Introduction
When I made my big post in December on Christmas Eve, I wanted to spur a new line of thinking in this thread, and hopefully get us considering much bigger, broader topics than just the question of whether we should build pokemon for a CAP metagame or not. In the back of my mind, even months ago when I very first started writing that long essay for this thread, I've always had a vague impression of a proposal for our direction. But the problem was that I couldn't put my finger on it. I couldn't form my ideas into a concrete proposal that we could take action on.
So, I posted all my thoughts and context, and put it out there for others to comment on, with the hope that the community at large could help me finalize my thinking, or, at the very least, squash the nagging notions I had in the back of my head that I couldn't really express properly as a proposal for CAP policy.
I have learned a lot from the many posts in this thread, and I've also gotten a lot of great feedback from hours and hours of discussions with people on IRC and the CAP room on PS. When
HeaLnDeaL posted above, it really helped push my thinking in terms of policy, and I started forming a framework of a proposal.
But then the other day on IRC, I was chatting with
Birkal at length about this thread and
Theorymon popped up and joined in. Over the course of a few hours of rambling discussion, by the end of it, I realized we had stumbled on a somewhat tangible proposal.
It started with this comment by me on IRC:
"DougJustDoug: Lemme describe what I want to get out of the change in direction."
And what follows below, is an assemblage of comments (mostly mine) from that IRC discussion, packaged up into hopefully-sensible paragraph form, culminating with a hopefully-sensible policy proposal.
Class Struggle in Create-A-Pokemon
I believe Smogon has a problem similar to the U.S. problem with income inequality. (Bear with me, I realize the analogy is a little stretched...) The United States has an issue with the "disappearing middle class".
A middle class is essential to a good capitalist economy right? It's bad for the economy to be predominantly made up of a large number of people that are in poverty and a small number of elite rich. Without a healthy middle class, the divide between the rich and poor grows wider and wider, leading to all sorts of economic and societal problems. Amongst many other issues, the lower class majority feel oppressed by the elite upper class, and the elite upper class feel surrounded and put upon by the poor lower class.
That's kinda like Smogon now, in terms of competitive knowledge. If competitive knowledge and skill was money -- most Smogoners are now defined as "poor" and there are a very small number of "elite rich", if that makes sense. And by the way, even if its not true of Smogon overall -- I definitely think it applies to the Create-A-Pokemon project, which is my only concern right now.
So what CAP needs to do is re-establish a working middle class again.
CAP had a huge middle class in the early days of the project. Most of our "top contributors" were never really considered that amazing in terms of tournament battling skill. Meaning they were not ever "elite rich". But they knew about battling and were avid students of competitive pokemon. They were "working middle class battlers", so to speak.
I personally think of myself as "working middle class" when it comes to competitive pokemon overall. Although I don't battle often these days, I have a fairly extensive knowledge of past metas, mechanics, theory, and stats. And I've always considered myself to be a better teambuilder than a battler anyway, mainly because I enjoy building teams more than I enjoy actually battling with them. I'll never say I'm a great player. But I'm not a total noob either. And there are tons of other people who have little knowledge of theory or mechanics or past metas -- but they battle often in the current metas, and know plenty of tactics. Once again, these people aren't great players. But they're not total shit either. Basically, in terms of competitive knowledge and skill, there are lots of ways to make it out of the slums and into the working middle class.
But according to our current definitions and expectations in CAP -- if you aren't a current successful tournament battler -- you are below the poverty line in CAP. We have to change that. And we can't do it by just saying:
"There's a new standard for competitive respect in CAP. Here it is: <blah, blah, blah>."
Even if we could define it -- it would never work. We have to set a direction that is much more inclusive of a wider array of player profiles, which, to a lesser extent, will "blur" the definition of what is a "good battler" or not. We have to create a larger working middle class in CAP.
Ok, so my hope is that, whatever changes we make as a result of this policy thread, the intended effect is to have a wider group of people look at any given competitive CAP thread and say to themselves:
"Hey, I know a thing or two about that!"
But more importantly, when those people then post their thoughts and reasoning -- other people, even other top tournament battlers, say:
"Hmmm. They might be right or they might be wrong, but I don't know what they know, so I'll give them benefit of the doubt."
Let me give you an example of what I mean, via a conversation I had the other day in #smogon...
The Fine Line Between "Stupid" and "Clever" (yes, that is a "This is Spinal Tap" reference...)
