-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Policy Review Policy Review: Changes to Concept Submission
- Thread starter DougJustDoug
- Start date
- Status
Let's not dive into debating a specific Role. This is for discussing the policy itself.
Off-Topic~ How ironic is that, both of my old concept idea are considered viable roles within the metagame. Wall Breaker = Mixed Sweeper in my mind.
Okay topic at hand here, I would like to get this whole thing crystal clear in my head. You want people to stop focusing their time on ideas that sounds cool at the time like Me First abuser for ideas that are actually useful within the metagame like Wall Breaker or anti-ghost rapid spinner am I right?
Okay topic at hand here, I would like to get this whole thing crystal clear in my head. You want people to stop focusing their time on ideas that sounds cool at the time like Me First abuser for ideas that are actually useful within the metagame like Wall Breaker or anti-ghost rapid spinner am I right?
No, it isn't legal.
Here's a little worksheet for you to fill in to see if your idea is a Role. It is a section of an imaginary RMT that could be posted in the RMT thread for a team that contains a pokemon that is being used in the proposed Role.
Okay, so let's take your illegal role and call it "Type Stereotype Breaker", thats the best I can do based on your description. Let's come up with a fictional name -- Rockshitz. Now let's fill in the RMT section:
Does that make any fucking sense? Hell no. "Type Stereotype Breaker" is not a Role.
Now let's fill it out with a commonly-known Role:
It fits perfectly. Heck, you could post that in the RMT thread right now and get some quality rates... ;-)
Now let's fill it out with one of the roles from my earlier list. Any of them will work just fine:
This makes sense. It's not the most common Role in the world. But it works, since this is obviously part of a Gravity team.
Do these examples make more sense? I sure hope so. I don't think this is that hard to understand. But, obviously you guys are really struggling with the definition of Role, so maybe I'm just not explaining it very well.
So does that mean there will be a...
*groan*
Role Poll?
*groan*
Role Poll?
Why, you have a problem with polls? This will replace the concept poll, if you had read the OP.
....like I said then:
If we do it this way then we won't get some really cool pokemon. Apparently they aren't wanted, and that's just fine. Honestly though, I think I'll just skip the project until after the role poll is done. It's becoming really off-putting. =/
Our project seems to be something like this-
...Pick a role:
-wall
-sweeper
-etc.
...Pick a type
-<type>, <secondary type>
...and so on. Doesn't anybody else feel that eventually this will get old [fast] and inevitably kill the project since there are only a finite number of options, and even less that aren't too similar to be the same? Though, I suppose I've always had subtly different goals with CAP, as I never quite understood the flip-flopping of the goals we've had here. ...whatever.
If we do it this way then we won't get some really cool pokemon. Apparently they aren't wanted, and that's just fine. Honestly though, I think I'll just skip the project until after the role poll is done. It's becoming really off-putting. =/
Our project seems to be something like this-
...Pick a role:
-wall
-sweeper
-etc.
...Pick a type
-<type>, <secondary type>
...and so on. Doesn't anybody else feel that eventually this will get old [fast] and inevitably kill the project since there are only a finite number of options, and even less that aren't too similar to be the same? Though, I suppose I've always had subtly different goals with CAP, as I never quite understood the flip-flopping of the goals we've had here. ...whatever.
No I just didn't like how Role Poll rhymed.
Sorry i think this is a bad idea, i personally think the problem with the last concept discussion was that everyone was allowed to submit multiple ideas.
Role is just as restrictive as concept, if we take your example role to be a decent special wall already two of the stats and to a lesser extent typing have been determined.
Or if physical wall was selected realistically it already rules out type combinations such as rock/steel. Certain type combinations will never fit a certain role thats how the metagame is, the only way people get round this is to come up with contrived or the "ideal" abilities. So with roles your already restricting stats, typing and/or ability.
Give each person one concept submission, infract anything that doesn't really discuss a submitted concept or anyone who submits more then one.
At least stick with concept for one more project you can't expect it to have worked perfectly first go round.
Role is just as restrictive as concept, if we take your example role to be a decent special wall already two of the stats and to a lesser extent typing have been determined.
