Policy Review Policy Assessment: Threats and Counters (VOTE Closed)

[Deck Knight]

Prior to CAP 2, we had Policy Review thread that discussed in detail what we considered a check and what we considered a counter, and made a proposal to have a threats Discussion after typing, and keep the Counters discussion for after Stats and Ability. Here is the result of that thread:

Threats and Counters discussion result

Adding a Threats Discussion After Typing:

After the CAP's Typing is decided, we develop a list of Pokemon that threaten the CAP using these parameters (credit DarkSlay):

Questions for Threat Discussion:

• Going specifically by typing, what Pokemon found in the OU (or relevant) metagame will be able to comfortably give this CAP project trouble?
• What Pokemon will be major threats to this project right off the bat? What Pokemon have the potential to become counters? What Pokemon may end up as threats, but must be contained or dealt with per the concept?
• Will the concept succeed with these set list of threats? Is this list of threats acceptable for the project?
• What Pokemon will be threatened by the CAP based off of typing? Are these Pokemon targets that we want CAP to hit? Will these targets be "unavoidable" to threaten based solely on the typing?
• What direction must the project go in now that a set list of basic threats has been identified? What must be done in order to make these threats "wanted counters" or these threats be eliminated from counter discussion? What Pokemon do we want this project to counter entirely?

Alterations to the Counters Discussion:

Counters Discussion will use the list developed in the Threats Discussion as a base, then reassess to finalize a Hard Counters List. The questions the discussion should answer are:

Questions for Counters Discussion:

• With now a combination of typing, ability, and stat pool, which previously defined threats are considered hard counters to the project? Basic counters? Checks?
• Are the Pokemon that are currently able to counter the project the Pokemon we want/need to counter the project? If not, what must be done to handle these Pokemon? Is it unavoidable?
• What Pokemon have arisen in discussions that were not brought up before? As in, are there Pokemon that counter/check this concept on concepts that are not focused around its typing? Where should they be placed in the discussion?
• Which Pokemon have been taken out of the counters discussion due to the stat pool and ability?
• Which Pokemon have moved from threats purely by typing to checks? To neutral match-ups?
• Which Pokemon are now countered by the project fully? Which are checked by the project? Which have become neutral match-ups against the project?
• With this set list of counters and checks, does this fulfill the concept's goal?

The end goal of the Counters discussion will be the basis for limiting Attacking Moves and non-Attacking Moves. A few Pokemon will be selected as Pokemon that should Hard Counter the CAP based on fulfilling three of six criteria:

Criteria for a Hard Counter (Requires 3/6):

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

Attacking Moves that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks under ordinary circumstances will not be allowed.

Non-Attacking Moves such as stat boosters or Taunt that would turn Pokemon on the CAP's list of Hard Counters into Checks will not be allowed.

Note: If it would take both an attacking and a non-attacking move to alter a Hard Counter, whichever discussion comes first will limit the second discussion.

For example if Dragon Dance + Close Combat would make a Hard Counter unable to do so, where neither Dragon Dance nor Close Combat alone would do so (e.g. Only +1 LO CC OHKOs, but the counter is ordinarily faster and can OHKO the CAP after taking a +0 LO Hit from Close Combat) then if Dragon Dance is selected first, Close Combat cannot be selected. If Close Combat is selected first, then Dragon Dance cannot be selected.

Necturna's Sketch Artist concept was perhaps the ultimate test we could have imagined for this change, and it worked out wonderfully, giving us clear examples of Pokemon that should Counter the CAP, even a CAP with *any* single move.

I would like to open up this thread for a discussion amongst the PRC members for their thoughts on how the process went, if there are any improvements that can be made, or any other ideas around the process for threats and counters. I have provided links to the Threats and Counters discussions for Necturna below.

Necturna Threats Discussion
Necturna Counters Discussion

Proposal: In the threats discussion stage, which occurs after the typing polls conclude, the community and TL decide upon a list of Pokemon which should reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP. The extent to which each threat should handle the CAP should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, and a final post should be made by the TL to ensure that everyone's on the same page come the discussion's conclusion.

A general idea of what the CAP should threaten should also be an end product of the Threats discussion in addition to identifying those threats that can reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP.

The counters discussion stage becomes non-mandatory. It can be invoked by either the TL or the forum moderators based on their interpretation of how the CAP has proceeded since the threats discussion stage. If the CAP has gone awry, they may have the discussion to get it back on track and/or discuss additional/changed checks and counters as needed by the particular CAP.

Basically it's Dusk's last Proposal along with bmb's end product of Pokemon the CAP should threaten.

I believe this is a sufficient grounds. Seeing the topic has been dormant I assume there are no more amendments, so I'll put this up to 24 hours before the vote begins just in case.

- - - - -
Ballot:

Proposal: In the threats discussion stage, which occurs after the typing polls conclude, the community and TL decide upon a list of Pokemon which should reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP. The extent to which each threat should handle the CAP should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, and a final post should be made by the TL to ensure that everyone's on the same page come the discussion's conclusion.

