API tools faq
paste
Advertisement
Guest User

Untitled

a guest
Nov 1st, 2012
109
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 58.73 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. [2010-09-21 12:37:46p] <~DougJustDoug> I'm more concerned about the forum
  2. [2010-09-21 12:38:23p] <~DougJustDoug> Perhaps we should just put the "competitive CAP project" on hold....
  3. [2010-09-21 12:38:40p] <~DougJustDoug> But do some fun projects that are non-competitive
  4. [2010-09-21 12:38:42p] <+Shravan> That's an option. It's not a bad one.
  5. [2010-09-21 12:38:55p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes @ Doug
  6. [2010-09-21 12:38:58p] <@Rising_Dusk> That is what I support.
  7. [2010-09-21 12:39:02p] <@Rising_Dusk> I like having fun stuff to do.
  8. [2010-09-21 12:39:05p] <+Shravan> Yeah I'm on board with that too.
  9. [2010-09-21 12:39:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> And a closed CAP forum is depressing and helps no one.
  10. [2010-09-21 12:39:25p] <+Shravan> In fact, if you want, we can open some art threads, spriting threads, etc.
  11. [2010-09-21 12:39:38p] <+Shravan> Some of the experts could offer guidance on how to sprite, for example.
  12. [2010-09-21 12:39:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> By fun project I mean something with direction.
  13. [2010-09-21 12:39:50p] <~DougJustDoug> The issue is how to make a fun project that doesn't get misinterpreted as a competitive thing, and incurs the problems I mention in my post.
  14. [2010-09-21 12:39:55p] <@Rising_Dusk> We have those sorts of threads in Smeargle's Studio.
  15. [2010-09-21 12:40:04p] <+Shravan> hmm ok
  16. [2010-09-21 12:40:14p] * tennisace (tennisace@19624EA2.C4F1546E.6C009730.IP) has joined #cap
  17. [2010-09-21 12:40:21p] * rbg (smogon@every.cave.in.kanto) Quit (Quit: rbg)
  18. [2010-09-21 12:40:22p] <@Rising_Dusk> Well, we can call it "Fun Project" haha.
  19. [2010-09-21 12:40:37p] <@Rising_Dusk> Fun Project #1 - CAP Uber
  20. [2010-09-21 12:40:47p] <+Shravan> We could try to create an unfair Uber.
  21. [2010-09-21 12:40:49p] * ChanServ sets mode: +qo tennisace tennisace
  22. [2010-09-21 12:40:58p] <~tennisace> rising dusk
  23. [2010-09-21 12:41:00p] <~tennisace> in that case
  24. [2010-09-21 12:41:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> You'd be surprised how much a blatantly obvious name like that would go toward keeping people on the same level as the rest of us.
  25. [2010-09-21 12:41:04p] <~tennisace> fun would stand for
  26. [2010-09-21 12:41:09p] <~tennisace> F IS FOR FIRE THAT BURNS DOWN THE CITY
  27. [2010-09-21 12:41:14p] <~tennisace> U IS FOR URANIUM
  28. [2010-09-21 12:41:15p] <~tennisace> BOMBS
  29. [2010-09-21 12:41:20p] <~tennisace> N IS FOR NO SURVIVORSSSSSSSSSSS
  30. [2010-09-21 12:41:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> xD
  31. [2010-09-21 12:41:36p] <@Rising_Dusk> I was thinking of turning FUN into an acronym.
  32. [2010-09-21 12:41:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> But the mental idea that a project named FUN gives you is pretty clear.
  33. [2010-09-21 12:41:51p] <@Rising_Dusk> You think it is meant for fun.
  34. [2010-09-21 12:42:34p] <+Shravan> Actually, here's an idea
  35. [2010-09-21 12:42:52p] <+Shravan> Let's set an arbitrary limit to either BST, BSR, or whatever.
  36. [2010-09-21 12:43:04p] <+Shravan> And create the most unfair and broken pokemon we can within those limits.
  37. [2010-09-21 12:43:12p] <~DougJustDoug> We could do a 'Create three starters for a fictional game" (call it 'Pokemon Purple' for the whole smogon/koffing thing) and just make the baby pokemon. To give a little competitive twist, we might tie the baby starters into an cool LC playtesting ladder or something.
  38. [2010-09-21 12:43:18p] <~DougJustDoug> But the focus would be flavor
  39. [2010-09-21 12:43:42p] <@Rising_Dusk> That could be fun too, yeah.
  40. [2010-09-21 12:43:49p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think a focus on flavor would also make it very clear.
  41. [2010-09-21 12:43:50p] <+Shravan> Yeah, that could be fun too.
  42. [2010-09-21 12:43:57p] <@Rising_Dusk> Although I think I'd have the most fun with a CAP Uber.
  43. [2010-09-21 12:44:00p] <+Shravan> What do you think of my suggestion.
  44. [2010-09-21 12:44:08p] <+Shravan> a CAP Uber that is as messed up as possible
  45. [2010-09-21 12:44:22p] <+Shravan> And the goal for playtest would be to try to KO this mon at least once on an opponent's team.
  46. [2010-09-21 12:44:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think just creating an arbitrary Uber Pokemon with no limits but a BST limit would be amazing.
  47. [2010-09-21 12:44:43p] <+Shravan> Yeah, exactly.
  48. [2010-09-21 12:44:54p] <@Rising_Dusk> And really, that wouldn't make it "broken" in Ubers by any right.
  49. [2010-09-21 12:45:00p] <+Shravan> Make it so broken that it can 6-0 every team.
  50. [2010-09-21 12:45:08p] <+Shravan> but within limits
  51. [2010-09-21 12:45:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah that sounds kind of retarded.
  52. [2010-09-21 12:45:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> Lol.
  53. [2010-09-21 12:45:13p] <~DougJustDoug> That would be a wild twist -- the goal is to break it as much as possible, with certain concrete limits.
  54. [2010-09-21 12:45:15p] <+Shravan> so it's challenging to actually create
  55. [2010-09-21 12:45:20p] <+Shravan> yes, exactly
  56. [2010-09-21 12:45:39p] <Theorymon> so like making our own Garchomp so to speak eh?
  57. [2010-09-21 12:45:41p] <Theorymon> that sounds cool
  58. [2010-09-21 12:45:42p] <@Rising_Dusk> Maybe.
  59. [2010-09-21 12:45:44p] <+Shravan> like how do you make something horribly broken but with only 600 bst or whatever? (don't answer that, just hypothetical)
  60. [2010-09-21 12:45:47p] <@Rising_Dusk> No, TMon, for UBER.
  61. [2010-09-21 12:45:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> Not for OU.
  62. [2010-09-21 12:45:53p] <Theorymon> yeah thats what I mean!
  63. [2010-09-21 12:46:01p] <~DougJustDoug> Maybe eliminate a few things, to make it a challenge.
  64. [2010-09-21 12:46:09p] <+Shravan> Right exactly.
  65. [2010-09-21 12:46:09p] <~DougJustDoug> Like 'No wonder guard'
  66. [2010-09-21 12:46:15p] <+Shravan> lol
  67. [2010-09-21 12:46:15p] <Theorymon> thats very possible, do something like base 1 attack
  68. [2010-09-21 12:46:20p] <~tennisace> no shadow tag
  69. [2010-09-21 12:46:29p] <Theorymon> and then engorge its stats from there
  70. [2010-09-21 12:46:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> Hahaha.
  71. [2010-09-21 12:46:41p] <+Shravan> Tmon, i said don't answer that :P
  72. [2010-09-21 12:46:44p] <~tennisace> stats must be from 30 <= x <= 255
  73. [2010-09-21 12:46:51p] <~tennisace> within a bst limit of 680
  74. [2010-09-21 12:46:58p] <+Shravan> yeah something along those lines.
  75. [2010-09-21 12:47:09p] <Theorymon> I say we make it 721 to one up Arceus
  76. [2010-09-21 12:47:12p] <Theorymon> !
  77. [2010-09-21 12:47:13p] <~tennisace> nah
  78. [2010-09-21 12:47:20p] <~tennisace> keep it in line with box legends
  79. [2010-09-21 12:47:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> Its stats are: 200/10/100/200/100/70
  80. [2010-09-21 12:47:26p] <@Rising_Dusk> Boom
  81. [2010-09-21 12:47:27p] <@Rising_Dusk> Lol
  82. [2010-09-21 12:47:37p] <+Shravan> lol
  83. [2010-09-21 12:47:53p] <Theorymon> that reminds me of a mon Jibaku and me were making ages ago
  84. [2010-09-21 12:48:00p] <~DougJustDoug> BST limit of 680 with no single stat over 135 or something like that
  85. [2010-09-21 12:48:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> This is Uber Doug, lol.
  86. [2010-09-21 12:48:11p] <+Shravan> Lol
  87. [2010-09-21 12:48:15p] <+Shravan> 135 is harsh :(
  88. [2010-09-21 12:48:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> 135 is "mediocre" in Ubers.
  89. [2010-09-21 12:48:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> :P
  90. [2010-09-21 12:48:21p] <Theorymon> it was a Grass / Steel type with Drought and an absurd SpD stat. its purpose was to force Kyogre to use HP Fire lol
  91. [2010-09-21 12:48:22p] <~DougJustDoug> 150?
  92. [2010-09-21 12:48:32p] <Theorymon> I would argue that 135 is NOT mediocre btw!
  93. [2010-09-21 12:48:35p] <@Rising_Dusk> 150 is 'on par' with stuff like Rayquaza.
  94. [2010-09-21 12:48:41p] <@Rising_Dusk> Well, listen to TM.
  95. [2010-09-21 12:48:42p] <@Rising_Dusk> He's the boss.
