Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Approved by quziel and also myself ? I don't know if I can do that now
Title says it all. Right now, precedent would suggest two caps in 2022, with CAP 32 starting roughly in September. If Gen 9 releases before Christmas as we expect it to, this will be a massive headache for the project, potentially even releasing in the middle of 32's process. CAP 32's "current" schedule also poses problems for the tournament circuit, which I will let Tadasuke elaborate on if he wants. I suggest we postpone CAP 32 to be the first CAP of Gen 9, and use the new free time on smaller projects such as an extra buff process.
Agreed. In addition to ending the generation with a buff process instead of CAP32, I would like to see an "End of Gen Survey and Review." This would consist of two surveys:
a survey dedicated to the CAP and buff process, including all the Gen 8 projects and procedural changes during this timeframe
a survey dedicated to the CAP metagame, including reviewing the overall performance of all Gen 8 CAPs, buffed older CAP, tours and ladder
Following the results of the survey, I think there should be an open forum discussion on final adjustments to be made to any CAP created or buffed via process during Gen 8. Instead of a CAP32 process and playtest, this process and possibly a third major buff process could take its place as we close out Gen 8. I think it would be a nice time of reflection, and a chance to leave some of the weaker CAPs (i.e. Voodoom and Miasmaw) in a slightly better place before moving onto Gen 9. This idea could merit its own thread but I wanted to toss it out there here since it feels like a viable and worthy substitute to project 32.
Would just like to bring something up briefly in support of this proposal that I feel is relevant.
Toward the end of Cawmodore's process, we had was a problem with trying to keep people's interest in the project since Gen 6 just came out and we were still stuck in Gen 5 with the process (I don't really remember the extent of it since I was still lurking at that point, but it was significant enough for capefeather, the Topic Leader, to bring it up in the Final Product thread if that's any indication of something). I would rather we not repeat a situation like this, especially since we care far more about how the CAP metagame develops over time and with new releases as a whole then we were in 2013.
Anyways outside of that, I think that the most reasonable course of action to take after what I will assume will be a third buff process is mostly just to focus more on any outstanding PRC threads that have yet to be resolved. At the moment, I do feel as though there is a bit of a backlog with the threads in this section, and I would rather try to clear out as many outstanding issues as possible so we can divert all of our attention to Gen 9 updates and anything regarding the actual process that might need to be updated with the new generation. Brambane's proposal is also very much something that we can consider as an alternative to my idea, although I would like to see a more concrete time table of how long the process for last-minute adjustments to weaker CAPs would take and what the process might look like before I can really say I support it.
Just to briefly elaborate on what spoo mentioned, if we keep with standard scheduling for CAP 32 our estimated timing for the 32 playtest lands in mid-late December, assuming we keep up with the average 6 months between TL/TLT applications being posted and playtest signups getting posted 3.5 months after that. The playtest falling at that point in December is incredibly awkward since they generally take 1-2 months to resolve depending on the number of signups, which effectively delays the 2022 CAP Championship until February of 2023. Although the last championship was an exception, our ability to give out the prize of a custom avatar for winning our circuit exists as a function of the PS! room prize system, of which each room can give out only one per year. With this in mind we generally want our championships to conclude within the year listed in their title, as to avoid delaying distribution of the prize for winning them.
Edit: I do want to say that I fully support the motion proposed in this thread. I think we can use the time that would have otherwise been taken up by CAP 32's process in 2022 to resolve our backlog of PRC threads, as well as implementing an additional buff process and conducting extensive user/player surveys as Brambane mentioned above.
I absolutely agree that CAP 32 should start with the next generation. I don’t have much more to add, but the additional time off would be helpful not only for getting through some PRC threads but also to help ease the burnout CAP has taken on recently.
Just a quick thought in here - if we take a break after CAP31 until then the new gen, we need a concrete plan for what’s going to fill in the gaps. It’s gotta be more specific than just “finish analyses” - more like “write analyses for all A-ranks on the VR” or something. Maybe do more than one buff process since those cycles are shorter.
I support the proposition if the thread closes with the plan.
