Other EVO Process Workshop III

[Elevator Music]

Going back to me Baton Passing Example, what if someone chose "Baton Passing Farfetch'd," but in reality Illumise (/random) would have been a better Baton Passer, don't we end up doing a disservice to the metagame by not choosing the best pokemon to fulfill the Metagame Role, rather than the one a fanboy thought would be cool to evolve but also fit their concept?

Doing Metagame Role first ensures this is a competitive project. People can then choose their favorites relevant to the concept, rather than having 20 different, mutually exlcusive pokemon with concepts that they don't fit into as well as another, non-mentioned pokemon.

Nobody cares about Golduck for example, but if someone came up with "Weather Ignoring Spinda," we'd be obliged to use Spinda.

As much as I like gorm's proposal, I think DK has a vaild point here.

The only way I can think (and I'm just spitballing) of getting around this is to have to justify the reasoning of why this pokemon [x] is the best, or (in some cases) has certain attributes that make it different than a pokemon that would also be 'good' to evolve with the concept (like say, a Drifblim evo can be made to BP huge Subs, but other than CM it doesn't have anything else worthwhile to pass, however something like Farfetch'd just needs a stat boost to be able to be a good SD/Agility passer).

However this is fraught with problems, as it means the TL basically has to guess at which pokemon is 'best' to do a concept with. All around it's just pretty subjective, so I'm hoping someone has a better way to deal with this.

---

So unless someone can find a way to get around this, I'm going to have to agree with DK and say that concept should go first, then picking the pokemon to evolve.

 

[Kamen Rider]

We kind of got a pseudo pardox going here with allowing pokemon submission to be in the initial step or not. If we allow it to be first, not only could we be flooded with bad submissions, but the good ones may not be voted on their merit but rather the pokemon attached to them. It just doesnt feel secure enough to complelty eliminate railroading.

However, if we do concept first, people may attempt to predetermine who their concept fits by narrowing it with certain moves or builds. As I said before, the first step needs to narrow the selection, but it also needs to be neutral to what it let in. Starting off with ideas based around moves, metagame roles, counters and similar ideas lets people partially swing the idea to pokemon they favor, without showing any signs of poll jumping.

I really think we need a step before pokemon selection or even concept.

 

[Deck Knight]

We kind of got a pseudo pardox going here with allowing pokemon submission to be in the initial step or not. If we allow it to be first, not only could we be flooded with bad submissions, but the good ones may not be voted on their merit but rather the pokemon attached to them. It just doesnt feel secure enough to complelty eliminate railroading.

However, if we do concept first, people may attempt to predetermine who their concept fits by narrowing it with certain moves or builds. As I said before, the first step needs to narrow the selection, but it also needs to be neutral to what it let in. Starting off with ideas based around moves, metagame roles, counters and similar ideas lets people partially swing the idea to pokemon they favor, without showing any signs of poll jumping.

I really think we need a step before pokemon selection or even concept.

That's actually what I want to see happen.

The beauty of our current concepts is that they are somewhat pliable.

gorm was all about Camerupt for example. So what might his Concept be?


Well, it might be:
Concept: Burn/Para eating Anti-threat
A pokemon who can absorb or otherwise utilize burn or paralysis and score super-effective hits against Zapdos, Tyranitar, Scizor, and other major threats.

Let us say gorm's theoretical, Camerupt biased concept wins.

Who else could fit this? Well, Torkoal is so slow it really doesn't care about paralysis, and fire type prevents burn, White Smoke prevents Metal Sound and Intimidate. Sandslash learns Safeguard so it could protect against status. If it perhaps got an SD Boost it could stand up to Heat Wave and HP Ice as well, and possibly learn Fire Punch by Tutor for Scizor. Hariyama has Guts and benefits from both, or has Thick Fat to resist Heat Wave. It resists X-Scissor and Stone Edge.

In other words, a concept that should entirely favor Camerupt can pull, just off the top of my head, in 4 completely different directions.

