Policy Review Policy Review: Changes to Concept Submission

[DougJustDoug]

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1412586&postcount=2

CAP4 was the first project to begin with a Concept. In the end, the Concept turned out to be enormously successful at achieving the desired goal. It focused the entire project on a single unifying theme and eliminated a lot of distractions common to previous CAP projects.

But the Concept submission process itself was a total mess. We really need to clean it up. I only have one firm proposal, and then I will look to the rest of you to help with further improvements.

I think we should rename "Concept" to "Role".
This may seem small, but I think it will help clarify the sort of submissions we are soliciting. We want a broad description of the role the pokemon will play in the metagame. We do not want a short description of an entire pokemon. In fact, we must have almost no specifics included in the Role description.

The purpose of the Role is simply to allow the later polls to proceed with a modicum of direction. It is an organizational tool, nothing more. Too many people tried to cram too much into this early phase of the project, not realizing that our pokemon designs take shape over the course of several weeks -- not in a single thread. This led to all sorts of problems.

We must figure out a way to structure the Role submission process such that we get a general idea of where we are going, without pre-determining ANY of the fundamental aspects of the pokemon that will come later. I think renaming it to Role, will be helpful. The word "Concept" was just too all-inclusive and was an invitation for people to "design in advance".

I am interested in hearing further suggestions to improve this particular step of the process.

I realize there is a lot of energy around this issue, so I will remind everyone that this is a Policy Review. It is not a chat or back-and-forth discussion. Please compose your thoughts on this topic and make a reasoned post stating your position and/or specific proposal.

 

[phalanx]

sounds interesting enough to me, I personally like a bit of organization in the works, it allows me to know what is going on, where everything is and to check back, it gives people the push and focus to work on one thing rather then 3 or 4 at once, maybe list the orders of work then work around that.

 

[User 12783]

Well, role does suit it better than the word concept as a concept is an idea already made and developed, it's just being improved or is a guideline in making a creation. I'll agree with you on this matter, as role is better. As for extra proposal, please make it so that if you post it can only be a role, or criticism on a fellow role. There was needless to say a lot of spam in the last one. I propose that you can only post if you are submitting a role yourself as well. I also think there should be no move inclusion or ability inclusion in the role such as it was in Fidgit's "concept". That limited a lot of things a made some moves necessary.

 

[tennisace]

I agree with this proposal. It would be the same as the concepts, by not allowing Abilities or Types to be in the roll, right? I have a log from earlier where a bunch of us were discussing possible changes. This was actually literally right after you left Doug.

