CAP Updates Review

[Deck Knight]

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 That process was originally made to navigate a massive update for our Gen 4 CAPs , and now that everything is basically up to date for Gen 7 SM, we may not need as large a process for later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:

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:

1. 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.

Competitive Updates:

1. 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.
2. 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.

Process
(All Times are Approximate)​

Process Part I:
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.)

Therefore, we are asking the PRC to consider a few questions:

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.

 

[Mx]

What went well about the previous update process?

I believe that, overall, the update process was a success. We managed to remove some of the most overpowered elements in the meta (Illusion Aurumoth and Reflect Tomohawk), greatly improved the viability of some the most underwhelming CAPs, like Arghonaut and Naviathan, and just generally put the past projects up to date, making them look like actual Pokemon in Gen 7, and not letting them being frozen in time like before.

The updates also avoided making new overpowered threats, something that I think that the community feared from our past experiences with revising past creations. Even the most improved projects still are a healthy part of the meta and are as faithful as possible to their original essence.

What did not go well about the previous update process?

That being said, the process was not without some serious flaws. In my opinion, the root cause for them was the fact that this was something we never tried before, and was outside of our comfort zone. Moving to more specific problems, the elephant in the room is obviously the schedule: The updates started on February, and lasted for 6 months, finally ending on July. This was way longer than it was originally anticipated, and generated a huge burn-out in the community, as people simply got fed up from working on this for so long and just wanted to get this over with, which affected negatively the quality of the later discussions. There were various reasons for this, first, some of the people in charge took too long to wrap up discussions, and in one case, completely abandoned Smogon without any previous warning. The scale of the project was another issue, for 11 CAPs, we had to fit 3 entire generations of additions into them, and a lot of cases, we also needed to figure out what went wrong, and how we could fix it, something that was not always easy.

I also think a few of the updates, particularly Voodoom and Malaconda ended up being underwhelming, and would've benefited a lot from a less restrictive approach to them, but this is a very minor complaint, as the result for the others has been more than satisfactory, and when managing so many CAPs at the same time, having one or two duds is practically inevitable.

Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?

I strongly believe that the biggest change we need for future updates is having stricter deadlines. When an Update Leader fails to meet the deadline, they should be automatically replaced by another one after 24 hrs pass, unless and extension was granted beforehand. Making sure this is accomplish would be the Generational Leader's job. This would help making the process faster, and reducing the burn-out in the community.

The actively competitive updates should be only done at the start of a Generation, but exceptions should be made in case a recent CAP is widely considered overpowered, to avoid having to wait for too long to remove obviously broken elements from the metagame. I think updates should always be made after the release of a new game, but they should be very limited in scope, just trying to add new move tutors, and possibly fixing mistakes in the movepool, like missing universal TMs. Of course, this should not mean that the updates can't add new competitive moves to past CAPs, but they need a good justification to be included. The Generational Updates should work similarly to the past one, picking a few past CAPs, and trying to improve their performance in the meta. I'd suggest simply having somewhere between 3 to 5 competitive updates, while the rest should just focus in keeping past creations up to date.

 

[Deck Knight]

I appreciate a lot of people liked the OP. But please be like mxmts and also post just saying lol

What went well about the previous update process?

With the exception of a few stumbles mid-way, I think for the scope of what we were doing the final product of what we did addressed all the major balance issues with the CAPs, brought old CAPs into modernity, and gave us a fresh look at where each CAP stands in the metagame.

What did not go well about the previous update process?

Time delays, dumb fumbles, and some overreach on the scope of what we were doing. Even if I hadn't screwed up on Arghonaut's ability vote count, we still had essentially a policy breach on Legendary Signatures borne out of what it appears was an unnecessary over-concern with viability. Arghonaut seems to be doing fine with all its moves and the high level stats have about a 60/40 split in Ability usage.

Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?

New Gen updates seem to have the right process. As we get more CAPs it may be wiser to split them up by something other than generation sunce they are all effectively Gen 7 now, so it may make more sense to have leaders for CAPs 1-6 / 7-12 / 13-18 / 19-24 etc.