 

[X-Act]

This might seem like it has nothing to do with the discussion, but I would like to point out that Farfetch'd's defining thing about it is not that it learns Baton Pass, but that it has an exclusive item called Stick that increases the Critical Hit rate. And, in my opinion, if we were to ever evolve Farfetch'd, the concept would be to make a super critical hit monster, not a Baton passer.

 

[Deck Knight]

This might seem like it has nothing to do with the discussion, but I would like to point out that Farfetch'd's defining thing about it is not that it learns Baton Pass, but that it has an exclusive item called Stick that increases the Critical Hit rate. And, in my opinion, if we were to ever evolve Farfetch'd, the concept would be to make a super critical hit monster, not a Baton passer.

On the other hand, Pikachu can use Light Ball and Chansey can use Lucky Punch, but neither of their evolutions can (LOL, Raichu w/ Light Ball would be sooooo broken)

Besides, Farfetch'd would have to compete in that department with Honchkrow and Absol... that's a tough fight to win.

 

[kd24]

excuse my ignorance of what you guys are trying to say but would the beginning of the evo process look something like:

thread 1: nominate ideas of what role this pokemon should have
thread 2: vote on idea
thread 3: nominate pokemon who could utitlize this role properly with an evo
thread 4: vote on pokes

and then go from there? i like how that looks and then use dks ideas but i might be interpeting what he is saying wrong like maybe he is syaing we should nominate the pokemon with the idea first or something.

 

[tennisace]

No, you're right. From there we would "do" the evolution.

 

[billymills]

While I think it's necessary to avoid starting the project off by choosing a pokemon, concepts must be thought through thoroughly. If we decide on a certain concept, say conceptA, there must be at least 1 pokemon that can follow that concept through. If we suddenly vote on a concept, cause it may be a good concept, we have to look back at our choices, and we can then see we have absolutely no options.

I propose that while concept submission should be first on our list (kd24's idea looks good). Possible pokemon for each concept must be given at the time of submission. This does not mean that we have to choose any of those pokemon, but it insures that we have sufficient choice, and do not have to evolve a pokemon that we'd really rather not evolve in the long run.

While it's hard to think of an example of the top of my head at the time, but I believe it would be better to at least mention pokemon initially rather than re-visit the concept section, or evolve something that we'd rather not evolve.

 

[hydrolphin]

While I think it's necessary to avoid starting the project off by choosing a pokemon, concepts must be thought through thoroughly. If we decide on a certain concept, say conceptA, there must be at least 1 pokemon that can follow that concept through. If we suddenly vote on a concept, cause it may be a good concept, we have to look back at our choices, and we can then see we have absolutely no options.

I propose that while concept submission should be first on our list (kd24's idea looks good). Possible pokemon for each concept must be given at the time of submission. This does not mean that we have to choose any of those pokemon, but it insures that we have sufficient choice, and do not have to evolve a pokemon that we'd really rather not evolve in the long run.

While it's hard to think of an example of the top of my head at the time, but I believe it would be better to at least mention pokemon initially rather than re-visit the concept section, or evolve something that we'd rather not evolve.

Expanding on the idea, assuming the concept submission comes first, the submission would look something like this:

Great Baton Passer
A pokemon that can Baton pass something really well, that can work in a standard team

Five sample pokemon:
Drifblim: Already Passes huge subs, but with some good defenses, it could also work as a half decent tank
Mr. Mime: Soundproof is great on any baton pass team, but Mr. Mime would need something good to pass to make it competetive
Ariados-Mean Look is good to pass, Ariados could also become a bulky SD sweeper late game.
Volbeat-SpA is harder to pass, Volbeat could set up for Porygon-Z or Alakazam to make them even more dangerous
Hypno-Not only would he be able to pass CM, Hypno could be used as a Special Wall
--------------------------------------------------------------------
So instead of what we normally do, the submittor would give sample pokemon, with a small amount of info, sort of like a condensed version of the normal explination.