Alphabet_Soup: Does anybody else feel we may need a Policy Review thread on the Concept thread? 
Flounder: I just added Fidgit to my team. >_< 
Alphabet_Soup: dammit 
Captain: I really 
Captain: liked the concept thread 
Flounder: Yeah, I think we do, soup. 
Alphabet_Soup: Of course Doug leaves right before I say that 
Captain: what problem do you have with it? 
Alphabet_Soup: really Captain? 
Alphabet_Soup: It seemed disorganized and limiting to me. 
Flounder: half of the thread was filled with people who didin't reap the OP 
Captain: it is limiting 
Captain: and yes 
Captain: it's VERY cluttered 
Flounder: *didn't, read 
Captain: it's a fucking mess for the TL 
Captain: that doesn't mean I hate the concept thread 
Alphabet_Soup: I'm confused on why we made it limiting. 
Alphabet_Soup: Like 
Captain: look at pyroak 
Alphabet_Soup: I'd like to do a CAp based around an Ability 
Alphabet_Soup: or Move 
Captain: try to define it 
Alphabet_Soup: CAP* 
Captain: It appears that there's this perception that pyroak just didn't fit the way Rev and Syclant did 
Alphabet_Soup: It came out fine though 
tennisace0227: we did it around a move this time 
JaRiZos has left Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
Captain: now that we have statistics on it 
tennisace0227: or rather a bunch of moves 
Captain: I can agree 
Captain: it's just not as good as pyroak or rev imo 
Captain: *syclant 
Captain: sorry 
tennisace0227: the problem with ability or types is you force the results of multiple polls, or go against the concept 
Alphabet_Soup: Because we have it in some set order 
tennisace0227: its more limiting to say I'm going to make a concept around an ability 
Alphabet_Soup: that is actually a bit arbitrary 
comatose811: I think we should do a CaP UU 
Bumfacepik: What about just one move 
Captain: mod servers are arbitrary 
sarwar has joined Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
Captain: that's no getting around that 
Alphabet_Soup: I know, that's not my point 
tennisace0227: moves are fine, because there are more than one moves in a movepool 
sarwar has left Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
Alphabet_Soup: I'm saying we can start the process from more than one starting point. 
duelingdog has joined Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
tennisace0227: how so? 
Alphabet_Soup: And still have a good result. 
Alphabet_Soup: Well, we started Syclant on type, didn't we? 
Captain: Syclant 
tennisace0227: yeah 
Captain: was a better success than pyroak 
Alphabet_Soup: We started Fidgit on moves 
Alphabet_Soup: I'm not sure exactly where Rev started 
Someone65 has joined Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
Captain: I have been told fidget is awesome 
tennisace0227: no, we started on concept containing moves. 
duelingdog has left Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
tennisace0227: theres a difference 
Alphabet_Soup: But I'm pretty sure it was on typing 
Alphabet_Soup: well yes 
tennisace0227: rev was on typing 
Alphabet_Soup: but the concept was the moves 
Captain: exactly how awesome, well some statistics on it would help 
Darkie has joined Doug's Create-A-Pokemon Server. 
tennisace0227: right. but when you limit a concept to one ability, it limits the outcome of the project severly. 
tennisace0227: a few moves to fit into a movepool of about 60 is nothing 
Alphabet_Soup: Maybe being limited isn't such a bad thing 
tennisace0227: 1 out of a possible 2 is a lot 
tennisace0227: why isnt it bad? 
Alphabet_Soup: You make it seem like being slightly limited kills something 
tennisace0227: its not just slightly limited 
tennisace0227: its removing a whole poll 
Alphabet_Soup: So removing a whole poll out of what, 15-16 polls? 
tennisace0227: yeah 
Alphabet_Soup: that's not slighty limited? 
tennisace0227: that is slightly limited 
tennisace0227: the problem is, what about the people who didnt want that concept 
Alphabet_Soup: Well 
tennisace0227: they dont get a say in the ability, since theres only one outcome 
Alphabet_Soup: what about the people who didn't want a Poison type 
Captain: didn't want, wasn't this about what we want not what we don't want? 
tennisace0227: we didnt say poison type in the concept, did we? 
Alphabet_Soup: No 
Alphabet_Soup: But that's not the point 
Captain: no we did not, but we didn't say against it. 
Alphabet_Soup: You don't always get what you want in CAP 
tennisace0227: right, but i dont feel like we should limit ourselves with abilities and types in the concepts 
Alphabet_Soup: What about the people who didn't want Syclant to be Bug, or the people who didn't want Fidgit to be a utility poke? 
Captain: I'm lost, explain this again 
tennisace0227: touche. 
Alphabet_Soup: Since the majority won, why does it matter what the minority thinks? 
Alphabet_Soup: Isn't that how a democracy works? 
tennisace0227: because the minority matters just as much as the majority 
Bass: Pretty much, A_S 
tennisace0227: no one group is any more important than a smaller group 
Bass: It's why Bush's approval ratings suck 
Alphabet_Soup: We really need a thread on this 
tennisace0227: yeah 
tennisace0227: pm doug on smogon and open it 
Alphabet_Soup: one sec 
Alphabet_Soup: and can someoen save this log or something? >_> 
Alphabet_Soup: someone* 
Bass: Just out of curiosity 
Captain: you got it 
tennisace0227: i am

Personally, I feel the concept/role threads are fine as-is, but as you can see, Soup disagrees.

Edit: Sikh, Instead of not being able to comment at all, what about separate threads for concept and concept comments? The same thing would work for Movepools, stat spreads, and art.

Edit2: Doug, did you PM yourself for permission? =P

 

[Gothic Togekiss]

I think we need a less restricted view on which submission are acceptable. The last thread was full of submissions that didn't make it all because of a few wording problems or because they implied a factor that later polls focused on. This kind of restriction is somewhat stifling what idea you can gain when you have an idea of something that would help the metagame but can't because it mentions a certain type, ability or etc. If we allow ideas that are board but do have a slight specifics within, more ideas are sure to appear.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Okay, here's the reason we can't have specifics (types, abilities, etc) in the Role:

It means that the discussion will be comparing apples and oranges, and in a very disorganized non-analytical way.

One of the great things about the CAP project is the level of detail in which we analyze and discuss every competitive aspect of the pokemon. If we allow a specific competitive aspect to be included in the Role, then it completely eliminates that part of the analysis. That's not a great way to determine a major competitive aspect.