As you may or may not know, I like the 3v3 singles format, though I haven't battled 3v3 actively since XY. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I've been hanging out on Showdown more often these days. One room I idle in is the Battle Spot room, because I want to learn more about the ORAS 3v3 strategies and teams that have emerged since the XY game.
I was on the #smogon IRC channel the other day, and Jibaku, who was/is pretty solid in 3v3 battling, happened to be in #smogon at the same time as me, when the channel started talking about Battle Spot, for whatever reason.
So on #smogon, I mentioned how the Japanese 3v3 players are really creative with their sets, and that the top Japanese players are MUCH better rating-wise than top US players. There are lots of Japanese players with 2000+ ratings. But the best US players are like 1800+. The best US player is like 400th in the world. And I was mentioning some pokemon movesets in 3v3 that blew my mind.
For example, a 2000+ player was running Impish bulky MegaMedicham, which looks like a noob gag to the average Smogon OU player. But its a legit mon in Battle Spot singles apparently. Not top used or anything. But there's a guy with a 2000+ rating, which is fucking hard to achieve -- running that mon and set. I also mentioned I saw conversation about Torrent Tspikes Greninja and thought it was for lulz. And it turns out it was really a thing in 3v3. Other battlers in the channel were having a hard time believing my claims about Medicham and Greninja, and Jibs stepped in and validated that they were real and explained why. Everyone clammed up a bit and kinda thought,
"Wow, OK, I just don't know that metagame at all..."
Don't get me wrong, the 3v3 meta is not that completely weird. Top mons are Chomp, MKang, TFlame, etc. -- all the usual badasses with the sets you know and love. But there's a lot of stuff in the meta that seems really stupid to other people that aren't familiar with the Battle Spot game. The point is that "stupid" and "clever" are local to the metagame being played.
A Wider Appeal
In CAP, I'd like to appeal to players that know something about battling, but I'm not terribly concerned which basis they are coming from with that knowledge. And if you think about it, the people that really make real Pokemon (y'know, Nintendo and Game Freak) -- they don't build mons for any one game.
They build pokemon for all games.
I'd like us to build CAP mons for "all games", and thus we can appeal to a huge base of players that know about competitive pokemon. And because of that broad appeal -- we could neuter the criticism and toxic vibe of the "elite rich" in any one metagame, because it won't be as easy to definitely call out and insult others that come from a different metagame base of expertise.
That's the thing with our current definition of "knowledgeable" in CAP when it comes to competitive pokemon -- We have tied it to people that battle well in OU tournaments. As if building CAP pokemon on the forum is analogous to balancing in OU, where you gain credibility and voting rights by winning real battles.
But the CAP forum project is, and always will be -- ALMOST PURE THEORYMON.
And we have allowed a set of definitions and standards of contribution in CAP that make it SEEM like we are engaged in a metagame balancing exercise and need contributors that are good tournament battlers to validate every little thing -- almost like posting in CAP is equivalent to battling in a suspect test. But it isn't the same thing at all. One is pure theory (CAP), and the other is pure experimentation (suspect testing).
CAP is suffering because the creation project is all theorymon, yet people are treating it more like an experimental suspect test, and holding CAP posts to the same standard of battling skill required to vote in suspect tests.
That is the problem that I want to solve with a new direction.
Proposal Part 1: New Direction
So what if CAP put itself squarely in the shoes of GameFreak?
What if we built mons that we wanted to be "popular"? With the specific twist that we want them to be popular with competitive players. So no cutemons or contest mons or whatever.
But we won't specify any particular competitive metagame at the outset of a project.
We would build mons that follow good general competitive archetypes, and have some way to focus here and there on maybe some specific things that are good for one meta or the other. For example, we might give it Telepathy, if the build otherwise seems like it could be good for Doubles. But we don't start out saying,
"This will be a Doubles CAP".
In fact, maybe we outright set the standard,
"The CAP mon will be designed for play in multiple metagames."
We should only consider metagames that are "cartridge-legal", meaning we won't build for games like Hackmons or other games that are not consistent with normal Pokemon mechanics and game elements, other than the CAP pokemon being created at the time. Oddly enough, this stipulation would actually preclude us from targeting the CAP metagame as a design consideration, because the CAP metagame is not cartridge-legal. The point of this clarification is to keep each individual CAP as firmly centered on the real game of Pokemon as possible.