Just a quick thought in here - if we take a break after CAP31 until then the new gen, we need a concrete plan for what’s going to fill in the gaps. It’s gotta be more specific than just “finish analyses” - more like “write analyses for all A-ranks on the VR” or something. Maybe do more than one buff process since those cycles are shorter.
I support the proposition if the thread closes with the plan.
Seconding snake's sentiment. CAP is at it's best when it has something to work on, and if it isn't CAP32 (which for the record, I agree should be held until gen 9), then IMO it's gotta be something more concrete than "let's see what our options are after CAP31". A dedicated end of gen 8 buffing and nerfing process might be useful so that we dont necessarily end up with a solved meta by the end of the gen they way we have with SM, though there are plenty of other options as well (updating prevos, etc.)
I support postponing CAP 32 until the next generation. It is the most logical thing to do given the projected completion of 31.
Buffs are the easiest thing to preoccupy ourselves with since it is relatively fast but, in a lot of ways, feels like the closest option we have to an actual project. I remember being very bored the last time we had an extended period of housekeeping. Working on analysis and other resources is great, but I would like for us to at least be actively working on mons in some capacity along side these other tasks.
If buffs are the route we end up going, I would recommend looking at the 3 CAP starters as 1 extended buff process. They have all appeared on both buff polls and it seems weird to not address them together given the fact they were all built within the same project. Plus, this would require more time than a typical buff process which we can support in the larger window we are creating.
If buffs are the route we end up going, I would recommend looking at the 3 CAP starters as 1 extended buff process. They have all appeared on both buff polls and it seems weird to not address them together given the fact they were all built within the same project. Plus, this would require more time than a typical buff process which we can support in the larger window we are creating.
I disagree with this take; each of the starters are entirely distinct Pokemon with problems that are entirely detached from each other; merging their buffs into one process sounds like a recipe for thinly spread community bandwith and a lack of nuanced discussion on each Pokemon's buff, leading to lackluster final products. One of the main problems with CAP25 was the fact that the community was spread too thin over 3 concurrent creation processes; why would we want to do the same thing again?
Additionally, the impact of releasing 3 new viable Pokemon into the metagame is far more volatile, significant and unpredictable than that of releasing only 1. We can predict how the metagame would react to 1 Pokemon; it's harder to predict how the metagame would react to 3 separate ones and how those 3 Pokemon would interact with each other.
I agree with the idea that we should spend the post-CAP31 break on buff processes though; maybe do 2 instead of 1? There isn't a CAP 2022 Tour circuit thread afaik so I don't know the exact timeframe for CAP31 but based on Mera's process it took ~4 months to get from the TL poll (Jan15th)->CAP Playtest signups (Apr19th). Assuming TLT signups will end up closing 1 week after the thread went up, that's March 8th->July 8th, leaving us with 4 months of break. Considering this buff process took 1 month (Jan 17th (BL signups) -> Feb 10th (Final Poll)), and the reworking of the buff took 2 weeks (Feb 28th), its safe to say that 1.5 months need to be timeblocked for a single buff process; a month of discussion+0.5 months of testing/rework.
Considering that, here's my proposal:
Buff Process 3
~July 15th - August 15th
Rework Buffer
~August 15th - August 29th
Break (metagame development/PRC/analyses)
~August 29th - September 13th
Buff Process 4
~September 14th - October 14th
Rework Buffer
~October 14th - October 28th
Break
~October 28th - Gen 9
lmk if any of the timeframes look off or if I messed up while calculating the dates for the thingies
DEAR JOHN
I SEE IT ALL NOW, YOU WERE WRONG
DONT YOU THINK 19's TOO YOUNG TO BE PLAYED BY YOUR DARK TWISTED GAMES
WHEN I
LOVED
YOU
SO
i should've known
YOU ARE AN EXPERT
AT SORRY
AND KEEPING LINES BLURRY
NEVER IMPRESSED BY ME ACING YOUR TESTS
ALL THE GIRLS THAT YOUR RUN DRY
HAVE TIRED, LIFELESS EYES CUZ YOU BURNED THEM OUT
but i took your matches before fire could catch me
so don't look now
i'm shining like fireworks
OVER YOUR SAD EMPTY TOWN
I had a previous draft laying out a lot of long logistical timeline details that ended up getting deleted () so I've been slow to respond here, but I've tried to reconstruct most of what I had. The numbers in Zephyri's post ended up being pretty close fwiw but I thought it was still worth it to double check everything. Long post, get ready.