Or if physical wall was selected realistically it already rules out type combinations such as rock/steel. Certain type combinations will never fit a certain role thats how the metagame is, the only way people get round this is to come up with contrived or the "ideal" abilities. So with roles your already restricting stats, typing and/or ability.
Give each person one concept submission, infract anything that doesn't really discuss a submitted concept or anyone who submits more then one.
At least stick with concept for one more project you can't expect it to have worked perfectly first go round.
^^Interesting perspective. I probably would not have agreed with you when I started this thread, but after seeing how confused everyone is with the definition of "Role", I'm seriously doubting that my proposal will make much of an improvement.
I wholeheartedly agree with the "one submission per person rule". That will reduce a lot of the spam. It may constrain a few creative contributors, but I think it would be better for the community as a whole.
Right now, I'm thinking we should just leave the Concept Submission pretty much like it was. State very clearly that no submission can dictate a specific result of any later poll, and let the submitters figure out how to work within those limitations. If people come up with some really poor submissions, they can be culled by the TL and/or rejected by the community.
Rather than trying to educate the entire community in some esoteric definition of a "Role" -- perhaps it would be better to simply state the hard-and-fast boundaries and let people do whatever they want within those boundaries. If something like "Type Stereotype Breaker" is submitted within the rules, survives the judgement of a knowledgeable TL, and is popular enough to win the poll -- who am I to say that it is inappropriate as the basis for a CAP project?
I wholeheartedly agree with the "one submission per person rule". That will reduce a lot of the spam. It may constrain a few creative contributors, but I think it would be better for the community as a whole.
Right now, I'm thinking we should just leave the Concept Submission pretty much like it was. State very clearly that no submission can dictate a specific result of any later poll, and let the submitters figure out how to work within those limitations. If people come up with some really poor submissions, they can be culled by the TL and/or rejected by the community.
Rather than trying to educate the entire community in some esoteric definition of a "Role" -- perhaps it would be better to simply state the hard-and-fast boundaries and let people do whatever they want within those boundaries. If something like "Type Stereotype Breaker" is submitted within the rules, survives the judgement of a knowledgeable TL, and is popular enough to win the poll -- who am I to say that it is inappropriate as the basis for a CAP project?
Code:
Role[I]
n.[/I][LIST=1]
[*]A character or part played by a performer.
[*] The characteristic and expected social behavior of an individual.
[*] A function or position.
[*][I]Linguistics.[/I] The function of a word or construction, as in a sentence.[/LIST]
I would just like to ask why constricting future polls is such a bad thing?
Let's just say for example I propose a tankish Electric type during the concept phase. I argue relentlessly for it, I show its pros its cons, people make arguments against it that I thwart etc... etc... etc... The community votes on it, it gains the necessary 50% vote to win, and that's our concept. Honesty the only thing REALLY set in stone is the Bias and the Type. There is still much in the way of BST/Stat Spread/Move Set/Ability/Art/etc... as far as creativity goes. Also, typing is not even done as the only thing that is set is that it has ATLEAST the Electric type. There can be plenty of debate on whether or not it should get a secondary type too. All I'm saying is that I don't see all of this "hindering creativity" stuff... and yeah it does predetermine certain polls, but it's not like the proposer automatically gets the stuff in his proposal... It still has to be VOTED on and WIN, which means it's still what the community wants.
Now how is this different than me submitting "Tank" for the role proposal, winning, advocating Electric for the type poll, winning, and then going for no dual type in the secondairy poll and winning there. There's really no difference other than it taking an unneccessarily long time to do everything.
I will admit, however, that overcentralizing your proposal is a bad idea. "Dragon sweeper w/600 BST and atleast Outrage/Dragon Dance" does hinder the creative process too much... but to compare "Dragon Sweeper w/600 BST and atleast Outrage/Dragon Dance" and "Tankish Electric" as two equal evils against creativity is ridiculous.