And when it comes to the Smogon ruleset -- we leave the tiering of the CAP mon TO BE DETERMINED VIA A PLAYTEST. We make a pokemon and then playtest to figure out where it should be tiered in the Smogon ruleset. But we also playtest to see if it works in other metas, based on theorymon predictions. So in this way, our CAP mons will be built on good intelligent fundamentals that are kinda known to be good by anyone that is experienced with ANY metagame. But our playtest decides WHERE the CAP is successful -- not IF it is successfull in OU (like now).
That is a very key point. With this proposal, we basically can't make a CAP that objectively "fails". If anything, it will "succeed" in a lower tier in Smogon -- unless we are just total idiots and make a Delibird or whatever.
The point is, that people won't be so busy calling everyone else stupid for four months straight, as we make the pokemon. Then when we playtest the pokemon, we can reach out to different metas and say:
"Hey we think the latest CAP we made, it might be good in your meta. We're gonna run a little playtest with it in your meta. Wanna come join the fun?"
I think people would get into that. We'd make our project INCLUSIVE and INVITING to others -- not the other way around. As the CAP gets made, if it is shaping up to possibly be good in some specific meta -- we could reach out and ask that meta's leaders to post in CAP and give their opinion. And if they post:
"Nope, you guys got it all wrong. This thing will be shit in our meta because of <whatever>."
OK, fine. But my guess is that any meta other than OU, they won't say that. They'd say:
"Right now, it won't work because of <whatever>. But if you do A, B, and C -- it would be really cool in our meta. In fact, I'd like to hang around and lobby for those things here, because I'd love to see our meta get a new mon."
And then after the playtests, guess what we do? We throw it into the CAP meta, and play it there forever after.
This proposal intentionally does NOT make any assumptions about how the CAP metagame is structured now or in the future. I'll leave that discussion to another policy thread, if necessary. Right now, I am not concerned about the CAP metagame or making a new metagame, only with how CAP pokemon are made and playtested. So, other than the fact that I assume a CAP metagame of some kind will exist, it will NOT be a design concern for the CAP forum project as a result of this proposal.
Problems and Questions with the New Direction
Concepts aren't working nowadays. If we change direction as I proposed above, it's a necessity to change how we approach concepts. But I think we need much more general concepts anyway, regardless of whether we change direction or not. We just can't sustain setting out to make specific pokemon in CAP any longer. I think the specific stuff needs to "emerge" from a general direction at the outset.
Have you heard of the lean startup business concept of a "pivot"? Basically, you startup a business with a good general idea. Then after you get real feedback from real customers (in the form of sales or whatever) you "pivot" to take advantage of what is really working -- not necessarily the strategy you wrote up in your business plan. As you continue to "pivot" based on real business success -- you end up in a market with a product, but probably not exactly what you intended when you first began.
A lean startup management philosophy is, "Pick a good direction and get moving, and then pivot well until you succeed." So a common question asked by startup founders/leaders/investors as they go along is the famous "Pivot or Persevere?" question. Persevere in the same direction, or Pivot based on new information? Kinda applies to CAP, I think.
So, if we're not building Pokemon for OU, and instead just "seeing how it turns out" in the playtest -- how would we handle a step like stats?
I think we should aim for a power level of "good pokemon" in terms of stats, ability, etc. But the idea that "OU" = "good" (as I detailed in my massive post earlier) is an ancient way of looking at the game of Pokemon. Nowadays, there are mons with awesome stats and abilities hanging down in NU. So I don't think we need to say,
"This will be RU level in stats and ability", or anything that specific. We try to make a "good pokemon" and then see where it falls in the tiers.
That's really one of the big things with this proposal. There is such a fine line now between OU and NU, in terms of build and all that -- that CAP simply cannot hit that mark with any accuracy with our process. I think CAP is so specific right now, that it has no idea what it's doing. And that's not just CAP's fault -- the current metagame / tiering philosophy is all over the place too, in terms of what is bannable or not. I think CAP has no clear idea of what constitutes "too good" or even "good enough" for any tiered meta really.
How will CAP discussion threads play out? Would it cause strife to have different metagames all vying for their metagame in these threads?
That is a real concern for me. That we'll have factions pulling for really specific things for every little meta -- and the resulting pokemon will be a "Frankenstein's monster" in the end.
However, different groups factioning for differing ideals is a not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it is GOOD for CAP "business" if people get interested and rally together. But being a project that touts itself as a community effort that emphasizes communication, I'm not sure if factioning fits in here. At that point, it becomes a "who votes for what" sort of gig.
