Done Defunct CAPs, Free Time, and a Measured Approach

[quziel]

Blessed by snake_rattler​

Its no secret that several CAPs (Kitsunoh, Voodoom, Snaelstrom to an extent, and Malaconda) have not weathered the metagame shifts after their release well. To the extent that one of the second questions that newer players often ask after learning the meta is basically "how do I use XYZ", and they're often disappointed to hear "you don't" in addition to people who just love those older designs (props for the modelling staff updating and modernizing them). The existence of these "noob traps" is definitely one aspect that at least contributes to the metagame being difficult to get into (ironically increasing the number of viable caps would also make it harder to get into, but w/e), and imo we should try to ensure that if someone really wants to use a defunct CAP they can at a minimum execute their gameplan.

At the same time, any kind of update process does incur a significant and real cost in terms of necessary metagame development time, as well as effort in the actual updates, which, combined with the overbuffs at the beginning of gen 7, has lead to the discontinuation of any updates that result in a buff. The updates at the beginning of the gen, while a good place to give flavorful moves, are too early for major competitive buffs, so we should try to tackle the stuff left behind one at a time after the metagame is extant.

My proposal here is simple:

After each new cap, hold a poll and update one old defunct CAP.

The inter-CAP period is ideally meant to be focused on metagame development, policy review, and well, letting people relax a bit after the strain of bringing a CAP to fruition. Because of this the ideal for these updates is to be as minimal as possible while making a mon able to execute its gameplan; Voodoom should be able to function as a wallbreaker without suffering from 4MSS harder than most any other mon, Kitsunoh should be a able to actually revenge kill some mons instead of basically giving Pex a choice scarf 40% of the time. At the same time, injecting a newly S rank Malaconda into the meta does not help out the goal of metagame development, so we should take measures to firstly only update one cap at a time to minimize the impact, and secondly, ensure that these buffs do not aim to bring a mon to A rank strength, more from UR to C/B. Basically we want to ensure that people do not fall into noob traps as much as possible while also not making the meta entirely dominated by CAPs.


My proposed guidelines for this are then:

• Any power-increasing update (for defunct caps) should not aim for the result to be "meta dominating".
• Changes should be as small in scope as we can manage while bringing the mon into usability.
• We should prioritize small movepool changes over small stat changes over any ability changes.

Please tell me your views and comments on this proposal.

 

[MrDollSteak]

I like the sound of this proposal. I personally think the fact that certain caps like Malaconda did not receive flavorful moves such as Gravity Apple because they were considered substantial buffs (even when the CAP in question is pretty unplayable) was a bit disappointing, and this might be a good way to reevaluate certain CAPs.

That being said, as we have seen in the most recent viability rankings, Crucibelle which was unranked since the start of the generation, is suddenly quite viable due to certain favorable matchups. Now of course certain ones such as Voodoom and Malaconda seem to be so bad on paper that there is no feasible way to bring them up to balance without major re-hauls, which would seem to initially go against the aim of the process.

I think that such a proposal will need some more specific limitations in terms of what can be touched; are abilities and stat lines out of the question for example, what about types? I think it's also worth considering how we select CAPs to be retuned, would they have to be unranked for example?

 

[jas61292]

I would be very, very hesitant with regard to intentionally buffing old CAP Pokemon. While I appreciate that the proposal very much states that any updates should be smaller, and not designed to give top viability, it worries me because, just as MrDollSteak mentioned, Pokemon that are currently not good can become viable all by themselves simply due to metagame shifts.

I would also worry about something like this because, well, we have a lot of CAPs. And we are only going to be making more. And we are also only going to be getting more real Pokemon for them to compete with. At some point, it is just not feasible for us to make sure they are all viable. I'm not sure if we are at that point, but I worry something like this would be fighting against the inevitable.

