-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
CAP 22 CAP 22 - Part 1 - Concept Submissions
- Thread starter HeaLnDeaL
- Start date
- Status
There haven't been as much discussion as there could have been, so I'll do another round.
Merritt - A Single Goal- Interesting concept, looking at a single viable set. If we're still doing the ideal sets stage of the CAP process, this will force a major adjustment though, so that we would end up having to vote for a single set. I do think that your idea of removing 4MSS is interesting, though I feel it's just a bit too hindering to the concept. If a Pokemon has only 4 moves that it could possibly use, either the set will be too easily countered, or it has a perfect movepool that leaves no room for interpretation. What about a single move that could be varied (for offensive Pokemon, that would usually be coverage moves; for defensive, usually status or utility move)? It keeps to the spirit of a single viable set, but isn't as locked in because of that. I would also remove your question about archetype, it's out of place and makes no sense overall. Your questions are a bit similar, and seem to landlock the concept as well. Instead of your first question, I would encourage a question about whether a single set can perform different functions for different teams, or play different roles. Another question would be that there are many Pokemon that only have a single viable set, because they are niche Pokemon that can only effectively use one set viably in the metagame (CAP metagame in this case). What attributes make that viable, and how can it be translated to this concept Pokemon?
Krazyguy75 - Not first, but better than second- I feel like you would be better off just saying A/A- or lower in the Viability Rankings. That's what it seems like you are saying, you just seem to hesitate stating it. The top ranks/subranks of the VR usually do consist of the metagame defining Pokemon though. What benefit would targeting the lower ranks be? It's impossible to "Counter" most of them in a single Pokemon, because there are so many. Then you have to avoid countering the top Pokemon, which further limits what the community can do. "Surviving" against the top Pokemon doesn't mean checking them either, just simply not dying to them immediately. Maybe a look at the relationship between the top Pokemon and the second place Pokemon, and what purpose do they serve. Perhaps the second place Pokemon are there because they can stand up to the top Pokemon, but are not metagame defining Pokemon in and of themselves; then creating a Pokemon to target them would also mean creating a way to deal with the checks and counters to the top Pokemon! Just something to think about.
I also want to encourage everyone to look at the CAP Metagame Viability Rankings, which are pretty underutilized imo.
Missingno.1998 - Fatal Attraction- Afaik, there are only 3 ways to inflict infatuation status on an opposing Pokemon: Cute Charm, Destiny Knot, and Attract. In contrast, there are many ways to remove or block infatuation: switching out, being the same gender (how homophobic, love it love
), being genderless, having the Oblivious ability, Mental Herb, Substitute (in the case of Attract), methods of changing Abilities (in the case of Cute Charm), and simply not inflicting infatuation (in the case of Destiny Knot). There may be more methods, I just don't feel like listing them, and you get the point. There simply is no real way to make infatuation work, except through pure chance of your opponent having the right gender and you having the luck to inflict it somehow. Obviously, no custom moves or Abilities are allowed, so you really have no way to do this either. Finally, a decent portion of the CAP metagame are genderless legendaries, so they invalidate the strategy even more. Sorry to be so discouraging, but it's better to tell you the whole truth and give you time to think of something else.
TheGooeyGastrodon - Mediocre Ability Abuser- Pretty similar to Cyclohm's concept, and to Rare Options from Alchemister, but solely focused on Abilities. Not a bad thing, just make sure you differentiate this a bit because you don't want to duplicate someone else's concept. Your questions also seem to assume that we would give it one mediocre ability and leave it at that. Not true, there is always a major chance for secondary and tertiary abilities, so all of that can be taken into account. You certainly should remove the bad abilities part, that basically means that you CAN'T make a Pokemon who can use it well. Focus more on the rare and/or mediocre abilities (the two are NOT interchangeable terms either, so make sure you say both of them). There are some excellent abilities with terrible distribution of mostly mediocre users (I noted them before, but add in stuff like Sand Force, Cheek Pouch, Fur Coat), and then there are some mediocre abilities that may be usable with the right Pokemon (Aftermath, Pressure, Light Metal, pinch abilities, 30% trigger abilities, etc.). Ask questions regarding what makes an Ability mediocre and how can their potential be unleashed. Include a question about the effects of a good Ability on an otherwise average Pokemon, since there are many powerful but rare abilities that don't make the Pokemon worth using regardless (Furfrou anyone?).
EpicUmbreon29 - Localization- Well, I do like this concept in a way. Most teams aren't static, or locked into the type of Pokemon you expect. But trying to fit a different type of Pokemon into a specific team archetype is difficult, so a concept exploring an ideal way is pretty cool. The only thing is that , as I've said before, just because a Pokemon CAN be used this way, doesn't mean it WILL be used the way we intended. You can make other Pokemon more appealing by specializing your target Pokemon, using your example; but then why would they not simply USE those other Pokemon? In the same context, why would you NOT use this Ground/Fairy Pokemon regardless of the existence of Colossoil or Diancie, especially if its targets are what your team needs help against? Basically, my hesitation is that there is no real way to enforce the concept usage, as it will be during the playtest. What would be a successful concept? What would be a failure? Maybe this concept is about the journey there, but then what do we learn?