  96. [2010-09-21 12:48:43p] <@Rising_Dusk> :P
  97. [2010-09-21 12:48:46p] <+Shravan> yeah true
  98. [2010-09-21 12:50:27p] <+Shravan> So a brokenmon within limits is something you guys think would be fun to try?
  99. [2010-09-21 12:50:34p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes.
  100. [2010-09-21 12:50:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> I'd love submitting stat spreads for that.
  101. [2010-09-21 12:50:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> Haha.
  102. [2010-09-21 12:51:09p] <+Shravan> Actually, what would be awesome
  103. [2010-09-21 12:51:19p] <+Shravan> is if we play with EXACTLY the same rules as a regular CAP
  104. [2010-09-21 12:51:26p] <+Shravan> but with the intention of imbalance, not balance
  105. [2010-09-21 12:51:42p] <+Shravan> We will quickly come to know if our process has any holes and areas for improvement.
  106. [2010-09-21 12:52:10p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's kind of what I envisioned for the CAP Uber idea anyway.
  107. [2010-09-21 12:52:19p] <+Shravan> Good, good.
  108. [2010-09-21 12:52:24p] <@Rising_Dusk> 20 bucks say we create a Dragon/Fighting Pokemon.
  109. [2010-09-21 12:52:31p] <+Shravan> raise you 30
  110. [2010-09-21 12:52:32p] <+Shravan> lol
  111. [2010-09-21 12:55:00p] * rbg (smogon@every.cave.in.kanto) has joined #cap
  112. [2010-09-21 12:55:35p] <~tennisace> i'll take that bet rising_dusk and say we make a pink fluffy electric dragon specs tank
  113. [2010-09-21 12:55:37p] <~tennisace> fuck you cyclohm
  114. [2010-09-21 12:55:41p] <~tennisace> and fuck you zekrom
  115. [2010-09-21 12:55:49p] <+Shravan> lol
  116. [2010-09-21 12:56:04p] <+Shravan> "pink fluffy electric dragon specs tank"
  117. [2010-09-21 12:56:08p] <+Shravan> isn't that exactly Cyclohm?
  118. [2010-09-21 12:56:17p] <~tennisace> cyclohm isn't pink
  119. [2010-09-21 12:56:22p] <~tennisace> nor is it fluffy enough
  120. [2010-09-21 12:56:26p] <+Shravan> lol
  121. [2010-09-21 12:56:26p] <~tennisace> on the fluffy scale
  122. [2010-09-21 12:56:29p] <+Shravan> okay
  123. [2010-09-21 12:58:00p] <~DougJustDoug> We could call it "Break-A-Pokemon" and we could split the CAP community into two teams. We make two broken ubers simultaneously. Since ubers usually come in multiples anyway, like Kyogre/Groudon, Celebi/Jirachi, Mew/Mewtwo etc.
  124. [2010-09-21 12:58:00p] <~DougJustDoug> We playtest the pokemon by pitting them against each other in battle. Each creation team would appoint a set of playtest battlers, and a playtest tournament would be head-to-head against the other team.
  125. [2010-09-21 12:58:00p] <~DougJustDoug> Each team could tailor their broken pokemon based on the playstyle of the battlers that are assigned to that team. It woul dbe like custome building a car for a specific driver.
  126. [2010-09-21 12:58:00p] <~DougJustDoug> We could perhaps force one team to make a sweeper, and the other one to make a stall wall. Then see who can make the best broken pokemon.
  127. [2010-09-21 12:58:00p] <~DougJustDoug> We would have the added background implication of fighting over which battle style is superior -- which just adds to the fun.
  128. [2010-09-21 12:58:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> Omg
  129. [2010-09-21 12:58:13p] <@Rising_Dusk> TEAM BASED
  130. [2010-09-21 12:58:14p] <@Rising_Dusk> FUCK YES
  131. [2010-09-21 12:58:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> I am ON BOARD man.
  132. [2010-09-21 12:58:45p] <+Shravan> YES DOUG
  133. [2010-09-21 12:58:46p] <@Rising_Dusk> Theorymon can lead one.
  134. [2010-09-21 12:58:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> Jibaku can lead the other
  135. [2010-09-21 12:58:49p] <+Shravan> That sounds perfect
  136. [2010-09-21 12:58:53p] <Theorymon> omg that sounds fun as hell
  137. [2010-09-21 12:59:00p] <+Shravan> That sounds fantastic too, Dusk.
  138. [2010-09-21 12:59:05p] <Theorymon> hmm but there is usually a third mon...
  139. [2010-09-21 12:59:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> DUSK CAN LEAD ANOTHER
  140. [2010-09-21 12:59:15p] <@Rising_Dusk> :P
  141. [2010-09-21 12:59:20p] <+Shravan> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooo..
  142. [2010-09-21 12:59:33p] <+Shravan> j/k
  143. [2010-09-21 12:59:45p] <Theorymon> I got a weird idea though
  144. [2010-09-21 12:59:54p] <+Shravan> Doug, that idea is like everything we've talked about, but taken to a whole new level.
  145. [2010-09-21 12:59:58p] <+Shravan> I'm totally on board.
  146. [2010-09-21 01:00:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> That idea is amazing.
  147. [2010-09-21 01:00:10p] <@Rising_Dusk> I love the idea of competition built into the process.
  148. [2010-09-21 01:00:16p] <+Shravan> Hehe
  149. [2010-09-21 01:00:23p] <Theorymon> we could ban the Dragon typeing on the mon, because I think we should try and abuse types that have NEVER been abused before! or maybe not I dunno because at the same time Dragon is my faveorite typing x_x
  150. [2010-09-21 01:00:41p] <+Shravan> ^ on board with this also
  151. [2010-09-21 01:00:55p] <@Rising_Dusk> I'd be OK with it either way.
  152. [2010-09-21 01:01:05p] <@Rising_Dusk> Both would be a blast.
  153. [2010-09-21 01:01:07p] <+Shravan> cuz if one team makes a Dragon/Fighting mon
  154. [2010-09-21 01:01:18p] <+Shravan> the other could end up making Ghost/Steel @levitate with 200 SpD
  155. [2010-09-21 01:01:18p] <@Rising_Dusk> Fuck yeah Dragon/Fighting.
  156. [2010-09-21 01:01:27p] <@Rising_Dusk> Fuck yeah Ghost/Steel, rotfl.
  157. [2010-09-21 01:01:31p] <+Shravan> lol
  158. [2010-09-21 01:01:47p] <Theorymon> watch it Shravan, it could have Scrappy!
  159. [2010-09-21 01:01:59p] <+Shravan> lol but scrappy won't work with fighting moves, would it?
  160. [2010-09-21 01:02:00p] <~DougJustDoug> I think we should impose limitations. I think the idea of abusing the system should come with hurdles to get around.
  161. [2010-09-21 01:02:04p] <Theorymon> it does
  162. [2010-09-21 01:02:05p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah it does Shraven.
  163. [2010-09-21 01:02:08p] <+Shravan> oh wow
  164. [2010-09-21 01:02:12p] <+Shravan> ok then nvm lol
  165. [2010-09-21 01:02:14p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes Doug, I like that idea.
  166. [2010-09-21 01:02:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> It would also make people think.
  167. [2010-09-21 01:02:20p] <+Shravan> Yeah I agree.
  168. [2010-09-21 01:02:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> Despite it being about "Break-A-Pokemon"
  169. [2010-09-21 01:02:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> I love the acronym for that.
  170. [2010-09-21 01:02:31p] <Theorymon> I think the trickiest part would be the movepool limitations
  171. [2010-09-21 01:02:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> Guys, let's work on our BAPs.
  172. [2010-09-21 01:02:35p] <+Shravan> Also, do we split up just the management or the community as well?
  173. [2010-09-21 01:02:36p] <~DougJustDoug> Yeah, just eliminate all the "easy" ways to break a pokemon.
  174. [2010-09-21 01:02:52p] <Theorymon> yeah ban certain abilties and such
  175. [2010-09-21 01:02:54p] <+Shravan> Like if you participate for team a, you cannot vote for team b. etc.
  176. [2010-09-21 01:02:55p] <Theorymon> though I got a question
  177. [2010-09-21 01:03:17p] <Theorymon> what if we made a Pokemon that has like 900 BST but has an ability that brings it down to normal Uber levels? just a thought
  178. [2010-09-21 01:03:39p] <@Rising_Dusk> Slow Start, goooo.
  179. [2010-09-21 01:03:51p] <+Shravan> That would be complicating it too much IMO. Also could make it potentially too broken.
  180. [2010-09-21 01:04:04p] <@Rising_Dusk> 900BST, lawl.
  181. [2010-09-21 01:04:07p] <+Shravan> lol
  182. [2010-09-21 01:04:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> Just the idea makes me giggle.
  183. [2010-09-21 01:04:20p] <~DougJustDoug> To make a fair competition, I think we need clear direct limitations.
  184. [2010-09-21 01:04:29p] <+Shravan> yeah, exactly.
  185. [2010-09-21 01:04:36p] <~DougJustDoug> It actually just like the reverse of a regular CAP
  186. [2010-09-21 01:04:49p] <~tennisace> can we call it forge a pokemon
  187. [2010-09-21 01:04:59p] <~tennisace> forge as in to cast out of metal
  188. [2010-09-21 01:05:02p] <~DougJustDoug> There are somethings that just can't be done -- even when you are trying to intentially make a broken mon!
  189. [2010-09-21 01:05:04p] <@Rising_Dusk> No tennisace.
  190. [2010-09-21 01:05:07p] <@Rising_Dusk> We are not making FAPs.