That said, I am not wholly opposed. But if it was to happen I think we absolutely need to make sure the changes are as minor as can be, both because we don't want to do too much, and because I feel that if we have to change a lot, we are not really "making a mon able to execute its gameplan" so much as overhauling what that gameplan is. Personally I feel any such buffs should be limited to very minor movepool additions. Add one or two moves that would help it do what it is trying but failing to do. Not only is that the most minor way to adjust things, but it is the most natural, and can easily be passed off as part of the most recent generational update, which avoids any issues with changing a mon that was fine in the past. I'm not a big fan of any stat changes, as that feels to me like a more major change, and abilities and typing should be right out, as those inherently are changing the "gameplan", imo.

 

[Birkal]

I agree with jas, but the discussion of when we have "too many viable CAPs" is an entirely separate can of worms to this proposal. I personally think we've already hit it, but I think that's more of a Smogon problem than a CAP problem. I don't want this to devolve into a discussion about CAP UU, or about specific CAPs. I'd rather look at what this proposal is actually suggesting.

Ultimately, I personally don't have a problem with buffing a weak CAP. We've moved away from needing CAPs preserved in their original metagame into a process that actively curates an entire metagame of all CAPs from all generations. So I inherently like the idea of updating our old creations to keep them scrappy and relevant.

I think the largest concern I have is from a CAP C&C perspective. This will add more work at the end of a CAP release to that team, as they'll need to update for both the CAP we just created AND the one we just buffed. I'm not entirely sure the lemonade is worth the squeeze, as those teams are already real busy at the release of a CAP. It also makes the metagame more complicated, as we'll be adding a CAP into a metagame that will suddenly change because of the old CAP we buffed. That might skew our data, which leads me to have some doubts as well.

That was a lot of negatives to write, but I want to reemphasize that I'm not opposed to this at all. If other PRC members want to chime in with their favor, I could see this going through. I'm also interested in snake_rattler's opinions for the reason I mentioned above.

 

[Mova]

I wouldn't mind if some weaker CAPs got buffed despite previously having been works of their time, but I'd like to see them become relevant again if we can. Maybe it would be better during a time we're not making a CAP or are close to finishing one, though?

 

[quziel]

Answering stuff:

The timeline proposed in the OP would be to start this process (that is, setting up a vote) after the end of a CAP, thus placing it in the intermediate period between two CAPs.

What kind of buffs:
The kinds of buffs I had envisioned here would be relatively small, akin to giving Kitsunoh Poltergeist, or very minor stat buffs (eg +10 attack to Voodoom, a la the changes to the Nidos) to allow mons to fulfill their concepts as envisioned in a modern power-crept environment.

C&C:
Frankly C&C is stalled atm due to a number of QC/GP checks not being implemented; I need to get on that and bother people to implement/update their analyses for the modern meta now that we have info from CAPTT to update with. I view this to be a largely separate but still connected issue to the one proposed here.

 

[Airwind]

I really like this proposal because making unviable CAPs viable can help make teambuilding less restrictive and allow newcomers to use the CAPs they like

The points I want to address are:

The time: I think this is what the proposal should be most cautious because it can happen that the new CAP can become strong and dominant but we had updated, for example, malaconda and the results of the newer cap loses to malanconda makind malaconda a more stronger pokemon that can deal a lot this however can be fixed easy if we update one non viable CAP after a couples of week of the metagame with the newer cap.

My suggestion for the time it is New CAP gets realized we see how is in the metagame and his metagame then once is settled which can take around 3 weeks or a month, then metagame council selects a few pokemon that aren't in viable and that should be in the poll and then poll starts and we start updating that CAP

updating CAP won't boost the usage of CAP and won't reduce the usage of normal pokemon
It's been clear that they are some CAP that with the past of each gen can't be used take, for example, voodoom and malaconda where Gen 6, 7 and 8 hasn't be used because of specific problems that can be fixed in the update which result in making it viable, of course this is going to affect the metagame but I don't think it would replace normal pokemon because the project doesn't aim to replace and that why we must aim for small changes that can make viable and you can still used normal pokemon that aren't seeing normaly in CAP that can counter the updated CAP. For example if a CAP gets updated and loses to primarina for example that would boost the usage of primarina and it wouldn't convert it in just pure CAP only.