======
Okay, CAP 31 wise, here's about when we can expect this project to come to a close. (All timeline calculations from here on out are rough guesses, stuff like that is obviously prone to change - think of them as general guidelines, not hard and fast deadlines).
30: TL Apps = Aug 10, Playtest Signups = Dec 5 | 4 months 25 days
29: TL Apps = Jan 7, Playtest Signups = Apr 18 | 3 months 11 days
28: TL Apps = Jul 6, Playtest Signups = Oct 26 | 3 months 20 days
27: TL Apps = Feb 1, Playtest Signups = Jun 12 | 4 months 11 days
26: TL Apps = Feb 10, Playtest Signups = Jun 21 | 4 months 11 days
Averaging this out, we get roughly 4 months and 3 days for a CAP process. CAP 31 began on Feb 28, so we can (again, roughly) expect it to end on Jul 3.
Some stats on Gamefreak's recent release dates:
BDSP Nov 19
SWSH Nov 15
USUM Nov 17
SUMO Nov 18
ORAS Nov 21
Obviously the trend here is mid November, and I'm just gonna call the Gen 9 release date Nov 15 to make our lives easier.
======
That leaves us with 4 and a half months after CAP 31 closes to do something with these buff processes. Now some more numbers (yay) on their length.
Voodoom:
CAP 29 Playtest Signups = Apr 18, Buff Leader Apps = Apr 26 | 8 days
BL Apps = Apr 26, Polls Close = May 15 | 19 Days
Pyroak:
CAP 30 Playtest Signups = Dec 5, Buff Leader Apps = Jan 16 | 1 month 11 days
BL Apps = Jan 16, Polls Close = Feb 9 | 24 days
Initial Tuning = Feb 27 | 1 month 12 days
Final Tuning = TBD (3 months 3 days as of today, Apr 19)
Ignoring the buffer for Pyroak's council tuning (this will become relevant later...), I'm gonna say the buff processes are 3 weeks long on average because we don't have many to go off of. There's also a weird discrepancy between how quick the buff processes for Voodoom and Pyroak went up after the previous processes finished, but I'm calling it 2 weeks post-process bc it seems reasonable? Finally, this will become relevant at the end, but I will suggest/assume a downtime of 3 weeks between buffs should we decide to do more than one of them.
======
Ok, now for the fun part where we put the timelines together and assess our options. Stuff we could do during the extended 4.5 month break between CAP 31 and Gen 9:
The standard, single, post-process buff. (Aka we vote on which mon we're buffing)
Two standard post-process buffs.
Two buffs for Miasmaw and Chromera (I believe it was quziel who first suggested this outside the thread).
Triple starter buff process(es), as suggested by Wulfanator.
End of gen review for CAP process and metagame, as suggested by Brambane.
I excluded other things from this list such as PRC and analysis work because of Wulfanator's sentiment earlier in this thread, which I fully agree with: during this extended break, there should be process activity occurring where we are actively working on our mons. I can promise we will be working on analyses during that period regardless, and we should definitely be pushing through the giant backlog of PRC threads, but all that shouldn't take the place of process stuff. Here are my (very subjective) thoughts on each option and their rough timelines:
This is the easiest, and makes a lot of sense in many ways, but is also the least exciting.
Pros:
Metagame development- this grants the meta the most time to settle (IMO it's good to be developing SS while it's still the main gen and people are interested)
Least risk of burnout- realistically, interest in the project & meta will wane as Gen 9 comes closer, so not trying to accomplish too much is nice in some ways
Most flexible timeline- no worries about fitting in the meta council tuning, we can stretch deadlines where needed
Cons:
Still a lot of time wasted- we've got 4 and a half months, so why not make the most of it?
Timeline (as mentioned in pros, these dates can be stretched as needed):
CAP 31 ends: Jul 3
BL Apps: Jul 17
Buff ends: Aug 7
Pre-Gen 9 break for meta development, analyses, whatever: 3 months 8 days
A more fun and ambitious option, but naturally has greater time and meta development stresses.