  191. [2010-09-21 01:05:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> :P
  192. [2010-09-21 01:05:19p] <~tennisace> speak for yourself
  193. [2010-09-21 01:05:34p] <~tennisace> i make bronze models out of every cap
  194. [2010-09-21 01:05:39p] <~tennisace> hand cast
  195. [2010-09-21 01:05:41p] <Theorymon> I must admit though DJD, I never expected GF to have a Shadow Tag mon with set up moves lol (not saying we should do that)
  196. [2010-09-21 01:05:54p] <~tennisace> well theorymon
  197. [2010-09-21 01:06:03p] <~tennisace> NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH SHANDERAA INQUISITION
  198. [2010-09-21 01:06:14p] <Theorymon> SHANDERRA THE BEST POKEMON IN HISTORY
  199. [2010-09-21 01:06:38p] <~DougJustDoug> One cool thing about simultaneous projects that will compete head to head -- is that each team will constantly be shifting and changing to respond to what they see the other team doing.
  200. [2010-09-21 01:06:48p] <+Shravan> yes.
  201. [2010-09-21 01:06:50p] <~tennisace> AMONGST HIS WEAPONRY HE HAS FEAR, SURPRISE, A MANIACLE DEVOTION TO THE POPE, AND SHADOW TAG
  202. [2010-09-21 01:07:13p] <+Shravan> You know, Doug, depending on how this works out, it could even change the way we do CAP altogether in the future.
  203. [2010-09-21 01:07:18p] <Theorymon> heh tenis that reminds me, I need someone to draw an avatar pic of the SHADOW TAG FORCE together (that gothmon, Wobbuffet, and Shanderra)
  204. [2010-09-21 01:07:22p] <~tennisace> lol
  205. [2010-09-21 01:07:42p] <~tennisace> i hope shadow tag vs shadow tag reverts back to gen 3
  206. [2010-09-21 01:07:48p] <+Shravan> rofl
  207. [2010-09-21 01:07:53p] <~tennisace> FUCK YOU WOBB
  208. [2010-09-21 01:07:57p] <~tennisace> NO ESCAPING YOUR FATE
  209. [2010-09-21 01:09:16p] <~DougJustDoug> Way back when we were doing weather testing around CAP 3 -- I proposed a "two team CAP project". We were going to make one auto-rain poke, and one auto-sun poke at the same time by two teams. Unfortunately, weather testing shoed auto-weather was broken in OU, and the whole thing was scrapped.
  210. [2010-09-21 01:09:34p] <+Shravan> ah.
  211. [2010-09-21 01:09:47p] <~DougJustDoug> Just a little history, for you noobs....
  212. [2010-09-21 01:09:52p] <~DougJustDoug> ;-)
  213. [2010-09-21 01:09:53p] <+Shravan> Well here's our chance. :P
  214. [2010-09-21 01:11:16p] <~DougJustDoug> It's an interesting thought. I need to let it simmer a bit, and think about it for a while. But, I think it has some interesting possiblities.
  215. [2010-09-21 01:11:50p] <+Shravan> Yeah. If we can generate enough participation, then this will turn out to be good fun.
  216. [2010-09-21 01:12:05p] <+Shravan> We also need to decide if people can participate for building both sides.
  217. [2010-09-21 01:12:42p] <~DougJustDoug> Yeah, and since it is almost a total departure from normal competitive pokemon, that it could side-step most of the problems I mention in that forum thread.
  218. [2010-09-21 01:12:49p] <+Shravan> I think it makes sense to let them vote on both sides, but if we get a LOT of people on board, then maybe we can split it.
  219. [2010-09-21 01:13:18p] <@Rising_Dusk> Lol.
  220. [2010-09-21 01:13:24p] <~DougJustDoug> I kinda like the 'Us vs. Them" thing
  221. [2010-09-21 01:13:38p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think that is a healthy twist.
  222. [2010-09-21 01:14:02p] <~DougJustDoug> Basically tell everyone to choose a side. The first project you post or vote on -- that's your team for the duration. Choose carefully.
  223. [2010-09-21 01:14:38p] <+Shravan> Yeah.
  224. [2010-09-21 01:14:45p] <~DougJustDoug> Otherwise, people might "sabotage" the other side with divisive posts, or bogus votes.
  225. [2010-09-21 01:14:50p] <+Shravan> lol
  226. [2010-09-21 01:14:57p] <+Shravan> that could also turn out to be fun, though.
  227. [2010-09-21 01:15:20p] <+Shravan> Like pretend I am secretly on one side.
  228. [2010-09-21 01:15:40p] <~DougJustDoug> Oh yeah -- just look at the WCOP to see how much team loyalty affects the excitement
  229. [2010-09-21 01:15:41p] <+Shravan> I can make fantastic sounding arguments on the other side to try to guide it astray
  230. [2010-09-21 01:15:54p] <+Shravan> what WCOP?
  231. [2010-09-21 01:15:57p] <+Shravan> what's*
  232. [2010-09-21 01:16:03p] <~DougJustDoug> World Cup of Pokemon
  233. [2010-09-21 01:16:42p] <+Shravan> ah. is that a smogon thing?
  234. [2010-09-21 01:16:53p] <+Shravan> (nub question, don't torch me)
  235. [2010-09-21 01:17:30p] <~DougJustDoug> http://www.smogon.com/tournaments/worldcup/
  236. [2010-09-21 01:17:53p] <~DougJustDoug> Same thing with SPL, regarding teams and loyalty and all that
  237. [2010-09-21 01:18:00p] <~DougJustDoug> "Smogon Premier League"
  238. [2010-09-21 01:18:21p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah.
  239. [2010-09-21 01:18:26p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think you should pick a side.
  240. [2010-09-21 01:18:43p] <+Shravan> Okay, sounds good.
  241. [2010-09-21 01:18:58p] <@Rising_Dusk> How I would do it is have 2 subforums of CAP.
  242. [2010-09-21 01:19:03p] <+Shravan> But does picking a side allow for espionage and sabotage missions?
  243. [2010-09-21 01:19:04p] <@Rising_Dusk> And you have access to both of them.
  244. [2010-09-21 01:19:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> I hope not.
  245. [2010-09-21 01:19:14p] <+Shravan> Darn
  246. [2010-09-21 01:19:15p] <@Rising_Dusk> Espionage maybe.
  247. [2010-09-21 01:19:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> Not sabotage.
  248. [2010-09-21 01:19:24p] <+Shravan> Well sabotage in the sense that
  249. [2010-09-21 01:19:26p] <@Rising_Dusk> I don't mind people KNOWING what the other team is doing.
  250. [2010-09-21 01:19:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> I encourage it actually.
  251. [2010-09-21 01:19:34p] <+Shravan> If you're very good at making arguments.
  252. [2010-09-21 01:19:37p] <@Rising_Dusk> Because that way you adjust your own strategy.
  253. [2010-09-21 01:19:39p] <@Rising_Dusk> No that is bad.
  254. [2010-09-21 01:19:47p] <@Rising_Dusk> I don't want people leading the other team astray.
  255. [2010-09-21 01:19:50p] <@Rising_Dusk> Or trying to.
  256. [2010-09-21 01:19:53p] <+Shravan> Lol okay.
  257. [2010-09-21 01:20:04p] <+Shravan> Actually espionage isn't hard
  258. [2010-09-21 01:20:09p] <+Shravan> just sign out and look at the other forum
  259. [2010-09-21 01:20:21p] <@Rising_Dusk> Nono, I'd want both forums visible to all participating people.
  260. [2010-09-21 01:20:22p] * PenguinX (~quackPeng@synIRC-DE2F953E.range86-176.btcentralplus.com) has joined #cap
  261. [2010-09-21 01:20:27p] <@Rising_Dusk> So you could always view the other side's work.
  262. [2010-09-21 01:20:29p] <+Shravan> But you cannot post to both.
  263. [2010-09-21 01:20:30p] <@Rising_Dusk> But you couldn't post in it.
  264. [2010-09-21 01:20:39p] <@Rising_Dusk> Right, you can only post and vote in one.
  265. [2010-09-21 01:20:40p] <+Shravan> sounds like a plan.
  266. [2010-09-21 01:20:55p] <~DougJustDoug> Yeah, total visibility, but you can't materially participate on the opposing side
  267. [2010-09-21 01:20:56p] <+Shravan> What about flavor choices?
  268. [2010-09-21 01:21:02p] <+Shravan> do we vorce artists to pick a side?
  269. [2010-09-21 01:21:18p] <~DougJustDoug> And you choose a side by simply participating.
  270. [2010-09-21 01:21:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes Doug.
  271. [2010-09-21 01:21:29p] <+Shravan> mmhmm.
  272. [2010-09-21 01:21:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> Once you participate, you lock yourself in.
  273. [2010-09-21 01:21:36p] <~DougJustDoug> Yeah, artists need to choose too.
  274. [2010-09-21 01:21:39p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think artists should choose a side too!
  275. [2010-09-21 01:21:42p] * %JibaNOTHERE (Mibbit@power.to.the.people) Quit (Quit: http://www.mibbit.com ajax IRC Client)
  276. [2010-09-21 01:21:46p] <@Rising_Dusk> They pick which one they want to work for.
  277. [2010-09-21 01:21:47p] <+Shravan> We also need to have some sort of balance
  278. [2010-09-21 01:21:58p] <@Rising_Dusk> So that means competitively you want to make your thing "awesome enough" to lure the artists.
  279. [2010-09-21 01:22:06p] <~DougJustDoug> We have enough artists and spriters to easily produce two good pokes
  280. [2010-09-21 01:22:06p] <@Rising_Dusk> So there's strategy involved in that too.