How many metagame shifs have been there? the fairy type, megas, z moves, delayed moves, terrains, trick room, delayed moves, etc and there is still CAP that can't be viable and need an update.

The process of updating
I think it should be aiming for making CAP viable at B because this would help to not centralize the metagame and won't be a big impact that can give us a lot of problems.

Once it gets selected the updated cap we should start first discussing what is the main problem that makes that CAP not viable and fixing in it a community form and it should be prioritized movepoll if not, stats if not typing and we should keep most of his counter and checks which should be not difficult to do but I feel like one member of the council should be take of leading the update but it should be done in the free time when there is not much project to do and if we stay most of the counters and checks I don't think it should impact the C&C team because x mon can still deal with the updated CAP and the only newer analysis would be the updated CAP which currently doesn't even have an analysis.

I really like this proposal and I want to know what do you guys think and I'm sorry for my bad English and if you want any question with my grammar or what I said just pm in discord or in PS

 

[Voltage]

With the process for Miasmaw wrapping up, I think this might be a decent time to review this proposal, especially if we don't anticipate CAP 29 starting until the new year. There's a lot of things that we can cover with regards to updating a few CAPs that have since been outclassed, such as Kitsunoh, Pyroak, Voodoom, Pyroak, and maybe Caribolt as well. As Quziel mentioned previously, these CAPs are frankly unviable and a significant noob trap, so if the goal of our metagame is to have each CAP be at least somewhat viable, having a review process take place in between CAPs would likely be the best time to do so.

However, I have to think that there would be at least some considerations that need to be done before we dive right into to updates. One of the key points that would need to be decided upon before beginning is How viable are we tring to make these CAPS after an update? Personally, I would argue for a B-tier cewiling on the viability ranking list, with our average update landing the CAP somewhere in B- or even C. This might seem like a waste to not make an unranked CAP only C rank, but in my opinion, updating a CAP to only somewhat viable is better than ending up with an S-Rank Malaconda.

The second key process is How long do we want to spend on these updates? Again, from a personal perspective, there needs to be time to identify WHY a CAP is currently unviable, and then propose solutions to fix its viability. Rushing this portion of the process would be a very bad idea, which is why there needs to be at least a week if not two to really do all of these parts. Then after this period, a polling period similar to how we already do the CAP process, leading to a total update period for an individual CAP lasting approximately 2.5-3 weeks depending on polling.

It should be noted that I would ideally like to do these updates separate to the DLC move tutors for each individual CAP since there are also bound to be changes that will arise from those move distributions as well (hello Caribolt). the order on these two processes is also up for debate, but I think as long as they both happen at least sometime before the CAP29 process gets fully underway, I'd be satisfied.

 

[snake]

While I have opposed buffing previous CAP Pokemon in the past, I actually like this proposal. I think it's a serious improvement to optics if we can confidently answer eager new users to the PS! room "So Voodoom's niche is a bit specific, but here's what it does..." rather than "yeah you can try to use it I guess." I've had to tell that to users that before, and it's not my favorite conversation to have.

What I like about quziel's approach:

• Impact: Because these buffs should be extremely minor, we should not be expecting a huge metagame shakeup.
• Control: If we buff one CAP at a time, we should be able to predict what's going to happen. Contrast with Gen 7 CAP Updates, where we made so many changes that we had no idea what was going to happen.
• Time: If these buffs can be contained within the dead period within CAP Projects, then that means:
  • We're filling in some dead space between caps while letting the metagame settle for the next project (again, the impact of the buff should be minimal)
  • We're not delaying new CAP processes, CAP's foremost function.