Proposal Part 2: Concept Changes
With those questions in mind, let me present how I think concepts could be handled to rein in the "Frankenstein Effect" of different factions.
I think there are a finite number of good general "archetypes" for all competitive pokemon. We could spend some time and just define all those "competitive archetypes", and I don't really care how many we choose to define. I'm thinking an archetype will be finer-grained than just "Sweeper" or "Wall". But more general than "Slow Hazard setter with one status move and the ability to setup physical". Anywhere in between there is fine with me. Just list 'em out. And if we miss some, we can add to the list as we go along in the future.
We will pick one of those archetypes as the "Concept" for a CAP.
With that archetype in place, factions can go nuts with lobbying or whatever. But we will try to stay in the bounds of the archetype. If we have limits on movepools or stats or whatever, based on the archetype, that's good too. It just helps set the boundaries. But don't get too obsessed with controlling the specifics of voting, because that never works anyway.
The advantage to this proposal is that the CAP process would almost not change at all. We will still have a "Concept". We will still have people that determine appropriate slates based on that concept (ie. archetype). And the slates will prevent or discourage "Frankenstein" from happening.
Our CAP mons may end up a little more diverse than current CAP mons -- but that's a GOOD THING. It makes playtesting an adventure in discovery -- not simply a chance to claim failure and point fingers and say,
"I told you this would be shit!"
I'm not saying CAP discussions will be easy to manage, but hopefully it will take out some of the toxicity in CAP, as people call everyone else idiots. Because we will be significantly lowering the bar to be just "good general competitive pokemon", and at the same time RAISING the bar in terms of knowledge about specific metagames.
If I post:
"Hey I think A, B, and C would really work in 3v3."
I am opening the door for someone like Jibaku or Theorymon to come in and say:
"Nope, you seem to be forgetting about <whatever> in the Battle Spot meta, and your idea won't work, Doug."
Meaning, just because "general pokemon" is a lower bar, it doesn't mean we won't invite comments about top strategy in metagame play. We just don't restrict it to only OU metagame play. And, for the record, comments about quality OU strategy will STILL be welcome in CAP, and any top OU minds will be valued contributors to CAP. But they won't be the ONLY minds we value in CAP any longer.
Summary
Ok, so I've rambled on and on -- but I've put out there everything that has been flying through my head in terms of wanting to make a proposal. I've had a hard time figuring out how to present it -- because it's kinda all over the place.
If there is any unifying theme to my proposal, I'd say I am proposing we more intentionally put ourselves in the shoes of GameFreak and try to "make a pokemon" like they do, but with a competitive bias.
Going in a more generalized direction is a good thing for CAP, as it should widen our audience and appeal and encourage more variety and contributions. But this may break some precedent in terms of CAP philosophy.
This would be a shift in direction as to how we build competitive pokemon, and how we even have conversations about them. Process-wise, this proposal isn't that disruptive. But in terms of mentality and culture -- I see it as a big seismic shift. The CAP thread titles probably change very little, if at all. But the post content would be night-and-day different.
Birkal and I have concerns about how to prevent CAP threads turning into shouting matches between metagames. Perhaps we would need to implement new rules, or maybe not. Perhaps we restore Likes to help show community consensus? It's a possibility. We can work that stuff out later in this thread or others to follow. For now, I just want to hear feedback from others on the major features of this proposal, which can be summarized as:
TL;DR Proposal:
- We build pokemon intended to be generally useful in competitive pokemon battles, according to a known set of good "competitive archetypes" that are applicable to multiple competitive metagames and rulesets.
- The "Concept" for a given CAP project will be one of those general "competitive archetypes".
- The specific direction of each competitive aspect of a CAP pokemon and which competitive games it is expected to play best in -- will unfold and potentially change over the course of CAP discussion threads, but will be guided to stay within the general archetype defined by the Concept.
- Good general competitive knowledge will be valued in CAP discussions. Expert tournament battling skill is appreciated, but not expected. Disrespect or scorn for any metagame or battling format will not be tolerated.
- One or more playtests will be held to determine which tiers, metagames, and rulesets are most appropriate for the CAP pokemon just created.
- After the playtests, the pokemon will become part of the CAP metagame. But this policy proposal makes no provisions for how the CAP metagame is structured now or in the future.