A general idea of what the CAP should threaten should also be an end product of the Threats discussion in addition to identifying those threats that can reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP.

The counters discussion stage becomes non-mandatory. It can be invoked by either the TL or the forum moderators based on their interpretation of how the CAP has proceeded since the threats discussion stage. If the CAP has gone awry, they may have the discussion to get it back on track and/or discuss additional/changed checks and counters as needed by the particular CAP.

YES
NO

Poll will close at 8:00 PM EDT on 04/30/2012

 

[macle]

I think there should be a disclaimer saying sr, spikes, and sand included. Its common knowledge but i feel like some ass will try to pass it through.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

As the TL for CAP 2, I feel that I have particular insight into the way this new implementation operated that will be valuable to the other PRC members.

The threats discussion thread served its purpose excellently. Within it, the community discussed threats that CAP 2 should have and why they should exist. From this point onward, the community held those threats dear as it moved forward in the creation process for the CAP. When we reached the counters discussion thread, the momentum ceased. The community already knew what CAP 2's counters would be, and already knew how it would attempt to keep them dear throughout the process. The whole counters discussion became redundant and essentially a waste of time because we had already done the discussion once before. At the time and now, I agree with that analysis.

The counters discussion stage is essentially a check to make sure that the community has not strayed from the threats that they established in an earlier stage of the process. Because we had not made any poor decisions in making CAP 2 between threats discussion and counters discussion, the counters discussion stage was a waste of time and essentially served no purpose other than to pat us on the backs for doing a good job thus far.

That's how it was. Is that what we want? Well, that's another question entirely, and is what I think the key point that this PRC topic should address. I personally think that it was valuable having the threats discussion earlier in the process before stats. This helped us develop stats that could be molded to fit our CAP's threats, which helped a lot. Notice we intentionally outsped Heatran, for instance, knowing that Speed wouldn't matter in that match-up. There again, we didn't outspeed Hydreigon, which we knew would only be able to best CAP 2 offensively by moving first. This is just one way in which having a set of threats beforehand helped us make the right decisions. There were other conscious decisions made in stats because of our threats that I could discuss, but the point is clear. It's good to discuss threats immediately after typing. That should not change. I do not, however, think we should discuss it again. It was redundant and not useful. I realize that the notes at the top of the thread make these stages out to be more than what I have presented here, but what is written and what is pragmatic do not always coincide. That is very relevant here, and hope that the readers will agree.

I think the proper course of action is clear:

The threats discussion should stay where it is, and we should simply get rid of the counters discussion stage altogether. I consider the counters discussion to essentially be 'damage control' if the TL and community make unsuitable choices in the stats stage for the CAP. This sort of 'damage control' should, however, happen at every stage assuming the TL is adept at leading and listening. Thus, I don't think having a stage dedicated specifically to damage control is logical.
​

That's my proposition. What do you all think?

 

[Deck Knight]

I think getting rid of the Counters section is a bit premature. Threats went over very well because of the Concept, but most of the questions we'd generally ask in the Counters thread weren't very relevant. By having a concept based on a Pokemon that could learn any one move, we basically made sure stats and ability were fairly toned down (Ability moreso). The Counters discussion comes into play more if we want a typing that might have a few glaring weaknesses we might want to patch up later. Say we chose a Poison/Electric type, but because we can't poll jump, we have a huge list of Ground-type Counters. If we later give it Levitate, all of those Threats disappear as offensive checks, though the fact they resist/are immune to both STABS still makes them viable switchins.

For Necturna's concept it really only served as an affirmation of the discussion, but Sketch Artist was already a very structured concept. I'd like to give a slightly less structured concept (at least insofar as Checks and Counters) a chance with the system before eliminating the latter part of it.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

What do you honestly think could be done to distinguish the threats and counters discussions from one another even in a less structured concept? (And quite frankly, I don't buy that either! Sketch Artist was possibly the least structured concept we've ever had!) I've read the on-site page for these discussions repeatedly, but both essentially do the same thing just with different wordings. I've tried to see the value in having the discussion twice, but it's lost on me. Why do we need to have the same discussion twice? I ask this genuinely because I cannot find the justification myself.

 

[Deck Knight]

The general context of the Counters discussion was how it would affect the coverage moves for the CAP, since at the Counters stage we had a concrete Atk/SpA to work from with calculations. There'd have been few problems with some coverage moves in Threats because of their low Base Attack Power, and if it wasn't backed by a decent stat it wouldn't be overpowering, even after an SE hit. Having the Stats and Ability available does determine the viability of some strategies that cannot be forseen at typing alone.

I think there is significant overlap in the threads, but considering the proximity to movepool it would be helpful. CAP 2 was very lenient in that particular regard because of the implications of Sketch, but future projects may not have such luxury at their disposal.

It's not really "the same discussion twice." The Counters discussion brings the CAP back into focus before arguably the most important stage, Movepool, and makes guidelines for which discussion should go first (NAM or AM) much easier to discern. Even if it were merely to reaffirm that Pokemon selected as Threats are and should remain Counters, it gives a much stronger basis for a TL to make that particular decision.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

The general context of the Counters discussion was how it would affect the coverage moves for the CAP, since at the Counters stage we had a concrete Atk/SpA to work from with calculations.