Plus, at the time of the Role submission, a million different ideas are flying around and there is very little detailed discussion happening. During the Role thread, various ideas are all over the map. That's what I meant with my "apples and oranges" comment earlier. That thread is a not a time to be making a concrete decision about the pokemon. The frame of reference of the community is too broad at that time.

Since I have been watching the Olympics lately, I'll make an analogy:

What if the judge of a gymnastics event was watching a gymnast perform on one big screen that also had Diving, Track and Field, and Rowing events on all at the same time? And the judge was expected to survey all of the different sports simultaneously. And then at the end - assign a score to the person performing in Gymnastics. There's no way they could give a reliable score. Why? Because their attention was divided on a million different things. There's no way they could focus specifically. At best, they might be able to give a broad summary of what they saw on the big screen. They could answer questions like "Which sport was the most exciting?" or "Which event involved the most people?" There's no way they could answer the question, "What was the gymnast's biggest mistake?"

If we are evaluating a bunch of wildly different concepts like:

"Steel pokemon with Adaptability."
"Low Defense, High SpAttack DracoMeteor Abuser"
"Scrappy Normal/Ghost with Rapid Spin"
"130-speed Encoring Tail Glow Baton Passer"​

Some of these might be viable, depending on the aspects not specified. Some of them might be completely broken fundamentally. How in the hell are we supposed to discuss all of those in a single conversation? We'll be debating abilities, typing, stat combinations -- ALL AT THE SAME TIME. There's no way we can analyze any one issue properly with that many issues on the table. How could we possibly feel confident that we made a good decision? It's just like the gymnastics judge being forced to look at a bunch of sports simultaneously and then make a very specific decision about one of them. It's a ridiculous way to judge...

If we allow specifics in the Role submission, we are effectively bypassing one or more of the analytical aspect-determination threads, and replacing it with a very haphazard one early in the process. The individual decision is not the bad part. It's the fact that we already have a way to separate a pokemon into its component parts and decide on each part. If we allow the components to be mashed together all at the beginning AND make specific decisions during that time -- that goes against a fundamental premise of the CAP project.

Here at the CAP project, we build pokemon one step at a time. And we do so in very exacting detail. The only reasonable way to decide something as broad as Role, is to ensure that the result of the Role thread is not specific enough to preclude any high-quality community analysis later in the process.

 

[Elevator Music]

I understand where you are coming from in saying that we shouldn't be expected to compare totally different "roles" in one thread. However, what if we decided in a concurrent thread where we'd like to start in the concept. Because if one of the main reasoning around not doing typing or abilities in the role discussion is to keep the roles in a similar manner so you aren't picking between a Scrappy Spinner and a Steel Adaptability pokemon, then wouldn't it make sense to decide what type of role you'd like to be discussing beforehand?

I can see how you guys wouldn't want to deviate from the well-drafted construction process too much, but the way we are doing it is far from perfect right now. Not that there is a perfect way to create-a-pokemon...>_>

Because the way we're doing it, I may never get:

Concept: A Physical attacking Electric type-

There is a big lack of physical Electric types in this metagame, with the only options being Electivire and Luxray. Electivire has fallen in popularity because it isn't that good, and Luxray was never popular because it isn't that good.

or:

Concept: Sheild Dust user-

Sheild Dust is a powerful defensive ability that only Venomoth and Dustox have, both of which aren't seen in OU play. This pokemon would be meant to take advantage of this ability by beng somewhat defensive oriented and able to come in on some pokemon that commonly carry moves with secondary effects.

Simply from the way the construction process is directed. And who's to say that those pokemon wouldn't be totally viable?

 

[tennisace]

Simply from the way the construction process is directed. And who's to say that those pokemon wouldn't be totally viable?

Nothing's to say they wouldn't be viable. The problem is, in the first poll, you forced the outcome of at least 2 polls, and influenced at least 2 more. Type and Bias polls are forced to be Electric and Physical. As Doug said, the concept threads are a huge clusterfuck. You can't expect detail on why it should be electric out of that. However, if you created a role that embodied what you wanted in your Electric attacker, you could then go to the type thread and explain why Electric is perfect for your concept. Its kinda against our philosophy to force the outcome of a poll like that.