Pros:
We get to buff an extra mon- well, this one's obvious, but we get to leave SS and start Gen 9 with one more hopefully-usable CAP in it. This is pretty cool, I think.
Making better use of time- again, just takes better advantage of the full break we've allotted ourselves.
Cons:
Basically the opposite of option #1's pros- we have less time for metagame development, we're taking on a more ambitious project while end-of-gen boredom sets in, and there is more worry about w.r.t. fitting meta council tuning before Gen 9
Timeline:
CAP 31 ends: Jul 3
BL 1 Apps: Jul 17
Buff 1 ends: Aug 7
BL 2 Apps: Aug 28
Buff 2 ends: Sept 18
Pre-gen 9 break: roughly two months
Ain't this just so fitting? We had two unviables (sorry, quz and darek) come out of SS, so what better time than now to give 'em the treatment they deserve?
Pros:
Same as option #2's pros, but there's something more intuitive about it- it just makes sense IMO to leave off SS by repairing the CAPs that, for whatever reason, just didn't weather the storm. I consider it a strict upgrade to option #2 for this reason
Cons:
Same as option #2's cons- self explanatory
Timeline:
See option #2
This one's funky, and requires some more brainpower to make it work... still, it's a really satisfying option.
Pros:
We are giga productive- self explanatory, this is an incredibly efficient option where we are doing The Most
There's the same kind of nice, intuitive symmetry as in option #2- as Wulf said, each starter has appeared on both the buff polls so far; they all clearly need help, and doing the three of them in one go is quite a satisfying proposal
We get to buff an EXTRA extra mon- pretty cool, I think
Cons:
What Zeph said- Zeph made some good points! The productivity that this proposal encourages could ultimately backfire in the same way it did during CAP 25. Even more, a big point of the revamped buff process's philosophy is to introduce minor changes at increments in order to have controlled, predictable effects on the meta. Who knows what buffing all three starters at once could lead to? God forbid we get three different Pyroaks roaming the tier at once. This is a very high risk, high reward choice.
Timeline!- there are questions to be answered here.
Timeline:
Right, so... here's where things get weird. As in line with Wulf's proposal – where all three starters are being buffed simultaneously – I'm going to count this as a single buff process but add two weeks for extra discussion and polling. This is a totally arbitrary amount of time to add, I don't know what would actually happen should we attempt this process (as I said, there are some questions to be answered).
CAP 31 ends: Jul 3
BL Apps: Jul 17
Buff ends: Aug 21
Pre-gen 9 break: 2 months 24 days
ALTERNATIVELY, we could go about this in different ways to reduce the issues Zeph brought up- spreading ourselves too thin, poor discussion, etc. One way this could look is highly sequential buffs: eg, Buff 1 ends Aug 7, BL 2 apps begin Aug 8, and so on. Another way is overlapping buffs: eg, BL 2 apps begin one week after BL 1 apps, Buff 2 begins while Buff 1 is ongoing, and so on. There may be other ways. Again... timeline stuff is potentially up in the air.
Honestly this feels like a very large proposal that would require a ton of organizing, probably to the point where it should get its own PRC thread (IF we want to pursue it). Don't have the brainpower to think this through by myself
General thoughts: my order of preference is #3 at the top, #2/#4 pretty much tied, #1, and then the #5 review. A big concern, across all options (#1 the least so, but still), is the meta council tuning. Pyroak is still in production three months after its buff began; this hasn't been a problem because we currently have enough flexibility to afford the extra time, but I shouldn't need to explain why this will need to be streamlined if we attempt end-of-gen buffs.
Whew, that was a lot. Anyways, moral of the story, let's buff Chromera and Miasmaw before Gen 9.
I definitely agree with Spoo, that the focus of our downtime projects before gen 9 should be Miasmaw and Chromera.
Leaving the current gen CAPs in places where they are all viably usable at the end of the gen and probably viable for gen 8 as an oldgen feels very satisfying.
In a way this also has overlap with Brambanes proposal as we can reflect on changes made during or after these CAPs such as Post Play Lookback and Defining moves, look at why the CAPs didn’t make it and if there are options in the future to prevent such issues etc, etc.