Isn't this what the attacking moves discussion is for, though? Unless we changed our minds about what counters we wanted for our particular CAP halfway through, I don't see why re-evaluating the counters is particularly necessary or even beneficial. Of course, I can certainly see the possibility that the community changes its mind on what should counter the given CAP, and if we allowed to do this then yes, there is an absolute justification for a second counters stage, but at present I was under the impression that this was not something that was done - that if we decided on a set of counters we stuck with them, or at least to the best of our ability, in much the same way that we stick with stats or typing and don't try to edit them later on. What you said here led me to think that I have perhaps a misconstrued idea of what is supposed to be going on in these threads:

Even if it were merely to reaffirm that Pokemon selected as Threats are and should remain Counters, it gives a much stronger basis for a TL to make that particular decision.

Possibly I have missed a couple of these threads where these decisions were justified, but quickly skimming through what appears to have been decided I can't help feeling that there's a lot of wasted time and effort with the set-up that is currently in place. It is absolutely true that they are not the same discussion - one is to do with the counters we want the Pokemon to have, and the other is just identifying what *might* be the case. But it is also true that they do overlap to a great extent, and this means that the one that comes after certainly isn't going to generate the same sort of interest and discussion, because there's always that nagging feeling of beating a dead horse. The difference between the two stages is quite subtle, and it's entirely possible to not actually understand the difference if you're just coming into the project.

Personally I feel that the ideal solution is to have what is currently in place as the Counters discussion at the stage of the process that the Threats discussion is currently at - with a few alterations perhaps. There is only really a need for one of these stages, to be referred back to - to a very large extent, the reason the Counters discussion seems redundant is not so much that we've already done it, but that it's what we've been discussing in every stage, in #cap, in more or less every discussion since the concept was chosen. For this reason, a thread that exists to identify threats as its sole purpose seems to me to be redundant as a whole - there is merit to it, certainly, but more so if we are also deciding what we want to give CAPX difficulties as well, as per the concept.

This issue was not quite so pertinent in CAP2 since, well, once you cut through Necturna's concept all it really was was "A Bulky Attacker with a Big Movepool" which is not quite so discriminatory in terms of counters as, say, "Stop the Secondary" or "Utility Counter", both of which required extensive discussion of what we wanted to give them trouble as related to their concepts. Such a thing will probably be more relevant in future CAPs with more specific concepts than "Sketch Artist" - hence why I would like to see the more specific Counters stage after the Typing Poll. This does of course leave us with two very similar stages at different points of the process, and I feel as though the second can be done away with - at the end of the day it is only doing what we will always be doing anyway, which is trying to imagine how CAPX will perform in practice.

 

[Deck Knight]

Received this via PM:

As soon as Necturna's Grass/Ghost typing was decided upon, I immediately began thinking of abilities that I could propose, since I knew that the abilities discussion was coming up shortly. I got into the discussion thread pretty early and proposed Flash Fire. I think that my reasoning was pretty good, but I really have no idea, because the idea didn't seem to have been shot down because my reasoning was poor, at least not from what I could tell. From what I could tell, it seemed to have been shot down because the Threats discussion before (and also the Stat Limits discussion, come to think of it) had already assumed that Heatran would be a counter. Some example posts pretty much outright stating so can be found here, here, here, here, and here. I even tried bring up the possibility that Heatran might not remain a counter in both of the aforementioned threads, but to no avail.

I guess that if I were to sum up the issue as I perceive it, I would say that the Threats discussion invites too much poll jumping (I consider assuming not-X to be just as bad as assuming X itself). It relies on nothing more than concept and typing to determine optimal threats and counters, and that can damage future portion of the CAP because people don't seem willing to turn around and reconsider after they've gotten used to the idea of some counters. If I missed something, please let me know, but from where I sit, it looks to me like the reason that Necturna ended up with No Competitive Ability was because abilities weren't part of the Threats discussion.

If something about the Threats discussion isn't altered, I fear something similar might happen in future CAPs. It's not that I think it's bad that Necturna ended up with no competitive ability. Like I said, I loved the way that she turned out, and I think that it was good in the end for this specific CAP project to have no competitive ability, but I'm concerned that this could negatively affect future CAP projects, not just when it comes to abilities but also when it comes to other feature like the move list. This wasn't a problem with Necturna, of course, because the Threats discussion already assumed Necturna would have every move, but for future CAPs, if the threats discussion assumes too much about that CAP's future move list, that could negatively affect what sorts of options the CAP ends up with, all based on a discussion only considering concept and typing.