  281. [2010-09-21 01:22:06p] <+Shravan> right.
  282. [2010-09-21 01:22:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah.
  283. [2010-09-21 01:22:22p] <@Rising_Dusk> And I think the competition would make it more exciting for artists as well.
  284. [2010-09-21 01:22:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> Look how successful those monthly art contests are in SS>
  285. [2010-09-21 01:22:36p] <@Rising_Dusk> There are tons of excellent entries.
  286. [2010-09-21 01:22:56p] <+Shravan> The experienced member shsould also be spread evenly.
  287. [2010-09-21 01:23:07p] <+Shravan> should*
  288. [2010-09-21 01:23:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's up to the members.
  289. [2010-09-21 01:23:34p] <@Rising_Dusk> We shouldn't force users to any one side.
  290. [2010-09-21 01:23:37p] <@Rising_Dusk> But totally let them choose.
  291. [2010-09-21 01:23:39p] <+Shravan> well, we don't want Miami Heat vs. the Clippers, basically.
  292. [2010-09-21 01:23:52p] <@Rising_Dusk> That makes it up to the team leaders to make your Pokemon attractive.
  293. [2010-09-21 01:24:01p] <@Rising_Dusk> Also, I think some people enjoy stiff competition.
  294. [2010-09-21 01:24:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> I know I'd probably pick the underdog side for who to support.
  295. [2010-09-21 01:24:13p] <+Shravan> well, what i mean is that at the start, both pokes are nonexistant.
  296. [2010-09-21 01:24:22p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes, but both leaders have VISIONS.
  297. [2010-09-21 01:24:38p] <@Rising_Dusk> And they present the visions and then start going to town.
  298. [2010-09-21 01:24:48p] <+Shravan> ah okay
  299. [2010-09-21 01:25:00p] <~DougJustDoug> Perhaps we choose the typing as a whole community, essentially to ensure that neither side has to "go first" hen picking typing, and to ensure we get flavorful "pair types" consistent with ingame opposites or pairs.
  300. [2010-09-21 01:25:16p] <+Shravan> because I was thinking that if you, deck, reach, cyzir, capefeather, and say firecape join one side before anything is decided, then it would certainly imbalance some of the project.
  301. [2010-09-21 01:25:16p] <@Rising_Dusk> Oh true.
  302. [2010-09-21 01:25:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's actually a pretty good idea.
  303. [2010-09-21 01:25:33p] <+Shravan> That's also a good idea.
  304. [2010-09-21 01:26:01p] <@Rising_Dusk> Most of the "opposites" in Pokemon are actually trios.
  305. [2010-09-21 01:26:02p] <~DougJustDoug> That also will give people a better idea of what team they prefer when shoosing sides.
  306. [2010-09-21 01:26:06p] <+firecape> hmmm?
  307. [2010-09-21 01:26:11p] <~DougJustDoug> *choosing
  308. [2010-09-21 01:26:13p] <@Rising_Dusk> firecape, we're discussing a CAP Uber.
  309. [2010-09-21 01:26:17p] <+firecape> oh
  310. [2010-09-21 01:26:18p] <@Rising_Dusk> And making it a competition.
  311. [2010-09-21 01:26:21p] <+firecape> cool
  312. [2010-09-21 01:26:23p] <+Shravan> The other thing we could do is
  313. [2010-09-21 01:26:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes Doug.
  314. [2010-09-21 01:26:30p] <+firecape> I just got home from school so I'll read up
  315. [2010-09-21 01:26:35p] <+Shravan> Make it open game for all to participate until typing is decided
  316. [2010-09-21 01:26:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> Do you like the idea of 2 Pokemon or 3?
  317. [2010-09-21 01:26:42p] <+Shravan> Beyond that point, we lock down teams.
  318. [2010-09-21 01:26:45p] <@Rising_Dusk> Most of these things are actually trios in the game.
  319. [2010-09-21 01:26:58p] <@Rising_Dusk> Like for instance, Rayquaza is the third leg of the Kyogre/Groudon crowd.
  320. [2010-09-21 01:26:58p] <+Shravan> I prefer two. Three would not be competitive.
  321. [2010-09-21 01:27:13p] <@Rising_Dusk> I don't mind either way, just presenting the idea.
  322. [2010-09-21 01:27:16p] <+Shravan> Trios ingame generally counter each other.
  323. [2010-09-21 01:27:17p] <~DougJustDoug> Three teams is too ambitious.
  324. [2010-09-21 01:27:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> 3 Pokemon might spread the crowd too thin.
  325. [2010-09-21 01:27:23p] * Theorymon is now known as afkmon
  326. [2010-09-21 01:27:23p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's my concern.
  327. [2010-09-21 01:27:25p] <+Shravan> Yes
  328. [2010-09-21 01:27:56p] <+Shravan> What do you think of keeping everything open game until typing is decided. After that, we can lock down the teams.
  329. [2010-09-21 01:28:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's what Doug suggested. I like it.
  330. [2010-09-21 01:28:19p] <+Shravan> Oh okay. Yeah.
  331. [2010-09-21 01:28:26p] <+Shravan> That way, even the concepts can be decided in pairs
  332. [2010-09-21 01:28:42p] <@Rising_Dusk> Do we even care about concepts?
  333. [2010-09-21 01:28:45p] <@Rising_Dusk> I would say not.
  334. [2010-09-21 01:28:47p] <+Shravan> "Ultimate Wall Breaker" and "Ultimate Wall"
  335. [2010-09-21 01:28:55p] <@Rising_Dusk> Just decide typings and then let people "break a pokemon
  336. [2010-09-21 01:28:55p] <+firecape> ok, so in summary, we are discussing making 2 "teams" to see who can make the better CAP uber (am I on the same page?)
  337. [2010-09-21 01:28:56p] <@Rising_Dusk> "*
  338. [2010-09-21 01:28:59p] <+Shravan> well at least a vague direction is needed, is it not?
  339. [2010-09-21 01:29:10p] <+Shravan> Yes, firecape.
  340. [2010-09-21 01:29:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> I'm pretty sure most Ubers are created without much direction in mind.
  341. [2010-09-21 01:29:30p] <+Shravan> Also, we will operate within the limits of the CAP process and set other limits.
  342. [2010-09-21 01:29:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> Or at least they appear that way to me.
  343. [2010-09-21 01:29:35p] <@Rising_Dusk> I can't say for sure.
  344. [2010-09-21 01:29:42p] <+Shravan> You're likely correct. lol
  345. [2010-09-21 01:29:43p] <@Rising_Dusk> They're so versatile and can do so much.
  346. [2010-09-21 01:29:53p] <@Rising_Dusk> It's tough to say they fill any one concept besides "Uber"
  347. [2010-09-21 01:29:57p] <+Shravan> But here, we want to compete with the ubers
  348. [2010-09-21 01:29:59p] <+firecape> I think its very important to make sure the community knows the difference between an Uber Pokemon and a pure "brokemon"
  349. [2010-09-21 01:30:12p] <+Shravan> not just make 8 year old boys jump for joy.
  350. [2010-09-21 01:30:18p] <~DougJustDoug> Two pokes, clear opposition, analogy to battling head-to-head, and there's plenty of ingame precedent to duality. This is a Team Aqua/Team Magma sort of thing. If we want to make our "Rayquaza" later -- thats a whole nother discussion.
  351. [2010-09-21 01:30:31p] <+Shravan> Yeah.
  352. [2010-09-21 01:30:34p] <@Rising_Dusk> Ahaha, we should totally make our RayQ later.
  353. [2010-09-21 01:30:45p] <@Rising_Dusk> That would be an awesome project for the aftermath.
  354. [2010-09-21 01:30:46p] <@Rising_Dusk> But anyway.
  355. [2010-09-21 01:30:56p] <+Shravan> RayQ = "Oh yeah, well F*** you both!"
  356. [2010-09-21 01:31:08p] <+firecape> well "rayquaza" doesn't always beat the trio :P
  357. [2010-09-21 01:31:12p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah, ofc.
  358. [2010-09-21 01:31:13p] <+firecape> or the dou
  359. [2010-09-21 01:31:14p] <+firecape> I should say
  360. [2010-09-21 01:31:19p] <+firecape> err
  361. [2010-09-21 01:31:21p] <+firecape> duo
  362. [2010-09-21 01:31:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> Anyway.
  363. [2010-09-21 01:31:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> We'll stick to duality.
  364. [2010-09-21 01:31:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> And we should try to make them opposites in typing.
  365. [2010-09-21 01:31:50p] <@Rising_Dusk> Doug, what do you think about having no concept?
  366. [2010-09-21 01:31:56p] <@Rising_Dusk> And just making something amazing within the typing and limits?
  367. [2010-09-21 01:31:57p] <~DougJustDoug> And I think the basic premise should be Offense vs. Defense
  368. [2010-09-21 01:32:12p] <+Shravan> Yeah, I agree with that.
  369. [2010-09-21 01:32:15p] <@Rising_Dusk> ffff stall.
  370. [2010-09-21 01:32:20p] <+firecape> :D
  371. [2010-09-21 01:32:29p] <~DougJustDoug> But beyond that basic premise, the concept can be whatever
  372. [2010-09-21 01:33:01p] <+firecape> hehe Mewtwo's offensive stats swapped for defense with the Speed the same
  373. [2010-09-21 01:33:01p] <+firecape> :D
  374. [2010-09-21 01:33:02p] <@Rising_Dusk> Okay, that's fine.
  375. [2010-09-21 01:33:06p] <@Rising_Dusk> Well, I want to be on the offensive team.
  376. [2010-09-21 01:33:13p] <@Rising_Dusk> Idc who's leading it or who I'm working with.