 

[billymills]

Yes, exactly. 5 is definitely good, only maybe 2-3 would be necessary. Just to make sure we have something to go on.

 

[ferron]

DK had a good idea, and kd24 simplified it down to the core (DK and KD oddly enough). i agree with how they put it, but see two major flaws that need to be addressed.
1. it doesn't fully limit fanboyism because a well worded crap concept can always slip passed, if everyone isn't paying attention. it might not get voted in, but the fact it may even get in the vote is a black mark against us.
2. it was already mentioned that it might fall on the TL to decide what pokes fall into the concept.

the first problem is difficult to deal with, but if we do it as the stats have been done in CaP where discussion and submission are done on the same page, then i think it might be easier to weed out the bad ideas before the submission happens.
th second problem is MUCH easier to deal with. in the discussion of which poke to choose we could work it as we do our move pool discussion; allow submission of new ideas, while keeping the current list on allowed, controversial and unallowed.

 

[DougJustDoug]

Answering a question already asked multiple times on the server:

When the EVO process is complete, we will likely kick it off alongside the current CAP project. At this point, I don't want to worry about the timing of the EVO project. Let's just get a process ironed out, and then we can schedule a kickoff. Right now, it looks we have a long way to go on this process.

 

[ferron]

yeah, it would go faster if more people would be willing to post...
but i honestly don't think we could estimate the time for it at all. to everyone saying that it will be faster than CaP, please remember we have to vote on concept and pokemon (order pending), which will probably make it just as long as a regular CaP.

 

[hydrolphin]

Seeing as we have a long way to go, might as well submit an idea for the process.

PHASE ONE-Concept Submissions
Not unlike CAP concept submissions. The submissions wou look like this:

Great Baton Passer
A pokemon that can Baton pass something really well, that can work in a standard team

Five sample pokemon:
Drifblim: Already Passes huge subs, but with some good defenses, it could also work as a half decent tank
Mr. Mime: Soundproof is great on any baton pass team, but Mr. Mime would need something good to pass to make it competetive
Ariados-Mean Look is good to pass, Ariados could also become a bulky SD sweeper late game.
Volbeat-SpA is harder to pass, Volbeat could set up for Porygon-Z or Alakazam to make them even more dangerous
Hypno-Not only would he be able to pass CM, Hypno could be used as a Special Wall

PHASE 2-Pokemon Nomination and Selection
This process would start right after the Concept had been decided. This would involve the general public nominating pokemon, with the TL selecting 7 or so most feazable (sp?) pokemon to go into the first poll. Note that its not those with the most support, but those that would work the best. If farfetch'd gets tons of support, but wouldn't work at all, the TL would be able to get rid of it. This would help eliminate fanboyism in the early stages, where it tends to run most rampant.

EDIT: There were some questions here about voting. Basically lets say our concept is a Bulky Physical Sweeper. The general fanboy consensus is that farfetch'd is the pokemon we should do, but there are some other generally well liked pokemon. Then someone mentions dodrio, noting it has a good Atk and Spe stats to begin with, but isn't bulky and needs a better movepool. Maybe this notion isn't the most popular, but it has a few backers. The TL could decide that Dodrio is much more viable than Farfetch'd as the best arguement for Farfetch'd is that it could smash people with its stick. So even if something has the best support, but isn't truely viable, the TL would leave it out.

But say someone comes on with a thourogh arguement for Farfetch'd, explaining how it has the perfect movepool for a sweeper (not really) and actually is convincing, let Farfetch'd in. Its not by the popularity, like it is in CAP, but by the goodness of the arguement.

PHASE 3-Typing Discussion and Selection
This phase could be conducted in three ways:
Path 1: If the pokemon had single typing, this would go directly to secondary typing discussion and polls.
Path 2: If the pokemon had a dual type, but the consensus was that we should change one type, a seperate poll would be held to decide if the typing poll should even take place.
Path 3: If something with interesting, usable typing is selected, and the general consensus is that the typing should be kept, this step could be skipped.