Will update with my own thoughts later, though Asylum_Rhapsody captures some of them, chiefly that having a threats discussion after typing has the potential to put the process on an auto-pilot that plows through the rest of the process, where Counters allows a re-assessment inbetween two major competitive stages.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Exactly, a reassessment. That perfectly describes how a damage control stage operates. If there is no need for a reassessment because you did everything 'right'. Typing/Ability combo is a massive part of a CAP, and if you suddenly become immune to a main threat's STAB because of your ability, that does change a lot. Necturna got NCA because quite frankly, it had no use for a competitive ability. That was just a feature of having 1 use of Sketch in our movepool, not a feature of the process.

 

[capefeather]

In general, I view the threat discussion as something that's not set in stone, something that could be altered by the TL(s) slating alternative options that remove checks and counters, or replaces some with others (and, of course, voters actually choosing these alternatives). With that in mind, I'd say that the way in which the threat discussion in Necturna's project guided it the way it did was because it was pretty much necessary. In the threat discussion, we named four major checks. Weakening or removing even one of those was huge, and all of them were, indeed, weakened against Necturna throughout the process. We had to be careful with a Pokémon that could learn any move. I don't see the way in which we used the threat discussion in Necturna's project as a trendsetter for future CAPs, unless those CAPs also require an early, firm look at checks and counters.

 

[jas61292]

I think what Deck posted from Asylum_Rhapsody is a good summary of how I feel on this matter. However, at the same time, I feel that Necturna was simply not a good example of how this stage would play out because of its concept. Knowing that Necturna was going to be getting Sketch meant that we knew that, unless we severely nerfed its offensive stats, it would be able to get around every single one of its counters one way or another. As such, there really is no such thing as a Necturna counter, only Necturna threats, and the only Pokemon that could be identified as threats were the ones that resisted both the STABs and could do something in return. Due to this, the counters discussion seemed redundant, as there was nothing more to really be said. However, that was a function of Sketch, not of having two discussions. I feel that in a different CAP with a different concept, the two discussions will have more to distinguish them from each other.

Probably the easiest example is that is the changes that can occur based on whether we make a Pokemon a physical or special attacker. To use the same example as Deck, say we have an Electric/Poison Pokemon. At the initial threats discussion, many ground types might be identified, such as Gliscor and Gastrodon along with some other Pokemon like Ferrothorn or Magnezone. Now if we insist from that point onward that those 4 Pokemon are its counters, then we must make sure neither attacking stat is too potent to break through them, and at the movepool stage, get rid of all grass, ice, fire and ground coverage moves. However, if we don't decide the true counters until later, we have more flexibility. If we choose to make it a special attacker, then when we choose counters, we can drop Gliscor as a counter. Now Ice type coverage is plausible, and Water type coverage is completely fine. The same thing could be said for going physical. It would allow us to drop Gastrodon and allow grass coverage, something we would not be able to do if counter are set in stone before the stats are.

However, I really think it would be hard to tell if this would work in practice until we actually try it. As I said, Necturna was not really a good test for this as its concept really eliminated the possibility of true counters. But I doubt that will be the case for future CAPs, and we should see how it goes before changing it.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

I'm not convinced.

I think a big problem here is that we're being slightly blinded by what we want this stage to be. I've been reading these examples you're all providing, but really all I see is 'flexibility' being used as the argument for not setting counters in stone as soon as possible. The issue with this is then: "Why does the threats discussion exist if everything discussed there means nothing until we do set it in stone?" One of the biggest issues with the counters discussion stage of the past was that it was never discussed early enough that we had a good plan of how to develop stats/typing. Thus, we boxed ourselves into a corner of never having any way to create good counters to our powerful Pokemon (re: Krilowatt, Voodoom [[seriously, we resorted to Heracross here which was barely OU]]). Now that we've had the discussion earlier, we created a Pokemon that despite having Sketch has incredibly reliable switch-ins and is actually a healthy and totally balanced part of the metagame. We've proven that discussing it earlier is always better. However, now with this fixed, it has become clear to me that we want to set these things in stone early or else we're going to keep boxing ourselves in like we used to. The threats discussion coming into existence solved a problem because it allowed us to fixate upon some counters earlier rather than later, and that's brilliant. I don't like the way some of you are treating it as something that shouldn't be set in stone. Any given CAP needs a focal point in its counters in order to not completely annihilate the metagame its coming into (either in being too strong or too centralizing [[re: Necturna was neither thanks to what I'm talking about]]).

If you all insist on seeing it through another CAP, then I'll be outvoted here and what I say doesn't matter, but I want you to see where I'm coming from before going back to what we did wrong so many times before we did it right once.

 

[capefeather]

Well, I'm just going to speak for myself here and clarify that I wasn't talking about the counters discussion. Rather, it seemed as if there was a complaint against the threat discussion itself and I moved to defend its existence and important role in the process. That said, unlike most of the other stages, what is decided in the threat discussion doesn't produce something tangible that we can directly plug into a sim or hack into a game as data. It's more like the concept itself, which is more pertinent to setting a vision for the project, rather than implementing the vision using data. As we've seen in the past, the concept can be adapted and redefined somewhat over time. Sometimes the community subconsciously decides that it wants, say, Zapdos as a teammate rather than Togekiss.

