Deck Knight
Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
Approved by jas61292
CAP Updates Review:
After the massive undertaking of CAP Updates last year, it's time to assess our Updates Policy and Update Principles. That process was originally made to navigate a massive update for our Gen 4 CAPs , and now that everything is basically up to date for Gen 7 SM, we may not need as large a process for later Gen updates. Additionally, now that we are experiencing a mid-gen, an update for what amounts to discerning 5 moves with greater distribution than before does not seem to necessitate such a massive process.
Here is the current principles and process in its entirety:
What went well about the previous update process?
What did not go well about the previous update process?
Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?
Ideally we would like to end up with a system that is fair, efficient, and also does not lead into unnecessary amounts of power creep or adding moves just for the sake of doing so.
Input is greatly appreciated.
CAP Updates Review:
After the massive undertaking of CAP Updates last year, it's time to assess our Updates Policy and Update Principles. That process was originally made to navigate a massive update for our Gen 4 CAPs , and now that everything is basically up to date for Gen 7 SM, we may not need as large a process for later Gen updates. Additionally, now that we are experiencing a mid-gen, an update for what amounts to discerning 5 moves with greater distribution than before does not seem to necessitate such a massive process.
Here is the current principles and process in its entirety:
Therefore, we are asking the PRC to consider a few questions:Principles
1. Justification: GameFreak updates its "face of the franchise" (competitively) Pokemon at regular intervals in competitively significant ways. CAP should do the same with our "face of the franchise," our CAP Pokemon.
2. Definition: An Update is defined as an addition or removal to a Pokemon's Movepool, or a change in their Ability. Base Statistics Updates will not be considered. Abilities are to be replaced, not removed, consistent with in-game precedent.
3. Frequency: Movepool Updates should be conducted upon each new game release, Ability Updates should be considered upon each new generation's release.
4. Continuity: All Updates should adhere to a CAP's Concept and Established Identity (Metagame Role, "CAP-iness" of the CAP.)
5. Coherence: All Updates should have sound competitive reasoning and /or in-game precedent (ex. From BW2 Tutors Electric and most Bug types getting ElectroWeb).
6. Appearance: All Updates should consider the overall optics of that revision and how it will impact perception of the CAP Community.
7. Acclimation: All Updates should acclimate the CAP to baseline competitive play in that release's OU (or equivalent) environment.
8. Conservation: All Updates should be as conservative as possible in acclimating the CAPs to the new release's environment.
Types of Updates:Non-Competitive Updates:
Competitive Updates:
- Update in terms of flavor: This is based purely on non-competitive reasoning. The desired outcome is for the CAP Pokémon to appear more realistic, such as with the addition of flavour tutor moves, hidden ability or moves unreleased at the time of the CAP's making.
- Update in terms of concept: This is a continuation of the CAP's original concept and it is an effort to make the CAP fulfill its concept in the current metagame, despite the role it currently has. It is up for debate what kinds of changes (eg addition/removal of moves and/or abilities) this would entail. Consistent with the main CAP process, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.
- Update in terms of viability: This type of update aims to 'buff' or 'nerf' a CAP Pokémon based on how it currently functions in the metagame. This type of update tries to preserve the 'essence' of the Pokémon - namely it still has the same role both before and after the changes, but the result is that it performs that role either better or worse. Again, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.
ProcessProcess Part I:
(All Times are Approximate)
New Update Trigger Occurs (New Gen or Game Release) [~2 wks total]
Nominate and Select Generational Leaders and Update Leaders:
CAP Opens Applications for Generational Leaders (GL) and Update Leaders (UL) (4 Days)
Close Applications and Poll to determine selection order (UL's get choice in order of votes received) (24 Hrs)
Update Priority Discussion: [Opened By Moderators]
Open Discussion as to which CAPs should be updated in which way. (4 Days)
Poll update method of CAPs (3 Options: Ability + Moves Update / Moves Update / Flavor Only, One Selection only each subsection) (48 Hrs)
Poll is taken as to the priority of selected updates (sorted by competitive importance), and UL's choose from among the top options. (24 Hrs)
ULs select CAPs to be updated are prioritized based on complexity (Ability + Moves First, Then Competitive Moves, Then Flavor Only)
Process Part II:
Three Update Threads are opened simultaneously by ULs - [~1.5 weeks for Ability, ~1 week for Competitive + Flavor Updates, ~3 Days for Flavor Only Updates]
Update Leaders open their Pokemon-Specific Thread (preference for thread selection decided by highest vote-recipients in order.) - -
Ability Discussion Occurs (If None, Skip) (3 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Competitive Moves Discussion Occurs (If None [mid-gen update], Skip) (2 Days + 24 Hr Poll)
Flavor Moves Addition Discussion Occurs (2 Days)
CAP Finalizes Movepool with a poll. (24 Hrs)
CAP Repeats Process Part II with the next highest priority CAP until updates on all CAPs are complete.
New Generation / Release Officially opens, and Ladder is reset.
Generational / Update Leaders
1. Generational / Update Leaders are selected by the same nomination processed used for TL / TLT Members, which includes nomination, application (same application as TL / TLT), and moderator review.
2. Generational Leaders are treated as a TL would be throughout the update, able to exercise vetos over a slate. Update Leaders are treated as a TLT member would be throughout the update, leading all phases of the update and utilizing the standard CAP Processes for Abilities, Competitive Moves, and Flavor Moves where applicable.
3. Moderators may veto Generational Leader / Update Leader slates if necessary, using the same process/justification as they would for a TL / TLT slate in a regular project, or additionally any perceived violation of the Update Principles provided.
4. Update Leaders will be cycled through updates so that each UL gets an opportunity to lead an update before receiving a second opportunity. (E.g. If 5 ULs are selected, the UL who finishes their update first cannot lead another update until the 6th CAP is up for consideration.)
What went well about the previous update process?
What did not go well about the previous update process?
Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?
Ideally we would like to end up with a system that is fair, efficient, and also does not lead into unnecessary amounts of power creep or adding moves just for the sake of doing so.
Input is greatly appreciated.