GMars
It's ya boy GEEEEEEEEMARS
Intro
Hi all, I'm GMars, here with a proposal that hopefully isn't too controversial. The CAP metagame exists as a tool or a mechanism by which we can evaluate how well we understood and executed the concept during the process. However, this ability isn't utilized in the current CAP process, and there's a distinct divide between process and metagame that we've recently been trying to bridge. To that end, and most importantly to improve the way we learn from making our Pokemon, I'm proposing a new CAP stage, a "post-play lookback." This stage is meant to occur after the CAP community has had the chance to play with the creation for a while and really understand how different process decisions have played into fulfilling the concept and achieving the goals that were set up in Concept Assessment.
Everything I propose here can easily be modified to fit with the community's desires/expectations, whether that be timeline, who leads the stage, etc.
Stage Flow
- Stage timeline: My initial thoughts are that this stage should occur approximately one month to a month and a half after the CAP is released. This gives enough time to: play with the Pokemon, let any initial reactions to the Pokemon whether positive or negative go by the wayside, and for community members to come to a well-formed opinion of the creation, its imapct, and its success or failings with regards to the concept. This stage shouldn't be too long after the release however, both out of courtesy to the TL's and to ensure that learnings can be implemented in the next CAP process (as well as preventing process overlap, being a good warm-up stage for the next CAP to come).
- Stage leader: The TL. This stage must be led by the team that made the CAP, not the meta council, to ensure that process-vision is maintained and to keep the stage focused on community opinion.
- Part One: The stage begins with a discussion of what we've learned through the process, which even from the final product thread is a piece of CAP that is sorely missing. This is a discussion with the community led by the TL of successes, shortcomings, the interesting, and the unexpected.
- Part Two: Community-submitted final tweaking. This must be a community-focused event through discussions, submissions, and through voting. Currently, changes to existing creations aside from updates are left unilaterally to the meta council, relying solely on discussions rather than voting. The council should still exist to make smart changes to keep the CAP meta enjoyable, but there exists a gap in the community elements of CAP and the process of the meta council. This stage seeks to bridge this gap by having the community create and vote on minor tweaks at the end of the CAP process, both to keep the community involved in battles with their creations and to ensure the CAP meta stays fun and balanced with each new addition.
-- What is a minor tweak?
--- A minor tweak should not invalidate a prior stage. Possible minor tweaks could consist of: Slight changes to stat points, a single move, a slated option of "no changes." (Point for discussion: Secondary Abilities - if they overshadow the primary ability or are ultimately found to be unhealthy in their interactions with the primary, is this a minor tweak or is this too large for such a section? Would it invalidate the secondary ability stage?)
-- What is a major tweak, which should not be made?
--- Changes too major which should NOT be made: Typing, primary ability, large stat chunks, multiple moves, etc.
Common Q&A
Q: Doesn't this mean the final product isn't final anymore?
A: Yes, this is a minor semantics issue which can be addressed. "Final" products have not been final since CAP updates were introduced and since the meta council was created.
Q: Should this stage be done for CAP 26?
A: That is left up to the discretion of the community and the moderators.
Q: Should tweaks be made towards fulfilling concept or towards improving the enjoyability of the metagame?
A: Edits should be made only to address an existing issue - if the creation is not fulfilling its concept, after discussing and logging why, edits can be suggested and slated in that direction. If the creation is having a negative impact on the metagame, then edits can instead be discussed and slated in that direction. If both are occurring, then it's likely that both are stemming from the same issue and can be addressed. If there are no issues in either area, then the option of no changes should be slated and voted on.
Q: Why do we need this test period when we have the test server, isn't that basically the same?
A: Real experience in the meta paints a much clearer picture of the Pokemon. Many, many times more battles happen once the CAP is released than in the initial testing period.
Q: Why should we bother with this stage when we have the nerfing process?
A: Aside from logging what we've learned, it's also important that any early changes be a fully community-based process to really incorporate them into the Creation of the Pokemon. The nerfing process keeps the metagame fun and playable, helping to bring more people into CAP from across the site, but making something and then shortly after having a council trim elements from it rather than the community takes away from the community-created aspect of each Pokemon.
Q: Will the existence of the stage cause TLT's to act more freely in creating higher-powered Pokemon with the knowledge that they could simply tone them back later?
A: No, as changes available in this stage are restricted to being minor by nature, TLT's should not be acting more freely in creating higher-powered Pokemon, and they should always be striving to make the most balanced and fun Pokemon possible to accomplish a chosen concept.
Conclusion
This new stage seeks to fill in two areas the current CAP process and community lacks: A dedicated time to discuss and log what we've learned through the process, and involving the community more in battle-focused tweaks. Hopefully, this is not a controversial proposal. This is a small change to the CAP process that can result in improving each process going forward.