  377. [2010-09-21 01:33:18p] <+firecape> I'm on the defensive probably
  378. [2010-09-21 01:33:18p] * afkmon is now known as Theorymon
  379. [2010-09-21 01:33:24p] <~DougJustDoug> And, as you know, Offense and Defense does not necessarily mean "Fast Sweeper" and "Slow Wall".
  380. [2010-09-21 01:33:29p] <+Shravan> I am not sure where I am yet.
  381. [2010-09-21 01:33:31p] <Theorymon> I sorta want to do an auto Trick Room mon
  382. [2010-09-21 01:33:36p] <+firecape> Theorymon
  383. [2010-09-21 01:33:52p] <Theorymon> auto trick room as in if you switch it in again, Trick Room goes away
  384. [2010-09-21 01:33:53p] <+firecape> its going to be 2 "teams", where one makes an offensive uber and one makes defensive
  385. [2010-09-21 01:34:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> But Auto-TR could work for either, really.
  386. [2010-09-21 01:34:16p] <Theorymon> yeah I know! if you think about it, auto Trick Room is sorta fast sweeper
  387. [2010-09-21 01:34:24p] <Theorymon> in a weird way
  388. [2010-09-21 01:34:27p] <+firecape> auto TR would be cool
  389. [2010-09-21 01:34:37p] <@Rising_Dusk> Anyway, let's avoid the ideas for now.
  390. [2010-09-21 01:34:39p] <Theorymon> k
  391. [2010-09-21 01:34:40p] <+Shravan> yeah
  392. [2010-09-21 01:34:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> We need to focus on the process.
  393. [2010-09-21 01:34:45p] <+firecape> it can forget about the speed and invest that 670+ bst into attacking stats
  394. [2010-09-21 01:34:46p] <+Shravan> I think we have the general idea down.
  395. [2010-09-21 01:34:46p] <+firecape> :P
  396. [2010-09-21 01:34:54p] <+firecape> but yeah
  397. [2010-09-21 01:34:59p] * midou (~midou@synIRC-D43F92A3.socal.res.rr.com) has joined #cap
  398. [2010-09-21 01:35:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> Do you want a serious writeup proposal for this, Doug?
  399. [2010-09-21 01:35:07p] <Theorymon> fuck I have to go again, guys can one of you PM me a log of this later? I certainly want to be involved but I have to go for a short trip
  400. [2010-09-21 01:35:13p] <@Rising_Dusk> Sure.
  401. [2010-09-21 01:35:20p] * Theorymon is now known as afkmon
  402. [2010-09-21 01:35:22p] <+firecape> I'm auto saving logs
  403. [2010-09-21 01:35:23p] <+firecape> so I can
  404. [2010-09-21 01:35:26p] <afkmon> thanks
  405. [2010-09-21 01:35:30p] <afkmon> bye for now
  406. [2010-09-21 01:35:34p] <@Rising_Dusk> Ciao.
  407. [2010-09-21 01:35:34p] <+firecape> there's also the question "do we want to follow gamefreak"
  408. [2010-09-21 01:35:47p] <~tennisace> i'll brb guys
  409. [2010-09-21 01:35:50p] <+firecape> 670 bst mons have a certain limit (min-max) of their stats
  410. [2010-09-21 01:35:53p] * ~tennisace (tennisace@stay.thirsty.my.friends) Quit (Quit: )
  411. [2010-09-21 01:35:56p] <+firecape> are we going to adhere to that
  412. [2010-09-21 01:36:04p] <@Rising_Dusk> I'd pick 680.
  413. [2010-09-21 01:36:11p] <+firecape> not what I mean
  414. [2010-09-21 01:36:13p] <@Rising_Dusk> There's more precedent for 680s.
  415. [2010-09-21 01:36:24p] <@Rising_Dusk> And yes, we discussed that too.
  416. [2010-09-21 01:36:28p] <@Rising_Dusk> Having a min/max for stats.
  417. [2010-09-21 01:36:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> And working inside that range somewhere.
  418. [2010-09-21 01:36:34p] <+firecape> I mean 154 is usually the maximum for a stat and 90 is the min
  419. [2010-09-21 01:36:38p] <+firecape> oh
  420. [2010-09-21 01:36:55p] <@Rising_Dusk> 154 such an ugly number.
  421. [2010-09-21 01:36:58p] <+firecape> true
  422. [2010-09-21 01:37:03p] <+firecape> I would probably just use 150 :P
  423. [2010-09-21 01:37:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah
  424. [2010-09-21 01:37:53p] <@Rising_Dusk> I'd generate a list of abilities we're banning too.
  425. [2010-09-21 01:37:59p] <@Rising_Dusk> Like no Wonder Guard, lol.
  426. [2010-09-21 01:38:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> Etc.
  427. [2010-09-21 01:38:03p] <+firecape> hehe 120/90/120/90/120/130 mon with Mewtwo's movepool
  428. [2010-09-21 01:38:06p] <+firecape> my dream
  429. [2010-09-21 01:38:08p] <~DougJustDoug> What could the team names be?
  430. [2010-09-21 01:38:11p] <+firecape> but I digress
  431. [2010-09-21 01:38:15p] <~DougJustDoug> Team Sword vs Team Shield?
  432. [2010-09-21 01:38:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> We should fix the team names in advance.
  433. [2010-09-21 01:38:25p] <~DougJustDoug> Team Irresistible vs Team Immovable?
  434. [2010-09-21 01:38:25p] <~DougJustDoug> I kinda like that one.
  435. [2010-09-21 01:38:28p] <@Rising_Dusk> I like that, actually.
  436. [2010-09-21 01:38:34p] <+firecape> Well R_D, like I said, we need to make it clear we are making an "uber" not "brokemon"
  437. [2010-09-21 01:38:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> What is that proverb?
  438. [2010-09-21 01:38:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> When an unwavering force meets an immovable wall?
  439. [2010-09-21 01:38:56p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes firecape, of course.
  440. [2010-09-21 01:39:00p] <~DougJustDoug> Irresistible Force Meets Immovable Object
  441. [2010-09-21 01:39:08p] <+firecape> unstopable force I think
  442. [2010-09-21 01:39:20p] <~DougJustDoug> Sword and Shield are nice and simple
  443. [2010-09-21 01:39:21p] <@Rising_Dusk> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_force_paradox
  444. [2010-09-21 01:39:23p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes you are right.
  445. [2010-09-21 01:40:04p] <+firecape> also, will we allow new abilities and moves on the Pokemon?
  446. [2010-09-21 01:40:09p] <+firecape> "new" as in b/w
  447. [2010-09-21 01:40:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> No.
  448. [2010-09-21 01:40:22p] <~DougJustDoug> Ugh...
  449. [2010-09-21 01:40:35p] <+Shravan> No
  450. [2010-09-21 01:40:36p] <~DougJustDoug> That's exactly the thing I really hope doesn't happen
  451. [2010-09-21 01:40:38p] <+Shravan> No custom ANYTHING
  452. [2010-09-21 01:40:42p] <+firecape> I didn't mean custom
  453. [2010-09-21 01:40:45p] <+Shravan> we need to set this rule immediately.
  454. [2010-09-21 01:40:45p] <+firecape> I meant b/w stuff
  455. [2010-09-21 01:40:48p] <+Shravan> Oh.
  456. [2010-09-21 01:40:49p] <@Rising_Dusk> firecape, no.
  457. [2010-09-21 01:40:50p] <~DougJustDoug> That's exactly the thing I really hope doesn't happen
  458. [2010-09-21 01:40:52p] <+Shravan> No on that too.
  459. [2010-09-21 01:40:58p] <+firecape> hmmm
  460. [2010-09-21 01:41:03p] <@Rising_Dusk> We are trying VERY HARD to avoid the "BUT I WANNA USE 5TH GEN MOVE WAAAH" stuff.
  461. [2010-09-21 01:41:09p] <+firecape> ok
  462. [2010-09-21 01:41:42p] <+firecape> that brings another question: Are we going to assume gen4 mechanics for existing moves/abilities? (I would think so...)
  463. [2010-09-21 01:41:49p] <~DougJustDoug> I was really hoping the "brokemon" concept pushes us completely outside the realm of what is happening in normal competitive pokemon
  464. [2010-09-21 01:41:52p] * Hypothesismon (~Theorymon@synIRC-197B6946.syrcny.east.verizon.net) has joined #cap
  465. [2010-09-21 01:41:54p] <@Rising_Dusk> ...Yes, of course.
  466. [2010-09-21 01:42:02p] <@Rising_Dusk> Everything is Gen IV, firecape..
  467. [2010-09-21 01:42:04p] <+firecape> ok just making sure :P
  468. [2010-09-21 01:42:20p] <+Shravan> Actually, firecape
  469. [2010-09-21 01:42:21p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think it will, Doug.
  470. [2010-09-21 01:42:25p] <+Shravan> We are okay with creating a brokenmon
  471. [2010-09-21 01:42:28p] <@Rising_Dusk> Although there will clearly be a few dissenters.
  472. [2010-09-21 01:42:34p] <~DougJustDoug> We literally will build a pokemon to beat the other side, and we do whatever we have to do to get there within the preset limitations.
  473. [2010-09-21 01:42:36p] <+Shravan> we want to make it as broken as possible within limits
  474. [2010-09-21 01:42:37p] <@Rising_Dusk> But I think the overwhelming majority will support 'broken mon'.
  475. [2010-09-21 01:42:41p] <+firecape> well
  476. [2010-09-21 01:42:45p] <+Shravan> If necessary, we can set tighter limits than 680 bst.