Let's just say for example I propose a tankish Electric type during the concept phase. I argue relentlessly for it, I show its pros its cons, people make arguments against it that I thwart etc... etc... etc... The community votes on it, it gains the necessary 50% vote to win, and that's our concept. Honesty the only thing REALLY set in stone is the Bias and the Type. There is still much in the way of BST/Stat Spread/Move Set/Ability/Art/etc... as far as creativity goes. Also, typing is not even done as the only thing that is set is that it has ATLEAST the Electric type. There can be plenty of debate on whether or not it should get a secondary type too. All I'm saying is that I don't see all of this "hindering creativity" stuff... and yeah it does predetermine certain polls, but it's not like the proposer automatically gets the stuff in his proposal... It still has to be VOTED on and WIN, which means it's still what the community wants.
Now how is this different than me submitting "Tank" for the role proposal, winning, advocating Electric for the type poll, winning, and then going for no dual type in the secondairy poll and winning there. There's really no difference other than it taking an unneccessarily long time to do everything.
I will admit, however, that overcentralizing your proposal is a bad idea. "Dragon sweeper w/600 BST and atleast Outrage/Dragon Dance" does hinder the creative process too much... but to compare "Dragon Sweeper w/600 BST and atleast Outrage/Dragon Dance" and "Tankish Electric" as two equal evils against creativity is ridiculous.
Disallowing specifics is not bad because of "limiting creativity". I never said that. In fact, I don't know if anyone has ever said that as an argument against specifics in concept proposals.
My argument against specific concepts is presented in this post earlier in this thread. Nowhere do I mention that it "hinders creativity". I do argue that it interferes with the quality of the community analysis and therefore diminishes the quality of the community decision. But I won't re-hash the same points I made at length earlier.
My argument against specific concepts is presented in this post earlier in this thread. Nowhere do I mention that it "hinders creativity". I do argue that it interferes with the quality of the community analysis and therefore diminishes the quality of the community decision. But I won't re-hash the same points I made at length earlier.
I must ask why you believe it interferes with the quality of the community analysis and therefore diminishes the quality of the community decision.
I read your post and it didn't seem to actually state why this would occur, just that it would occur.
I assume you mean the "quality of the community analysis" to mean the discussion that takes place that analyze the effects of certain aspects of the pokemon on the metagame.
The main question I ask is, how does me submitting "Tankish Electric" stop these discussions? In order to win the vote, I will still have to put forward the pros of the proposal, and people will have problems with it and present cons. And that will spark the same discussion as usual...
If anything, the way you PROPOSE to do it does little to start discussion as the role/concept poll will become little more than a popularity contest. There's little to actually debate about the pros/cons of concepts, it's more "I like the idea of that concept" not "The effects of adding another <role> pokemon in the metagame would be catastrophic". While the latter type of post seems like it would be a good quality post, with the broad general theme that your "roles" have it would be little more than theorymon. Who's to say a Rock Special Wall wouldn't break the game but a Grass special wall would?
However, if you put slight specifics in the role such as "Tankish Electric" then you can begin intelligent discussion right away. "An electric with tankish stats would dominate the metagame with its lack of weaknesses and its usefull resists to the CAP metagame OU types such as flying"
If anything, allowing small amounts of specifics in concepts ENCOURAGES discussion and enhances the main goal of the project that is to analyze the competetive aspects of pokemon. Definatley moreso than saying "Tank" or "Lead".
Excuse me if I made too big of an assumption as to what you actually meant when you said it hinders the "quality of the community analysis and therefore diminishes the quality of the community decision"
Also, I am still against INCREDIBLY defined concepts such as the Dragon I illustrated in my last post. I just think that some concepts should be allowed like my "tankish electric" or the "Grass Sweeper".
I read your post and it didn't seem to actually state why this would occur, just that it would occur.
I assume you mean the "quality of the community analysis" to mean the discussion that takes place that analyze the effects of certain aspects of the pokemon on the metagame.
The main question I ask is, how does me submitting "Tankish Electric" stop these discussions? In order to win the vote, I will still have to put forward the pros of the proposal, and people will have problems with it and present cons. And that will spark the same discussion as usual...