Hi all, I'm GMars, here with a proposal that hopefully isn't too controversial. The CAP metagame exists as a tool or a mechanism by which we can evaluate how well we understood and executed the concept during the process. However, this ability isn't utilized in the current CAP process, and there's a distinct divide between process and metagame that we've recently been trying to bridge. To that end, and most importantly to improve the way we learn from making our Pokemon, I'm proposing a new CAP stage, a "post-play lookback." This stage is meant to occur after the CAP community has had the chance to play with the creation for a while and really understand how different process decisions have played into fulfilling the concept and achieving the goals that were set up in Concept Assessment.
Everything I propose here can easily be modified to fit with the community's desires/expectations, whether that be timeline, who leads the stage, etc.
Stage Flow
- Stage timeline: My initial thoughts are that this stage should occur approximately one month to a month and a half after the CAP is released. This gives enough time to: play with the Pokemon, let any initial reactions to the Pokemon whether positive or negative go by the wayside, and for community members to come to a well-formed opinion of the creation, its imapct, and its success or failings with regards to the concept. This stage shouldn't be too long after the release however, both out of courtesy to the TL's and to ensure that learnings can be implemented in the next CAP process (as well as preventing process overlap, being a good warm-up stage for the next CAP to come).
- Stage leader: The TL. This stage must be led by the team that made the CAP, not the meta council, to ensure that process-vision is maintained and to keep the stage focused on community opinion.
- Part One: The stage begins with a discussion of what we've learned through the process, which even from the final product thread is a piece of CAP that is sorely missing. This is a discussion with the community led by the TL of successes, shortcomings, the interesting, and the unexpected.
- Part Two: Community-submitted final tweaking. This must be a community-focused event through discussions, submissions, and through voting. Currently, changes to existing creations aside from updates are left unilaterally to the meta council, relying solely on discussions rather than voting. The council should still exist to make smart changes to keep the CAP meta enjoyable, but there exists a gap in the community elements of CAP and the process of the meta council. This stage seeks to bridge this gap by having the community create and vote on minor tweaks at the end of the CAP process, both to keep the community involved in battles with their creations and to ensure the CAP meta stays fun and balanced with each new addition.
-- What is a minor tweak?
--- A minor tweak should not invalidate a prior stage. Possible minor tweaks could consist of: Slight changes to stat points, a single move, a slated option of "no changes." (Point for discussion: Secondary Abilities - if they overshadow the primary ability or are ultimately found to be unhealthy in their interactions with the primary, is this a minor tweak or is this too large for such a section? Would it invalidate the secondary ability stage?)
-- What is a major tweak, which should not be made?
--- Changes too major which should NOT be made: Typing, primary ability, large stat chunks, multiple moves, etc.
Common Q&A
Q: Doesn't this mean the final product isn't final anymore?
A: Yes, this is a minor semantics issue which can be addressed. "Final" products have not been final since CAP updates were introduced and since the meta council was created.
Q: Should this stage be done for CAP 26?
A: That is left up to the discretion of the community and the moderators.
Q: Should tweaks be made towards fulfilling concept or towards improving the enjoyability of the metagame?
A: Edits should be made only to address an existing issue - if the creation is not fulfilling its concept, after discussing and logging why, edits can be suggested and slated in that direction. If the creation is having a negative impact on the metagame, then edits can instead be discussed and slated in that direction. If both are occurring, then it's likely that both are stemming from the same issue and can be addressed. If there are no issues in either area, then the option of no changes should be slated and voted on.
Q: Why do we need this test period when we have the test server, isn't that basically the same?
A: Real experience in the meta paints a much clearer picture of the Pokemon. Many, many times more battles happen once the CAP is released than in the initial testing period.
Q: Why should we bother with this stage when we have the nerfing process?
A: Aside from logging what we've learned, it's also important that any early changes be a fully community-based process to really incorporate them into the Creation of the Pokemon. The nerfing process keeps the metagame fun and playable, helping to bring more people into CAP from across the site, but making something and then shortly after having a council trim elements from it rather than the community takes away from the community-created aspect of each Pokemon.
Q: Will the existence of the stage cause TLT's to act more freely in creating higher-powered Pokemon with the knowledge that they could simply tone them back later?
A: No, as changes available in this stage are restricted to being minor by nature, TLT's should not be acting more freely in creating higher-powered Pokemon, and they should always be striving to make the most balanced and fun Pokemon possible to accomplish a chosen concept.
Conclusion
This new stage seeks to fill in two areas the current CAP process and community lacks: A dedicated time to discuss and log what we've learned through the process, and involving the community more in battle-focused tweaks. Hopefully, this is not a controversial proposal. This is a small change to the CAP process that can result in improving each process going forward.