For mid-gen updates, in this instance we really only have 5 moves to discuss (Defog, Laser Focus, Liquidation, Stomping Tantrum, Throat Chop) with much wider distribution. However, after thinking about it while there could be a very streamlined process for such small considerations, it may be better to keep the elected leadership model. As moderators it would be more expedient for us to run such a small scale discussion, however moderators are chosen for different reasons than elected discussion leaders, and if we do anything that makes a significant change it looks like a fiat rather than something the community decided.

Notably, the mid-gen updates this time are relatively small. If we had done updates in Gen 6, the jump from XY to ORAS was immense in scope. The new Megas completely changed the meta in ways that a few more UBs and a few tutors did not even come close to approaching.

I had actually drafted an OP for Updates that was more focused on organizing via move rather than via mons, however that doesn't really work in the context of elected positions because the gulf between mons that Liquidation makes sense for and mons that Throat Chop make sense for is huge. There are also CAPs where no updates at all would be an appropriate resolution.

Generally, I think we don't need a huge number of elected leaders for an update as small as Gen7 mid-gen. I don't know, however, if the community would be comfortable with us electing 4 leaders for mid-gen updates to facilitate discussion and just having mods as a stopgap in case someone tries to throw all 5 moves on a CAP up for a vote or some such nonsense.

 

[Bughouse]

The main concern is just how long it took.

Admittedly, updates in the future should now take less long, provided that something like 4th abilities don't become a thing... since it can entirely skip ability updates. But the main focus should be on speeding up whatever IS still done, which should be mostly movepool.

Maybe just have a group of leaders who vote up/down on any new moves for each CAP and only the most controversial ones then go to public discussion/votes. The exact #s and voting % thresholds of this can be further hashed out if this is a generally acceptable idea. But you don't need to waste anyone's time discussing whether or not Malaconda should get Liquidation, since it obviously shouldn't.

 

[Quanyails]

What went well about the previous update process?

The process itself went well. Having discussion in the form of threads per CAPmon and handling it in order like the regular CAP process came across as very natural. It also gives us an example to go by if/when we continue to maintain CAPs in the future.

What did not go well about the previous update process?

There was a lot of fuzziness with the definition of a major/minor/flavor update, and each update leader had his/her own take on what should be included.

That being said, having an update leader per CAP led to some CAP updates taking much longer than others. I agree with the above that coordination and timing could be improved.

Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?

We need objective definitions of major/minor/flavor additions. I.e., a "major" update could allow moves that turn ______ into a check instead of a counter for a mon , whereas a "minor" update couldn't.

We could add a checks-and-balances system for ULs like the main CAP does, to keep the "direction" of updates straight. For instance, some members of CAP staff had to come in during Revenankh updates to clarify that Revenankh could not have an existing ability removed or changed.

I can think of a way to keep threads moving which would work both for updates and for the regular CAP process: set a deadline on every topic from the start, extending it upon people's requests. It's what the CAP art thread does towards the end of its cycle, and it works. :)

 

[snake]

What went well about the previous update process?

UL / GL relationship was really great. I think the process flowed very naturally if we ignore how long everything took.

What did not go well about the previous update process?

It took SO long. I know that each person's CAP would take different amounts of time but good lord. I'm not naming names, but if a UL cannot consistently move on a thread in a timely manner, then imo the GL just needs to take over. There's no reason for the updates threads to drag on, especially now that Updates will likely be so much smaller in scope. I was very enthusiastic about the whole process, but then when I TL'ed CAP23 and we couldn't play it in the metagame that it was supposed to be built in, it honestly made me pretty upset. CAP23 process dragged, yes, but ultimately I think Updates process dragging placed CAP23 in that situation more than CAP23 process dragging.

Also, I think we learned as we went, but one bad taste is left in my mouth from updates, and that's Naviathan. I'm not saying it's broken. But did we really have to give it Guts and Heavy Slam? I think this stems from what was considered as a "major" or a "minor" update, but it felt like Naviathan just got overbuffed.

Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?

If we want to update Pokemon competitively again, perhaps we should open to +10 stat changes per generational shift. This is consistent with what GF does, and would allow for more precise tweaks than "give the thing the strongest STAB move we can - it'll be better" or "well now we need to give it Sheer Force." This would have helped tremendously with Voodoom and Malaconda's updates imo because honestly the best thing you could do for them would be a stat buff. These stat buffs should not be handed out liberally at all though.

