CAP 5 - Concept Submissions

[iamdanielcruces]

Make Me Bad - Final Submission
(Learning About Limits)

This concept is about crappiness: Mollux has a bad typing; Smeargle and Sableye have horrible BSTs; Keldeo’s ability is completely useless, and nevertheless, they are usable in OU, and in some cases, they are top threats, thanks to their redeeming "components" or "aspects". My goal with this concept is to explore what makes a bad Pokémon, by creating one that is underwhelming at first sight, no matter how you look at it: poor BST, poor typing, bad ability, sparse move list, but works well as a whole. I’d like to see how its bad components synergize with each other, so to speak.

Justification:

• This project will help us have a deeper understanding of Pokémon themselves.
• We'll have a deeper understanding of what makes a bad Pokémon, and by opposition, what makes a good one.
• We'll be able to explore the “weights” of each aspect of a Pokémon
• We'll have freedom defining the roles we’ll assign to this poke
• We'll learn more about how to explore the possibilities of existing Pokémon, by analyzing the different possibilities that arise from its different aspects
• Finally, we’ll be able to learn about the CAP process and community, by putting restrictions upon ourselves

Questions To Be Answered:

• In the latest CAP, I saw Aurumoth go from being a risky ‘mon to becoming S-tier threat. What could we learn from stricter limits during a Pokémon’s creation?
• Is it possible to build a Pokémon that needs every one of its aspects to survive? As (counter) examples, Terrakion could lose its ability and still be the same BMF, Blissey would arguably work better with other typing, Sableye’s stats (except for HP and DEF) could be even lower and it wouldn’t care much, etc.
• Is there a use for crappy abilities? There was this Ability Tiering thread that put Stall, Color Change and other “wonders” at the bottom of the list. Is it possible to make them work? From the top of my head, a Dark Pokémon with Stall could be the ideal user of Payback, Counter, and so on.
• Seeing that weather is such a defining factor, how could a “bad” Pokémon use weather to its advantage? I’m not talking about an improved Castform, but rather about a Pokémon that functions normally outside of weather, but could improve its performance under its weather (or weathers) of choice.

Explanation:

There have been several concepts here (zyrefrederic’s in particular, and Electroyte’s by opposition) that deal with the same aspects I want to explore, namely, what makes a bad Pokémon (or a good one), but what the hell, this is an idea I’ve been meditating since the start of Aurumoth’s CAP. Mollux was all about overcoming a bad typing, but we could go further: bad BST, bad ability, bad movepool and possibly bad team synergy, but (and here’s the catch) they function well as a whole. Perhaps this Pokémon can counter specific threats, perhaps it could be a weather abuser, or an utility player. The idea is to see how far we can go within strict limits.


We have examples which are still usable in OU thanks to a redeeming quality, like Sableye with its amazing Pranksterism, Wobbuffet and Shadow Tag, and Smeargle. These are good approaches, but they still have something, a particular aspect, that makes them outstanding. What I wated to explore was more along the lines of “is there a use for the Stall ability?”, “how could we make Color Change work with weather?” or “what’s the minimum BST a Pokémon needs to be OU, while being mediocre at everything else?”

[capefeather]

Well, I feel like everything I would have wanted to say about other concepts has been said already. I was considering giving up on mine because of the lack of commentary on it, and also because there's a decent amount of competition anyway, but now I'm thinking, maybe I just need to trim off some things that are unfeasible and focus on the concrete. It puzzled me that a concept that I meant explicitly to be possibly concrete and simple, while being thought-provoking and different from the wave of weather concepts, has been criticized as being the opposite: too complex, too vague, and not standing out. I suppose there is, in fact, a lack of focus in my concept submission currently. The concept was, I suppose, from a simpler time, and spent way too much time in my head while I chose to submit Risky Business first. Sometimes I think I should have submitted this concept first and Risky Business for jas...

I originally put so many options on the table because I don't like needlessly restricting ourselves right off the bat. I think that the whole point of Concept Assessment stage is to set a better focus for the chosen concept. However, I understand that reality is different. It's hard to take in an abstract idea all at once and mold it into a coherent direction within a single thread. I also have to deal with the reality of the process. It would be difficult to consider what defining thing we're going to give to CAP 5 in the typing stage, unless we decided to focus on a move (and I'm not sure that would fly very well in a post-Quiver Dance Aurumoth era). I have changed my concept in light of these issues. I have also removed some questions because I felt that some of them were redundant.