I think a full review might be a bit much and tbh probably boring, not to mention that we kinda still don’t know what a generational review would actually look like.
But if a buff process for maw and mera is successful and also yields insights into the way we handled gen8 and we can take that to gen 9 and develop it further, we might be able to lay the groundwork for a structure for dealing with the “end of gen” of coming gens.
Yeah if I had to pick one I would rather look at Maw and Mera than buff an older CAP.
This might be idealistic, but my perfect standard for each CAP would be reasonable viability in the generation they were introduced. Old gen support is stronger than I can ever remember in CAP, and the generation they were added should be (imo) their spotlight setting. I think the end of gen adjustments would also be a nice safeguard to have for the upcoming Gen 9, since it is a buffer against an DLC release patterns we may see again in the future.
And obviously I would rather buff a CAP while the gen is still current gen, so for me it's now or never for these two.
As far as surveys go, I make a lot of surveys at work due to the nature of my job. Making a good survey is tough, but thankfully the people filling out this survey are going to be people invested in the topic already, so that helps a lot. We won't have to deal with as much apathy.
Yo, in the Discord the idea of "use the end of gen to review any glaring balance missteps we made during the gen" was brought up. I'd like to discuss that a bit, as while I think its a good idea, I do worry about introducing too many changes in too short of a time. If we do minor buffs to Chrom/Mias (my preferred course), I don't think we would need a major meta resettling time, however if we do minor buffs to Chrom/Mias AND nerfs to Roak/Venom-P/etc. then I'm gonna start worrying about only having a few months to get all the necessary changes done in, esp given that we may be experiencing the usual late-gen fall-off in enthusiasm. This also moves more into the direction of caps as a "living project", that is, one with constant balance tuning, and the status quo may be preferable to moving even further in that direction. Either way just wanted to get some thoughts, and port a bit of discord discussion here.
Preference:
1) Use end of gen to do minor buffs to any caps that are "unviable"/"unranked" in their release gen
2) Use end of gen to run a ton of tours
3) Use end of gen to "fix" any missteps (unviable release gen caps, selectively reverting nerfs, nerfing slightly above line mons)
I'd also like to being the process of closing this PRC, am going to give a bit of time to discuss the above, and preferences, and then put up a 24 hour warning when discussion dies down.
I am in big support of option 1 quz listed, using the end of gen to buff any CAPs released that gen that are underperforming to the point of being unranked, which is definitely Miasmaw and Chromera.
I agree with all three of quziel's preferences, with 1 and 3 being the most important imo, especially considering that Gen 8 CAP will likely continue as a previous gen with some longevity similar to SM CAP. Making sure all the mons are in the best place they can be would be ideal.
I do worry about introducing too many changes in too short of a time. If we do minor buffs to Chrom/Mias (my preferred course), I don't think we would need a major meta resettling time, however if we do minor buffs to Chrom/Mias AND nerfs to Roak/Venom-P/etc. then I'm gonna start worrying about only having a few months to get all the necessary changes done in, esp given that we may be experiencing the usual late-gen fall-off in enthusiasm
This part is what concerns me at the moment. For context, here are some changes to the CAP metagame in the coming months that are at least on the table (if we proceed with this idea, as well as if other PRCs pass).
- CAP31's release (confirmed to be happening)
- Buffing Miasmaw
- Buffing Chromera
- Reverting Equilibra's nerf
- Giving Astrolotl Trick back
- Giving Necturna Gen 8 moves
- Pyroak nerf
- Venom-P nerf
- Reevaluating Voodoom's buff
Obviously not all of these would happen, but even a portion of these changes going through would be a large metagame shock. It takes serious time for us to evaluate the ramifications of even one of these things, and serious care to just get one buff/nerf right. We have ~5 months left before Gen 9, and after CAPPL, there will be no more time for major metagame development (as most development happens during team tours). Activity and interest is also waning as a whole, which is compounded by the fact that most people kinda hate SS anyways.