I guess what I'm saying is, I think the threats discussion should be a flexible stage that can be as strict or as relaxed as the situation demands. Sometimes we'll have a strict list of checks and counters that invalidates any future argument that threatens said list significantly. Other times we'll have some absolute checks/counters and a bunch of maybes, and then the fates of the maybes would be decided through the future votes, preferably with voters being informed of the consequences of each choice on the maybes. Other times, we may have an entire list of maybes. This would depend on the concept and maybe the TL's vision for the project. The existence of the counters discussion would, then, depend on how the threats discussion was done.

If I had to choose between keeping the counters discussion and axing it for the foreseeable future, though, I'd choose to axe it. My reasoning is, quite simply, that we have seen that the existence or nonexistence of counters and checks (at least, as far as the specific, conventional definition goes) is not all there is to balancing a Pokémon. I would like discussions to have a greater focus on tactics and strategies than on individual Pokémon, and the threats discussion, by its timing and implied generality, is more suited to this than the counters discussion could hope to be.

 

[Deck Knight]

Alright then, this thread didn't start with a proposal so a motion will have to be made. Which of the following motions accurately describes the will of members wishing to alter how Threats and Counters are discussed.

Suggested Motion (1):
The Threats Discussion and Counters Discussion should be merged into one Discussion (Retaining the Threats Discussion name for ease), held at the current time of the Threats discussion, and using the description found in the Counters Discussion (replicated below) to additionally guide the Threats Discussion.

Counters Description

The criteria for a hard counter are as follows, and hard counters must satisfy at least a few of these, but potentially as many as possible. Note that this is very tricky considering Sketch, but we should focus on making CAP 2's counters handle CAP 2 as reliably as possible considering any or the most powerful sets.

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

Suggested Motion (2):
The Counters Discussion should be abolished, with the Threats Discussion remaining as it currently is.

- - - -

These two motions are obviously not exhaustive, and I will entertain any alterations supporters of either would like to make. Note that these will be in force for CAP 3. Only a single motion will be proposed, with an up or down vote on that motion.

My last word is that CAP derives much of its value from the process, and that we should not eliminate any part of that process from which we can gain valuable insight. The question then, is whether Counters as it exists now provides valuable insight that Threats does not. I leave it to opponents of the current policy to determine the best language to articulate their desire for the future of Threats and Counters.

 

[DetroitLolcat]

After giving this some thought, I think it's a good idea not to alter the Threats and Counters Discussions in any way. The CAP process needs some structure when determining what should and shouldn't be able to beat the Pokemon, and removing the Threats and Counters Discussion removes some of that structure. If we remove the Counters Discussion, then we will not have as many guidelines to base our movepools around which could lead to the possibility of bloated movepools. For example, if Necturna's Counters Discussion never took place it's entirely possible that we would have expanded Necturna's movepool because we wanted as few things to counter it as possible.

Without clearly defined guidelines on what should and should not counter the CAP, I fear that we could get "Krilowatt syndrome" and just pack the Pokemon's movepool beyond reason. The Counters Discussion gives the community a sense of direction with the CAP and both prevents the TL from condoning unreasonable movepools and gives the community a healthy sense of restriction on what should and should not be allowed.

If we were to follow Suggestion 1, then we diminish the importance of the Counters Discussion, which is neither favorable nor needed. If we were to follow Suggestion 2, we stop seriously considering what should be able to beat the Pokemon until it might be too late.

Bottom line: the Counters Discussion provides a wealth of information about the CAP and requires a reasonable amount of time to execute. Without the Counters Discussion, we lose sight of what should be able to reliably beat the Pokemon and could unintentionally break the Pokemon. Therefore, the Counters Discussion should remain in its current state.

 

[bugmaniacbob]

After giving this some thought, I think it's a good idea not to alter the Threats and Counters Discussions in any way. The CAP process needs some structure when determining what should and shouldn't be able to beat the Pokemon, and removing the Threats and Counters Discussion removes some of that structure. If we remove the Counters Discussion, then we will not have as many guidelines to base our movepools around which could lead to the possibility of bloated movepools. For example, if Necturna's Counters Discussion never took place it's entirely possible that we would have expanded Necturna's movepool because we wanted as few things to counter it as possible.

Without clearly defined guidelines on what should and should not counter the CAP, I fear that we could get "Krilowatt syndrome" and just pack the Pokemon's movepool beyond reason. The Counters Discussion gives the community a sense of direction with the CAP and both prevents the TL from condoning unreasonable movepools and gives the community a healthy sense of restriction on what should and should not be allowed.

The movepool limits are not decided by the counters discussion, and regardless of whether the counters discussion exists or not, Necturna's movepool couldn't have gone out of its way to fit more unnecessary moves on, chiefly because RD wouldn't have slated them, even if the movepool limits didn't exist. I think we've already been through the phase where we were packing a CAP's movepool beyond reason, and we've implemented policy measures to prevent this. Furthermore, Krilowatt's movepool was almost entirely a direct consequence of its concept, in that in order to counter everything in the game, nearly every move in the game was thought to be required, so we had a lot of moves that didn't serve any practical purpose, not that those moves prevented it from being countered.