[GatoDelFuego]

For a little bit of explanation on my topic:

There are numerous ways to turn your opponent's momentum against them. Ditto is a great example of this: it can steal an opponent's boosts and revenge kill an opponent. CB mamoswine also can work against a dragonite for example, and a scarfed keldeo versus a Kyurem-B. However, this results in what I call a net increase in offensive momentum, beating offense with offense. There are also ways to decrease the momentum of a match. Switching Gastrodon into a rotom on volt switch is a great example. Nobody has attacked, and nobody has a clear advantage, but the momentum of the match has been killed to zero. Switching a Landorus-T into terrakion is also one, albeit a bit of an advantage for the landorus due to the threat of an earthquake incoming. However, this is the capitalization on the loss of momentum. Now if this concept could be applied to a much larger scope of the metagame, think of what could happen. Hyper offense/rain hyper offense (keldeo+toxicroak and others)/sun hyper offense (venasaur+volcarona+victrebel, etc) could get stopped dead in their tracks by a poke that doesn't counter the opposition by revenge killing or putting powerful moves out there. Instead, CAP 5 would counter an opponent by decreasing the pace of the game back to an initial neutral standpoint, whereby CAP 5 would be designed to support its team when the momentum of the match is zero. While tomohawk was built around strictly its user's momentum and controlling, returning, and making use of its team's momentum, I propose CAP 5 be built around controlling and nullifying both teams' tempo.

This would be quite a boon to stall, but offensively built teams could also make use of a reset in game momentum, through switching and boosting in other means. But that's left up to the later stages, and I think this concept can both increase defensive playstyles' usage and decrease the overall extremely offensive tone of the current metagame.

[forestflamerunner]

It seems to me that we are probably going to take a Stab at weather with this CAP via either korski's weather Warrior or jc 104's weather balancer. We can learn quite a bit from both of these concepts, but of the two, i think Korski's weather Warrior is clearly the safer, better, and more practical choice.

There is a matter of scope. Weather is one of the biggest elements in this metagame. If we decide to dive into Korski's concept, we will have to take two weathers, sun and rain, for example, and analyze them and their interrelations from a ton of different angles; we will have discussion on suns weaknesses, rains weaknesses, how to counter sun, how to counter rain, how sun teams can handle rain teams, how rain teams handle sun teams and so much more.it is, without a doubt, going to be complicated. However, the Weather Balancer concept will force us to examine these dynamics not just between two weathers, but all of them. To be fair, we probably wouldn't have to go into as much depth on each individual point with the ability balancer concept, but the concept requires each weather to be nerfed/buffed in some way, and it is going to be somewhere between hard to impossible to figure out how to balance these weathers using just one Pokemon.

Furthermore, as many of you may know, we are trying out a new leadership structure for the first time. The PRC has worked very hard to put the best foot forward, but i think we will definitely uncover some of the system's shorcomings during the course of CAP 5. Although i don't think we should baby the new system, i believe we shouldn't overload the project leadership with an excessively ambitious or vague concept, as that could easily snowball a small problem into a large problem very quickly. I think most of us agree that Ability Balancer is more likely than Ability Warrior to cause these sort of problems. Therefore, of the two Ability Warrior is definitely the better option.

[jc104]

Well since we seem to be discussing my concept vs Korski's:

First of all, I just want to say that I quite like Korski's concept too, and don't at all mind it being there. I think what it represents is a very much less ambitious version of my concept, without any restriction being placed on the weathers that are to be buffed/reduced in effectiveness (mine having the loose restriction of overall strength) and with the addition that CAP5 must not be able to fulfill both roles at once. Essentially, this means it must be a better weather abuser to achieve the same effect; to me this is almost wasted potential, which I would rather use to focus on another weather condition. The dichotomy created from abilities would probably exist for my concept anyway (it's virtually unavoidable) but I see no need to make the pokemon deliberately ineffective at checking other weather when it's supposed to being playing the weather abuser role. The lack of any restriction on the weathers also deeply worries me. Although I would enjoy the concept greatly if the weather to be abused was Hail, and would find it acceptable if it were sand, I couldn't bear the metagame resulting from another sun pokemon or rain pokmeon.

However, those are small things. The clearest thing really is that my concept is far more ambitious. Having 5 different cases to deal with rather than two makes the project far, far more difficult. I'm ready to admit that. However, I think we are capable of achieving the goal to some extent, at least. I really do. Despite what people say, I think the current state of the game is reasonably close to being balanced; only a relatively subtle change is required in each of the five departments. Rain clearly needs some reducing in effectiveness, and sun perhaps slightly too, but sand, for instance, is largely just a reaction to the other weather. If we were to take sun and rain down a notch, you might find sand reducing in effectiveness organically. And weatherless, at least the Deo-D HO form, is perfectly viable too. I think if we went for two cases alone we could easily go way overboard. Also, I don't want to feel like we've achieved our goal halfway through. I want to be optimising all the way through, striving for perfection in every last tiny detail, just for that slightly greater degree of success. That's why I like ambitious concepts, offering varying degrees of success.

edit: another thing is that my concept doesn't state that we have to abuse hail specifically - we can increase the effectiveness of hail in other ways - subtle ones such as covering the weaknesses of hail teams, or unsubtle ones, like Snow Warning (on a pokemon not at all suited to hail; would be interesting!)