 

[Hyra]

I have to echo EM/AS's sentiment, we need to find a way for those to be submissions, without them limiting another poll. Right now, we can't get much beyond do we want support or a counter to something. Implying we want a sweeper eliminates the bias poll, as does implying we want a wall. Maybe we should move concept to after typing and bias have been finished, if just so that those don't eliminate 99% of concepts.

It's not like concept influences typing. People are just going to vote for the type they want more of. Bias and concept are sort of equal, but I still don't get how you can make a concept without implying a bias towards offense or defense (support Pokemon obv. shouldn't be very frail, so on those grounds Fidgit's role should have been dismissed for pretermining Offensive bias).

 

[DougJustDoug]

A well-formed Role submission is HARD to come up with. Currently, people have the attitude that it is like a name submission -- whatever pops into your head, throw it out there and see if it sticks.

That's not how I see it.

I envision Role submissions to be much more like a stat spread submission. They need to be very carefully crafted and worded to fit within certain guidelines, yet still yielding the desired creative result. They need to be constructed by people that know the rules, the project, and the game. It should take time and effort to come up with a good one.

In the CAP4 Concept thread, there were a lot of shitty submissions by people that didn't even spend the time to read the OP. I am not looking to accommodate those submissions. Nor am I looking to re-invent the process guide so we can design an entire pokemon in short-hand, and set it in stone with a single vote.

If people think it is hard to come up with a Role that conforms to the various guidelines AND has a modicum of creativity -- then you are absolutely right. It is hard. But we have lots of submission threads that require a TON of work by the submitters -- just ask any of the stat spread makers, artists, or spriters on the project. I don't really care if it is difficult. Because it is far from impossible. In fact, I could word just about every role description I've ever heard in a "legal" way, if I really tried. If I can do it, I'm damn sure that other people can too.

Can the average idiot noob do it? No. And personally I don't care if they ever can. Actually, in the last Concept thread, I was surprised at how many supposedly "senior" members of the community that couldn't demonstrate sufficient creativity and mastery of the English language to come up with a legal concept. But, in the end, we had MANY legal concepts. And they were all very creative.

I'm not worried about getting good Role submissions. Even with all the difficulty, we have plenty of talented community contributors that are up to the task. I'm worried about controlling all the riff-raff.

 

[Deck Knight]

A well-formed Role submission is HARD to come up with. Currently, people have the attitude that it is like a name submission -- whatever pops into your head, throw it out there and see if it sticks.

That's not how I see it.

I envision Role submissions to be much more like a stat spread submission. They need to be very carefully crafted and worded to fit within certain guidelines, yet still yielding the desired creative result. They need to be constructed by people that know the rules, the project, and the game. It should take time and effort to come up with a good one.

In the CAP4 Concept thread, there were a lot of shitty submissions by people that didn't even spend the time to read the OP. I am not looking to accommodate those submissions. Nor am I looking to re-invent the process guide so we can design an entire pokemon in short-hand, and set it in stone with a single vote.

If people think it is hard to come up with a Role that conforms to the various guidelines AND has a modicum of creativity -- then you are absolutely right. It is hard. But we have lots of submission threads that require a TON of work by the submitters -- just ask any of the stat spread makers, artists, or spriters on the project. I don't really care if it is difficult. Because it is far from impossible. In fact, I could word just about every role description I've ever heard in a "legal" way, if I really tried. If I can do it, I'm damn sure that other people can too.

Can the average idiot noob do it? No. And personally I don't care if they ever can. Actually, in the last Concept thread, I was surprised at how many supposedly "senior" members of the community that couldn't demonstrate sufficient creativity and mastery of the English language to come up with a legal concept. But, in the end, we had MANY legal concepts. And they were all very creative.

I'm not worried about getting good Role submissions. Even with all the difficulty, we have plenty of talented community contributors that are up to the task. I'm worried about controlling all the riff-raff.

To be fair, our process did alter itself midstream in response to some of the less qualified ideas.

The question is, where do you draw the line.

Say someone were to post the following role:

Role: Special Wall that can counteract Togekiss
This pokemon would be able to absorb special hits and specifically stand up to Togekiss' standard options of Thunder Wave, Air Slash, and Aura Sphere.

Now, my analysis of this role is that it does not specify ability or type, however, any of the following later votes would make it true to the role, and some of them may be required:

Higher Speed pokemon with Volt Absorb, Motor Drive, or faster Ground Type.

Inner Focus to stop flinching + nuetrality or better to both flying and fighting.

Limber to prevent paralysis even from the odd Body Slam, plus higher speed.

