bugmaniacbob
Was fun while it lasted
Approved by Birkal
---------
This idea is based off something that Deck Knight proposed a while ago as an in-between project for CAP (or so I recall). Essentially, the idea is as follows: That, for this once-off project, rather than there being one project, run by one Topic Leader, there are instead two projects, run by two different Topic Leaders, running simultaneously. These might be based off the same concept or different concepts or whatever takes one's fancy – the specifics are not set in stone. After the conclusion of both projects, both CAPs would enter a playtesting period on separate ladders, running at the same time and for the same duration, after which both products would be judged under the same criteria by an independent committee (subject to revision if people don't like the idea) to determine the more successful project, as well as by discussion amongst the userbase (I feel discussing and comparing the two in the forum to be essential to the success of any such project, or similar). A "winner" would then be announced.
As to why I feel this would be a good idea (or even worth doing), well, I find myself rather intrigued by the idea and would like to find out what sort of results it would produce. One thing that I feel the CAP Project has always lacked somewhat is the ability to judge what it has created – as no objective metric exists, as such, we are forced to rely on comparison, and anecdotal evidence from previous CAPs is often somewhat shaky. This way, we are capable of judging, somewhat, what we are producing by reference to another, and I'd be interested to see what the results of this project would be. Alternatively, it might just turn out to be a good deal of "fun". I'm not exactly an expert on "fun" so I'll leave that to other people to gauge.
Anyway, that's the long and the short of the project. More detail can be found in the hide tags (bear in mind that this is how I would suggest that it be run, as opposed to how it ought to be run. None of this is set in stone).
Well, that's more or less everything I could remember. Sorry if this wasn't very coherent, I've been feeling rather exhausted recently. Also, I'd make it clear that CAP4 would come before this in any eventuality - it would be unwise to start this project when there have been so many metagame changes since the last CAP. In case it contains anything I missed, here's a log of a discussion on the subject on #cap:
---------
This idea is based off something that Deck Knight proposed a while ago as an in-between project for CAP (or so I recall). Essentially, the idea is as follows: That, for this once-off project, rather than there being one project, run by one Topic Leader, there are instead two projects, run by two different Topic Leaders, running simultaneously. These might be based off the same concept or different concepts or whatever takes one's fancy – the specifics are not set in stone. After the conclusion of both projects, both CAPs would enter a playtesting period on separate ladders, running at the same time and for the same duration, after which both products would be judged under the same criteria by an independent committee (subject to revision if people don't like the idea) to determine the more successful project, as well as by discussion amongst the userbase (I feel discussing and comparing the two in the forum to be essential to the success of any such project, or similar). A "winner" would then be announced.
As to why I feel this would be a good idea (or even worth doing), well, I find myself rather intrigued by the idea and would like to find out what sort of results it would produce. One thing that I feel the CAP Project has always lacked somewhat is the ability to judge what it has created – as no objective metric exists, as such, we are forced to rely on comparison, and anecdotal evidence from previous CAPs is often somewhat shaky. This way, we are capable of judging, somewhat, what we are producing by reference to another, and I'd be interested to see what the results of this project would be. Alternatively, it might just turn out to be a good deal of "fun". I'm not exactly an expert on "fun" so I'll leave that to other people to gauge.
Anyway, that's the long and the short of the project. More detail can be found in the hide tags (bear in mind that this is how I would suggest that it be run, as opposed to how it ought to be run. None of this is set in stone).
On Placement
This would be a one-off CAP Project. The products would collectively be treated as "CAP X" (or whatever number we're up to), or alternatively they could simply not be treated as part of the CAP "canon" at all, and listed separately from the main CAPs on the site.
On Concepts
As to whether or not the two separate CAP projects would be using the same or different concepts, I have not quite formed an opinion yet; both have their relative strengths and weaknesses. Having the same concept gels better with the mission statement, as we can more directly compare the two, but on the other hand it risks biasing the process by either forcing one of the two teams to strive to make their version as different as possible to the other, and hence sub-optimal. On the other hand, having different concepts means that there is more room for variety, but less room for adequate comparison.
On Loyalties
Some people on #cap brought up the subject of teams, and I have indeed been wondering how far the team aspect of the exercise ought to be pushed. There are people who would enjoy the atmosphere of a rival team game, but on the other hand there are those who would prefer to remain unattached and contribute to both. Hence I would advocate the following model to achieve the best of both worlds – that the two Topic Leaders would make separate introductory threads, in which members would be allowed to sign up to become part of that particular "team", which would be an agreement to only post in that team's threads, and not in the other. A member who was not a member of either team could constructively help both teams. A list of those committed to either team could be kept in their respective thread OPs.
