Deck Knight
Blast Off At The Speed Of Light! That's Right!
Welcome to the first thread of our new CAP Updates Process. It's been a long time since we've had updates for various reasons, and we're still working through this new process as we work through it.
The ultimate goal of this thread is to give us direction before conducting a poll to determine which aspects, if any, of a CAP creation need updates.
CAP Updates: Priority Discussion
To start, we would like to congratulate the Leadership Team for this set of updates:
GLs:
jas61292 (Generation 5)
sparktrain (Generation 6)
Deck Knight (Generation 4)
ULs:
snake_rattler
reachzero
cbrevan
DarkSlay
boxofkangaroos
KrazyCake
In this thread we will discuss the scope of the updates for each CAP. This is NOT a thread for discussing which specific CAPs need which specific changes, but rather in order to adhere to CAP Update Principles, do these CAPs need to consider Ability Updates, Ability + Competitive Updates, or Flavor Updates. Additionally we will consider whether CAPs should be updated for concept, updated for viability, or updated for flavor.
A reminder of our Update 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.
- - - - -
Which 3 CAPs do you believe most fit their concept (metagame role), such that any update either brings them into fullness or makes them look like a Generation 7 Based version of that concept?
-
Which 3 CAPs do you believe least fit their concept (metagame role), such that their concept needs active reconsideration (or in some cases establishment)? This is not intended to judge the individual merit of prior concepts, but rather "does this Pokemon perform a role that matches its intent, and if not why not and where should it go consistent with Update Principles?"
The ultimate goal of this thread is to give us direction before conducting a poll to determine which aspects, if any, of a CAP creation need updates.
CAP Updates: Priority Discussion
To start, we would like to congratulate the Leadership Team for this set of updates:
GLs:
jas61292 (Generation 5)
sparktrain (Generation 6)
Deck Knight (Generation 4)
ULs:
snake_rattler
reachzero
cbrevan
DarkSlay
boxofkangaroos
KrazyCake
In this thread we will discuss the scope of the updates for each CAP. This is NOT a thread for discussing which specific CAPs need which specific changes, but rather in order to adhere to CAP Update Principles, do these CAPs need to consider Ability Updates, Ability + Competitive Updates, or Flavor Updates. Additionally we will consider whether CAPs should be updated for concept, updated for viability, or updated for flavor.
A reminder of our Update Principles:
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:- Update in terms of flavor: This is based purely on non-competitive reasoning. The desired outcome is for the CAP Pokémon to appear more realistic, such as with the addition of flavour tutor moves, hidden ability or moves unreleased at the time of the CAP's making.
- Update in terms of concept: This is a continuation of the CAP's original concept and it is an effort to make the CAP fulfill its concept in the current metagame, despite the role it currently has. It is up for debate what kinds of changes (eg addition/removal of moves and/or abilities) this would entail. Consistent with the main CAP process, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.
- Update in terms of viability: This type of update aims to 'buff' or 'nerf' a CAP Pokémon based on how it currently functions in the metagame. This type of update tries to preserve the 'essence' of the Pokémon - namely it still has the same role both before and after the changes, but the result is that it performs that role either better or worse. Again, flavor is not taken into account when making these changes.
- - - - -
Generation 4 CAPs do not presently have a Hidden Ability, and many of them only have one ability that is truly competitive.
Consistent with the idea CAPs should not have more than two competitive abilities, should Generation 4 Updates consider adding Competitive Hidden Abilities? For Generation 4 CAPs that do have 2 Competitive Abilities, should they have Hidden Abilities that constitute a Flavor Update?
Which 3 CAPs do you consider overly viable in their role, such that they have too much metagame versatility / relevance and it actively detracts from their concept? Would an Ability Update focused on viability address these imbalances?
Consistent with the idea CAPs should not have more than two competitive abilities, should Generation 4 Updates consider adding Competitive Hidden Abilities? For Generation 4 CAPs that do have 2 Competitive Abilities, should they have Hidden Abilities that constitute a Flavor Update?
Which 3 CAPs do you consider overly viable in their role, such that they have too much metagame versatility / relevance and it actively detracts from their concept? Would an Ability Update focused on viability address these imbalances?
Which 3 CAPs do you believe most fit their concept (metagame role), such that any update either brings them into fullness or makes them look like a Generation 7 Based version of that concept?
-
Which 3 CAPs do you believe least fit their concept (metagame role), such that their concept needs active reconsideration (or in some cases establishment)? This is not intended to judge the individual merit of prior concepts, but rather "does this Pokemon perform a role that matches its intent, and if not why not and where should it go consistent with Update Principles?"
Last edited: