[Birkal*]

First of all, I wanted to address a particular issue that I've seen crop up a few times, both in this thread and on IRC. Do not link your personal worth to your ideas, ever. People are more then welcome to dislike your concept and speak out against it. They are not attacking you when they do this, but rather, they simply don't like your idea. Just because someone doesn't like your concept doesn't mean they hate your guts, haha. You're all respectable people, so try not to fall into this mental trap of personally linking yourself to your ideas.

I'm still cooking up my concept submission, but I thought I'd take some time out to discuss some of the other concepts that are currently on the table. The following four concepts that I'm about to critique aren't necessarily my favorites (I love Korski's and capefeather's submissions), but I feel like they are worth pursuing with our discussions.

Originally Posted by Fat jc104

Name: Weather Balancer

General Description: With this Pokemon we attempt to balance the four weather conditions, along with the lack of any such condition, such that all five types of team are equally viable.

I ADORE this concept; it's entirely underrated and deserves some more love. This is one of the most ambitious concepts I've ever read, and I think CAP could use a good challenge this time around. Furthermore, it fits perfectly into the current metagame. Weather runs rampant, and addressing all five scenarios gives us a lot to study. I think this concept is both genius and time-sensitive, so I hope that we can seriously consider this concept for CAP 5 before it is too late.

Originally Posted by Fat ganj4lF

Name: Offense-breaker

General Description: This pokemon is very, very hard to take down via brute force, and thanks to its ability, stats, and / or movepool, can reliably check a vast majority of the common offensive threats and force them into an undesirable position. However, it has other drawbacks: it cannot provide much support to its team besides taking big hits, and is vulnerable to other strategies like status effects or spike stacking.

Don't worry about similarity to other concepts; this one is unique enough that it deserves to be addressed. This is yet another ambitious concept that I think would give us a run for our money. What I like most about this concept is that it's a step up from the typical "Great Wall" concept; you suggest a legitimate means of bringing this Pokemon down. BW2 is incredibly offensive, and I think that of the weatherless concepts, this one is the strongest. Good work on this.

Originally Posted by Fat Pwnemon

OK SO

I was reading the OU "CAP discussion thread" and I noticed that there were two main things they wanted out of CAP5: 1) Weather control and 2) Hazard Control. The first has been beaten to death. The second?

Name: Hazard Control
General Description: A pokemon who utilizes a variety of options, such as movepool and ability, to fulfill its goal—keep hazards off of your side, and on your opponent's.

Go further with this. You are correct in identifying that hazards are one of the most centralizing forces of the BW metagame; almost every team runs a hazard, if not multiple hazards. However, I think the idea of "make a Pokemon that is good at laying hazards and removing them" isn't focused enough. When given a choice, players are more often going to lay hazards (offensive move) instead of remove them (defensive move). Look at ganj's submission above to help you come to a conclusion here. Do what you want, but I think there is a lot more to be discussed about hazard control if you gear the concept to be more defensive (remove hazards) than offensive (add hazards). It's an interesting concept, but I think you need to make up your mind on some of these things in order for us to get some good learning out of it.

Originally Posted by Fat nyttyn

"Let me not then die ingloriously and without a struggle, but let me first do some great thing that shall be told among men hereafter."

Name: Last Stand

General Description: A pokemon that excels at turning around games that would otherwise be lost causes.

Interesting. This isn't a novel idea by any means; we've seen plenty of late game concepts in the past. One of the big topics in competitive battling nowadays is that of win conditions. The idea of removing opposing threats to guarantee a win is the focus of many competitive players. It'd be interesting to explore the idea of removing that win condition when the opponent feels like they have it secured. It might be something you consider addressing in this concept.