I am also thinking that the Topic Leader model may be scrapped for this one-off in favour of leadership by a coalition of members who are a part of that team, as having Topic Leaders may provoke unfair comparisons between them, as well as unnecessary hostility. In addition, I like the idea of individuals who have committed to a team being more involved in the working of the project – even, indeed, organising amongst themselves how best to operate the project – for example, perhaps, one of them could be delegated the task of making thread OPs, another for posting a vision in a particular part of the project, and the like. Of course, the eagle eyes of the moderators would, I assume, be upon them. I am not sure at present whether moderators ought to be assigned teams, or allowed to join teams, or even to simply be unattached and watch both. Being a part of the team would probably be easier, as only one project needs watching for any individual moderator, but I'm sure some of them may feel uncomfortable with it. I'll leave that up to PRC discussion.
On Judging
Obviously, the metric used for judging these CAPs would likely be a contentious issue. I have given it a fair amount of thought, and the one I was thinking of was one similar to that used in the UK television series, Robot Wars (I know what you're thinking, but bear with me). Competitors, if both were still functional at the end of the bout, were judged in the categories of style, control, damage, and aggression, with different weightings going to different categories. Thus I would propose that each of these categories be assigned an independent judge who had no part in the creation process (or possibly the moderators if nobody else is willing).
Style, in this context, would roughly translate to flavour. Things that would be judged would include the cohesiveness of the design, movepool flavour alongside artwork, name versus art, and the like. I would suggest that an artist be selected for this judging process. Style generally had the lowest weighting in judging, and that's how I believe it should stay here.
Control would here be something along the lines of "how well does it perform relative to its individual parts". This encompasses quite a few things. If it is broken or underwhelming as a Pokemon, then naturally it will decrease in its Control. In addition, a Pokemon with 480 BST and Illuminate that performed just as well as a Pokemon with 600 BST and Magic Guard would have a higher Control value. Hence this is designed to reward good design, more than anything else.
Aggression would relate to the amount of risks taken that paid off, or rather, large experimental choices. This does not include things like giving a Pokemon Magic Guard in order to make it work properly, but rather, giving a very good ability to an already powerful Pokemon without making it broken, but giving it just the right edge to do its job. That's the theory, anyway.
Damage would be the highest-weighted variable, and would deal with the most important point – how well the CAP fulfils its concept. This would be judged purely in terms of its metagame impact, and irrespective of the build of the Pokemon, as opposed to Control.
This would be a one-off CAP Project. The products would collectively be treated as "CAP X" (or whatever number we're up to), or alternatively they could simply not be treated as part of the CAP "canon" at all, and listed separately from the main CAPs on the site.
On Concepts
As to whether or not the two separate CAP projects would be using the same or different concepts, I have not quite formed an opinion yet; both have their relative strengths and weaknesses. Having the same concept gels better with the mission statement, as we can more directly compare the two, but on the other hand it risks biasing the process by either forcing one of the two teams to strive to make their version as different as possible to the other, and hence sub-optimal. On the other hand, having different concepts means that there is more room for variety, but less room for adequate comparison.
On Loyalties
Some people on #cap brought up the subject of teams, and I have indeed been wondering how far the team aspect of the exercise ought to be pushed. There are people who would enjoy the atmosphere of a rival team game, but on the other hand there are those who would prefer to remain unattached and contribute to both. Hence I would advocate the following model to achieve the best of both worlds – that the two Topic Leaders would make separate introductory threads, in which members would be allowed to sign up to become part of that particular "team", which would be an agreement to only post in that team's threads, and not in the other. A member who was not a member of either team could constructively help both teams. A list of those committed to either team could be kept in their respective thread OPs.
I am also thinking that the Topic Leader model may be scrapped for this one-off in favour of leadership by a coalition of members who are a part of that team, as having Topic Leaders may provoke unfair comparisons between them, as well as unnecessary hostility. In addition, I like the idea of individuals who have committed to a team being more involved in the working of the project – even, indeed, organising amongst themselves how best to operate the project – for example, perhaps, one of them could be delegated the task of making thread OPs, another for posting a vision in a particular part of the project, and the like. Of course, the eagle eyes of the moderators would, I assume, be upon them. I am not sure at present whether moderators ought to be assigned teams, or allowed to join teams, or even to simply be unattached and watch both. Being a part of the team would probably be easier, as only one project needs watching for any individual moderator, but I'm sure some of them may feel uncomfortable with it. I'll leave that up to PRC discussion.
On Judging
Obviously, the metric used for judging these CAPs would likely be a contentious issue. I have given it a fair amount of thought, and the one I was thinking of was one similar to that used in the UK television series, Robot Wars (I know what you're thinking, but bear with me). Competitors, if both were still functional at the end of the bout, were judged in the categories of style, control, damage, and aggression, with different weightings going to different categories. Thus I would propose that each of these categories be assigned an independent judge who had no part in the creation process (or possibly the moderators if nobody else is willing).
Style, in this context, would roughly translate to flavour. Things that would be judged would include the cohesiveness of the design, movepool flavour alongside artwork, name versus art, and the like. I would suggest that an artist be selected for this judging process. Style generally had the lowest weighting in judging, and that's how I believe it should stay here.