[The Steam Punk]

Okay, many people have pointed out the flaws in my concept, so I've deleted it and completely overhauled it. NEW CONCEPT:

Name: Abusability
Description: A Pokemon with an awful ability that abuses the ability in a way that either benefits itself or hinders its opponent.
Justification: By taking a bad ability (e.g. Stall, Truant, Defeatist, etc.) and making a Pokemon that takes advantage of the ability and makes something positive out of it, we can really expose the inner workings of the ability, and new, innovative strategies would have to be made.

Questions To Be Answered:

• Can a Pokemon take advantage of a bad ability?
• How can a Pokemon take advantage of a bad ability?
• What positive things could possibly come from a bad ability?
• Could such a Pokemon sweep a team? OR...
• Could such a Pokemon be a good supporter?
• What could counter such a Pokemon?
• How could a team and strategy be built around such a Pokemon?

Explanation: Give a Pokemon an awful ability, and it falls from popularity immediately. Take Slaking, for example. It's a powerhouse, with extremely high attack, good defenses, and decent speed. But its ability, Truant, single-handedly sent Slaking to NU, when in reality it still performs well in the higher tiers. Now, what would happen if a Pokemon could take advantage of Truant, like Durant? Durant has Truant, but it can use Entrainment to give it to its opponent, foiling his strategy. This is what I propose we make: a CAP like Durant that can be used in a strategy that takes advantage of its awful ability. The process of creating such a CAP and a strategy around it would provoke much thought in the forums, and make for a mighty fun and challenging time for all.

Think of a CAP with Stall and Avalanche ^_^

Edit: Dang, I didn't see the rules. This concept is probably going to be disqualified.

[inanimate blob]

Originally Posted by Fat shadow999991

noobie here so sorry if my idea isnt good/well explained (saw the topic and knew i had to post)

Name: double barrier staller

General Description: light screen/ reflect being the corner stone on a pokemon to enhance its already high def and Spec def. with only a few attack moves its have to rely on its team mates to condition the enemy up (curse, poison, or toxic) or maybe give it a damage over time attack like leech seed, hail, or sandstorm

Justification: i miss mr.mime playstyle

Questions To Be Answered: how high could its def stats be, before there to overpowering?
would it have matching hp stat?
how high could its stab moves be with out it seeming to op with super high def stats?
if its so tanky should it get a recovery move?
should one of its main weaknesses be conditions?
would bide be a good offensive choice for once?


Explanation: i just realy like defensive pokemon, everyone else seems to go straight attack or buff and sweep. stall teams seem to be dying and this might help give them new life

agian sorry if no one likes it still a noobie here

I mean, this doesn't seem like a bad idea. I'd just touch up the proposal so it looks readable, and maybe give a better description than "me gusta stall."

[JEFLIV]

Name: Versatile and Shielded

General Description: A specially attacking versatile pokemon who has access to powerful moves but is frail HP-wise and needs recovery moves to work well. Should be genderless.

Justification: I often want a team member who can deal out real damage, but I know that it should have a flaw. I am open to suggestions that change this flaw. I think that it would have a niche in many teams.

Questions To Be Answered:
* Should it have a boosting Ability or a status one?
* Can it have powerful non-STAB moves?
* I want it to be genderless, but should it be?
* Should it have an item to abuse?

Explanation: I've always wanted a pokemon such as this, and I think that it would be an asset to many teams. Not as the centerpiece, but as support.

[Lster728]

Name:
The Mixed Marauder

General Description:
A strong mixed sweeper with high attack/sp attack, but limited access to set-up moves. In return, it receives a variety of physical/special moves that cover many typings.

Justification:
Mixed pokes like Syclant, Lucario, and Salamence are not always used to their full potential with strong special and physical moves that make them a viable sweeper. Usually only either physical or special sets are made, usually due to how they fit into the team or their movepool in general. This poke will teach us the importance of mixed attackers as well as how a limited set-up movepool(but strong offensive movepool) will affect the effectiveness of a sweeper and how they will generally fit into a team.

Questions To Be Answered:
• Does limited access to set-up moves greatly hinder a hyper-offensive poke's ability to strive in the metagame?

• How does a mixed sweeper fit into a team, and how will a team be adjusted to a mixed sweeper rather than a plain physical or special sweeper?

• How does the ability to successfully use both physical and special attacks make a Pokemon more effective than monophysical or monospecial attackers?

• Using what unconventional methods can a Pokemon sweep when a Choice item is a bad option(b/c it is a mixed sweeper)(unless it's a Scarf, that might be effective), and set-up moves are not available?

• What counters can fully wall such a sweeper with good physical and special attack stats and also has wide coverage?

• How can the already hyper-offensive battling style of BW2 metagame be affected by the introduction of such a sweeper?

Explanation:
Many special walls such as Blissey and Cryogonal cannot take a physical hit, while many physical walls such as Steelix and Forretress cannot take a special hit. The ability to break through both of these walls (by being a mixed set), can have a profound effect on the BW2 metagame, which finds a balance between hyper-offense and stalls/walls. With the walls out of the way, this sweeper may be successful even though it cannot set-up like many other sweepers.