If anything, the way you PROPOSE to do it does little to start discussion as the role/concept poll will become little more than a popularity contest. There's little to actually debate about the pros/cons of concepts, it's more "I like the idea of that concept" not "The effects of adding another <role> pokemon in the metagame would be catastrophic". While the latter type of post seems like it would be a good quality post, with the broad general theme that your "roles" have it would be little more than theorymon. Who's to say a Rock Special Wall wouldn't break the game but a Grass special wall would?
However, if you put slight specifics in the role such as "Tankish Electric" then you can begin intelligent discussion right away. "An electric with tankish stats would dominate the metagame with its lack of weaknesses and its usefull resists to the CAP metagame OU types such as flying"
If anything, allowing small amounts of specifics in concepts ENCOURAGES discussion and enhances the main goal of the project that is to analyze the competetive aspects of pokemon. Definatley moreso than saying "Tank" or "Lead".
Excuse me if I made too big of an assumption as to what you actually meant when you said it hinders the "quality of the community analysis and therefore diminishes the quality of the community decision"
Also, I am still against INCREDIBLY defined concepts such as the Dragon I illustrated in my last post. I just think that some concepts should be allowed like my "tankish electric" or the "Grass Sweeper".
No, I actually included quite a bit of explanation why the quality would be diminished. I even included some analogies to make it clearer. If you missed it, here's the end of it:
It won't be the same discussion as usual. The usual way we discuss Typing is by ONLY discussing Typing. In your example, just to discuss "Tankish Electric", we have to evaluate, at a minimum, three competitive aspects:
1) Attacking prowess (Tank)
2) Defensive prowess (Tank)
3) Typing (Electric)
Just to analyze that one concept (Tankish Electric), I have to cram three CAP aspect discussions into one. And you are completely disregarding the fact that the Concept thread is not singularly dedicated to your one proposal. There are literally hundreds of other concepts competing for discussion and analysis. Do you honestly think that "Tankish Electric" with it's three different competitive aspects will get a full CAP analysis, at the same level that it would get if discussed in separate dedicated threads? No way.
If you want to rush through the creation process and "cut to the chase", then your idea is a great way to create a pokemon. But, if that is your motivation, then you are on the wrong project. The step-by-step construction process is a fundamental part of what we do here. And we intentionally analyze each step in fine detail.
You make it sound like the entire community will be scrutinizing and discussing your "Tankish Electric" idea. They will not. It will be one concept amongst hundreds. Even if we toss out all the ridiculous ideas, your idea will still be one amongst dozens. There's no way we can have an intelligent discussion about your idea when the posts that pertain to your "Tankish Electric" are intermingled with the millions of other "sub-discussions" going on. That's not an analysis. It's total chaos. In fact, that's EXACTLY what we had with past movepool discussions. That's why we continue to break up the movepool discussion into smaller pieces -- so we can actually have some intelligent analysis, instead of a total shitstorm of posts on a million different things.
I just think we're looking into this a wee bit too much? Who cares if we call it a concept or a role anyway? Especially with the way DJD is capitalizing it, I just feel like it's the difference between shell-shock and post-traumatic stress disorder.
If people have their senses about them then they're not going to be idiots. I think the key thing to do is just make it clear that we're not trying to come up with anything wacky, we're just trying to come up with something good. It's like, for anyone who studies improv, a scene with a bunch of realistic characters with legitimate problems is a lot better than a scene with a whole lot of random crap going on, with nonsensical and contradictory lines being dropped at every turn.
For CAP5, I think the most important thing make it clear that we want a submission of what the Pokémon should does, not what it is. We've been beating the bush around the terminology, but when you get right down to it, that's essentially what this whole thread is all about. What it does is what we should start with. What it is, or even, exactly how it does it, is all the stuff that's decided later.
If people have their senses about them then they're not going to be idiots. I think the key thing to do is just make it clear that we're not trying to come up with anything wacky, we're just trying to come up with something good. It's like, for anyone who studies improv, a scene with a bunch of realistic characters with legitimate problems is a lot better than a scene with a whole lot of random crap going on, with nonsensical and contradictory lines being dropped at every turn.