In my opinion, candidates for buffing should be unranked CAPs, and they should be pushed up to C or B-, but no higher than that. Out of any buffing proposal I've heard, this one is definitely the best one, and I'd like to take the time to support it officially.

 

[Birkal]

It sounds like we're generally in favor that this should exist. Let's tentatively plan on rolling this out within the week and giving it a go for one CAP. If you have any serious misgivings, please make a post in this thread in the next 48 hours. Otherwise, we'll greenlight this for a preliminary process, a one-time event between CAP28 and CAP29. We'll reflect on it here in the PRC once we're done, and either edit the process, keep it, or can it.

Now, we need to get into some of the nuts and bolts of what exactly this will look like. Here's how I'd envision this looking:

1. The CAP moderators put up a poll in CAP Voting for 48 hours that include all the Unranked CAPs that are capable of being updated.
2. The CAP moderators post a discussion thread with the nominated CAP.
   1. Part I of this thread would be limited to discussing the shortcomings of the CAP within the metagame, and why it's not popular when teambuilding.
   2. Part II of this thread would be the community proposing buffs, with reasoning given from the Part I discussion.
   3. Part III of this thread would be the CAP moderators proposing a slate based on the intelligent community consensus of the community, with 48 hours for us to discuss all of the proposed buffs.
3. The CAP moderators would put up a series of polls for each of the proposed buffs.
4. We upload the changes to Pokemon Showdown!

I personally think it's a little too gauche to have a "Topic Leader" for something like this, but I could see a case for it as well. We'd just have to have an extra step for UL nominations and polling, which takes time, but isn't impossible to do. If you think there should be more or less to this process, let me know. But otherwise, we'll use this as our guidelines for our first buff.

 

[Bughouse]

I'm generally fine with this conceptually since CAP is at this point quite experienced with tweaks. And while always kinda inevitable, it still is a shame to have CAPs that are basically totally unusable.

That said - there will never be a world where all 30+ and growing CAPs are even low B rank, much less A rank. Some will inevitably be C rank threats or worse. As such, when we're looking at tweaking an unranked mon the goal should strictly be to give it sufficient niche to be arguably usable, which means something towards the mid-bottom end of C rank. If after a tweak or two it still doesn't get used, I am not remotely concerned. The goal here shouldn't be to revolutionize or even really impact the metagame. If it takes a CAP from ~0% usage to 1% usage in the long run, then that's a success.

 

[quziel]

"Remove any moves or abilities given through gen 7 updates if necessary for the purposes of the buff" - snake_rattler "also gen 8"

Was talking to snake about this stuff, but the gen7 updates sorta confuse the mons a bit, and some of the buffs didn't go in the right direction imo. Removing them would give us a bit more safety with how we structure this stuff and allow safer updates. If the premise of the buff is that its still unviable after gen 7 updates, then the gen 7 update didn't necessarily do the job, and lets be honest, a lot of the gen7 buffs drastically increase the power of the mons (eg Triage Rev) while often taking it in a direction that doesn't fully align with its original concept, or make the mon actually usable. Another example of this is NP Voodoom, which takes a mon that really wants to gain power from teammates, and applies a constraint that it gains power from itself.

 

[snake]

Since this has been here for a long while, assume this is in Step 2 of the new PRC process (approved here). Any amendments or objections to this proposal with this amendment should be posted soon!

 

[snake]

24 hour warning on this before moderators vote.

 

[Mx]

Alright, I should have posted this months ago but I'd like to propose a few changes. In general I like this idea a lot, but I think that the process of first picking one "defunct" CAP first and then deciding how to improve it is inherently flawed, as many times we might end up picking something without any real idea of how to actually improve it. This is something that was very clear during the Gen 7 updates, with stuff like Drought Malaconda, Nasty Plot Voodoom, and Triage Revenankh which didn't really solve any of their real issues. For this reason I'd like to propose that instead of voting for a specific CAP and then discuss possible updates for it, we allow people to submit and discuss specific updates for any CAP ranked C or below on the VR and then have a poll with the most popular submissions.