For generational updates, I think we still need the "what needs updating thread" but with a much, much stricter reasoning for "why does this need a competitive update." I don't think we should completely close the door on updating competitively, but we don't need to be making everything A+ on the VR.

I've also had some thoughts about how CAP Prevos cannot have access to moves unless the parent gets access to them during the main updates process, but I need to organize them before I post here. i.e. Breezi + Recycle would be pretty cool to explore in LC, but Fidgit needs to somehow get Recycle before Breezi can have it. It's just a way CAP LC gets stifled I think and with how there's a metagame forming around the Prevos, it's a little frustrating. I'm not really sure if there's a work-around for this though, or how many times this would come up.

 

[LucarioOfLegends]

What went well about the previous update process?

While I know there are people who are more pessimistic in the views of the entire update process, I think the entire process went somewhat smoothly in terms of its execution. Most mons got a fairly simple update where flavor was the main focus, and their updates reflected that. And when they did diverge onto a more competitive aspect of the discussion, it usually was fairly clear what was actually necessary to buff/nerf the mon, although I will forever campaign the removal of Roost on Tomohawk. Krilowatt and Syclant in particular are the two flagship examples of what we did right for CAP Updates. They both address competitive aspects in thier movepool, but are primarily focused on flavor consistency as the prime motivations for both movepool and ability in these cases. I'd also argue Voodoom and Malaconda went particularly well for a major competitive update, although it is still majorly unviable due to Type and power creep, which isn't really anything we can fix.

In general, we kept flavor for the most part as a primary focus through the entire ordeal, and any competitive changes made still advised with balance and flavor in mind, causing the metagame to become much more flavorfully up to date as well as more balanced in general. No DD Roak of Illusion Moth around.

What did not go well about the previous update process?

Easily the biggest issue with the Update Process was the entire issue of time. While there was certainly a lot of work to do on the Generation 4 CAPs especially, that doesn't exactly exempt it from the notable time based flaws present. I think there are some key issues that really caused the entire process to flow out of control:

• We had a thread for every single Pokemon, along with at least one Final Submission poll for each of them with the exception of Naviathan, Crucibelle, and Kerfluffle. This completely killed the momentum over the process, and only slowed it further considering how long some of these threads went on for.
• The UL leadership had issues. As many of us know, one of the ULs completely dropped from Smogon during one of the first Updates, leaving it in a state of limbo for a large time period. But even besides that, some ULs certainly "fluctuated" in thier ability to manage the thread sometimes.

I think these are mostly issues because it is the first run of the concept, but I think it is still something that should be noted. Another issue that is fairly consistently brought up is the idea of major/minor/consistency updates not being clear, and cause a lot of unneccesary buffs because of it. Hopefully this will be fixed in the future.

Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?

Since this was first time run of it and now that all the mons have been updated, I think further updates will be significantly easier going ahead. I agree with the idea of stricter deadlines that mxmts presents, as if we want to get something as big as this done we have to continuously stay on top of it.

I think Mid-Gen updates can probably be condensed into one thread instead of two dozen or so, and we can categorize each mon by what oves they will be getting. It seems like a much more simpler solution instead of dragging it on for 6 months. :P

 

[G-Luke]

What went well about the previous update process?

The process itself went very well. Aurumoth and Tomohawk got the nerfs they needed (#NoRoostHawkTho), mons of questionable viability got well needed buffs and old CAPs finally look like Gen 7 Pokémon. Krilowatt in my opinion is the most successful update, as it combined great asthetics with good competitive buffs.

What did not go well about the previous update process?

Cyclohm didn't get Electro Ball.

But on a more serious note, echoing what everyone here said in that the Time took way too long. 6 months is a long time, they in fact took so long that when we finally started designing a brand new CAP for SM, USUM debuted in its waje. Which to me, frankly unacceptable. Also I think the Major / Minor issue was a bit annoying. Example, I don't get why Malaconda was voted to be a Minor Update, when prior Malaconda was straight up unviable. Besides I don't thinkgiving a CAP a brand new role as big as a weather setter constitutes as a Minor update.