Merritt - A Single Goal- Interesting concept, looking at a single viable set. If we're still doing the ideal sets stage of the CAP process, this will force a major adjustment though, so that we would end up having to vote for a single set. I do think that your idea of removing 4MSS is interesting, though I feel it's just a bit too hindering to the concept. If a Pokemon has only 4 moves that it could possibly use, either the set will be too easily countered, or it has a perfect movepool that leaves no room for interpretation. What about a single move that could be varied (for offensive Pokemon, that would usually be coverage moves; for defensive, usually status or utility move)? It keeps to the spirit of a single viable set, but isn't as locked in because of that. I would also remove your question about archetype, it's out of place and makes no sense overall. Your questions are a bit similar, and seem to landlock the concept as well. Instead of your first question, I would encourage a question about whether a single set can perform different functions for different teams, or play different roles. Another question would be that there are many Pokemon that only have a single viable set, because they are niche Pokemon that can only effectively use one set viably in the metagame (CAP metagame in this case). What attributes make that viable, and how can it be translated to this concept Pokemon?
Krazyguy75 - Not first, but better than second- I feel like you would be better off just saying A/A- or lower in the Viability Rankings. That's what it seems like you are saying, you just seem to hesitate stating it. The top ranks/subranks of the VR usually do consist of the metagame defining Pokemon though. What benefit would targeting the lower ranks be? It's impossible to "Counter" most of them in a single Pokemon, because there are so many. Then you have to avoid countering the top Pokemon, which further limits what the community can do. "Surviving" against the top Pokemon doesn't mean checking them either, just simply not dying to them immediately. Maybe a look at the relationship between the top Pokemon and the second place Pokemon, and what purpose do they serve. Perhaps the second place Pokemon are there because they can stand up to the top Pokemon, but are not metagame defining Pokemon in and of themselves; then creating a Pokemon to target them would also mean creating a way to deal with the checks and counters to the top Pokemon! Just something to think about.
I also want to encourage everyone to look at the CAP Metagame Viability Rankings, which are pretty underutilized imo.
Missingno.1998 - Fatal Attraction- Afaik, there are only 3 ways to inflict infatuation status on an opposing Pokemon: Cute Charm, Destiny Knot, and Attract. In contrast, there are many ways to remove or block infatuation: switching out, being the same gender (how homophobic, love it love
), being genderless, having the Oblivious ability, Mental Herb, Substitute (in the case of Attract), methods of changing Abilities (in the case of Cute Charm), and simply not inflicting infatuation (in the case of Destiny Knot). There may be more methods, I just don't feel like listing them, and you get the point. There simply is no real way to make infatuation work, except through pure chance of your opponent having the right gender and you having the luck to inflict it somehow. Obviously, no custom moves or Abilities are allowed, so you really have no way to do this either. Finally, a decent portion of the CAP metagame are genderless legendaries, so they invalidate the strategy even more. Sorry to be so discouraging, but it's better to tell you the whole truth and give you time to think of something else.TheGooeyGastrodon - Mediocre Ability Abuser- Pretty similar to Cyclohm's concept, and to Rare Options from Alchemister, but solely focused on Abilities. Not a bad thing, just make sure you differentiate this a bit because you don't want to duplicate someone else's concept. Your questions also seem to assume that we would give it one mediocre ability and leave it at that. Not true, there is always a major chance for secondary and tertiary abilities, so all of that can be taken into account. You certainly should remove the bad abilities part, that basically means that you CAN'T make a Pokemon who can use it well. Focus more on the rare and/or mediocre abilities (the two are NOT interchangeable terms either, so make sure you say both of them). There are some excellent abilities with terrible distribution of mostly mediocre users (I noted them before, but add in stuff like Sand Force, Cheek Pouch, Fur Coat), and then there are some mediocre abilities that may be usable with the right Pokemon (Aftermath, Pressure, Light Metal, pinch abilities, 30% trigger abilities, etc.). Ask questions regarding what makes an Ability mediocre and how can their potential be unleashed. Include a question about the effects of a good Ability on an otherwise average Pokemon, since there are many powerful but rare abilities that don't make the Pokemon worth using regardless (Furfrou anyone?).