I understand that this idea may sound very generic and its topic general, but is it? How many mixed sweepers do you see in the OU nowadays? And among them, how OFTEN do you see them using a mixed set successfully? Building a Pokemon that revolves around mixed sweeping will help to see if mixed sets are ineffective in general, or is an undiscovered factor to mess with in OU. The versatility involved with a mixed attacker will provide for a wide array of coverages in the OU tier.

Also touching on the second topic(limited set-up), with either a Choice item or a Set-up move being the methods of choice for many OU sweepers, either option is poor/unavailable for this Pokemon. Therefore, this CAP Project will look into unconventional methods of sweeping that do not involve these methods.

• Please note I did not mention what set-up moves as well as attacking coverages are excluded. Also, I am still unsure if I want this to be a fast or slow Pokemon. I will leave these problems up to the community.

I feel that this Pokemon can be very successful if it is created and I hope this post is considered.
Sincerely,
Lster728

[Jukain]

Originally Posted by Fat jas61292

pokemon0078's Holder of the Dice: While I have a feeling any hax related concept will be controversial, I do like things revolving around luck management. I think this is something that we could learn things from, I am worried that it may have problems similar to our most recent concept. I think the best way for this to be clarified would be to give more of a concept for the Pokemon itself. Right now the concept has potential for a project, but is too vague for a specific Pokemon. I'd like to see the specifics of this developed a bit more.

I've added an extra paragraph to my explanation including specifics, thanks for the feedback!

I personally like jc104's concept quite a bit now, as I think it's, well, the perfect weather concept, and one we could learn a lot from.

[jas61292]

More responses!

Arcticblast's The Underdog: As you said, it is quite similar to Zyrefredric's, though more focused. That being said, I do think it suffers from some of the same problems as his. The fact is, we know things like this can work. We see them in the OU meta and can easily point them out. But, of course, we never have gone this route for a CAP project. The problem is, that that itself is not really that much of a concept to follow. "Make a Pokemon that fits in OU but without high BST or wide movepool or whatnot." It's a format, but not really a concept. I almost feel that by being more narrowly focused, you have actually made this vaguer of a concept, since you can't even pinpoint it as being a study of the effects of BST or something. I think you might want to focus more on a certain way of success that does not rely on these things, rather than simply saying that we should make a Pokemon that fits that kind of mold. Though I must say, that fifth question would be a very interesting one to try and answer.

Gloppagus's Weather Lover: The main problem here is that this concept is too specific. Changing forms have major implications not to be taken lightly, and that would predetermine a lot of the Pokemon from the get-go. Not only that, but the entire concept seems near impossible to do without some sort of custom mechanic, which I want to stay clear away from. If you want to do something similar to this though without the form changes, than something revolving around a Pokemon that is actually good in all weather as is would be the way to go. A lot of people are looking at ways to beat weathers, but not so many are looking at ways to make something that helps them.

ChrisTehAwesome's The Glue: This is a cool concept focusing on a role that does not often get a lot of attention. Very few Pokemon can fit that role of being the thing that hold all kinds of teams together. And the few that can are often so generally good that they get banned. I believe that this role has a lot of potential and could certainly teach us alot about team cohesion and teammate interaction. My main worry is on the focus of the concept. To say what I have said many times already, I'd like to see a bit more specifically here on what the goals are to learn about. The questions you have are a decent start, but I'd like to see some more detailed things that can be used as focuses for discussions.

akels's Vola-utility: The main problem with volatile status is that it is unreliable. The ability to simply switch out of it makes it hard to justify using over something that has a more direct effect. Now, obviously, some are better than others. Attraction may last longer, but Confusion is generally superior in that it is easier to inflict and has better consequences when it works. Even so, it usually does little that can't be accomplished greater by other means. The real exceptions to this rule are Taunt and Torment (and maybe Disable). While having a shot of stopping the opponent is generally outclassed, being able to straight up restrict what they do can be quite valuable. As is I don't think the concept has too much going for it, but if you were to refocus on something like these two, there is certainly some potential.

Bashfrog's Lord of Trash: Concepts like this run into problems because they want to make something good, but they are not really sure what or how. Fact is, most lesser used moves are lesser-used for a good reason. I mentioned this in an earlier post with regard to a concept about Imprison. Certain things just cannot shine, no matter how you do it. I'm not saying there are not moves out there that could work for this concept, but I do think you would need to find those moves and focus the concept on them rather than being so general.

Thepoke4ever's Priority King: While slightly different, I do think that this has much the same problems as the other priority concept in that is simply a mold in which we would make a Pokemon, not really a concept detailing what we are setting out to learn. There are definitely things about priority that we probably do not fully understand yet, but we would need more defined goals if we want to get something out of a project revolving around this.