Considering the more limited scope of future updates, what changes do you recommend to the Updates process?

Much tighter time restrictions on ULs and since abilities are no longer an issue + no massive movepool overhaul, I think that +10 to +20 addition to stats can be considered

 

[Birkal]

Hello! I have been selected to close this thread. It's a bit weird, because I was probably one of the moderators least involved in the CAP Update process last time. Although I had a lot to do with why we're now building Pokemon for the CAP metagame, I was not overly involved in the process myself.

That being said, I think my (lack of) perspective may prove advantageous here. I really have no qualms about the CAP updates -- it seems like people are mostly happy with how the Pokemon turned out. So it is super interesting to read all of your perspectives on what you thought didn't go well, since from the outside, the end product seems polished. I am especially reading your responses to the final question with regards to suggestions about updating the process. It looks like, as is the case with many CAP issues, that the process took too long. I would always prefer to have a better product that takes a long time than a subpar product that takes a short time.

I think we can have our cake and eat it too in this situation. I'd like to iron out some kinks to make sure the process is both quality and short. I'll start consolidating your suggestions over the next few days into a proposal, so keep 'em coming!

 

[jas61292]

Other people have already hashed out what went well with Updates, and I don't really have too much to add on that front. I am not as bullish on some of the competitive aspects as other people were, but I don't think any of the actual results were problematic. Really, there is a lot to like about how things went.

Now, as far as the things that didn't go as well, obviously time was a big one. But beyond that, I think the biggest issue was conflicting expectations. Quanyails really hit the nail on the head with the mention of Major/Minor/Flavor updates, but I think there is more to it than that. The very beginning when we were getting into how updates were done really did leave a bad taste in my mouth, as I truly believe that there was only support for updates in the first place because people wanted flavor updates, and then once we decided to go ahead with them, the process basically got co-opted by a minority crowd that wanted competitive updates. What's more, the scope of update was never really defined going in, so we ended up voting on how big of an update to do, without knowing what we were really voting on. Like... would a lot of small changes be major or minor? What about a single impact change. Even in retrospect I do not know if I could really quantify what we really meant by the terms because their definition was entirely left up to the update leaders. I believe that this was a major issue, and may be partially at fault for the ridiculous amount of time we spend on updates. After all, since we really had no idea what the types of updates meant, we basically ended up discussing just about everything within reason for every single mon.

Going forward, I think things will be a lot easier since we will never be forced to try and update for more than one game at a time. But that said, perhaps even more than I was before we ever did updates, I am very uncomfortable with intentionally making competitive changes to mons. I don't mind if a Pokemon changes because something new is introduced that it would be expected to have. That's just realistic. But really, we are at the point where the number of CAP Pokemon we have is equal to a significant portion of the average tier size, and it is simply not feasible for all CAP mons to be top tier quality at once. Chasing that kind of goal is an exercise in futility, and if anything, I think these updates helped show that. Some Pokemon improved when we really weren't specifically aiming to do so. Others, like Malaconda, that we did really try to help out are still not that great. And others still, such as Naviathan, were improved far more than we ever reasonably should have done.

Regardless of our goals for future updates, I do think that the process from here on out will be a lot easier. For mid gen updates like USUM where we have only a few things to discuss, would be perfectly fine with just a single thread to discuss things. The scope is limited enough that a single discussion could probably cover all mons. Any moves where there does not seem to be obvious consensus can then be voted on, probably with a single poll. I really don't think there is any need to over-complicate things here.

 

[Birkal]

I think I am going to "soft close" this thread, because all we really need a conclusion on at this point is midgen updates (USUM). It sounds like we are unanimously in support of the following proposal:

When simple enough, we will do midgen updates within one thread and poll them all simultaneously. If the midgen update would be significantly complicated, we will make several thread to discuss them more specifically.​

The CAP Staff will work on getting this thread set up. In terms of next generation, let's continue to keep this thread open and discuss how we want to address UL/GL roles and the timetabling of this all. If you have thoughts over the next several months about this, please do post them!