My own stance as of now is that the Counters discussion provides more concrete, valuable "insight", as Deck Knight put it, than the Threats discussion, which does not give us anything concrete to work off, but that the Threats discussion is valuable solely for its position in the process, and for no other reason that separates it from the Counters discussion. If we had a Threats discussion between every single other discussion stage, those would all provide us with valuable insight. But there comes a point at which it ceases to be of relevance or benefit to continue debating the issue. I am of the opinion that, having hashed out some rough threats and more or less totally refined them over the next few discussions, being ingrained in the community's field of view, then the Counters discussion becomes, to drag out a tired cliché, flogging a dead horse.

As to Asylum_Rhapsody's comments, I cannot agree with large parts of his assessment of the situation. Necturna got no competitive ability because its concept didn't demand one and most of us did not want it to be even stronger than it already was, least of all becoming a more or less total counter to Heatran of all things on top of everything else. In fact, I would be very very happy if we could ensure that some things remained counters throughout the entire process, without trying to change it - but crucially here - not trying to find paper counters, because that just isn't worth discussing.

I'm not sure where the idea that a counters discussion ought to be used to "decide" what would give our CAP trouble or not came from, because as far as I'm concerned that's half the point of playtesting. The only Pokemon I'd want to see listed as irrevocable counters would be those that pertained to the concept - Necturna was a special case, as a large part of dealing with its concept was "make this thing not broken but still usable". If you go have a look at some of the old posts in the counters discussion for the older CAPs - hell, even for Voodoom and Tomohawk - you can see that there's an awful lot of thought put into some of them as per "how should these counters pertain to the concept". This is the sort of discussion that I want to see follow the typing poll, as it is not that it currently dictates the stats, ability, movepool, but that it should dictate them.

That said, I do agree with A_R's statement that deciding rock-solid counters very early on in the process is a bad idea, and I'd be strongly against that. I do not think, however, that there is any current support for deciding the counters so early in the process, as as far as I can tell most people here would rather see the Counters discussion disappear and the Threats discussion become something less relaxed - so yes, I would support the idea of a flexible threats stage.

Hence I would at present support motion #1 with the following amendments:

1. That the new Threats discussion is designed to accomplish two tasks - firstly, to decide upon threats that we desire to give our chosen CAP the most trouble, as pertaining to the concept and the concept alone, and not typing or whatever else have you, and secondly, to identify threats that may give a generic Pokemon of our chosen typing trouble, and which of them we are comfortable with having check or counter our CAP, with the sole purpose of seeing what we can afford to give our CAP in the later stages (ie. no concrete decision, just discussion)
2. That the Counters discussion is a stage that comes about by TL discretion (and possibly mod discretion) only - if the TL considers that there is a need to decide upon or even re-evaluate the counters or threats for this particular CAP (ie. doesn't have to happen, but can do if the TL feels it's necessary, much like that Multitype discussion with Necturna and iirc Krilowatt)

(change wording as appropriate, obviously)

As a final word, I would say that the Counters discussion in its current incarnation, as a stage, is far more valuable than the Threats discussion, and I am willing to see no change in order to ensure its preservation (this means I'm dead set against motion #2).

 

[Deck Knight]

So, amended motion:

Suggested Motion :
Article 1: The Threats Discussion and Counters Discussion should be merged into one Discussion (Retaining the Threats Discussion name for ease), held at the current time of the Threats discussion, and using the description found in the Counters Discussion (replicated below) to additionally guide the Threats Discussion along with the Threats Discussion's current questions list.

Article 2: The Threats Discussion shall be designed to accomplish two tasks - firstly, to decide upon threats that we desire to give our chosen CAP the most trouble, as pertaining to the concept and the concept alone, and not typing or other considerations, and secondly, to identify threats that may give a generic Pokemon of our chosen typing trouble, which of them we are comfortable with having check or counter our CAP. The Threats Discussion will not be binding on the final Counters list, however it will heavily influence it.

Article 3: The Counters discussion will be a stage that comes about by the discretion of the TL and moderators if the TL considers that there is a need to decide upon or even re-evaluate the counters or threats for a particular CAP (ie. doesn't have to happen, but can do if the TL feels it's necessary, much like that Multitype discussion with Necturna and iirc Krilowatt)

Counters Description

The criteria for a hard counter are as follows, and hard counters must satisfy at least a few of these, but potentially as many as possible. Note that this is very tricky considering Sketch, but we should focus on making CAP 2's counters handle CAP 2 as reliably as possible considering any or the most powerful sets.

• Can switch into this CAP's Strongest reliable STAB attacks at least three times from full health.
• Can switch into this CAP's strongest possible coverage move at least twice from full health.
• Can stall this CAP indefinitely using its recovery options either forcing the CAP out or healing enough that the stalling Pokemon can alternate between recovery and attacking.
• Can OHKO or 2HKO the CAP with one of the moves on that Pokemon's relevant official Smogon moveset.
• Can cripple this CAP with a permanent status move without risking a OHKO.
• Can set up, use hazards, weather, or otherwise execute an opponent's strategy without risking a 2HKO.