  477. [2010-09-21 01:42:45p] <~DougJustDoug> We are not making a pokemon for the uber metagame or anything like that
  478. [2010-09-21 01:42:53p] <+firecape> oh
  479. [2010-09-21 01:43:15p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yeah that is an important distinction.
  480. [2010-09-21 01:43:20p] <@Rising_Dusk> We're breaking the mons as much as we humanly can.
  481. [2010-09-21 01:43:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> To beat the other team.
  482. [2010-09-21 01:43:26p] <+Shravan> Yeah
  483. [2010-09-21 01:43:29p] <+Shravan> exactly
  484. [2010-09-21 01:43:43p] <+Shravan> I think it would also be more interesting if we limit the BST close to 600
  485. [2010-09-21 01:43:54p] <+Shravan> that way, it can remain broken but in relation to the OU mons.
  486. [2010-09-21 01:44:00p] <~DougJustDoug> We are intentionally separating from the normal competitive pokemon continuum, but we are still... competing... with pokemon... see whut I mean?
  487. [2010-09-21 01:44:02p] <@Rising_Dusk> I think if we do that, it'll appear too set for OU.
  488. [2010-09-21 01:44:06p] <+firecape> I would also like to impose a minimum limit and maximum limit of stats too
  489. [2010-09-21 01:44:14p] <@Rising_Dusk> I would very much prefer a higher BST limit.
  490. [2010-09-21 01:44:16p] <+firecape> so people can put like 1 Speed on an auto-TR mon, ect
  491. [2010-09-21 01:44:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> Just to set it apart from other OU pokemon.
  492. [2010-09-21 01:44:22p] <+Shravan> Hmm.
  493. [2010-09-21 01:44:24p] <+Shravan> I see
  494. [2010-09-21 01:44:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> So people don't feel like we're making an OU mon.
  495. [2010-09-21 01:44:27p] <+Shravan> Okay.
  496. [2010-09-21 01:44:29p] * afkmon (~Theorymon@wynaut.have.a.Wobbuffet.vhost) Quit (Ping timeout)
  497. [2010-09-21 01:44:29p] <+Shravan> Fair enough
  498. [2010-09-21 01:44:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> Despite that we are... Just breaking it.
  499. [2010-09-21 01:44:34p] <+Shravan> Also
  500. [2010-09-21 01:44:52p] <+Shravan> Should we allow CAPs to be included in this metagame?
  501. [2010-09-21 01:45:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> Of course not.
  502. [2010-09-21 01:45:06p] <@Rising_Dusk> No project ever involves the other projects.
  503. [2010-09-21 01:45:07p] <+Shravan> hmm ok
  504. [2010-09-21 01:45:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> I also strongly want to recommend that we allow signature moves and custom abilities for flavor reasons.
  505. [2010-09-21 01:45:40p] <+firecape> I would limit the "signature moves" though
  506. [2010-09-21 01:45:42p] <+Shravan> Then we need to set limits on what those can be.
  507. [2010-09-21 01:45:42p] <+firecape> like 1
  508. [2010-09-21 01:45:45p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes, only 1.
  509. [2010-09-21 01:45:47p] <@Rising_Dusk> I am OK with that.
  510. [2010-09-21 01:45:52p] <~DougJustDoug> Yeah, in fact, I think we probably should refrain from using the term "uber" to describe this
  511. [2010-09-21 01:45:52p] <@Rising_Dusk> But the allowance for them being created is important.
  512. [2010-09-21 01:45:53p] <+Shravan> Either one signature ability or one signature move
  513. [2010-09-21 01:45:53p] <@Rising_Dusk> Heck.
  514. [2010-09-21 01:45:58p] <@Rising_Dusk> You should be REQUIRED to make a signature move.
  515. [2010-09-21 01:46:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> Fuck yeah.
  516. [2010-09-21 01:46:03p] <+Shravan> lol
  517. [2010-09-21 01:46:09p] <+Shravan> ability or move. pick one
  518. [2010-09-21 01:46:10p] <+Shravan> not both.
  519. [2010-09-21 01:46:16p] <+firecape> well
  520. [2010-09-21 01:46:23p] <+Shravan> i mean each team can decide
  521. [2010-09-21 01:46:25p] <~DougJustDoug> Move, yes. Ability no.
  522. [2010-09-21 01:46:34p] <+firecape> obviously there should be limitations on this signature move
  523. [2010-09-21 01:46:36p] <+Shravan> lol move it is then
  524. [2010-09-21 01:46:41p] <+Shravan> yeah
  525. [2010-09-21 01:46:47p] <~DougJustDoug> Moves can be stipulated with limitations
  526. [2010-09-21 01:46:50p] <+firecape> like no auto three spikes for defense
  527. [2010-09-21 01:46:53p] <+firecape> ect
  528. [2010-09-21 01:46:54p] <+Shravan> 200 bp dragon move with 100% sleep chance should not be used.
  529. [2010-09-21 01:46:58p] <~DougJustDoug> Like, no new game mechanics
  530. [2010-09-21 01:47:01p] <+firecape> yeah that's what I mean
  531. [2010-09-21 01:47:14p] <+Shravan> and lvl 2 priority
  532. [2010-09-21 01:47:14p] <+Shravan> lol
  533. [2010-09-21 01:47:16p] <@Rising_Dusk> It would be cool to have the opposites be:
  534. [2010-09-21 01:47:20p] <@Rising_Dusk> Auto-Gravity
  535. [2010-09-21 01:47:21p] <@Rising_Dusk> And Auto-TR
  536. [2010-09-21 01:47:22p] <+firecape> the thing about this is will 'counterteaming' be allowed
  537. [2010-09-21 01:47:31p] <+Shravan> that would the AMAZING, R_D
  538. [2010-09-21 01:47:38p] <+Shravan> they're both equally broken
  539. [2010-09-21 01:47:48p] <~DougJustDoug> If the abilities were predetermined, and offsetting -- that might be workable.
  540. [2010-09-21 01:47:49p] <@Rising_Dusk> And they would cancel each other out, like weather.
  541. [2010-09-21 01:47:56p] <@Rising_Dusk> So you'd really be competing.
  542. [2010-09-21 01:47:58p] <+firecape> like if the opponent chosen Dragon/Fire is the defensive side allowed to use Steel levitate with Flash Fire
  543. [2010-09-21 01:47:59p] <+Shravan> but then the problem is that they would end up building the teams for each other.
  544. [2010-09-21 01:48:07p] <@Rising_Dusk> of course they would, Shraven.
  545. [2010-09-21 01:48:10p] <@Rising_Dusk> We want that!
  546. [2010-09-21 01:48:15p] <~DougJustDoug> Auto-Gravity, auto-trick room is pretty cool
  547. [2010-09-21 01:48:28p] <+firecape> I think we should have custom abilities, but yes predetermined
  548. [2010-09-21 01:48:28p] <+Shravan> well what i mean is that
  549. [2010-09-21 01:48:34p] <+Shravan> if you make auto-grav and auto-tr
  550. [2010-09-21 01:48:46p] <+firecape> like major teamsupporting abilities
  551. [2010-09-21 01:48:49p] <+Shravan> we'd give the auto-tr mon a bunch of moves like blizzard and focus blast
  552. [2010-09-21 01:48:53p] <@Rising_Dusk> Man that would be so boss.
  553. [2010-09-21 01:49:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> Auto TR and Auto Gravity.
  554. [2010-09-21 01:49:04p] <+Shravan> while we'd make the auto-gravity mon unnaturally slow
  555. [2010-09-21 01:49:24p] <+Shravan> so that it could abuse the enemy's TR
  556. [2010-09-21 01:49:28p] <+firecape> what I'm confused, I thought the purpose of these 2 Pokemon was 1 countering the other?
  557. [2010-09-21 01:49:34p] <+firecape> or both trying to counter each other
  558. [2010-09-21 01:49:37p] <+Shravan> yeah it is.
  559. [2010-09-21 01:49:38p] <@Rising_Dusk> They're "opposites"
  560. [2010-09-21 01:49:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> Whatever that means.
  561. [2010-09-21 01:49:52p] <@Rising_Dusk> The design is that they are opposites and you're trying to beat the other.
  562. [2010-09-21 01:49:52p] <+Shravan> offense vs. defense
  563. [2010-09-21 01:49:54p] <@Rising_Dusk> Within the limitations.
  564. [2010-09-21 01:49:56p] <+firecape> so why would auto TR mon benifit fro gravity a ton :|
  565. [2010-09-21 01:50:00p] <+firecape> from*
  566. [2010-09-21 01:50:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> It wouldn't necessarily.
  567. [2010-09-21 01:50:12p] <+Shravan> it wouldn't
  568. [2010-09-21 01:50:15p] <@Rising_Dusk> That might not be the best way to beat it.
  569. [2010-09-21 01:50:16p] <+Shravan> but you would make sure it does
  570. [2010-09-21 01:50:18p] <+Shravan> you know what i mean?
  571. [2010-09-21 01:50:31p] <%reachzero> which abilities are "too easy", do you guys think?
  572. [2010-09-21 01:50:33p] <+Shravan> "oh, the opponent is auto tr? well let's make our have 10 base speed!"
  573. [2010-09-21 01:50:38p] <@Rising_Dusk> Wonder Guard, reach, lol.
  574. [2010-09-21 01:50:44p] <@Rising_Dusk> I like the idea of fixing abilities more, though.
  575. [2010-09-21 01:50:53p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes Shraven.
  576. [2010-09-21 01:50:57p] <@Rising_Dusk> But let's say you didn't have TR out.
  577. [2010-09-21 01:50:57p] <%reachzero> obviously Wonder Guard, Magic Guard, Adaptability, Speed Boost
  578. [2010-09-21 01:51:00p] <@Rising_Dusk> Now your mon is very weak.