Capable of competently using physical Rock, Fighting, Ice, and Electric attacks, possibly having Taunt to prevent Softboiled or Roost.

If we look at the practical limitations on most of this, it means we can't really have Grass, Bug, Fighting, Normal, Rock, Ice, Dark, or Steel types unless we can balance them to neutralize the damage taken from the flying/fighting combo (e.g. Rock/Psychic). If we totally want to prevent Thunder Wave, than either our ability (Limber, Volt Absorb, Motor Drive) or our type (Ground) is decided.

So my question is, would the above Role description be too limiting. The terminology used is very broad, but because of the known pokemon counteracting nature, it restricts most practical options down to a few entries, which may or may not be a good thing.

 

[Hyra]

Deck Knight said what I said but 50 times better.

 

[billymills]

I don't think it needs any change or clarification.

Give a simple discription of what we are looking for in the submission thread. There are going to be good ones and bad ones no matter what the wording is, hopefully the good ones will get voted for.

 

[DougJustDoug]

I think people are reading way too much into the purpose of Role. Role is not a synonym for "Short description of the pokemon". It is "The role the pokemon plays on a competitive team."

In Deck Knight's example, he refers to a "Special Wall to counteract Togekiss". Could that be construed as a general role pokemon play in the competitive metagame? No. "Special Wall"? Yes. "Special Wall to counteract Togekiss?" No. Togekiss is not a big enough threat to warrant an entire category of pokemon to counter it. Certainly not something as specific as "a special wall" . If you want to make a BIG leap and say that Togekiss is such a big threat on the CAP server, that a reasonably sane team builder should normally carry a specific Togekiss counter, then just leave the Role description at "Togekiss counter" -- because there are lots of ways to counter Togekiss. It doesn't require a "special wall" to do so.

We are making pokemon for competitive play. All competitive pokemon fill one or more roles on a team. Salamence does not fill your "Fast Dragon Role" -- there is no such thing. Do lots of teams have fast dragons? Yes. But "Fast Dragon" is not a role. It's a general description of several different pokemon. Depending on the build, Salamence can fill lots of roles, I won't list them all here. But "Fast Dragon" is not among them, because that isn't a role in competitive battle.

Put it this way, a proper Role should be able to be included in an RMT. Insert the statement "This is my <fill in role here>" under the pokemon, and the average team rater should know what you are talking about. If the above statement wouldn't make sense -- then it probably isn't a Role. For Fidgit, I can easily imagine saying "This is my utility pokemon. It does blah, blah, blah." On the other hand, "This is my special wall for countering Togekiss." That sounds a little silly. It's far too specific to dedicate 1/6th of your team.

Pokemon that cannot fit nicely into a role, are not used in competitive play. Just look at the BL tier. It is littered with pokemon that are "good" (whatever that means), but they just don't fit into a legitimate role. If they do serve a role, they are severely outclassed by something else. That's why we are defining a Role for our pokemon. Right from the outset, we want to know what role it will play on a competitive team. And hopefully we will make it fill that role sufficiently to warrant OU-level play.

By the same token, the Role should be needed in the OU metagame. I can make the perfect "Oran Berry Abuser" -- but who gives a shit if that role is ever filled in the metagame. The same can be said for lots of the roles that have been proposed.

"Shield Dust User" is not a Role. But suppose we recharacterized it as "Secondary effect defender"? Is the metagame clamoring for this? I'm not sure anyone would add a pokemon to their team for the primary reason that they ignore secondary effects. They better do a helluva lot more than that. It's like when I run my Me First Absol. It's neat at times. But would I ever describe my Absol in an RMT as "This is my Me First pokemon." That's ridiculous. Shield Dust is a nice ability, but that's all it is -- A NICE ABILITY. Would I like to see an OU pokemon with Shield Dust? Sure, it would be cool. But do we dedicate an entire CAP project to designing around this single ability? Hell no. It's not a Role. It's an ability. If the time comes that we design a pokemon where Shield Dust can help it competitively, then propose it and vote for it during the ability poll. But don't recast a single obscure ability as if it constitutes a Role in metagame play. It's unnecessary.

Very few Roles have to be characterized by a specific ability, type, or move. Gyarados is not your "Intimidator", it is your "Lead". It also might be considered a "Bulky Water" -- but that's not really a metagame role, it's a description of a group of pokemon that actually all serve different roles, but happen to share the qualities of being bulky and being water typed. "Bulky Water" applies to both Swampert and Starmie, who couldn't be more different in build and play.