Psylink's Ambush Expert: A lot of what I mentioned regarding the Lord of Trash concept above applies here too. Moves are often bad for a reason, and so I feel that you really need to specify it down to a certain type of move (not a specific one, but just a general idea) if you want this to work. Additionally, the concept as a whole is rather vague. I can't really tell how its use of whatever special move it has is supposed to interact with other sets. It can't be its best option or else it would always use it, but it has to be viable. I feel that this would be very difficult to achieve. I think this really needs more focus on why people would want to use the specific move, and not just more generally good sets.

Unoriginal Name's Luck Counter: Like some other concepets, my main concern here is whether or not this is actually achieveble. There are so many things in Pokemon that run off luck that simply trying to stop it seems rather farfetched. You can easily counter things like Flinch Hax Jirachi with Inner Focus, but there is little out there than can really serve to have major effects on luck as a whole. I don't think the idea itself is bad, but I just can't see it as very plausible to execute. Focusing more on one specific type of luck might be a better way to go about this.

fryfrey's Backstabbing Balance: Well, I'll start of by saying that this kinda of idea has the major flaw of not taking into account the opponents reasoning for not using the CAP. If a Pokemon can out-stall stall, doesn't that mean it is just a great staller and won't it just be used on stall teams? Same thing for any other role. If it can beat something at its own game, then anyone trying that strategy should be using it in the first place. That being said, the last question you have I feel could be the starting point for something very interesting. I don't know exactly how you could work it out, but a study of balance itself could serve to tell us a ton, not just about the current metagame, but about the way we do tiering and the entire game of Pokemon.

WebsterVanCooney's I'm Firein' My Phazers!: Pseudo-Hazing is an important part of competitive Pokemon, and so I do think that exploring it could definitely be worthwhile. Indeed, I have little problem with anything about the general premise. However, as I have said a lot already, I think this is another concept that needs more clear goals as to what we want to be getting out of it. Your third question especially is headed in the right direction as discussing how exactly one gains from phazing, beyond the effects of its namesake move. A little more detail on other points of discussion would be nice to see.

toshimelonhead's Mercenary: Ah, this is a solid idea that works for very much the same reasons as the Perfect Nemesis concept. Now, the obvious difference between the two concepts is that this builds the counter whereas Perfect Nemesis was building the Pokemon to be countered. Both however have the strong points of delving deeper into what exactly makes a Pokemon a counter. Specifically I love the question you have regarding uncounterable Pokemon. Really trying to find if it exists, and if so, what it is could lead to some fantastic discussion.

heartsonfire's Hazard Reversal: While Pwnemon's concept focused more on changing the hazards culture of the game, this concept takes the more direct approach: make life hard for the hazards users while still keeping them as an integral part of the metagame. This is definitely the simpler route to take, but as such, is probably easier to pull off and will likely demonstrate the results of a risky hazards meta better. There isn't really much here that I think could use changing, but I just worry that doing this would be much more restrictive.

Electrolyte's Almost Broken: Oh boy. I remember a concept like this popping up last CAP, and just like then I see a ton of potential here. While short and basic, the first question you present is itself so loaded that it can (and has) spark numerous debates and discussions. Honestly, my two biggest concerns here are the timing and the potential for failure. This concept has a huge amount of potential, but is incredibly risky to do. As great as I think it can be, if screwed up, it could potentially fail like no other. With the CAP project at the point that it is I'm not sure if now is a good time to try something like this. That being said, I will definitely be thinking a lot about this one.

Enguarde's Weather Pressure: One of many weather concepts here, this one is very straightforward in that it wants to be able to simply switch into and threaten the starters themselves. Of all the ways to stop weather teams, killing the starter is obviously one of the most basic. However, the big concern, as always with something like this is that nothing is really stopping it from being used by weather to beat other weather. Also, the general concept always runs the risk of being overpowered if it is going to be able to do what it wants. I'd suggest looking over some of the other weather related concepts and responses to see if you can narrow down a more specific way of dealing with things rather than just trying to beat weather starters.

Scorpio's Slow but Steady: Speed is undeniably the most important part of many a Pokemon, and as you say, is one of the main factors in many of our bans. Exploring what it takes to be successful despite speed could be interesting. That being said, this concept is really way too general. Low speed is interesting, but only in certain roles. You should try and think more about what you want to see out of a low speed Pokemon and what specific kind of role we would learn about with it.

Others1212's Umbrella Head: My concerns here are some of the exact things you say in your post, specifically regarding whether this can actually work or not. I'm also concerned with trying something deemed gimmicky, since that usually translates to not very good. In addition, I just don't think this concept comes across very clearly. Do you want someone who uses weather moves to get rid of the opponents weather, or what? I'd try and clarify more what exactly it is you want this Pokemon to do.

Menace13's The Clutch: Looking at this concept, it almost seems like it is trying to do too much. On the one hand, it is a Pokemon that is better late game than near the start. Ok. Simple enough. But on the other hand you seem to want this Pokemon to have major effects that echo throughout the entire metagame, affecting various playstyles. It really seems to lack focus, so that by the end of reading it, the impression I got was that it would simply be a very good Pokemon. I think you need to focus more on what it means to really be clutch in those lategame scenarios. What exactly should we be looking at to make a Pokemon fill this role?