Obviously the TL has much more power in EVO than in CAP, seeing as EVO, is a much more difficult project.

Also at the end, normal art submissions would begin.

PHASE 4-Ability Discussion and Polls
This phaze will be the shortest. One poll will decide to keep the current Ability or to add/change one. The second will be a discussion and poll of BRAND NEW ABILITIES, seeing as most every cross-gen evo only gained a new ability, never an old one.

PHASE 5-Movepoll Discussion and Polls
Movepool comes before stats, seeing as the Stats will be most important to an EVO, while movepools are generally a smaller change. This process would move very fast. People would make proposals about what new moves to add. NO EGG MOVES WOULD BE ADDED, as it is illogical. However, level up, TM, and Tutor moves could be added. Then the community would vote on which moves would be added, similar to the process of voting on disputed moves in CAP projects. Then later on in the misc. section, the actual levels that the pokemon learned the moves would be compiled similarly to the Height and Weight.

Art polls would begin at the start of movepool discussions.

PHASE 6-Stats Discussion and Polls
Not much to say. People would submit stat spreads, and we would vote. See X-Act's thread for how we would make stat spreads.

PHASE 7-Naming and Spriting
Nothing new under the sun here.

PHASE 8-Misc
Again very similar to normal CAP, except the TL would also post the completed movepool, with the levels learned and all that stuff.

Take note that the last 3 steps are pretty similar to the current CAPs, seeing as not much can change there.

 

[gorm]

eh i hope this doesn't derail the thread too significantly, but here was my submitted evo process thread that doug decided was worthwhile for posting. this is "my take" on how the project could be approached and can be taken with as many grains of salt as you fancy ^__^

----------------

EVO, while being a "subproject" of CAP, has a lot of potential as far as a metagame balancing project. This is not to say that the flavour and art aspects of EVO will be neglected, on the contrary, Artists will be able to work on a submission from very early on in the process with little or no worry about effecting/being affected by movepool. Essentially, the restrictions placed on evolving Pokémon are easy enough to define, and therefor easy to integrate into the process of creating a newly evolved Pokémon.

This brings us to the "class" of Pokémon we will be evolving. As outlined by doug in an older thread, there are 3 classes of evolution. (i am paraphrasing this post by doug) Naturally the purpose of EVO will be to bring a new pokémon into OU, so we are examining the "niches" (that is the role that Pokémon play in a given metagame) of the pool of "Evolvable Pokémon" (that is Pokémon that are not legendary and are not stage 3 evolutions)

1. NU--> OU; "Massive overhaul," e.g. Magikarp to Gyarados.
These evolutions typically involve a sharp increase in BST, a new, well defined and completely arbitrary Stat Bias, as well as a large boost to the useable movepool. Typing/ability changes are also common in this type of evolution.

In the context of EVO and it's goals, this is probably not the kind of evolution we are going to be working with. The strength of an EVO project is that it has a basis niche to build upon, and many Pokémon simply have too "flimsy" a niche in any metagame. Delibird, Unown, or Farfetch'd evolving to something competitive would require a "massive overhaul" evolution, which would not be much different from a regular CAP, apart from minor design restrictions and possible typing restrictions.

2. Low/Mid tier UU--> OU; "Major Upgrade", e.g. Gligar to Gliscor. This type of evolution takes a pokemon with an established niche in the lower tiers and makes it viable in OU. Typically this implies stat boosts without a change in niche, various additions to the useable movepool and a possible ability change. Typing is also a possible variable. This type of evolution is typical of many "Starter Pokémon" lines.

3. Upper tier UU--> OU; "Power Boost", e.g. Porygon2 to Porygonz. This takes a pokemon with an established niche that could previously operate in OU, and strengthens it to make it more viable in the OU Metagame. Changes can involve a shift in the Stat Bias as well as slight alterations to the BST of the Pokémon. Movepool and ability are of course variable.

