offensive Benchmarks and Defensive Benchmarks require this factor for their context.
A faster spread will inherently have lower damage output because of the way Sweepiness works, however the submitter is banking on getting in a second hit after a threat in a checks or counters section switches in. A slower spread might also have fewer offensive benchmarks because it invested in emphasizing Tankiness, and even though it has lower damage output its defensive calculations are considered more important.
2. Spreads are often created with a specific benchmark in mind, not with emphasis on every target/check/counter equally.
Remember that at the stage Stat Submissions take place, our list of threats, checks, and counters is not set in stone. In fact, the thrust of many submissions is to argue for why a certain check or counter should not be a check or counter, based on achieving the goal of a concept. A standardized format beyond the Statline/BSR puts submissions on an unequal footing because it requires them to address all hypotheticals on our constructed initial threatlist equally instead of conveying the information they find most important. People do read Stat Submissions in full before voting. Whenever I make a submission, I create an overview that points to the key elements of the spread, and then put each of them in hide tags. having already prepped the reader for the sections that will be most important.
3. Unnecessary padding should be avoided.
Forcing every submitter to specifically address every identified target, check, and counter is going to wash out interest by making every submission so similar that people who are listed first get a slight advantage. I don't think the original post insinuated this was a requirement, but I write it here as a concern because technically every spread can get a good calculation on common offensive or defensive staples if they include a specific coverage move. Many submissions operate from a baseline of a very specific suite of moves, and simply do not want to muddle their calculations with hypotheticals that could muddle it. Say a hypothetical spread wants to avoid a 2HKO on Ferrothorn with Focus Blast because the submitter wants it to remain a counter. They shouldn't feel obligated to include a Flamethrower calculation that would get a 2HKO if Flamethrower isn't within their vision of coverage.
4. Stats include investment, not just base stats.
I have won some submissions, I think, based on the fact in nearly all of them I include a functioning hypothetical set with calculations specific to that set. While many submissions are relatively cut-and-dried 252/252/4 investment situations, some submissions try to strike a realistic balance in their stats, and a more rote format of "this is where your offensive benchmarks go" can impede the ability to do that. I don't think it is wise to set down rules that would limit creativity and a more realistic view of how base stats and investment work together.
All that being said, I think in order to assist new submitters in making good submissions, a
guideline for the kinds of information to include (
an overview, speed tier, and then the listed benchmark categories in the original post's proposal) would be helpful. Defensive Spreads, Fast Spreads, and Offensive Spreads each want to highlight their strength first. This is a fundamental element of the persuasion inherent in stat spread submissions. There should be enough flexibility to allow each spread to make it's best case first, then the reader/voter can evaluate the constraints after being primed with the most positive elements.