I think that a system like this where we vote on updates without picking a specific CAP first will give us better results and avoid situations where we don't really have good solutions to the problems of the chosen CAP and will usually select the updates that are more likely to work well in practice.

Apart from that I also think that there should also be some additional guidelines on what is allowed and disallowed:

• Only CAPs that haven't received a buff during the current generation can be picked.
• Only one ability can be added/replaced.
• Only 2 moves can be added.
• 20 is the maximum allowed stat increase.

I think the first point is important in order to prevent situations where we fixate on trying to fix a particular CAP, as I think at that point we should just accept the loss and move to another one. For abilities I think restricting the updates to only one should be very natural, as that would be a very big change and adding multiple ones seems virtually impossible to balance within the scope here. For added stats and moves, the numbers I gave are very much arbitrary and could probably be improved but I think having some sort of hard limit on how much stuff can be added would be very useful to make sure we can't go too crazy.

Lastly I think we need to address who is going to be in charge of these updates. While Birkal proposed that the mod team would be in charge of this and there's probably merit on selecting an update leader at the beginning; my personal preference would be to have the Metagame Council lead this discussion, as that guarantees that a good number of people with experience in the metagame will be overseeing this process.

 

[quziel]

I agree with the restrictions above:

dApart from that I also think that there should also be some additional guidelines on what is allowed and disallowed:

• Only CAPs that haven't received a buff during the current generation can be picked.
• Only one ability can be added/replaced.
• Only 2 moves can be added.

That said, I do fear that the approach in general above would lead to a lack of discussion in what would ideally be a process that both requires and benefits from having a lot of discussion overall. If we only poll various buffs for various low ranked CAPs I fear that the conversation would quickly become a "I must win" kinda thing rather than a heavy discussion of exactly why a CAP fails, and exactly how we can move it into a better place. I just don't really like the incentives that approach places upon the process that would not be present to the same extent in a more focused, single CAP, methodology.

 

[dex]

I agree with the restrictions above:


That said, I do fear that the approach in general above would lead to a lack of discussion in what would ideally be a process that both requires and benefits from having a lot of discussion overall. If we only poll various buffs for various low ranked CAPs I fear that the conversation would quickly become a "I must win" kinda thing rather than a heavy discussion of exactly why a CAP fails, and exactly how we can move it into a better place. I just don't really like the incentives that approach places upon the process that would not be present to the same extent in a more focused, single CAP, methodology.

This is purely just a thought and not something to be taken as a whole answer, but how would it sound if at the beginning of every generation/dlc drop, the metagame council goes through each CAP individually and determines whether or not the CAP needs nerfs/buffs/changes. Should the council vote that the CAP is in need of changes, a thread is created to poll the community's thoughts on the mon, and an eventual poll is made to implement changes.

 

[quziel]

The issue is that if you go through the mons at the beginning of the gen, you don't really have much info about the mon's performance in the gen. Hence this proposal to do it after at least one CAP is released so to ensure that we have a lot of time to gather data, especially about how mons interact with new additions (both CAPs and regular mons).

 

[dex]

The issue is that if you go through the mons at the beginning of the gen, you don't really have much info about the mon's performance in the gen. Hence this proposal to do it after at least one CAP is released so to ensure that we have a lot of time to gather data, especially about how mons interact with new additions (both CAPs and regular mons).

I like that more. Sounds a lot better than having a big public thread where every CAP in in play.

 

[quziel]

So, if we're going to be going through with this, we need to discuss some matters of practicality.

Firstly, we need to discuss priorities

1a) Should we to be maximally coherent with the original design intent, as much as we can look it up (eg with Malaconda trying to buff Fire types and nerf water types)
1b) Should we aim for buffs to be as simple as possible?
1c) Should we aim to match the CAP's current playstyle as much as possible?