Little Battler's Tactical Retreat: The ability for a single Pokemon to change from an offensive to a defensive Pokemon is a cool idea, but I can't really see how this would work in practice. Form changing is not really something we want to get into, and most other moves or abilities that seem appropriate focus more on going from defensive to offensive, rather than vice versa. Probably the biggest thing I would like to see here is more of an explanation on how this would even be possible to achieve.

iamdanielcruces's Make Me Bad: While similar in concept to Zyfredric's and Arcticblast's concepts, this one seems to go even farther by seriously saying "make me bad." Well, almost. Like Electrolyte's concept, this could be interesting for exploring the boundary of OU, but instead from the bottom. Just how much do you need to be worth using? What really sets this apart from the rest though is that rather than going "let's be good despite looking bad", this is more like "let's actually be as bad as we can be and still see use." Just like I said to Electrolyte, I really like the potential that this concept has. However, I'm simply not sure how well it would work out. I don't have any real problems with the concept itself, but I'm just not sure if the CAP project itself can work with a concept like this, despite how cool it could be.


And now I'm off to get some dinner. There are a few concepts I have yet to comment on, but I will get to them later tonight. Good work so far people.

[Quanyails]

Comments:

...

---

• Rhys DeAnno: You provide intriguing questions about rejuvenating stall as a playstyle, similar to the Hyper Offense Revival concept posted two CAPs ago. With all of the concern about weather or hazards around, offensive versus defensive playstyles do tend to get overlooked. That said, the statistics for OU show that stallish teams comprise of less than ten percent of all teams, and the distribution curve of offensiveness leans toward, well, offense. I do like your questions and would like to add (figuratively) if pokemon centered around stall can pose the same threat as what is normally considered a 'threat'--a pokemon that dismantles a team through force?
• Deck Knight: First of all, neat title and putting together 'P.H.A.N.T.' :) Dugtrio is the closest pokemon OU has to a weather trapper, and even then, its viability is severely limited by its fragility. However, the other available pokemon as trappers (Gothitelle, Wobbuffet, and Heatran with Magma Storm) do not target weather starters directly and have slightly different roles. Heatran, specifically, prefers using its typing and ability to act as a piece of a core instead of as a lure. These concerns as well as the metagame concerns of how this pokemon will work in teams that you've mentioned does sharpen the direction of this idea, though. There haven't been any reliable weather trappers in OU, and determining if that is because trappers tend to go in other directions to be viable or because one without the right competitive attributes has not been created will be an opening to learn in this metagame.
• Yilx: Canis Majoris happens to like The Big Dipper. That aside, lovely questions for CAP to answer. Cores have become common and diverse from the defensive SkarmBliss of generations ago, and only now are we determining what constitutes as one and how it can be dismantled. If we are to break through cores without strength, how would that be so? I think of Infernape with its flexible attack and special attack being able to break down such a core, while not having the strength to work as an offensive sweeper. Could such a pokemon be defensive and yet dismantle this core, avoiding the frequent bulky set-up sweeper we get in CAP? I love how you included that in your list of questions. :)
• srk1214: Unlike the other positive responses to this idea, it's a bit obvious. Pokemon and all games are computers given visuals. We get numbers and percentages for stats every CAP and in metagames in general, so what's added by focusing the entire CAP on numbers?
• GatoDelFuego: A reverse Tomohawk, it would appear. Stopping momentum is an intriguing opposite (that does not necessarily mean walling something) that causes offensive teams to falter. I'll give that comparison to Rhys DeAnno's concept, but maybe they'll both work, just on different levels with metagame and playstyle.
• Rayquaza_: Concepts that concentrate on affecting a specific portion of the pokemon's stats, abilities, and all of that falter because of a lack of application to the metagame. You've mentioned four move slot syndrome, but how would that apply to offensive versus defensive pokemon? What sort of pokemon would be subject to that? Where would we go in the context of OU?
• Base Speed: I wish this concept would go in, but that is only from my whims. Types are integral to pokemon, and, admittedly, some types are meant to be better than others. Likewise, some stat combinations are meant to be better than others, and some movepools and abilities as well. Focusing on one of those areas does not show how pokemon are good, as that is what the entire combination of those attributes does. I could see it as a concept where the pokemon's typing has little bearing on its influence on the metagame, like Blissey. I see this more as a meta-concept more than a regular one.
• forestflamerunner: Aw, it's Cyclohm. We definitely could revisit an underused ability, but the questions to be answered seems lacking. There are pokemon with amazing abilities that are only inhibited by their other attributes, of course. This falls under the umbrella on trying to emphasize one component of a pokemon while overlooking the other parts in determining what makes a pokemon 'good'.