There are a few conceivable roles defined by Typing, Moves, or Ability -- Toxic Spikes Absorber (hence Poison type), Rapid Spinner, and Flyer/Levitator come to mind as examples. But, I think the project will survive if we exclude or reword the ones that require typing and ability. Every conceivable role does not need to have a place in the CAP project. All we are looking for is something to give us a little direction.

Based on the last Concept poll we have plenty of great Roles available to us. It's not like we are severely constrained by the rules of Role submission.

 

[Deck Knight]

That's great information/clarification Doug. I just wanted to get my thinking crystallized so that when it comes time for the next CAP, I'm not floundering around with another zany concept that's too specific.

I would say that we should at least try for some level of specificity, with something like a Physical/[Mixed/Generic]/Special qualification for those Roles.

So for example, instead of Role Entries like "Sweeper," "Tank," "Wall," we get "Physical Sweeper," "Special Tank," and "Generic Wall."

For the rest of the potential Roles like Status Absorber, Spiker, Nuke, Glass Cannon, etc, you wouldn't really need to specify Physical or Special since they kind of define themselves around an attack or abilities instead of stats.

Or would using the Physical/[Mixed/Generic]/Special adjectives on those three particular roles also be too restrictive?

 

[DougJustDoug]

I agree that indications of Offensiveness/Defensiveness/Physical/Special make a lot of sense in some Roles, and they DO overlap with our ODB and PSB polls. But, the Bias polls were originally instituted to provide direction to the Stat Spread creators. If the Role has already indicated one of more of these things, then we need to adjust the Bias polls accordingly.

"Special Wall" is a Role, as I mentioned above. Obviously, this means that it will be Defensive and Special. This doesn't eliminate the ODB poll or PSB poll, but it should narrow the options down to two each (if you read my Bias PR proposal).

This can be justified for three reasons:

1) The ODB and PSB isn't really a "core aspect" of the pokemon. It is a precursor to the Stat Spread, which is a core aspect. Adjusting the bias polls is not really limiting the quality of the stat spread analysis.

2) ODB and PSB are not specific anyway. So replacing one general directive (ODB/PSB) with another (Role) is no big deal.

3) People get bored with ODB and PSB polls, and we have been looking to minimize their impact on the process anyway. If the ODB and PSB voting were streamlined as a result of certain Roles, that might be a good thing.

I don't want to see all Role submissions have bias indicators in their descriptions. Because it isn't necessary or helpful in many Roles. It easily can be deferred until later. But, I agree that Roles like "Physical Sweeper" and "Special Sweeper" are very different in metagame play and need. To require that the Role desciption be limited to "Sweeper" simply because of the bias polls later, that seems to hurt more than it helps.

I'm not sure how to draw the line on this one. It's a bit of a slippery slope. And I'm not sure I would "know it when I see it" either. I'd like to hear other arguments on this specific issue. There may be other complications we should take into account.

 

[Deck Knight]

Mostly I think it will self-regulate. That is why we have TLs, so that when garbage starts filtering through it gets culled.

People who put a lot of time and thought into their submissions already do a lot of self-regulating. Once we get our head fixed around what our ideas should look like, we try and expand it from there.

It will be important to distinguish that "Role" has entirely different requirements than CAP 4's "Concept" did. We'll need a new format, maybe something like:

Role: Physical Wall
Argument: We need a better Physical Wall in order to balance out all of the heavy physical attackers on the server. Preferably it would be able to laugh in the face of an Outraging Garchomp and threaten or destroy it while it rampages.

Again, I want to make sure whether we should be telling people just to post up one or two word classifications (Physical Sweeper, Rapid Spiner, Nuke) or if we should let them expound a bit.

Or should our format be more like:

Role: Nuke Lead
Purpose: Explode quickly and violently

 

[Captain]

The expounded version sounds much more appealing but it also looks more limited, people might take "Preferably it would be able to laugh in the face of an Outraging Garchomp and threaten or destroy it while it rampages" like it has to resist outrage pre-determining the steel type. It's not unavoidable though and "preferebly" really dulls down the possiblity.

Non-expounded it could be "take strong physical attacks and destroy the attacker." Not all that bad, but it's totally devoid of reason of why we should want it. Is it wrong for the submittee to join in the concept discussion beyond submitting the bare minimum? No, that's a unnecessary restriction that limits our learning. Assuming the language isn't too specific I'd prefer the expounded version every time, non-expounded is just too short to the point of being baseless.