On the bright side though: the above end-of-gen review proposal only really affects the last three things on this list. Buffing chrom+mias would likely happen regardless, and the astro/libra/necturna stuff is dependent on other PRCs passing. Given my personal opinions - pyroak is really stupid, venom is slightly overtuned still, and voodoom is total dog - I would ideally like to see these things addressed. I guess it comes down to "knowingly leaving potentially unbalanced stuff as a permanent fixture in the gen" vs "addressing a bunch of stuff all at once, hoping we don't fuck any of it up, and hoping the metagame stabilizes soon after."
Right now, I am tentatively leaning in favor of the proposal. I think gen 8 kinda sucks, and it feels like we should do everything in our power to leave it in a "balanced" state before SV. But there's really an element of risk I don't think we should undersell, and additional late-gen changes could totally backfire. There's also the question of logistics, which I don't have the energy to figure out atm, but someone should really put together a timeline for how an end-of-gen review would look. Ultimately I'm cautiously optimistic about these changes but please let's be careful with them.
I think looking at Mera, Maw, Book, Astro, Voodoom, and Roak the final project for Gen 8 is fine. Pretty big undertaking, but I would run it with Generation Review Team the same way we have TLT for the actual process.
I would rather put a bow on this thread and discuss that in a separate thread if we are all in agreement that is what we want the final project of the gen to be. My initial thought is having a Gen Review Leader, who coordinates discussion about the generation overall, and individual team members for each mon which get their own thread.
Each thread discusses what they think should be done for the mon, community gives input, discussion leader comes up with a small slate, GRL approves, badabing badaboom.
Considering the representation Gen 8 will have in CAP team tours moving forward, I think interest in the meta should persist and in the odd scenario we "make things worse" there should be enough people who want to tweak things back to a more balanced state. There is nothing wrong with that kind of fine tuning, but someone should be in charge of it and make it happen so things aren't left to languish. Perhaps a CAP mod who's "position" is focused heavily on overseeing metagame balance and drives those discussions and changes?
I think looking at Mera, Maw, Book, Astro, Voodoom, and Roak the final project for Gen 8 is fine. Pretty big undertaking, but I would run it with Generation Review Team the same way we have TLT for the actual process.
I would rather put a bow on this thread and discuss that in a separate thread if we are all in agreement that is what we want the final project of the gen to be. My initial thought is having a Gen Review Leader, who coordinates discussion about the generation overall, and individual team members for each mon which get their own thread.
Each thread discusses what they think should be done for the mon, community gives input, discussion leader comes up with a small slate, GRL approves, badabing badaboom.
I do worry that having a single Gen Review Leader as this proposal suggests would be overly taxing on the individual that gets picked, as this is will be a several months-long project. Think it would be preferable to have a Gen Review Council to ensure no one person gets overloaded and the project doesn't suffer activity death from any one member's schedule. Also don't think teams for each individual mon is terribly efficient, rather think we should have a single collective team which the Gen Review Council is a part of and do the mons in staggered batches, which imo is important to ensure there's enough meta stability while things are being shuffled around.
Think something like organizing a Gen Review Council (possibly built out of the meta council + other actives) and voting in some rotating team members (again to prevent burnout killing the pace of things, we have until ideally before November to get everything done and dusted), then have them sort out what mons to do for each 'batch'. Have some public discussion on what order batches should be done in since there's more immediately pressing things like nerfing Roak than buffing other caps, and have a little vote on that. Then we move on to the proper processes for each batch as they come with people split up between the mons as we do the usual fare of nerf/buff process (more complicated things like sorting out Necturna are tbh more of a PRC related thing than anything so I don't think it should be considered here for this proposal.)
I know doing multiple things at once can be taxing and has it's own issues of volatility but as long as we carefully prioritize what order we do things in so that doing multiple caps hopefully shouldn't feel overly exhausting. Things like nerfs are inherently quicker and less draining and thus can be done first to get them out of the way, leave a bit of breathing room to then start doing more time-consuming processes like buffs, reverting nerfs, tweaks etc. I have no set time-table in mind for break intervals but I think as long as we have a fairly active Gen Review Council and team members around we can keep activity death from occurring while still keeping a steady pace that doesn't give the meta zero time to re-stablize. Definitely think it's doable to get most of the more important things sorted before SCVI drops in November as long as we hop to it following 31's release.