While these are arbitrary distinctions, it's important for us to define the kind of project we want to undertake with EVO. I believe that the evolution of a Pokémon described in (1.) should be avoided, since the niche that is to be strengthened by a hypothetical evolution should be defined within reason, which is not the case with Pokémon such as Farfetch'd. From these categories, it might prove useful to build a list of "evolvable Pokémon in the context of EVO"

Our next step is to look at the changes to a Pokémon's parameters as it evolves. These changes are limited to:

• Typing

• Movepool

• Ability

• Stat Bias/BST

• Artistic Design (flavour)

• Pokédex entry (flavour)

Each of these changes have added restrictions common to all evolved Pokémon.

Typing
A Pokémon often keeps at least one of it's types from it's previous stage upon evolving. Exceptions exist, such as Eevee and Azurill, however these are "massive overhaul" evolutions. I am of the opinion that, at least in the initial EVO projects, a typing change should be foregone altogether as it is often integral to a niche, but this is obviously up for debate. At the very least, I believe an evolving Pokémon should keep at least one of the types of it's previous (this means it could gain one typing if evolved from a singly typed Pokémon, or change one typing if evolved from a dual typed Pokémon).


Movepool
A Pokémon retains all of it's moves from a previous stage upon evolving. It will learn the same TM/HM, Tutor, and Egg moves as it's previous stage. The level up moves of an evolution are typically learned at later levels than it's previous stage, but this is largely a "flavourful" consideration. Under the proposed process there will most likely be two phases to determining the movepool of the evolution, namely new movepool determination; and level up movelist modification.


Ability
Abilities are subject to change as a Pokémon evolves. Pokémon with a single ability may keep it, or it may switch to a new ability upon evolution. Pokémon with two abilities can keep both upon evolving, keep one and change one, have both changed to a pair of associated new abilities, or lose both and gain a single new ability. The latter is often associated with a large design change along with a typing change. I propose that Ability be kept variable, as it is not often critical in maintaining a given niche.


Stat Bias/BST
Commonly, evolved Pokémon have higher stats all around when compared with their previous stage. Exceptions exist, such as Scyther--> Scizor involving a loss in Spd for the latter Pokémon. Stat Bias changes should be treated carefully, as they are the most variable parameters that make up a Pokémon. Furthermore, a bound for the change to the BST should be defined. After studying the changes in BST of a good deal of evolving pokémon, I believe this bound should be between +50 and +100. This is an important point to be determined for the EVO process.

Design
Pokémon Evolving from other Pokémon have intrinsic design restrictions based on the previous stage, which give artists wanting to submit art to the project a basis to work on from the very beginning of the project. Design submissions should be identifiable in some way with the Pokémon to be evolved.


Pokédex Entry
This is largely flavor and can be added to the project to "fluff it up", or simply omitted. This is another point to be discussed.


The actual process of the EVO project will naturally be shorter than the CAP process. it should take into account all of the previous points, and follow the established CAP process approximately. The starting point has been rather well defined by the_artic_one in a previous thread. This prototype EVO process framework is care of Lawman:

1. TL selection/Pokémon+niche submission

2. TL/Pokémon+niche selection
2a. Art concept thread opened

3. Typing discussion (can be omitted)/Typing Vote

4. Ability Discussion/Vote
4a. Art concept Vote (?)
4b. Evolution method discussion Discussion/Vote

5. Stat Bias change/BST increase Discussion/Vote
5a. Sprite submission thread opened

6. Movepool increase discussion/Vote
6a. Sprite vote
6b. Level up move change discussion/vote


7. Finished Product, Final discussion, Dex entry/Vote

8. Implementation/Playtesting


Here is an alternate process framework by Icy Vegata:

1. TL selection

2. Pokémon/ evolution explanation (Pokémon must be chosen from a list)

3. Pokémon niche selection
*3a. Typing Discussion

4. Ability Discussion/Vote

5. Stat Bias change/BST increase Discussion/Vote
*5a. Art submission thread opened

6. Movepool increase discussion/Vote
*6a. Art vote
**6b. Level-up move discussion/ Tutor(TM)/ New Move discussion (If necessary!)
***6c. Name Discussion