It's a bit long, but the meaning is clear, and since this is such an important part of the process, it demands serious attention.

I'll leave this up again, see if I can get more commentary than from just bmb.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

Am I to assume that these are all different choices for the poll? Or are these all happening in a "YES" or "NO" format? I think this is far too vast a change to be legitimate right now if the latter, particularly because what I was proposing early on was much less... invasive than the combined of what you're proposing here.

Now, assuming that each is its own proposal, this isn't so bad. Proposal 1 is kind of random and doesn't really achieve what I want to see come from this PR. Proposal 2 is very invasive and kind of defeats the purpose of the stage entirely. It's rather important that the threats discussion happen after typing and not before. It is completely premature to even think about threats before we have typing. We should always choose typing and then discuss what sort of Pokemon should we have best the CAP. Doing so before unfairly limits the list of viable typings for a CAP, and quite frankly, most concepts have very limited viable typings to begin with. Let's not sell ourselves short here.

I like what is being said in Proposal 3, though. I don't think we should do away with the counters stage entirely as I earlier thought, but after this discussion I think some concepts (and some failed community polls) may merit having it. It shouldn't be mandatory, though, and that is the biggest thing I want to make clear here. In Necturna's case, the community and I had our eyes set on the goal so well that it was a waste of time, and I don't think that it was exclusive to CAP 2's concept. I think that was a result of how we executed the concept—intelligently, in other words. If, in future CAPs, the TL and/or community make mistakes and essentially undermine the checks/counters decided upon in the threats discussion, the mods can jump in and say "YO, we demand a counters discussion to reevaluate this shit!" Of course, the wise TL might see the error of his ways and say "Wow, what shit is this, let's fix it with a counters discussion!" That seems like the best solution to me.

Essentially, I would propose a reworded Proposal 3 as follows:

Proposal: In the threats discussion stage, which occurs after the typing polls conclude, the community and TL decide upon a list of Pokemon which should reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP. The extent to which each threat should handle the CAP should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, and a final post should be made by the TL to ensure that everyone's on the same page come the discussion's conclusion.

The counters discussion stage becomes non-mandatory. It can be invoked by either the TL or the forum moderators based on their interpretation of how the CAP has proceeded since the threats discussion stage. If the CAP has gone awry, they may have the discussion to get it back on track and/or discuss additional/changed checks and counters as needed by the particular CAP.​

What do you think of that?

 

[bugmaniacbob]

I'm not sure if you totally understood what the articles are designed to achieve, RD; I agree that I could have made it more clear, but I also wanted to make it kind-of concise. They are all meant to be the same collective proposal, and the idea is that they all work in tandem. I'll try to explain my reasoning a bit further here:

Proposal 1 is kind of random and doesn't really achieve what I want to see come from this PR.

The idea is that Article 1 and 3 go hand in hand. The initial "Threats" discussion that comes after the Typing discussion is the compulsory stage, and then the second "Counters" stage later on would be at the TL's or the Mods' discretion. Neither would be eliminated completely. At least, that was what I proposed as an emendation.

Proposal 2 is very invasive and kind of defeats the purpose of the stage entirely. It's rather important that the threats discussion happen after typing and not before. It is completely premature to even think about threats before we have typing. We should always choose typing and then discuss what sort of Pokemon should we have best the CAP. Doing so before unfairly limits the list of viable typings for a CAP, and quite frankly, most concepts have very limited viable typings to begin with. Let's not sell ourselves short here.

Under Article 2, the threats discussion would happen after typing, so I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The point of Article 2 is that the only counters/checks that would be set in stone in the initial Threats discussion would be those that only pertained to the concept, and that any threats that were decided upon vis-a-vis typing would give the project some focus, but would be subject to change depending on how the rest of the project went, since nothing concrete would be decided.

For example, say that we had Voodoom again, with its effective concept of "Offensive Core between Togekiss and Voodoom". In this case, it would be reasonable for us to want primarily, as part of the concept, for Voodoom to threaten those counters to Togekiss while being threatened by things that Togekiss can deal with. Voodoom's typing of Dark/Fighting has already been decided upon, which already allows us to take care of Blissey, Cresselia, and Rotom-A. However, this still leaves Zapdos as problematic; in this case, we can state at this stage of the process that we do not want Zapdos to be a counter to Voodoom, and hence we set ourselves up to give Voodoom an ability that protects against Thunderbolt and Thunder Wave later on in the process. In addition, we can say that we want Voodoom to be checked by strong special walls that Togekiss can get past, barring stuff like Bliss/Cress, while not being checked so easily by faster revenge-killers. Finally, we can say that by virtue of its typing, Pokemon such as Heracross, Toxicroak, and Fighting-types in general will give it trouble, which is our "theoretical threats" approach. Faster Flying-types may also give it some trouble. These may change, however, depending on how the rest of the process goes (ie. physical or special bias may eliminate some potential counters, one ability designed to stop one Pokemon may have a knock-on effect on others, etc.)