How should we weight the above factors?

2) Should we go with the original approach of voting for a specific CAP and then discussing options for it or should we vote on several buffs to different CAPs at once?

 

[dex]

So, if we're going to be going through with this, we need to discuss some matters of practicality.

Firstly, we need to discuss priorities

1a) Should we to be maximally coherent with the original design intent, as much as we can look it up (eg with Malaconda trying to buff Fire types and nerf water types)
1b) Should we aim for buffs to be as simple as possible?
1c) Should we aim to match the CAP's current playstyle as much as possible?

How should we weight the above factors?

2) Should we go with the original approach of voting for a specific CAP and then discussing options for it or should we vote on several buffs to different CAPs at once?

In terms of the first question regarding priorities, I think our first and foremost priority should be to retain the CAP's original design intent. Obviously in some cases, such as Voodoom, this is impossible given the vast difference between today's meta and Gen 5. That being said, when possible, we should stick to the original concept.

Our second priority should be to retain the playstyle. This should honestly go hand in hand with the first, as they will often match each other. However, sometimes we will need to break from concepts that haven't aged so well in order to preserve their playstyle (like the aforementioned Voodoom).

Honestly, while simple buffs would be nice, we may need to do some pretty extensive work on some CAPs to make them operate in the metagame. CAP isn't perfect, and not every buff is going to work, but we should try to find the best answer no matter the complexity.

Lastly, I think we should work on one CAP at a time. Yes, this is a slower process, but buffs are a pretty big deal and I think we should treat them with care. Therefore, the original approach seems like the best option to me.

 

[spoo]

I think my preference goes playstyle > concept > simplicity, and in cases where the original design intent is no longer salvageable (of which there are arguably many), then preserving the concept should be outright ignored. I also believe that competitive viability is above all three of these things, which is to say that if it's impossible to preserve a cap's playstyle and still have it be competitively useable, then we have to ignore what its playstyle/concept is and just do what we need to do. I'm thinking that could be the case for something like pyroak/malaconda, but perhaps there are even more cases where we need a more radical change than we're comfortable with.

I also believe that the original proposal of focusing on one cap at a time will lead to better results –– CAP is a discussion based project at its heart, and I think we will get a "better" buff if we have the whole community propsosing and critiquing ideas for the same CAP, rather than having everyone be focused on their individual submissions and having discussed be more scattered and competitive as a result.

 

[MrDollSteak]

1a) Should we to be maximally coherent with the original design intent, as much as we can look it up (eg with Malaconda trying to buff Fire types and nerf water types)

I think where possible this would be ideal. While the role of existing Pokemon change over time and it is the same for CAP, having a CAP at least be somewhat demonstrative of its original concept would benice in terms of preserving the history of the process.

1b) Should we aim for buffs to be as simple as possible?

I think this would be ideal yes. I think the buffs could realistically be handled quite similarly to how Miasmaw's was as part of the post-play lookback. I don't think we should realistically be aiming to make a bunch of 'major changes' but at least one major change and one minor change seems like a suitable balance.

1c) Should we aim to match the CAP's current playstyle as much as possible?

I think this is a difficult question to answer because it depends on how fulfilling of the original concept the playstyle of the Pokemon is. I think for example the buff to Revenankh in Gen 7 supported its original playstyle in theory but ended up having the unintended consequence of opening up a bunch of sets that were quite different and passive. While I don't think this is intrinsically a bad thing, I know that people have voiced some irritation with it. On the other hand, Malaconda gaining Drought was very in keeping with its role as a Sun-supporter but has also been criticised for not going in the right direction as far as overcoming its major flaws.

How should we weight the above factors?

I think the main focus should definitely be in terms of viability more than anything else. If it's possible to preserve the other aspects in a manner that suits its viability then that should be aimed for as well, as I think seeing the case studies of Malaconda and Revenankh reveal that sticking with a role isn't always optimal.

