I think that's too specific, really. For instance, every metagame tends to stagnate when it is balanced. That would lead to a lot of people thinking "Well maybe this CAP is unfair" when it is or any number of other problematic things. I want to see that these characteristics are left intentionally vague, as that way, people can interpret them as needed. Remember, these votes will be reviewed before being accepted.
Another example is an Auto-Rapid Spin Pokemon. Could you imagine what that would do to the metagame, not having any entry hazards at all? That is a significant change in the common battle conditions of the metagame, and thus would constitute a rejection on the Metagame Characteristic as I have written it.
Notice how battle conditions and battle strategies are closely intertwined. You could make a case that they are actually the same thing, and that would be fine. The reason we have them split and said as they are is so that the characteristic is open to more broad interpretation. Regardless, it says exactly what it should, that the CAP should not deform the metagame so that it is unrecognizable. In my humble opinion, no CAP so far has made the metagame unrecognizable, to give you an idea of the line I, myself, would draw.
It is absolutely critical to note the difference between impacting the metagame and which Pokemon are popular and altering the metagame and the way the game is played. I can only emphasize this most-clearly by issuing examples. If we introduced a Pokemon with Drought, then the entire Pokemon OU metagame becomes trying to stop/start sun and beat the starter of it or abuse the sun sweepers. That changes the very fundamental way the OU metagame is played so substantially by significantly changing the common battle strategies used. That would constitute being rejected on the Metagame Characteristic as I have written it.Dominion said:petrie911 brings up an interesting point. Drastically changing the metagame may not be for the worst. Using his example, If we did make Kingdra of the Sun. Would it necessarily be that ground breaking? Some concepts will obviously change the way we play the metagame.
Another example is an Auto-Rapid Spin Pokemon. Could you imagine what that would do to the metagame, not having any entry hazards at all? That is a significant change in the common battle conditions of the metagame, and thus would constitute a rejection on the Metagame Characteristic as I have written it.
Notice how battle conditions and battle strategies are closely intertwined. You could make a case that they are actually the same thing, and that would be fine. The reason we have them split and said as they are is so that the characteristic is open to more broad interpretation. Regardless, it says exactly what it should, that the CAP should not deform the metagame so that it is unrecognizable. In my humble opinion, no CAP so far has made the metagame unrecognizable, to give you an idea of the line I, myself, would draw.
_________________________________________
Okay, after a long discussion on IRC today, we came to some more conclusions that I think are moving us in the right direction. We discussed the exact criteria for voting and how that process would be handled and we all ended up agreeing on one manner of doing it. I had a few different implementations of this method, though, so I came up with two manners of working it that are both presented below:
Style #1 - Users from past metagame vote for next metagame
For consistency, I am quoting the characteristics as we currently have them at the end of this post. They have not changed since my last post.
Style #1 - Users from past metagame vote for next metagame
- Users would apply via a public application process similar to how the PRC is selected. This must be done before the playtest metagame begins for each round.
- Users who apply would need to supply their relevant CAP server user name, rating, and deviation. (These will be verified) These values are taken from the CAP round before the playtest metagame begins.
- Users who apply will need to meet the very loose rating/deviation requirements of 1600/70.
- Users who do not meet those requirements may apply for special permission to vote, but will have to make a very convincing case that they understand the current CAP metagame enough to vote.
- Users who apply would have to answer a few questions in the application about the metagame on the whole.
- The playtest metagame begins where the new CAP is played in standard OU. The accepted voters do not have to do anything for this stage, though they are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the new CAP.
- There exists a 2 week period following the playtest metagame where all CAPs are allowed on the ladder. During this period, all accepted voters must again meet the required rating / deviation requirements. If any voter fails to meet those requirements and cannot convince the users in charge that he/she knows the full metagame well-enough, then he/she will be removed from the accepted voters list.
- Users who move on and maintain their presence on the accepted voters list go on to vote on CAP rejections/acceptances.
- Users would submit 4-8 sentences per CAP they want to see rejected explaining why and citing the relevant rejection characteristics.
- Users would not have to submit sentences for CAPs that they feel do not need to be rejected.
- These votes are tallied by the users in charge (CAP Server Moderators, CAP Forum Moderators, and specially-chosen members of the community)
- The users in charge reserve the right to deny the individual CAP vote for any specific voter based on the quality of the individual vote. Accepted to-vote users are not guaranteed that their votes will be counted if they shirk on the quality of their vote.
- A CAP is rejected from the upcoming CAP if more than 50% of accepted users vote it to be rejected, regardless of which clauses were cited.
- A rejection list is posted for the next round
- There exists a 2 week period following the playtest metagame where all CAPs are allowed on the ladder. During this period, all people are encouraged to experiment with the CAPs in any way.
- Users would apply via a public application process similar to how the PRC is selected. This must be done after the "All-CAP" metagame ends for each round.
- Users who apply would need to supply their relevant CAP server user name, rating, and deviation. (These will be verified)
- Users who apply will need to meet the very loose rating/deviation requirements of 1600/70.
- Users who do not meet those requirements may apply for special permission to vote, but will have to make a very convincing case that they understand the current CAP metagame enough to vote.
- Users who apply would have to answer a few questions in the application about the metagame on the whole.
- Users who move on in the accepted voters list go on to vote on CAP rejections/acceptances.
- Users would submit 4-8 sentences per CAP they want to see rejected explaining why and citing the relevant rejection characteristics.
- Users would not have to submit sentences for CAPs that they feel do not need to be rejected.
- These votes are tallied by the users in charge (CAP Server Moderators, CAP Forum Moderators, and specially-chosen members of the community)
- The users in charge reserve the right to deny the individual CAP vote for any specific voter based on the quality of the individual vote. Accepted to-vote users are not guaranteed that their votes will be counted if they shirk on the quality of their vote.
- A CAP is rejected from the upcoming CAP if more than 50% of accepted users vote it to be rejected, regardless of which clauses were cited.
- A rejection list is posted for the next round
- Style #1 takes more work and may end up with a smaller voting base, meanwhile style #2 is more accessible and less work
- Style #2 makes the previous round of the CAP metagame largely irrelevant because only the "All-CAP" metagame matters for purposes of voting, meanwhile style #1 makes it all important
_________________________________________
For consistency, I am quoting the characteristics as we currently have them at the end of this post. They have not changed since my last post.
Overpowered Characteristic
A CAP Pokémon is rejected from the CAP metagame if, in common battle conditions, it is capable of either sweeping through a significant portion of teams in the metagame with little effort, walling and stalling out a significant portion of the metagame, or consistently setting up a situation in which it makes it substantially easier for other Pokemon to sweep.
Underpowered Characteristic
A CAP Pokémon is rejected from the CAP metagame if, in common battle conditions, it is unable to sweep much of the metagame, wall or stall out much of the metagame, or set up a situation with any regularity where other Pokemon can more easily sweep. A CAP cannot be rejected by this characteristic on the first round of the metagame after its creation.
Concept Characteristic
A CAP Pokémon is rejected from the CAP metagame if, in common battle and metagame conditions, it functions in a vastly different manner from the concept given to it by the CAP project that created it.
Metagame Characteristic
A CAP Pokémon is rejected from the CAP metagame if its presence in the metagame causes a set of common battle conditions or encourages a set of common battle strategies that are significantly different from the standard Pokemon metagame.