Of course, this approach is not always necessary. Necturna was not obliged by its concept to have any sort of archetype of counters, so the concept-counter was unnecessary there. The idea is that it would change depending on the concept, so for something like Krilowatt - whose concept merited a great deal of counters discussion, but somehow never materialised - we would be able to get a handle on the concept, rather than just theorymon playtesting, far earlier than we would otherwise.

As for your amended proposal:

Proposal: In the threats discussion stage, which occurs after the typing polls conclude, the community and TL decide upon a list of Pokemon which should reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP. The extent to which each threat should handle the CAP should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, and a final post should be made by the TL to ensure that everyone's on the same page come the discussion's conclusion.

The counters discussion stage becomes non-mandatory. It can be invoked by either the TL or the forum moderators based on their interpretation of how the CAP has proceeded since the threats discussion stage. If the CAP has gone awry, they may have the discussion to get it back on track and/or discuss additional/changed checks and counters as needed by the particular CAP.

This is essentially the same as the entirety of the previous proposal, with the only difference being that there is no distinguishing between threats that must be checked based on concept and those that could be checked given typing. I feel that this is an important enough distinction to merit being made explicitly clear in the revised Threats discussion, as in your above proposal, the criteria for actually making a threat situational, reliable or whatever aren't specified, so could become a rather confusing discussion if we start trying to "rank" threats based on nothing but typing and concept. There should be two tiers of threat: those that we are decided upon (based on the concept, which ideally should not be more than 3 and usually fewer, or alternatively an archetypal group) and those that are subject to change (based on typing, and to an extent the concept).

One other thing I want to bring up, related to the above, is making clear the idea of things that we want our chosen CAP to be able to beat, as well as Pokemon we want to be able to counter it, in our Threats discussion. To bring up the Voodoom example again, we ought to have decided in our Threats discussion that Zapdos should not counter our CAP, so as to avoid having a common answer to the two, if that was what we wanted; typically these two go hand in hand (so that, if we don't put something on a threat list then we are expecting our CAP to perform fairly against it), but making it a more explicit topic of discussion in our process description would not, I feel, go amiss.

 

[Deck Knight]

Point of clarification:

There will be only one proposal. My most recent post was an attempt to amalgamate the first proposal with bmbs amendment. The second proposal is effectively null, meaning the amended proposal (with the 3 articles) is the one up for discussion/clarification.

 

[Deck Knight]

Alright so there's been a request to get a move on with this.

Proposal: In the threats discussion stage, which occurs after the typing polls conclude, the community and TL decide upon a list of Pokemon which should reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP. The extent to which each threat should handle the CAP should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, and a final post should be made by the TL to ensure that everyone's on the same page come the discussion's conclusion.

A general idea of what the CAP should threaten should also be an end product of the Threats discussion in addition to identifying those threats that can reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP.

The counters discussion stage becomes non-mandatory. It can be invoked by either the TL or the forum moderators based on their interpretation of how the CAP has proceeded since the threats discussion stage. If the CAP has gone awry, they may have the discussion to get it back on track and/or discuss additional/changed checks and counters as needed by the particular CAP.

Basically it's Dusk's last Proposal along with bmb's end product of Pokemon the CAP should threaten.

I believe this is a sufficient grounds. Seeing the topic has been dormant I assume there are no more amendments, so I'll put this up to 24 hours before the vote begins just in case. The vote will be held starting at 10 PM Saturday Night EDT.

 

[Deck Knight]

So the vote is happening now:

Proposal: In the threats discussion stage, which occurs after the typing polls conclude, the community and TL decide upon a list of Pokemon which should reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP. The extent to which each threat should handle the CAP should be discussed thoroughly in the thread, and a final post should be made by the TL to ensure that everyone's on the same page come the discussion's conclusion.

A general idea of what the CAP should threaten should also be an end product of the Threats discussion in addition to identifying those threats that can reliably, occasionally, and situationally check and counter the CAP.

The counters discussion stage becomes non-mandatory. It can be invoked by either the TL or the forum moderators based on their interpretation of how the CAP has proceeded since the threats discussion stage. If the CAP has gone awry, they may have the discussion to get it back on track and/or discuss additional/changed checks and counters as needed by the particular CAP.

Poll will close at 8:00 PM EDT on 04/30/2012

 

[Birkal]

Aye.

The flexibility of this solution is desirable, in my opinion. Counters discussion certainly doesn't need to happen every CAP, but it is nice to have flexibility. If CAP is ever feeling that we have shifted too much, Counters discussion would be an absolutely fantastic place to re-group.

(I've always liked Aye/Nay polls.)

 

[SgtWoodsy]

Si

It can't hurt to be more flexible about it.

 

[Rising_Dusk]

YES

I've explained many times in this thread why this is a good idea, and I am very excited that it is being taken seriously and being put to a vote. I hope that my arguments have convinced the rest of the PRC of the relevance and value of this change. Cheers.