2) Should we go with the original approach of voting for a specific CAP and then discussing options for it or should we vote on several buffs to different CAPs at once?

I think we should aim to choose a specific CAP first and foremost, ideally with some buffs already in mind as a means to nominate them with clarity, and then from there work through the different possible buff choices. To reiterate I think the way that CAP 28's post-play lookback buff was handled is pretty close to how we should be running these.

 

[kjnjkmjk1]

1a) Should we to be maximally coherent with the original design intent, as much as we can look it up (eg with Malaconda trying to buff Fire types and nerf water types)
I think this definitely depends on the concept. It would be preferable to try to maintain aspects of the original design intent as a way to demonstrate the concept, but if there is truly no road to viability without staying true to the concept in any way, or if staying true to the concept greatly complicates the buffing process, then it's not worth trying to stick to the concept. The ultimate goal of the buffs is to give the Pokemon some kind of niche in the metagame.
As an example, Voodoom was initially built to be a perfect partner with Togekiss. It is obviously rather infeasible to try to pair with a Pokemon that is 1. a completely different type and 2. far away from OU viability, but we could try to at least maintain the spirit of either pairing with a Pokemon or having distinct synergy with teammates. If none of these routes prove viable, then it is in our best interest to move away from the concept and explore other, more selfish/self-sufficient avenues.
1b) Should we aim for buffs to be as simple as possible?
It depends on what buffs are on the table. If there are two equally impactful methods, then the I think the simpler one should be chosen. Fewer moving parts can mean fewer potential complications, and it will be easier to observe what the impact of our changes are. On the other hand, I don't think we should shy away from exploring more complicated buffing methods to see if they achieve the goal better than the simple methods, especially when it comes to CAPs at the bottom of the barrel. Flame Body Pyroak, for example would probably be some kind of boost, but there may be more extensive methods that can help Pyroak out more.
1c) Should we aim to match the CAP's current playstyle as much as possible?
I mostly align with MrDollSteak on this one. To bring up what quziel said earlier in the thread, some of the buffs ended up shifting CAPs away from their original niches, despite the intentions of the buffs, and if necessary we should be able to revert them. In a lot of cases, though, expanding the CAP's current niche is the most effective way to go about things, and I don't think we should be trying to do a complete 180 unless it is absolutely necessary for the buffing process to do anything.
How should we weight the above factors?
I would go playstyle >= concept > simplicity. Obviously, viability reigns over all of them.

2) Should we go with the original approach of voting for a specific CAP and then discussing options for it or should we vote on several buffs to different CAPs at once?
Echoing the sentiment of picking a specific CAP and focusing on it. I do like that voting on several different buffs gives people the opportunity to share multiple different perspectives on multiple CAPs, but I also feel like this is somewhat fulfilled by the already existing pre-buffing process conversations that have been happening on Discord and the CAP room. Even if we come into a buffing process with a certain idea and later realize that it does not work, it is more likely that we can find a different angle if the entire community is focused on it.

 

[quziel]

1)
Ok, so I think there's some conclusion, when choosing buffs we should generally try to weight the playstyle the mon has now as the primary factor, this is because it is very difficult to really evaluate how much we'd have to do outside of its current playstyle. That said, when possible we should aim to have the original design intent weighted nearly or equally as highly. This is because the original design intent may actually not be possible for us to achieve, see Togekiss above. Simplicity is always a bonus, but can be sidestepped a tad if the other factors show themselves as more relevant.

2)
I believe the consensus here is to vote for a specific CAP and then discuss buffs on it.

---

3)
What should determine the eligibility of a CAP for a buff. I would propose having the metagame council be behind this, just to ensure that its done fairly quickly, but a public process is also something I would be open to. Should we factor in the perceived difficulty of moving a CAP into viability? What specific level of current viability should be open for a buff? Only currently unranked mons, or should C rank etc. CAPs also be eligible.