Role Discussion and its place in the CAP process

[quziel]

One of the minor gripes in a lot of recent caps is really the roles discussion, when its placed, and how much hold it has over the rest of the process. In CAP 32 we were sorta forced to have a relatively early role discussion, as the concept provided very little direction in terms of the resulting product's playstyle, and then had a vote on a specific role for the CAP to fulfill. This was a good decision at the time, as the project was in danger of having a directionless and difficult ability stage, however, similarly, by holding a vote we were essentially committing to that direction, as doing otherwise would be going against shown community consensus.

Problem:

• Role Discussion is generally held early on in the process
• Role Discussion ends with a single role identified as our primary
• Role Discussion is concluded with a vote, which makes it difficult to change based on future information

Solution 1):

• Role Discussion should be held early on in the process
• Role Discussion should end with an ordered list of a small number of roles to aim for
• If a vote is held to conclude Role Discussion, we should have an ordered list of roles that we should sit between
• Role Discussion should only be employed when necessary, rather than always

Solution 2)

• Role Discussion should be held early on in the process
• Role Discussion should end with a single role being selected by discussion
• Role Discussion should not end with a vote
• Role Choice should be revisited after sufficiently large choices are made that may conflict with the original choice
• Role Discussion should only be employed when necessary, rather than always

I'd like thoughts on this, in terms of whether folks believe this is even a problem, if I've identified the elements correctly, and if the solution I've proposed seems correct. The thoughts above are my personal thoughts, and are not a decree by the mod team, and I want discussion here. I'm also open to other solutions, as these are just my initial suggestions.

 

[Amamama]

I think I like the second option a bit more.
Having one determined path forward will make discussion more concise and focused since everyone is talking about the same idea from different angles rather than some talking about one idea while others focus on something entirely different.
Typing usually already gives a good amount of direction to see what roles work and which do not so choosing one isn’t too hard.
Also role itself can be part of exploring the concept and and determining which role(s) fits concept best and works with the typing to me means picking one of a slate as we do in other stages.
Revisiting role with more information later means we can also check if our ideas of the typing and concept still hold true, which is nice to get immediate feedback on our understanding of the concept/game mechanics.
Additionally I like the idea of looking into changing or expanding roles with new information in light of the recent secondary ability discussion.
If we realize the tools we have given the cap in previous stages are at odds with the chosen role or allow us to expand that role or explore another role that is not adjacent simultaneously, we can then use that knowledge to inform the stat stage and/or secondary ability discussion.

 

[dex]

I think a large problem with how CAP handles role lies in that a singular role is decided upon via vote. The role stage should behave more like a concept assessment, where people discuss a number of matters that is then summarized by the TL; it currently operates more like typing. Because role is currently something that is voted on, it certainly feels a lot more binding than it should. This impacts future stages needlessly. At best, voting on role is unhelpful, and at worst, it is constricting.

I also think that the discussion surrounding role should not always end in a singular answer; a collection, 1-3, would be preferable given how early into the process the discussion occurs. These roles can then be looked back on and changed according to the results of the abilities stage.

I think Solution 1 is best, but without the potential for a vote.

 

[shnowshner]

I need to dwell on this a bit more but overall I feel pretty disillusioned on role discussion. It's designed to focus us in to aid discussion but I often feel it railroads some people too hard into making sure we don't stray away from the role (not the point of the CAP), while others sort of stop caring after more of the CAP has been shaped and divert attention to other directions (which makes the role discussion prior feel kinda pointless?)

I think we could benefit a lot from opening up the discussion or even baking it into CA and just leave it as a minor guiding force that helps us until we feel it's superfluous.

 

[SHSP]

I need to dwell on this a bit more but overall I feel pretty disillusioned on role discussion. It's designed to focus us in to aid discussion but I often feel it railroads some people too hard into making sure we don't stray away from the role (not the point of the CAP), while others sort of stop caring after more of the CAP has been shaped and divert attention to other directions (which makes the role discussion prior feel kinda pointless?)

I think we could benefit a lot from opening up the discussion or even baking it into CA and just leave it as a minor guiding force that helps us until we feel it's superfluous.

Echoing Shnow’s post here. Defining a role early on is always a bit of a double edged sword; its usually incredibly helpful to have the added direction from it, but that direction can end up being taken way too literally and focused on to the point it dominates discussion and potential routes of action. Baking it into CA and coming out with loose ideas about roles (multiple, preferably, as Dex mentioned) is probably my preferred outcome here. Most overarching roles in this game (“pivot,” “cleaner,” etc) aren’t exclusive. Treating them that way and voting on them to lock them even further in doesn’t make sense.

 

[Brambane]

I am just chiming in to say I agree with the majority here that solution 1 seem best. Also agreeing with schnoschnear that baking it into CA and having it be a minor guiding force that we can discard or redefine as the project progresses. I haven't seen any vocal objection to this direction, so hopefully this thread and change can be wrapped up soon since there seems to be a lot of PRC stuff coming around (and already starting to) after CAP32.

 

[shnowshner]

Hey, so, maybe a bit longer to think about this than I wanted, but honestly it seems a lot of us are in agreement here.

I think the best aspect of "roles" is consolidating community focus towards a specific direction. Whether your an old or new capper, a ladder andy or a multi-time tour champion, we all tend to have varying degrees of what a CAP looks like, and what it should accomplish. This permeates the entire project, but the degree to which individual ideas differ from one another decreases as more of the CAP forms. At the early stages of CAP, the potential routes are abundant in volume, many of which will find themselves in conflicts of interest with one another. However, by discussing and deciding on which roles we can best fulfill, we help better align the community towards a strong end-project.

I don't mean this to come off as "different ideas are a bad thing in CAP," because part of the fun of CAP is how open-ended everything is, and how no concept really has a "best" solution—how could it, when we can't even really define what a "best" solution should be? CAP 32 had plenty of twists and turns many may have found unexpected, and even disappointing, but the end product seems to quickly have won over players of all skill levels. Unfortunately, there are ways that a CAP can get out-of-hand. If the project is too open or divisive, opposing groups will vie for their share of the CAP pie, and you might end up with typing, ability, stats, or moves failing to cooperate. We want to maintain a healthy balance of room which we can explore our concept, but a solid direction to follow so we don't get lost.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I find that roles don't really accomplish what we want them to. For some users, roles are sacred and need to be followed, which narrows their scope far too much. Others view roles closer to what is desired, but loosely enough that their importance diminishes over time when other avenues start to look more appealing. Overall you end up with roles both focusing people too much, while others only a small amount. I feel that this second mantra, where the roles exist to help gravitate ideas closer together during early stages but aren't to be strictly followed, is a better attitude to have. It does somewhat call into question the efficacy of roles, but that's something I feel can be solved by simply deemphasizing its importance. Role discussion and polling takes up a decent chunk of time, and for what? Something we can just agree to abandon later on? This is why I'm a proponent of including role discussion within Concept Assessment(s), as it's something we can touch on in tandem with whatever else the TL deems necessary, and still reach an informed decision on that assists in group cohesion.

Solution 1 is preferred here for what's been outlined above. As SHSP stated, roles aren't exclusive, and often the best Pokemon in a format are those that encompass many roles: just how many things have mons like Landorus-Therian, Dragapult, Tapu Fini, and Heatran been able to accomplish throughout their tenure as OU staples, sometimes or perhaps almost always within a single set?