7. Sprite Submissions

*7a. Level-up move/ Tutor(TM)/ New Move Vote (If necessary!)
**7b. Name Vote

8. Sprite Vote

*8a. Pokédex discussion/Vote
**8b. Height/Weight Vote
***8c. Evolution method discussion Discussion/Vote

9. Finished Product, Final discussion

10. Implementation/Playtesting

Note that these are both up for discussion, and alternate ones can be submitted. The process is the synthesis of all the elements in this thread, and we should be certain to attempt to produce one that is the most efficient and reasonable to insure a well run and enjoyable project.

 

[Deck Knight]

The "kind of evolution" mostly seems an unnecessary step to me. I can think of few pokemon that would actually fit into category 1, since even Farfetch'd, Spinda, and Glalie have their own niches. In any case, most of our CAPs hit 525 BST+, and I don't see why any of our CAP submitters would suddenly curb their ambitions.

Delibird is probably the only example of a massive overhaul, since it's Level-Up movepool is composed only of Present.

Thus far I'm with hydrolphin of process, though I still feel when we get down to 3 Pokemon we should have a serious discussion about them to crystallize our thoughts.

At first I was cool to the idea of listing samples that fit the concept, but it's been growing on me, and the necessity to list more than a single pokemon seems a wise move to me. This somewhat solves the problem between building a concept surrounding only a single pokemon while distinguishing the process from CAP at the beginning. It also conveys that the concept is not set in stone as an extension of one particular pokemon.

 

[Yllnath]

I also like the setup provided by Hydrolphin. For me, it's important that the concept goes first instead of chosing any of the probably 100+ viable UU's making a mess and be strongly dictated by which one you like best. However, making just a concept could be just as easily picking your favourite by writing a concept that suits your favourite pokemon perfectly. That's why I espacially like Hydroplhins idea to make everyone write a x amount of pokemon as examples, so that even fanboys have to think beyond their favourite and make a concept that suits more than just their own agenda. For what it's worth, Hydrolphins current setup has my vote.

I'm only a bit concerned about phase 2. How will this work? Is this an open poll with 10 pokemon? Meaning fanboys could still viably get their favourite pokemon evolved?
All other phases are crystal clear and I think that the phases after a pokemon and concept have been decided on are pretty much standard for most people and shouldn't be a big point of discussion.
However, if you could go a little more in-depth on phase 2, give your ideas on how that phase would work and in what order, I would be most grateful.

 

[the_artic_one]

My reasoning for combining concept and pokemon for EVO is that I think EVO should focus more on figuring out why something doesn't work over what does work. CAP is already the epitomy of figuring out what works, we try new things and see how they turn out. For EVO to teach us a new lesson, it needs a different focus i.e. what doesn't work. I think that the goal of EVO should be to study a non-OU pokemon to figure out what is wrong with it and how to fix it. This gives us a goal distinct from CAP's that still teaces participants valuble lessons about the metagame but from a different approach from CAP's.

Another thing that bothers me about voting for a concept first and then picking a pokemon is that it makes the pokemon choice seem completely incidental to the point where we might as well just be doing a CAP. If CAP 6 had been an EVO where the same concept was chosen (decentralizer), we probably could have picked something like Poliwrath or Bibarel for the pokemon and still have ended up with a pokemon that would be nearly identical to Arghonaut.

I also feel that doing concept together with pokemon is better at discouraging fanboys than concept first.

With concept first things will go like this:
poll 1:concept poll-> fanboy sees lots of words, this bores him and he ignores the topic
poll 2:pokemon poll-> fanboy scans the list of pokemon the TL made and picks his favorite pokemon from the list without even reading what the concept is and votes for it.

Doing them together will go like this:
Poll 1: concept + pokemon poll-> fanboy scans list and sees his favorite listed multiple times, he is now forced to read the concepts and decide which is better before voting, the fanboys who don't read have their votes split amongst concepts and their favorites lose the poll.