Control would here be something along the lines of "how well does it perform relative to its individual parts". This encompasses quite a few things. If it is broken or underwhelming as a Pokemon, then naturally it will decrease in its Control. In addition, a Pokemon with 480 BST and Illuminate that performed just as well as a Pokemon with 600 BST and Magic Guard would have a higher Control value. Hence this is designed to reward good design, more than anything else.
Aggression would relate to the amount of risks taken that paid off, or rather, large experimental choices. This does not include things like giving a Pokemon Magic Guard in order to make it work properly, but rather, giving a very good ability to an already powerful Pokemon without making it broken, but giving it just the right edge to do its job. That's the theory, anyway.
Damage would be the highest-weighted variable, and would deal with the most important point – how well the CAP fulfils its concept. This would be judged purely in terms of its metagame impact, and irrespective of the build of the Pokemon, as opposed to Control.
Well, that's more or less everything I could remember. Sorry if this wasn't very coherent, I've been feeling rather exhausted recently. Also, I'd make it clear that CAP4 would come before this in any eventuality - it would be unwise to start this project when there have been so many metagame changes since the last CAP. In case it contains anything I missed, here's a log of a discussion on the subject on #cap:
Code:
<bugmaniacbob> I've been working on it for a week and I've only done two paras
<bugmaniacbob> agh
<Pwnemon> what's the gist of it?
<bugmaniacbob> er
<bugmaniacbob> it may take a bit of explaining
<bugmaniacbob> I can't take credit for the idea, it's something Deck suggested a while back
<bugmaniacbob> essentially, rather than there being 1 TL and 1 Project
<bugmaniacbob> we have two TLs and two projects, which are sort of competing with one another
<bugmaniacbob> which are then independently judged at the end
<bugmaniacbob> with a winner being announced
<bugmaniacbob> I've skipped over most of the details but that's the gist
<SubwayJ> DOUBLE TEAM!
<bugmaniacbob> [this would be a one-off if it wasn't already clear]
<SubwayJ> Would the community be broken up into teams?
<Pwnemon> not trying to be a butt
<jas61292> Oh, I was about to comment on how it would need to be a one off
<Pwnemon> but ew i don't like the idea
<bugmaniacbob> that would be the idea
<jas61292> But I think it would be really fun
<SubwayJ> Or would you be able to contribute to both projects?
<bugmaniacbob> well, I thought that you could do both
<bugmaniacbob> you could be "unattached" and contribute to both
<bugmaniacbob> or you could attach yourself to one of the two teams at the outset
<SubwayJ> But are you allowed to pick a side?
<SubwayJ> Ahh
<bugmaniacbob> I know some people would be uncomfortable with the idea of teams, but some people would enjoy it
<bugmaniacbob> so I'd like to keep everybody happy, if possible
<SubwayJ> Would the team be working from the same concept?
<bugmaniacbob> possibly
*** Oglemi is now known as OgAFK
<bugmaniacbob> that's a detail that I'm not entirely sure about yet
<SubwayJ> Okay
<jas61292> I love the idea of a team competition, but the main downside is that I would hate to miss out on working on the other
<bugmaniacbob> same-concept and different-concept both have their merits
<Pwnemon> i think they would have to be against the same concept
<bugmaniacbob> true jas
<SubwayJ> DOUBLE TEAM
<SubwayJ> MAKE 4 MONS
<jas61292> lol YES!
<bugmaniacbob> heh
*** paintseagull [~paintseag@6CA1FAFF.CD73A68B.D9107933.IP] has joined #cap
<SubwayJ> Hi paint
<jas61292> except I think that would kill the artists....
<jas61292> two not so much
<bugmaniacbob> anyway the idea would be to learn more about hitherto unspecified stuff by greater comparison between projects
<bugmaniacbob> as there is no objective way of valuing a CAP, and anecdotal evidence is a bit iffy
<bugmaniacbob> [that's what I keep telling myself anyway]
<bugmaniacbob> [truth is we'd probably not learn anything but have a lot of very heated and very amusing arguments]
<bugmaniacbob> [that's what usually happens in CAP]
<jas61292> probably
<jas61292> but thats what makes it great
<SubwayJ> Would there be different IRC channels?
<SubwayJ> For the different projects?
<bugmaniacbob> doesn't seem necessary
<bugmaniacbob> I mean the TLs could set them up if they wanted
<Pwnemon> if so they would have to have amusing nicknames
<bugmaniacbob> but really, there's not much point, as there's no need to be secretive
<Pwnemon> #mycapisbetter
<Pwnemon> #nomineis
<SubwayJ> Would they be CAP 4 and CAP 5
<bugmaniacbob> alternatively red team could colonise #grammar and blue team could colonise #smeargle
<SubwayJ> Or CAP 4 (1) and CAP 4 (2)
<jas61292> lol
<bugmaniacbob> probably the latter