• The Unlucky one: Unfortunately, I think this has been covered with Scizor. Its typing allows it many opportunities to switch in, its attack and ability boosts the power of its priority moves, and its secondary options (namely, U-Turn) allows it to keep offensive momentum. I'm concerned what there is to learn that OU hasn't covered.
• jc104: My, how very audacious this is. Among all of the weather concepts in this thread, this is one of them (hehe). Flexibility among covering various, different subjects is hard to morph into an idea that doesn't overshoot, though. I fear that it is impossible, even with precautions. As said on IRC, when CAP's tried to make a pokemon that can do A, B, or C, it ends up doing A, B, and C.
• LightningLord2: Psychological Warfare has been a previously-suggested CAP concept, and that has actually, inadvertently been parts of previous CAPs, and real pokemon in OU. Necturna's access to Sketch makes it difficult to predict, but easy to handle otherwise. Aurumoth's Illusion sets up doubt for an opponent, but manageable if the illusion is known or broken. This'll likely, inevitably be part of the CAP.
• GRs Cousin: I think this has already been covered in what is viable as a concept. It could be a boost to hail, which is neat, but unfortunately, unfeasible.
• scorpdestroyer: Hail's always been part of CAP suggestions, and unfortunately, there's not much of a ways of improving it. ): Hail has less benefits, which require a narrow scope of pokemon from which to benefit. We may end up making a pokemon that works on hail teams, but it may as well work on OU teams in general. Despite those limitations, its perpetuation in CAP concept threads suggests that there is still much to learn from hail.
• Aerophoenix: See my comment to LightningLord2.
• Lamoprigma: Well, ah... I think the concept itself needs more focus. Where will it be focused toward? Complete offense? Support? Walling? Are there examples in OU that are dedicated to one of these? CAP 4, Fidgit, is pure utility. What might be different comparing your idea to this one?
• Unitas: Unlike the common question I ask myself when reading ideas, I ask 'How?' in this circumstance. Entry hazards are useful for limiting a number of switch-ins, but suppose there were none (yes, suppose that). There would need to be some border on how usable it is, if it's completely ineffective or indomitable. I think of Kyurem or Necturna, how it can be used to 'punch holes' in teams, but its predictability and residual damage makes it difficult to use repeatedly. Something like that?
• ganj4lF: Sure, another wall/stall-related option, I'm up for those. The lack of team support in your description makes me think of poor Cresselia. From what the metagame has shown us so far, an offensive pokemon could set up a Substitute and set up against statuses. However, if that pokemon can put the opponent in an ineffectual position through weather, hazards/phazing, or boosts of its own, then it may gain merit.
• Nomark: An odd concept--I can see it working, but the options we've seen are suicide leads and offensive clerics. I think you'd need to flesh out the concept more for it to be considered. :/
• Korski: It's more feasible than some of the other concepts I've seen posted, and it seems very doable! In fact, it's what's prevalent in OU nowadays with weather wars, isn't it? Instead of trying to stop the constant that is weather by introducing something different that imbalances the metagame further, why not just give one of the sides an additional tool to help with such balance? It reminds me of this XKCD comic. It's a nice way of approaching weather rather than trying to eliminate it.
• capefeather: I like the twist you're putting on the constitution of a pokemon. It's certainly a fresh idea compared to those I'm writing to and through, especially since it's a meta-concept. It's an inverted twist on how concepts tend to favor one aspect of a pokemon more than another, and seeing it from the opposing viewpoint; what is that pokemon without that aspect? (And all of the questions you've written.) This is a good way of examining a gimmick without it being a gimmick itself.
• zyrefredric: See my comment to Base Speed, except replace typing with base stats.
• Solstice: This sounds like one of those audacious concepts that will end up trying to cover too much and fulfill more than its goal. Leads still exist in the advent of Team Preview, but agreed, dedicated leads are rare. Might it be a psychological concept with seeing a possible counter to a lead will alter usual leads? Wouldn't that break down dedicated leads either way, since people will expect it and choose a different pokemon? If not, will the lead still 'lead' while not having the flexibility to perform other roles?
• DarkSlay: Revisiting an old concept is not bad, especially since the CAP community can determine what went wrong with the last attempt and try it again in a more correct way. It does also answer if the concept itself works or if failure means it does not. Either way, great opportunity to learn.
• QuimicVital: See my comment to Unitas.
• ReddyGo: Pairs have already been examined, though cores, less so. I'm up for determining what creates a core, though one would have to make separations from the previous concept of what consists of a Perfect Partner. Cores are an intriguing subject nonetheless, whether it is to create one or to break one down as Yilx's concept suggests. There is opportunity to learn, either way. (Apologies for not being as detailed as I am to others' concepts, but hey, that means there's less to be concerned about.)
• Delta Nite: The more I think about this concept, the more I wonder how healthy it is to the metagame. A pokemon that threatens many top-of-the-tier threats often borders Ubers, and, as examples have shown, relying on a single pokemon to counter or check this threat lessens flexibility in teambuilding. Excadrill required another Excadrill, priority, or Skarmory--and the latter couldn't defeat it--just temporarily phaze it away. It might overcentralize instead of decentralize.