The Generation Review Leader would have have following responsibilities:
Leading discussion in the primary competitive thread, for the competitive playerbase to discuss about their overall satisfaction with the Gen 8 CAP metagame
Leading discussion in the primary procedural thread, for the CAP creation community (which includes many contributors who are not active in the metagame at large) to discuss their overall satisfaction with the Gen 8 CAP processes
To coordinate the order in which the Gen 8 CAPs (which includes the buffed Voodoom and Pyroak) are reviewed and who heads each discussion
Approving the slate for any changes proposed to the CAP
Approving voters for balance changes (more on this later)
Concluding the review, manage the ongoing thread discussing the metagame post-changes
The individual Generation Review Team members:
Lead discussion about a specific Pokemon
Come up with a slate of proposed changes, if applicable
So the Review Leader does have substantially more responsibility, but such is befitting the position. I do not expect it to be more exhausting than the general CAP process, since the individual discussions about each CAP are being delegated to what would end up being a team of 7 users, one for each CAP. Whoever gets Venomicon has a tougher bit, maybe that can be split up. There is the Leader and the team of seven who actually handle most of the individual Pokemon discussion. I hope we could muster up a team of 8 quality contributors with enough metagame knowledge to create the entire team.
As for the bit about voting, for the scope of this particular project I think you SHOULD have some stake in the CAP metagame in order to vote, AND have a sound perspective of only competitive Pokemon, specially CAP or OU.
ANYONE should be able to apply to be on the voting list; the entire CAP Gen Review Team should have no problem recognizing users with good familiarity of the metagame to approve them. If you want to vote, learn the meta. If you get rejected, go back and learn the meta more. You dont need to be stresh or TNM or D2, but you should actually be invested in a higher level of competitive play. I think this is a happy marriage between keeping a high degree of community involvement, what I think CAP is all about, while putting more emphasis on quality, high level experience when it comes to decision making for our metagame.
Approving and coordinating votes is a lot of work, it's the shittiest part about this system. I think this is the scenario of applying the real world solution of adding in a project secretary to take on this task. Probably not the most desirable job, and if that idea turns people off the whole idea I don't blame them. But I wanted to throw it out there to ease the burden on the project leader. Good leaders delegate duties, after all.
Ngl a dedicated "end of gen review" process, as proposed, sounds like too much to accomplish in the time we have left. This is quite a large-scale proposal - implementing an entirely new CAP institution like the PPL, revamped buff process, etc - that would require extensive logistical organizing, critical discussion, and would probably need to jump through several bureaucratic hoops (prc moment) in order to pass. I don't believe we have this kind of time, or frankly energy, left before gen 9 starts.
If SV rolls around and this is still an idea people are interested in, it should have its own PRC thread so that the nuts-and-bolts logistics can be properly figured out with ample time. But for gen 8, I don't think it's a feasible goal.
If we want to use our time at the end of gen 8 to "fix missteps," as quziel put it, a simpler way would just be to use the institutions we already have in place; IE, the community buff processes and council-directed nerf processes that we conduct already. This is a much cleaner alternative to reinventing the wheel under a time crunch imo. An end-of-gen period could look roughly like this (the ordering doesn't matter):
Buff process for Chromera
*Nerf process for book(s) (council-led)
Buff process for Miasmaw
**Nerf process for Pyroak (council-led)
***Voodoom buff re-evaluation
*To be clear, this would only occur if deemed necessary, no different than nerf processes in the past; it's not something that I'm suggesting has to happen. Perhaps a thread could be put up simply to gauge public opinion, and the meta council chooses whether to nerf/not nerf afterwards - opposed to the norm, where the council decides they are going to nerf a CAP, and uses the thread to help decide how
**A Pyroak nerf is in the same boat as Venom - only happening if the council wants it to. However, I could also see this being treated as an extension of Roak's buff process instead of a formal nerf process, which mostly just has minor implications for how it's carried out
***Again, a Voodoom re-eval would only occur if people push for it. It might not happen at all. But similar to Pyroak, I imagine it could either be a second full buff process for Voodoom, or an extension of its previous buff process where the meta-council provides an additional final tuning - the latter would obviously be faster
My personal preference is to treat Roak/Doom changes (if we decide to do them) as extensions of their original buff and not as new, separate nerfs/buffs. I think this makes more logistical sense and would help the process move faster.