 

[Yllnath]

Really, how is that any better than concept first?
First of all, doing concept and pokemon first with generate a shitload of admissions:
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 1"
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 2"
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 3"
Second of all, in reply to your "I think that the goal of EVO should be to study a non-OU pokemon to figure out what is wrong with it and how to fix it.", how does one determine properly what pokemon is chosen? Because naming a pokemon out of a list of 100+ pokemon who are all broken (not beyond repair), but could all perform in OU after a patch up, seems to be very inviting to pick one just because you it like, rather than because it will have a certain meaning for the metagame.

 

[hydrolphin]

I'm only a bit concerned about phase 2. How will this work? Is this an open poll with 10 pokemon? Meaning fanboys could still viably get their favourite pokemon evolved?
All other phases are crystal clear and I think that the phases after a pokemon and concept have been decided on are pretty much standard for most people and shouldn't be a big point of discussion.
However, if you could go a little more in-depth on phase 2, give your ideas on how that phase would work and in what order, I would be most grateful.

Fixed it a bit, and also 10 wasn't a set in stone number, if there are only nine, seven or even four good suggestions, then that will be how many go to the poll.

 

[Goodbar]

I agree with the artic one mostly; my reasoning for preferring pokemon + niche is that if we choose the concept first, we'd just be amplifying one of the problems people had with the EVO project, that we'd just be limiting ourselves. I think in EVO we should try exploring all the available pokemon to see what we can do to make it a unique and/or viable threat in OU. There may be niches also in certain pokemon that we have yet to realize - in fact, that's what I'd like to see out of EVO that CAP hasn't yet accomplished: multiple niches. Why limit ourselves and our options by choosing a concept first? Take a look at the bigger picture, one of the things people in CAP seem afraid to do sometimes
Also

I'd like to suggest that there be a policy committee vote on whether farfetch'd should even be allowed to be submitted in the upcoming evo. Farfetch'd is the biggest and almost only fanboy threat of the evo project; in our first attempt when it was chosen, we decided that there weren't any unique or useful competitive directions for it, or at least that's the impression I got when we decided to scrap the project. Why not rid ourselves of the problem all together then?

I got no comments, my small posts get drowned out :S

 

[hydrolphin]

I second that notion.

Farfetch'd will no matter what be a plague to EVO1. If he is eliminated, the few Fanboys that remain will at least to clot together with one pokemon, but spread out their votes among Delibird, Luvdisc and the likes.

 

[ferron]

Really, how is that any better than concept first?
First of all, doing concept and pokemon first with generate a shitload of admissions:
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 1"
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 2"
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 3"
Second of all, in reply to your "I think that the goal of EVO should be to study a non-OU pokemon to figure out what is wrong with it and how to fix it.", how does one determine properly what pokemon is chosen? Because naming a pokemon out of a list of 100+ pokemon who are all broken (not beyond repair), but could all perform in OU after a patch up, seems to be very inviting to pick one just because you it like, rather than because it will have a certain meaning for the metagame.

he's right, you know. if split evolutions aren't banned there are literally hundred of pokes that are up for evolution, and even with the split evolutions banned there will still be scores. now multiply that times the different jobs each poke can do, and then add in the number of repeats we are bound to see. now, those of us that are dedicated will have to read though hundreds of submissions to find the best ones to vote for.

without a early filter process we are just asking to be swimming in submissions, with the only way out of it to be the TL or commitee narrow the submissions down before the vote. i honestly don't want to see that many people crying foul.

edit-are you guy seriously of the mind that the community here can't handle fanboys? we will vote for what we think is best, and i doubt the fanboys will even stay if we disintegrate every bad argument they throw at us.

 

[Objection]

With concept first things will go like this:
poll 1:concept poll-> fanboy sees lots of words, this bores him and he ignores the topic
poll 2:pokemon poll-> fanboy scans the list of pokemon the TL made and picks his favorite pokemon from the list without even reading what the concept is and votes for it.