For CAP5, I think the most important thing make it clear that we want a submission of what the Pokémon should does, not what it is. We've been beating the bush around the terminology, but when you get right down to it, that's essentially what this whole thread is all about. What it does is what we should start with. What it is, or even, exactly how it does it, is all the stuff that's decided later.
What I can't get my head around is why people think that by stating a general idea of what the Pokemon will do rather than coming out with off the wall ideas of underused abilities we'll end up with something that's boring. It's inevitable that it'll be far less likely that your preferred setup will appear if you don't get it all into the concept/role poll but that's not really the point of the poll. The concept/role poll is so we have some sort of guideline so that we lessen the chance of making something that's too wacky to be useful. It's not perfect and there's a lot of debate on what should and shouldn't be counted but we're smart enough to be able to see our creation take form and make our decisions only when the appropriate polls come up with the previous knowledge of the former polls at our backs to help us. I'm of the mindset that we shouldn't take some design we've made in our heads before and try to force it on the community, that's a personal project and not a community one.
Otherwise I agree with ParadOxymoron. I think as the project goes along we'll be able to better rein in anything that may not be what we're looking for.
Otherwise I agree with ParadOxymoron. I think as the project goes along we'll be able to better rein in anything that may not be what we're looking for.
I don't like this idea much. I mean wouldn't the role polls all be the same from now on? Also, pokemon often have various roles depending on thr team.
eg. Spiritomb can be the pain in the neck, a sorta Weezing or it can be a bit of a tank, a different pain in the neck, the spiting one or it can be a dark/ghost Suicune...
eg. Spiritomb can be the pain in the neck, a sorta Weezing or it can be a bit of a tank, a different pain in the neck, the spiting one or it can be a dark/ghost Suicune...
This doesn't really make sense to me. I am not against a role discussion/poll, but we will still need a concept poll as well. A role (as Doug defined it) describes how a certain pokemon fits onto a team, while a concept (what we went by last time) describes how a pokemon fits in to, or what it adds to, the metagame.
A pokemon can actually have many different roles on a team as well. Take Fidgit for example: he can serve many uses. Doug's example reffered to Fidgit's role as a "Gravity User." If we had voted "Gravity User" as Fidgit's role, we would not have Fidgit; we would have a pokemon who serves the singular role of setting up Gravity. In reality Fidgit can do alot more; he is good at setting up trick room and the screens, he is a decent wall, a good spiker, he can even serve as a good tank. It is his concept that makes him a valuable and unique addition to the metagame.
That is really what we are trying to do, and the Concept was originally created to direct us toward that goal.
I also don't see the problem with a role or concept restricting later polls. Actually, that seems to be beneficial. The point of a concept is to create a cohesive pokemon (basically the opposite of Pyroak). It doesn't matter what we call it, but the concept or role will ALWAYS restrict the later polls. A role could essentially "restrict" anything from typing, stats, movepool, to even the ART. A concept may restrict typing or ability. THAT IS GOOD. As long as the concept does not mandate what the entire pokemon should be, it is actually serving its purpose by pushing the project in the right direction.
I DON'T think a concept should be something like LonelyNess' 600 bst dragon. But, I don't see a problem with an "Electric Tank." It really only specifies one of the types, and gives a real general idea of what the Stat Spread might be. It's not like we are creating a pokemon in the first poll, and it's just as community oriented as the polls down the line would be. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to vote for it. Hell, they can even submit their own.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is: don't fix what isn't broken. The way concepts were done in CAP4 resulted in the most cohesive of our pokemon yet: Fidgit. In fact the only problem was how messy the thread was.
It was full of spammy posts BECAUSE:
1. There was no TL at the time to clean it up (it was still being decided) and...
2. There weren't very many limits on number of submissions and quality
If we wait for the TL to be chosen or even let some of the new mods clean up the thread it will be much better. I also think it would be beneficial to only allow 1 or 2 submissions per person (kinda like the name thread). These to simple fixes will actually result in a swifter and cleaner process, as well as a more focused result than a Role would provide.