This would also be placing a lot of power in the meta council's hands, so A) the community would need to be comfortable relinquishing some control (personally I am), and B) the 6 council members would need to follow through with a substantial amount of responsibilities in a timely manner, and be okay with accepting those responsibilities in the first place.
This thread has been sitting forever and needs to wrap up soon given Saharaja's process just ended, so please share thoughts.
gonna push for Voodoom to be revisited because the buff process for it was sort of scuffed given it was the first attempt and as a result was quite experimental in format, timing, and well, everything else. seems pretty clear we missed the mark because Voodoom is still wholly unviable, and I think a final touch-up is due.
Think this is sound, especially considering how glacial the discussion revolving setting up an end-of-gen review has gone already lol. I do have some mild concerns about the meta council's size and activity if we want to shoot for all of these though. Adding/cycling a new member or three (to keep it odd numbered and active) wouldn't be a bad idea to assuage concerns of this and having more high quality community users on council should lessen concerns over giving them the reigns for a while.
On some of the specific projects in mind, I agree with rabia on Voodoom really needing a re-eval to sort out the problems with it's initial process being so messy (if it's deemed so), rather than just tacking on to already messed-up project.
Prioritizing of what gets done should obviously be in the council's hands but I would like to suggest Roak be first up for whatever we choose to do. It's this big elephant in the room that's been sitting there and not leaving anyone particularly happy, knocking it out first leaves room to breathe for the more complicated processes in mind like the proposed Vood re-eval.
Not trying to rain on the parade here (actually the opposite, I think this is by far the best choice for our end of gen activities), but will this become a standard end-of-gen thing? I think it'd be a nice way of making sure we leave each gen in the best possible shape as we move on to the next one so we don't get situations where we are banning things (looking at poor mega cruci) or things are never in a usable state. It's nice to be able to look back after a long period of learning the meta to tinker with the tier.
In terms of priority, I agree that Roak should be first up. It may be a more difficult (or even the most difficult) task for us to tackle, but Roak has been an issue since its buff and it absolutely has the heaviest impact on the meta. After that, I'd slot Voodoom and Miasmaw discussions as secondary priorities, since those two are the furthest away from being viable in the current meta. I am somewhat indifferent on Chromera and the books, and I think those two can be put on the backend of this endeavor.
- Revisiting Pyroak should be our top priority. It's no secret that many people did not like how it's post-buff lookback (Is that what it was called, I honestly can't remember) was handled and that Pyroak, and given that it will probably be the most difficult of the things on the to-do list, we should just get it out of the way.
- After that, we should look at Miasmaw and Chromera, preferably in that order since Miasmaw is currently in the worse spot between the two. It's no secret that these mons aren't exactly very good, and I think its pretty important to make sure that every CAP we make is at least viable in its debut generation (Having a mon that isn't even good in the generation it was made for doesn't exactly look good for the project).
- I literally couldn't care less about revisiting Voodoom or how we handle it, so I guess just put it in the back.
- This might be a controversial stance, but I'm sort of against the idea of revisiting the books. I just don't think that either of them are really all that overbearing at the moment.
Not trying to rain on the parade here (actually the opposite, I think this is by far the best choice for our end of gen activities), but will this become a standard end-of-gen thing? I think it'd be a nice way of making sure we leave each gen in the best possible shape as we move on to the next one so we don't get situations where we are banning things (looking at poor mega cruci) or things are never in a usable state. It's nice to be able to look back after a long period of learning the meta to tinker with the tier.
I wouldn't be comfortable making a call on that at this point; our needs at the end of gen 9 could be very different from our needs right now. Outright codifying something like this for future gens seems unwise, or at least premature. But if we do decide to do something similar at gen 9's conclusion, I think we can look back at what we're doing right now a reference/precedent. Also, it's possible that a more formalized "end of gen review" process, as proposed earlier in this thread, could get fleshed out and implemented instead. TLDR, the future is unpredictable.
) so I've been slow to respond here, but I've tried to reconstruct most of what I had. The numbers in 