I don't see this as a problem. Let's use the Great Baton Passer concept as an example:

Great Baton Passer
A pokemon that can Baton pass something really well, that can work in a standard team

Five sample pokemon:
Drifblim: Already Passes huge subs, but with some good defenses, it could also work as a half decent tank
Mr. Mime: Soundproof is great on any baton pass team, but Mr. Mime would need something good to pass to make it competetive
Ariados-Mean Look is good to pass, Ariados could also become a bulky SD sweeper late game.
Volbeat-SpA is harder to pass, Volbeat could set up for Porygon-Z or Alakazam to make them even more dangerous
Hypno-Not only would he be able to pass CM, Hypno could be used as a Special Wall

Those pokemon will have been named by non-fanboys, so obviously the person who named them will be confident that any of them could viably gain an evolution to fit the concept well. I don't see how fanboyism at this stage would cause any problems. Besides, it might be that the sheer number of words in the concept topic puts the fanboys off of the EVO project altogether and they simply leave.

 

[LoftyTheMetroid]

I just want to clearly reiterate my belief that not involving the selected pokemon-to-be-evolved from the very first step is going to lead to an inferior product for the metagame. I don't want to see EVO trashed on the grounds that it was a "lesser CAP" when it can be so much more.

With the concept first, the bandwagoning in the next poll won't mean as much because the concept is secure.

This is the problem. Many seem to still see this from behind CAP-tinted glasses.

The concept would not be secure. CAP works because we can create a concept from a near infinite number of possibilities and apply it to a tailor-made pokemon pulled from a pool of near infinite candidates derived from our own imaginations.

EVO cannot work like that. The pool of applicable pokemon is already established for us -- a concept will not work just because we have declared it. By your logic, every imaginable concept would be viable with our limited pool of candidates. Therefore, by [some sort of] transitive property, it would be as if suggesting that the pool of EVO candidates was equal in every way to the (near infinite) pool of CAP candidate, which would be rather demeaning to the whole idea of CAP, I think... (Err, not sure if I communicated that right, I can explain it more in-depth if I didn't...)

Point is, choosing the concept first and pokemon second is just shoehorning. I challenge you to apply the Mold Breaker concept to EVO and see what would happen. Would the result be superior to Stratagem?

So to get back to your post, no, the concept would not be secure, because the pokemon themselves were not designed from the ground up with that concept in mind (unlike CAP). The result will almost always be a bastardized CAP, and will almost assuredly not adequately fit the defined concept anyway.

First of all, doing concept and pokemon first with generate a shitload of admissions:
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 1"
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 2"
"My favourite pokemon + role to fulfill 3"

I keep seeing this reasoning, but I don't see how it holds any water.

The same can be applied to the other proposed selection processes. Do you think that just because there's a concept, the fanboys won't vote for a corresponding pokemon that is inappropriate? In fact, I would almost say the fanboy effect would be even more exaggerated in this instance, as the fanboys are going to vote for their favorites regardless of concept, even if the two are incompatible. With the_arctic_one's proposal, the two are intrinsically tied together, so it's at least competitively viable.

Furthermore, the_arctic_one already explained how his proposal would actually divide fanboy votes, mitigating their effect.

[...]how does one determine properly what pokemon is chosen? Because naming a pokemon out of a list of 100+ pokemon who are all broken (not beyond repair), but could all perform in OU after a patch up, seems to be very inviting to pick one just because you it like, rather than because it will have a certain meaning for the metagame.

I've already gone over this in another thread: here and here.

You're equating the idea of the initial pokemon selection process being relatively arbitrary with it not having a positive effect on the metagame. That's fallacious.

Think of it like this: Did it negatively impact the metagame that we had a Mold Breaker before a Decentralizer?

Again, as long as the evolutions themselves are well thought out in regards to the metagame, it matters not the order we evolve them in beyond our personal preference.

--------

Once again, I fully support the_arctic_one's proposal.

I also support either of the two EVO outlines posted by gorm.