EpicUmbreon29 - Localization- Well, I do like this concept in a way. Most teams aren't static, or locked into the type of Pokemon you expect. But trying to fit a different type of Pokemon into a specific team archetype is difficult, so a concept exploring an ideal way is pretty cool. The only thing is that , as I've said before, just because a Pokemon CAN be used this way, doesn't mean it WILL be used the way we intended. You can make other Pokemon more appealing by specializing your target Pokemon, using your example; but then why would they not simply USE those other Pokemon? In the same context, why would you NOT use this Ground/Fairy Pokemon regardless of the existence of Colossoil or Diancie, especially if its targets are what your team needs help against? Basically, my hesitation is that there is no real way to enforce the concept usage, as it will be during the playtest. What would be a successful concept? What would be a failure? Maybe this concept is about the journey there, but then what do we learn?
The concept submission period is now over. After careful consideration, I've selected five concepts for the slate. Here they are, in the order they were submitted:
Last Act of Defiance by Snobalt
Close But No Cigar by Kyubics
There's No Turning Back by boxofkangaroos
Decentralizer: Stallbreaking Tank by snake_rattler
Bulletproof Glass by Cretacerus
Snobalt's concept has been a pretty popular one from what I've seen; it's straightforward in its design, but still allows for plenty of discussion and learning opportunities about what constitutes an ideal user of Parting Shot in the CAP metagame. By creating a viable user of the move, we'd be able to learn more about its untapped potential, what role(s) an ideal user of the move could fill, and how it would ultimately fit into the metagame.
I liked Kyubics' concept right off the bat due to it being stats-centric, and I feel like it'd provide us with an interesting way to analyze and learn more about the CAP metagame. We'd have the opportunity to study both important offensive and defensive benchmarks, and how they would fit into the Pokemon's overall role. Even though there's a heavy emphasis on the stats stage; I still feel as though there'd be ample opportunities for discussion in the other major stages as we progress throughout the project.
boxofkangaroos' concept has admittedly been met with mixed feedback, but I feel that due to VoltTurn's prevalence as a dominant playstyle at higher levels of play, it'd be very much worth looking into and analyzing at a deeper level. While there are some aspects of the concept that seem straightforward at first (we know there is a typing and abilities that can block Volt Switch, we know there are methods of punishing a contact move like U-turn), they certainly wouldn't be the only ways of fulfilling the concept, and we'd be able to look more closely at how to best deal with the archetype by analyzing specific VoltTurn titans of the metagame.
snake_rattler's concept addresses another prevalent playstyle in the metagame: stall. Out of the many decentralizer-themed concepts that were submitted, I was the most comfortable with this one as its focus was more clearly defined. This concept would allow us to analyze the specific role of stallbreakers and how they fare against the many unique defensive threats the CAP metagame has to offer.
Cretacerus' concept takes an interesting approach towards building a defensive Pokemon that doesn't actually rely on raw bulk. This encourages us to look at the top offensive threats of the metagame in detail to determine what other factors can contribute towards making a successful defensive threat in the metagame, and there are several ways we could go about doing this.
Last Act of Defiance by Snobalt
Close But No Cigar by Kyubics
There's No Turning Back by boxofkangaroos
Decentralizer: Stallbreaking Tank by snake_rattler
Bulletproof Glass by Cretacerus
Snobalt's concept has been a pretty popular one from what I've seen; it's straightforward in its design, but still allows for plenty of discussion and learning opportunities about what constitutes an ideal user of Parting Shot in the CAP metagame. By creating a viable user of the move, we'd be able to learn more about its untapped potential, what role(s) an ideal user of the move could fill, and how it would ultimately fit into the metagame.
I liked Kyubics' concept right off the bat due to it being stats-centric, and I feel like it'd provide us with an interesting way to analyze and learn more about the CAP metagame. We'd have the opportunity to study both important offensive and defensive benchmarks, and how they would fit into the Pokemon's overall role. Even though there's a heavy emphasis on the stats stage; I still feel as though there'd be ample opportunities for discussion in the other major stages as we progress throughout the project.
boxofkangaroos' concept has admittedly been met with mixed feedback, but I feel that due to VoltTurn's prevalence as a dominant playstyle at higher levels of play, it'd be very much worth looking into and analyzing at a deeper level. While there are some aspects of the concept that seem straightforward at first (we know there is a typing and abilities that can block Volt Switch, we know there are methods of punishing a contact move like U-turn), they certainly wouldn't be the only ways of fulfilling the concept, and we'd be able to look more closely at how to best deal with the archetype by analyzing specific VoltTurn titans of the metagame.
snake_rattler's concept addresses another prevalent playstyle in the metagame: stall. Out of the many decentralizer-themed concepts that were submitted, I was the most comfortable with this one as its focus was more clearly defined. This concept would allow us to analyze the specific role of stallbreakers and how they fare against the many unique defensive threats the CAP metagame has to offer.
Cretacerus' concept takes an interesting approach towards building a defensive Pokemon that doesn't actually rely on raw bulk. This encourages us to look at the top offensive threats of the metagame in detail to determine what other factors can contribute towards making a successful defensive threat in the metagame, and there are several ways we could go about doing this.
- Status