 

[Icy Vegeta]

I too, run into this problem when thinking of submissions.

I want to say something like:

Role: Defensive Dragon
Argument: Defensive Dragons are only seen in ubers and one UU, and it would exciting to see one in OU. Dragon-typed Pokemon have great resistences alonng with a great attacking type. It would function as somewhat as the "Giratina of OU."

But, rules would prohibit that to something like this:

Role: Defender with resistences
Argument: Nice resistences to counter many types.


Which sounds better?

 

[tennisace]

I too, run into this problem when thinking of submissions.

I want to say something like:

Role: Defensive Dragon
Argument: Defensive Dragons are only seen in ubers and one UU, and it would exciting to see one in OU. Dragon-typed Pokemon have great resistences alonng with a great attacking type. It would function as somewhat as the "Giratina of OU."

But, rules would prohibit that to something like this:

Role: Defender with resistences
Argument: Nice resistences to counter many types.


Which sounds better?

Which looks better? Oh I forgot you're lactose intolerant.

While outright saying that you want a Defensive Dragon "sounds nice", it limits the polls. If you can expand that second concept a bit, you can make it almost HAVE to be Dragon.

Role: Raging Tank
Description: A defensive tank with many resistances to common types. It would be able to stat up at will thanks to its good defenses and plethora of resistances, coming from it's type. It would function as a great counter to Pyroak, thanks to its resistances.

Right there, it almost HAS to be Dragon, without actually SAYING Dragon.

 

[TAY]

Right there, it almost HAS to be Dragon, without actually SAYING Dragon.

But if it limits the future polls in exactly the same way as saying dragon - since as you point out it's pretty much the same thing - then what is the difference?

As much as I would also like to discourage typing discussions in the concept thread, this is not the way to do it. Honestly I would say that Icy Vegeta's submission should be invalid, since you can add on whatever little goodies you want to the text, but in the end it boils down to exactly what he wrote himself: "Nice resistances to counter many types." This isn't a concept; this is a typing suggestion. Imo the concept should be about how the pokemon will fit into the metagame - if you look at Aldaron/Magmortified's submission for what is now Fidgit:

Description: There is a serious lack of Gravity, Rapid Spin, Wish, non Dark weak Trick Room, OU viable Heal Bell / Aromatherapy, Encore, Memento, Non Dark weak Perish Song, Psycho Shift, Safeguard, Magic Coat, Me First, Snatch, Spikes, Toxic Spikes, Tailwind and Haze Pokemon in our lovely Metagame. I don't know what type, what stat distribution or even what kind of Pokemon would effectively use all those, but I want to build a utility Pokemon for the useful yet less used utility moves. If I had to narrow the field a bit, I would emphasize Tailwind, Gravity, non Dark weak Trick Room, Rapid Spin, Wish and Encore. The normal utility moves like Reflect and Light Screen go without saying.

even though they name specific moves (though they were really only listed as examples), they clearly emphasize its role in the metagame - something which "tank with plethora o' resistances" falls short of.

To conclude, I would say that in this particular case we have a problem with the submission, not the process.

 

[Wyverii]

Why are we so worried about losing a specific type to the polls anyway? When you specified that dragon type in that role (something that was going absolutely rampant in the last concept/role thread) you never stated a purpose as to why we needed it just that there wasn't any defensive dragons and you'd think that'd be "cool". I think some people are approaching it as if they're coming up with a full design of what they want in their heads then posting it down in a way that doesn't break the rules which is rather backwards. It's not necessarily something that wouldn't perform fantastically in the metagame but other types can be tailored perform the same purpose (if any) and fit niches that we may not have seen before.

I'd say we should stop thinking about all the underused abilities and typings and focus on what would help us in the metagame and enjoy the natural flow of the process to see what we get. Wasn't that the whole purpose of the concept/role thread to begin with? I think the problem is with how people are treating this whole project resulting in fanboyish submissions.

I hope I got that point across.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Why are we so worried about losing a specific type to the polls anyway? When you specified that dragon type in that role (something that was going absolutely rampant in the last concept/role thread) you never stated a purpose as to why we needed it just that there wasn't any defensive dragons and you'd think that'd be "cool". I think some people are approaching it as if they're coming up with a full design of what they want in their heads then posting it down in a way that doesn't break the rules which is rather backwards. It's not necessarily something that wouldn't perform fantastically in the metagame but other types can be tailored perform the same purpose (if any) and fit niches that we may not have seen before.