A pokemon can actually have many different roles on a team as well. Take Fidgit for example: he can serve many uses. Doug's example reffered to Fidgit's role as a "Gravity User." If we had voted "Gravity User" as Fidgit's role, we would not have Fidgit; we would have a pokemon who serves the singular role of setting up Gravity. In reality Fidgit can do alot more; he is good at setting up trick room and the screens, he is a decent wall, a good spiker, he can even serve as a good tank. It is his concept that makes him a valuable and unique addition to the metagame.
That is really what we are trying to do, and the Concept was originally created to direct us toward that goal.
I also don't see the problem with a role or concept restricting later polls. Actually, that seems to be beneficial. The point of a concept is to create a cohesive pokemon (basically the opposite of Pyroak). It doesn't matter what we call it, but the concept or role will ALWAYS restrict the later polls. A role could essentially "restrict" anything from typing, stats, movepool, to even the ART. A concept may restrict typing or ability. THAT IS GOOD. As long as the concept does not mandate what the entire pokemon should be, it is actually serving its purpose by pushing the project in the right direction.
I DON'T think a concept should be something like LonelyNess' 600 bst dragon. But, I don't see a problem with an "Electric Tank." It really only specifies one of the types, and gives a real general idea of what the Stat Spread might be. It's not like we are creating a pokemon in the first poll, and it's just as community oriented as the polls down the line would be. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to vote for it. Hell, they can even submit their own.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is: don't fix what isn't broken. The way concepts were done in CAP4 resulted in the most cohesive of our pokemon yet: Fidgit. In fact the only problem was how messy the thread was.
It was full of spammy posts BECAUSE:
1. There was no TL at the time to clean it up (it was still being decided) and...
2. There weren't very many limits on number of submissions and quality
If we wait for the TL to be chosen or even let some of the new mods clean up the thread it will be much better. I also think it would be beneficial to only allow 1 or 2 submissions per person (kinda like the name thread). These to simple fixes will actually result in a swifter and cleaner process, as well as a more focused result than a Role would provide.
Sounds good to me. Honestly, I think a very clear "ONE CONCEPT SUBMISSION PER PERSON" would do wonders for the thread, as long as people could post intelligent discussion and criticism if they want.
Type should be acceptable when talking about concepts. Many of the concepts carry type restrictions anyway. Steel or poison sweepers are almost unworkable- likewise a fire or ice wall.
Also, we'll never get out from under the "apples to oranges" problem. We still will get questions like "Do you want a Tank or a spinner?"
Moreover, I think the really basic roles are too basic. There are plenty of pokemon that can be a viable Physical/Special Sweeper/Tank/Wall in OU (with the exception of Special Wall). The metagame doesn't need yet another generic Physical Tank, but maybe people will pay attention to an electric physical tank. I just don't see anyone getting excited over the basic roles.
On the other hand, there are several things I think should be prohibited. Actual stat values and moves other than utilities (body slam is okay, thunderbolt is not, lava plume is iffy) should not be included in the concept.
Also, we'll never get out from under the "apples to oranges" problem. We still will get questions like "Do you want a Tank or a spinner?"
Moreover, I think the really basic roles are too basic. There are plenty of pokemon that can be a viable Physical/Special Sweeper/Tank/Wall in OU (with the exception of Special Wall). The metagame doesn't need yet another generic Physical Tank, but maybe people will pay attention to an electric physical tank. I just don't see anyone getting excited over the basic roles.
On the other hand, there are several things I think should be prohibited. Actual stat values and moves other than utilities (body slam is okay, thunderbolt is not, lava plume is iffy) should not be included in the concept.
Its fine for them to have a type restriction. The problem is, I feel types are like abilities: you have it in the concept, you take away a poll right there. The concept threads are generally shitstorms, as Doug said, and there isn't much competitive discussion since its all subjective anyways.
Conclusions:
- The proposed renaming to "Role" will not be implemented.
- A "One submission per person" rule will be implemented for the Concept Submission thread.
- The rules for Concept Submission will be more explicitly spelled out in the OP of the Concept Submission thread.
- Status