  579. [2010-09-21 01:51:03p] <@Rising_Dusk> And slow.
  580. [2010-09-21 01:51:06p] <@Rising_Dusk> You want to consider that.
  581. [2010-09-21 01:51:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> And it would actually be strategically silly to plan for the opponent's condition.
  582. [2010-09-21 01:51:20p] <@Rising_Dusk> When you impose your own.
  583. [2010-09-21 01:51:27p] <+firecape> well Magic Guard isn't "too broken" on the defensive mon
  584. [2010-09-21 01:51:33p] <+firecape> but I would say it is on the offensive one
  585. [2010-09-21 01:51:52p] <+Shravan> actually, Dusk
  586. [2010-09-21 01:51:55p] <+Shravan> i just realized
  587. [2010-09-21 01:52:05p] <+Shravan> auto-tr and auto-gravity auto-cancel!
  588. [2010-09-21 01:52:14p] <+Shravan> meaning, if auto tr mon switched in twice
  589. [2010-09-21 01:52:21p] <+Shravan> the second switch in would kill its own tr
  590. [2010-09-21 01:52:22p] <+Shravan> lol
  591. [2010-09-21 01:52:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes.
  592. [2010-09-21 01:52:34p] <+Shravan> same with gravity, right?
  593. [2010-09-21 01:52:41p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes.
  594. [2010-09-21 01:52:48p] <@Rising_Dusk> I also think it is important for the Auto-TR and Auto-Grav to cancel each other.
  595. [2010-09-21 01:52:50p] <+Shravan> hmm that makes it more interesting, then.
  596. [2010-09-21 01:52:59p] <@Rising_Dusk> So if Auto-TR switches into Auto-Grav, the Gravity effect ends.
  597. [2010-09-21 01:53:08p] <+Shravan> okay that's fair.
  598. [2010-09-21 01:53:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> And vice versa.
  599. [2010-09-21 01:53:20p] <+firecape> well, is this auto-TR and auto-grav a hypothetical, or are we considering using these?
  600. [2010-09-21 01:53:26p] <+Shravan> either way. let's see how this plays out. That is an interesting idea for sure though.
  601. [2010-09-21 01:53:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> I am seriously proposing we use these.
  602. [2010-09-21 01:53:32p] <+firecape> well
  603. [2010-09-21 01:53:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> Like, dead serious.
  604. [2010-09-21 01:53:33p] <+Shravan> no it's just hypothetical for now
  605. [2010-09-21 01:53:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> And we could theme the teams around them too.
  606. [2010-09-21 01:53:41p] <+firecape> how would defense benefit at all from these really :|
  607. [2010-09-21 01:53:42p] <+Shravan> Yeah I don't mind those.
  608. [2010-09-21 01:53:47p] <@Rising_Dusk> Uhhh
  609. [2010-09-21 01:53:47p] <+firecape> besides Spikes hitting flying mons I guess...
  610. [2010-09-21 01:53:50p] <@Rising_Dusk> Gravity + Hypnosis???
  611. [2010-09-21 01:53:54p] <+Shravan> Defense benefits from gravity.
  612. [2010-09-21 01:53:54p] <@Rising_Dusk> Etc.
  613. [2010-09-21 01:53:55p] <+Shravan> a lot
  614. [2010-09-21 01:53:57p] <+firecape> -_--
  615. [2010-09-21 01:53:57p] <@Rising_Dusk> There are a ton of options.
  616. [2010-09-21 01:54:07p] <+Shravan> spikes
  617. [2010-09-21 01:54:07p] <@Rising_Dusk> And Tr also benefits defense too.
  618. [2010-09-21 01:54:08p] <+Shravan> tspikes
  619. [2010-09-21 01:54:09p] <+firecape> Sleeping moves is generally an offensive tactic
  620. [2010-09-21 01:54:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> Because many TR mons and defensive mons are slow.
  621. [2010-09-21 01:54:20p] <@Rising_Dusk> Why does it have to be?
  622. [2010-09-21 01:54:24p] <+Shravan> if you're stalling and you know that all enemies get hurt by spikes
  623. [2010-09-21 01:54:24p] <+firecape> why would I put you to sleep
  624. [2010-09-21 01:54:26p] <+Shravan> what more do you need?
  625. [2010-09-21 01:54:32p] <@Rising_Dusk> Do you not think it is effective for a defensive team to put an opposing powerful wallbreaker to sleep?
  626. [2010-09-21 01:54:33p] <+firecape> now I cant hurt you much with my weak attacks and high defense
  627. [2010-09-21 01:54:37p] <+firecape> rather than poisoning you
  628. [2010-09-21 01:54:49p] <+Shravan> firecape, toxic spikes!
  629. [2010-09-21 01:54:53p] <+Shravan> forget hypnosis
  630. [2010-09-21 01:54:56p] <@Rising_Dusk> Then you should pick your targets wisely.
  631. [2010-09-21 01:54:56p] <+firecape> then you cant be put to sleep at all!
  632. [2010-09-21 01:54:59p] <+Shravan> tspikes hit everything in gravity
  633. [2010-09-21 01:55:01p] <+firecape> and Steel-types still
  634. [2010-09-21 01:55:04p] <@Rising_Dusk> ANYWAY
  635. [2010-09-21 01:55:05p] <@Rising_Dusk> GUYS
  636. [2010-09-21 01:55:07p] <+firecape> no...
  637. [2010-09-21 01:55:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> THE DETAILS ARE NOT IMPORANT
  638. [2010-09-21 01:55:10p] <+Shravan> yeah anyway.
  639. [2010-09-21 01:55:16p] <@Rising_Dusk> Important*
  640. [2010-09-21 01:55:18p] <+Shravan> it's viable, that's all i'm saying.
  641. [2010-09-21 01:55:28p] <@Rising_Dusk> I am 100% sure that both abilities work for both offense and defense in their own ways.
  642. [2010-09-21 01:55:30p] <+Shravan> provided they cancel each other
  643. [2010-09-21 01:55:35p] <%reachzero> hmm
  644. [2010-09-21 01:55:37p] <%reachzero> actually
  645. [2010-09-21 01:55:38p] <@Rising_Dusk> Doug are you listening still?
  646. [2010-09-21 01:55:43p] <+firecape> Tspikes still don't hit Steels, but this really benefits offensive A LOT more than it benefits defensive IMO
  647. [2010-09-21 01:55:49p] <+firecape> (both of these abilities)
  648. [2010-09-21 01:55:50p] <%reachzero> I'm going to lobby for Forecast, I think!
  649. [2010-09-21 01:56:17p] <+firecape> but yes enough of that :P
  650. [2010-09-21 01:56:30p] <+Shravan> lol
  651. [2010-09-21 01:56:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> Of course they do firecape.
  652. [2010-09-21 01:56:37p] <@Rising_Dusk> But so do sun and rain.
  653. [2010-09-21 01:56:45p] <+Shravan> but either way, if you build a trick room team
  654. [2010-09-21 01:56:46p] <+firecape> so its not really fair to offset defensive with that penalty
  655. [2010-09-21 01:56:50p] <+Shravan> and tr gets turned off
  656. [2010-09-21 01:56:52p] <+Shravan> you're FUCKED
  657. [2010-09-21 01:56:53p] <@Rising_Dusk> It's not a penalty.
  658. [2010-09-21 01:56:54p] * Hypothesismon (~Theorymon@synIRC-197B6946.syrcny.east.verizon.net) Quit (Ping timeout)
  659. [2010-09-21 01:57:00p] <+firecape> they should both start out on equal footing
  660. [2010-09-21 01:57:05p] <@Rising_Dusk> I bet you 100 bucks I can create a better defensive mon using any of these abilities.
  661. [2010-09-21 01:57:06p] <+Shravan> so there's a balance on both sides.
  662. [2010-09-21 01:57:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> Than you can create an offensive mon using the opposite ability.
  663. [2010-09-21 01:57:15p] <+firecape> if you can now use 120 BP moves with impunity and move first, what does defense get out of it?
  664. [2010-09-21 01:57:25p] <+Shravan> no, firecape
  665. [2010-09-21 01:57:30p] <+Shravan> the auto grav will cancel auto tr
  666. [2010-09-21 01:57:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> Both aren't active at once, they cancel each other out.
  667. [2010-09-21 01:57:37p] <+firecape> still
  668. [2010-09-21 01:57:38p] <+Shravan> we can build that into the abilities.
  669. [2010-09-21 01:57:50p] <+firecape> its definitely one-sided :|
  670. [2010-09-21 01:57:51p] <+Shravan> but also, dusk, now that i think about it
  671. [2010-09-21 01:58:02p] <+Shravan> firecape is right that it throws too much chaos into the mixture
  672. [2010-09-21 01:58:03p] <@Rising_Dusk> I totally disagree with it being one-sided.
  673. [2010-09-21 01:58:08p] <+Shravan> it's not one-sided
  674. [2010-09-21 01:58:13p] <+Shravan> but it's totally out of control IMO
  675. [2010-09-21 01:58:17p] <@Rising_Dusk> What. How can you even qualify 'chaos' at all.
  676. [2010-09-21 01:58:18p] <~DougJustDoug> I had people in my office just now, but I was reading out of the corner of my eye
  677. [2010-09-21 01:58:18p] <@Rising_Dusk> No it's not.
  678. [2010-09-21 01:58:32p] <@Rising_Dusk> It's very controlled.
  679. [2010-09-21 01:58:35p] <~DougJustDoug> TR and Gravity aren't really good opposites
  680. [2010-09-21 01:58:40p] <+firecape> all you have to do is make offensive mon part steel and gravity is now pretty much useless besides WoW, and you can even make it a special attacker to counteract that!