I'd say we should stop thinking about all the underused abilities and typings and focus on what would help us in the metagame and enjoy the natural flow of the process to see what we get. Wasn't that the whole purpose of the concept/role thread to begin with? I think the problem is with how people are treating this whole project resulting in fanboyish submissions.

I hope I got that point across.

This. This. This. QFT. I bolded the sentences that echo my sentiments the most.

We've been mentioning "Special Sweeper", "Physical Tank", etc. as examples of Roles. Yes, these are the obvious metagame Roles. But, I don't think these are the Roles that the CAP project should focus on. We CAN, and they are legal. But, I think there are many interesting niche roles in the metagame that could be viable if filled by the right pokemon.

A valid Role does not have to be something required by the majority of teams, like the ubiquitous "Sweeper" or "Wall" roles. They can be the lesser-used roles like "Baton Passer" or "Rain Dancer". These roles are not applicable to all teams; only teams utilizing a certain strategy.

There are lots of Roles out there right now, that might be viable in metagame play, if the right pokemon were created. That's what Fidgit did. It actually made the role of "Utility Pokemon" viable (that remains to be proven, but you know what I mean). Up until Fidgit, there really wasn't a "Pure Utility Pokemon" in OU. But just because no other pokemon fills the Role, doesn't mean that "Utility Pokemon" is not a Role. It was a Role that had no pokemon to fullfill the purpose.

This is where I hope Role submitters focus their creativity. Exploring the metagame Roles that have not been exploited up to now, but would be viable if we create the right pokemon to fill the need. Our Role thread does not have to be restricted to Roles like Sweeper, Tank, or Lead. There's plenty of room for creativity.

In the last Concept poll there were actually plenty of innovative Roles in the submissions. Here's a rundown of all the CAP4 Concept submissions, and my estimation of whether they could be considered metagame Roles. Feel free to disagree with my judgment; this is intended to give you an idea of the difference between a Concept and a Role, and how they sometimes overlap.

[B]Anti Ghost Rapid Spin[/B]
A variation on "Rapid Spinner". It's a Role.

[B]Pure Utility Pokemon[/B]
This is what won. It's a Role.

[B]Flying Type Counter[/B]
Dubious need in the metagame, but it is a Role.

[B]Gravity User[/B]
Never really possible before Fidgit, but it's a Role if you want to play this strategy.

[B]Trick Room User[/B]
See Gravity user.

[B]Stat Buster[/B]
Stat-up is a very common strategy. Anything that can break it, fills a valuable Role in the metagame.

[B]Armour Break / Pierce[/B]
Another word for Wall-Breaker IMO. It's a Role.

[B]Status Counter[/B]
Definitely a Role.

[B]Great Lead Pokemon[/B]
Definitely a Role.

[B]True Garchomp Counter[/B]
Some might argue it, but considering Garchomp's impact on the metagame, this is a Role. Not many pokemon are enough of a threat to warrant an entire Role in the metagame to defeat them.

[B]Fast Tank[/B]
This is borderline. "Tank" is a Role. "Fast Tank" is questionable. Sounds like a description of an innovative kind of Tank, not really a Role.

[B]It's a Trap![/B]
The description on this was somewhat convoluted, and it wasn't a Role. But, FYI, if this was the obvious "Trapping Pokemon" - then it would be a Role.

[B]Me First[/B]
I lol'ed when I saw this, because of my earlier reference. Me First is a neat move, and I'd love to have a pokemon that could abuse it. But, it's not a Role.

[B]Wait, Where's my wallet?[/B]
Not a Role.

[B]I know what you're doing and I'm not going to allow it![/B]
Not a Role.

[B]Meteorology[/B]
This was a rephrasing of "Weather Abuser", with a twist. This could be a Role, if the right pokemon came along.

[B]Skill Swap Abuser[/B]
Little-used move -- not a Role.

[B]Item/Status Harasser[/B]
Might be a Role if worded correctly, but probably not.

[B]No Miss Breaker[/B]
Not a Role.

[B]The Ultimate Weather Abuser[/B]
See Meteorology.

 

[tennisace]

Latino's mentioned this on the server before, what about an Anti-roll of sorts. The role was to break the stereotype of a type. Like a special Rock Tank.

 

[X-Act]

Special Rock Tank = Probopass. :) And Omastar, to a lesser extent.