  681. [2010-09-21 01:58:41p] <@Rising_Dusk> Because it's controlled by wanting to beat what the other mon are doing.
  682. [2010-09-21 01:58:44p] <+Shravan> yeah that too.
  683. [2010-09-21 01:58:45p] <~DougJustDoug> Maybe Tailwind and Trick Room?
  684. [2010-09-21 01:58:59p] <+Shravan> Tailwind and TR?
  685. [2010-09-21 01:59:00p] <+Shravan> hmm
  686. [2010-09-21 01:59:09p] <~DougJustDoug> Or Gravity adn Heal Block?
  687. [2010-09-21 01:59:14p] <+firecape> hmmm, Trick Room for the defensive mon sounds interesting if a fast offensive mon is enforced
  688. [2010-09-21 01:59:19p] <+firecape> heal block is a little too drastic IMO
  689. [2010-09-21 01:59:23p] <+Shravan> yeah
  690. [2010-09-21 01:59:26p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's actually an even better idea, Doug.
  691. [2010-09-21 01:59:26p] <+firecape> Taunt too
  692. [2010-09-21 01:59:28p] <@Rising_Dusk> Tailwind + TR
  693. [2010-09-21 01:59:37p] <+firecape> I like Tailwind + TR
  694. [2010-09-21 01:59:49p] <+firecape> with high Speed enforced for the offensive mon
  695. [2010-09-21 02:00:01p] <+Shravan> hmm
  696. [2010-09-21 02:00:09p] <@Rising_Dusk> Well it wouldn't have to be enforced, firecape.
  697. [2010-09-21 02:00:11p] <+Shravan> the only issue I have with both of these is this
  698. [2010-09-21 02:00:17p] <DHR> Would the Tailwind pokemon have an ability which made TQ longer?
  699. [2010-09-21 02:00:20p] <+Shravan> (and again, why I feel it will be chaotic is this):
  700. [2010-09-21 02:00:21p] * Vader (vadEr@we.can.be.heroes...just.for.one.day) has joined #cap
  701. [2010-09-21 02:00:21p] * ChanServ sets mode: +h Vader
  702. [2010-09-21 02:00:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> Tailwind mon would have an ability that permanently creates Tailwind conditions.
  703. [2010-09-21 02:00:36p] <@Rising_Dusk> Until either:
  704. [2010-09-21 02:00:42p] <DHR> Either way, if they come across each other the TR team is gonna win
  705. [2010-09-21 02:00:44p] <@Rising_Dusk> A) another tailwind was activated
  706. [2010-09-21 02:00:52p] <@Rising_Dusk> B) The TR mon comes in and activates his ability
  707. [2010-09-21 02:00:55p] <+Shravan> At any given time, it's either completely onesided agaisnt the tailwind mons, or it's totally onesided against the trick room mons.
  708. [2010-09-21 02:01:06p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's amazing.
  709. [2010-09-21 02:01:19p] <@Rising_Dusk> You don't think it's that way already? Weather control in Ubers is SO crucial to team success, Shraven.
  710. [2010-09-21 02:01:28p] <+firecape> yes
  711. [2010-09-21 02:01:33p] <+firecape> weather control is paramount to success
  712. [2010-09-21 02:01:42p] <+Shravan> Yeah, true, but still.
  713. [2010-09-21 02:01:44p] <DHR> What would determine which ability was active at once?
  714. [2010-09-21 02:01:45p] <DHR> Speed?
  715. [2010-09-21 02:01:51p] <+Shravan> Yeah. who is slower.
  716. [2010-09-21 02:01:54p] <%reachzero> lol
  717. [2010-09-21 02:01:58p] <+firecape> well, unless you plan on sending both into a blind double switch
  718. [2010-09-21 02:02:03p] <+firecape> that senario never plays out
  719. [2010-09-21 02:02:04p] <@Rising_Dusk> Who is slower activates first if they both double switch in.
  720. [2010-09-21 02:02:05p] <~DougJustDoug> I don't really care about setting up a wonky competitive dynamic. That could be argued to be a good thing here
  721. [2010-09-21 02:02:20p] <+Shravan> Okay, fair enough.
  722. [2010-09-21 02:02:29p] <+Shravan> I guess it's just a matter now of beating the other team.
  723. [2010-09-21 02:02:35p] <~DougJustDoug> But, maybe setting abilties is too much trouble.
  724. [2010-09-21 02:02:36p] <@Rising_Dusk> I'm sold on this.
  725. [2010-09-21 02:03:06p] <+Shravan> anyway, for now. let's stick to the overall plan
  726. [2010-09-21 02:03:07p] <@Rising_Dusk> I like setting abilities way more than setting typing.
  727. [2010-09-21 02:03:13p] <+Shravan> and get others' opinion on abilities and such
  728. [2010-09-21 02:03:22p] <%reachzero> tbh, I wouldn't want to use a Pokemon with such a limiting set ability
  729. [2010-09-21 02:03:22p] <+Shravan> we might hear good ideas out there that we didn't consider.
  730. [2010-09-21 02:03:23p] <+firecape> I think typing will be pretty predictable
  731. [2010-09-21 02:03:29p] <DHR> I think setting the Ability gives p[eople a little more creativity :/
  732. [2010-09-21 02:03:42p] <DHR> Obviously the tail wind mon could be a giant fan or something for lols
  733. [2010-09-21 02:03:50p] <%reachzero> on a Pokemon with two ablilities, auto-TR or Swift Swim, I'd pretty much always use Swift Swim
  734. [2010-09-21 02:03:53p] <+Shravan> anyway, lunch. brb
  735. [2010-09-21 02:03:59p] <+firecape> dragon/(fire/fighting/ground) is pretty forseeable on the offensive mon
  736. [2010-09-21 02:04:06p] <%Vader> are we talking about cap process ?_?
  737. [2010-09-21 02:04:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> No Vader.
  738. [2010-09-21 02:04:15p] <@Rising_Dusk> We are talking about fun process.
  739. [2010-09-21 02:04:17p] <%Vader> o
  740. [2010-09-21 02:04:20p] <+firecape> we are talking about the next CAP
  741. [2010-09-21 02:04:27p] <@Rising_Dusk> No this is not the "next CAP"
  742. [2010-09-21 02:04:30p] <%reachzero> firecape: but then you miss out on stuff that could be seriously anti-metagame
  743. [2010-09-21 02:04:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> In any way, shape, or form.
  744. [2010-09-21 02:04:35p] <@Rising_Dusk> This is something totally different.
  745. [2010-09-21 02:04:37p] <%reachzero> like Bug/Ground
  746. [2010-09-21 02:04:40p] <@Rising_Dusk> For between now and the next CAP.
  747. [2010-09-21 02:04:50p] <~DougJustDoug> We talked about eliminating Dragon typing earlier -- just to force people off the obvious broken stuff.
  748. [2010-09-21 02:04:54p] <%Vader> huh
  749. [2010-09-21 02:04:59p] <%reachzero> or Grass/Dark or whatever
  750. [2010-09-21 02:05:02p] <@Rising_Dusk> Vader read: http://www.smogon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3005851#post3005851
  751. [2010-09-21 02:05:03p] <+firecape> well, if the typing is up to the community reach
  752. [2010-09-21 02:05:06p] <%Vader> are we doing like a "cap council"?
  753. [2010-09-21 02:05:08p] <@Rising_Dusk> And you'll see why we are discussing this.
  754. [2010-09-21 02:05:10p] <+firecape> every wanted dragon for voodoom, lol remember
  755. [2010-09-21 02:05:11p] <@Rising_Dusk> What, noooo.
  756. [2010-09-21 02:05:12p] <%Vader> dusk i read doug's thread lol
  757. [2010-09-21 02:05:24p] <%Vader> which is why i was asking if we are discussing the process ~_~
  758. [2010-09-21 02:05:25p] <@Rising_Dusk> No CAP council or anything.
  759. [2010-09-21 02:05:38p] <@Rising_Dusk> We are talking about having a dual "Break-A-Pokemon" process.
  760. [2010-09-21 02:05:41p] <@Rising_Dusk> With restrictions.
  761. [2010-09-21 02:05:50p] <@Rising_Dusk> And having two teams compete against each other to beat the opposing team's brokenmon.
  762. [2010-09-21 02:05:52p] <~DougJustDoug> Somebody copy this log and pastebin it for others to catch up on. I'm not saying we are doing this or not. But, it's ridiculous to keep recapping it.
  763. [2010-09-21 02:05:58p] <+firecape> ok
  764. [2010-09-21 02:06:01p] <+firecape> I'll do it
  765. [2010-09-21 02:06:01p] <@Rising_Dusk> Yes.
  766. [2010-09-21 02:06:06p] <@Rising_Dusk> okay, thanks.
  767. [2010-09-21 02:06:15p] <~DougJustDoug> Somebody who was here from the beginning
  768. [2010-09-21 02:06:24p] <+firecape> I was here the entire time
  769. [2010-09-21 02:06:25p] <+firecape> just afk
  770. [2010-09-21 02:06:28p] <+firecape> so I have the entire log
  771. [2010-09-21 02:06:29p] <@Rising_Dusk> My IRC client doesn't keep logs.
  772. [2010-09-21 02:06:31p] <@Rising_Dusk> So you do it, firecape.
  773. [2010-09-21 02:06:33p] <@Rising_Dusk> That's great.
  774. [2010-09-21 02:06:45p] <~DougJustDoug> Anyway, I'm being called into a meeting. bbl
  775. [2010-09-21 02:06:52p] * DougJustDoug is now known as DougJustMeeting
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement
Public Pastes
Advertisement
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!