• Eagle4: When we discussed in IRC, I questioned and answered the necessity of two options of performing the same task. It makes it more usable in whatever task it's doing, indeed. If the pokemon needs to defeat another, versatility means coverage. If it needs to stall against separate opponents, versatility means stat allocation. Prediction would falter as a metagame evolves to determine what sets the pokemon has, especially if it's limited to two options. Predictability suggests more than that.
• Pwnemon: I thought of Tornadus-T when I read over the concept, with its ability to, essentially, ignore entry hazards from its typing and ability. Then it got booted to Ubers. I think of that happening because of not only its stability in a hazards-dominated metagame, but also because of its access to STAB, 100%-accurate Hurricane, in a weather-dominated metagame. CAP can replicate the aversion to hazards without giving it too much help in any weather, and so those questions both you and I have will be answered.
• SubwayJ: Another one of these unorthodox ideas, eh? I admit, I'll be happy to receive a Normal CAP (whether it is Normal-type or not, but mostly the former), but only if there's a good reason for it. Normal-type attacks hit many types neutrally, and it takes many types of damage neutrally. Like I've mentioned with concepts that focus on one aspect of a pokemon's component though, well, it's just too focused without considering other stuff. Consider the metagame. Normal-types are defeated by Fighting-types and Normal-type attacks are walled by Steel-types, both exceedingly common. We could study the metagame, definitely, to ask why Normal-type pokemon and attacks are uncommon, but I feel we'd have to make such a 'Plane Jane' unusual for it to work in OU.
• inanimate blob: I was interested in this concept when it was posted. It's a separate form of risk that can be beneficial, albeit the current examples you give may or may not fit my idea of your concept. Psycho Shift with Sigilyph is strategic, but not a hamper to Sigilyph nor its team. Life Orb users, for example, reduce their longevity to deal more damage than they receive in return to take down the opponent's team. This ephemeral concept does make me think of a potential CAP's viability when its own existence in battle is reduced. It also reminds me of risk, but making it more obvious than last time--use that to your advantage, if you will.
• nyttyn: I'll ask how this would work without having the pokemon just turn into another good sweeper. If there was some sort of reverse Beat Up, the idea can solidify, but other than that, vagueness and uncertainty in how to make such a pokemon work exists.
• pokemon0078: While abusing percentage chances is amusing, sure, random is random. What's there to learn about random numbers other than how to get perfect pokemon on consoles with it? The effects of random numbers (paralysis, mostly) is more open to questioning, though that would be a different concept in of itself.
• GemOftheDay: I think I've mentioned that stopping weather is audacious and tricky for just one pokemon. Its effects on the metagame, well, depending on how overpowered it is, will either be destructive or non-influential. Instead of going with trying to avoid weather, modifying existing balances or imbalances is more feasible of a concept.
• Canis Majoris: I've mentioned Sableye and its use of Prankster, Will-O-Wisp, and Recover to stop physical sweepers without relying on bulk. It works--that's what we've learned. Counter-sweeping is the concept you're adding to that, which is good, especially since not many sweepers have the defenses needed to switch in on the opponent and sweep back. This is what reduces counters to checks, for instance. What would make that feasible without just having it plow through opponents like a regular sweeper? That could definitely be explored.
• Deglas: As mentioned in previous comments, introducing something new probably won't work in the given metagame with just one pokemon. Gravity Landorus-T comes close, but even then, Gravity teams are mere fractions. A pokemon, like the Deoxys-D you've mentioned, can strongly raise a playstyle that currently-dominating ones would otherwise, well, dominate. Such an idea such as that is more feasible than summoning something new to try and break the metagame.
• PureQuestion: The concept reminds me of Canis Majoris's, so I will redirect you to my comment on his concept.
• chuckeroo777: Electivire tried that and failed, yet Krilowatt tried that and succeeded. Perhaps we can investigate that and see what makes coverage work. That aside, though, like other concepts, it focuses too much on one aspect of the pokemon (its coverage moves) instead of how it functions as a whole.
• Infernis: If a pokemon can control the weather, wouldn't it shift the weather over to the first team's side? Or am I missing something by what 'control' you mean? The closest thing to removing weather permanently is to use a weather-inducing move and waiting five/eight turns, though by then, one has to deal with another weather that may or may not be beneficial to a weatherless team. What else do you suggest?
• Eggbert: Mollux created a pokemon that stopped several rain abusers well... but it ended up working even better on rain teams against other rain teams. Granted, it could have ended up differently, which is what you would want. But if it stops a different weather, then other weather teams would want to use it and thus perpetuate the weather war. It'd be tricky to make a pokemon that receives no advantage from weather while still being able to oppose it, though that is what learning in CAP is for.
• jackm: I'm confused. Imposter Ditto makes great use of Transform and is a check to offensive pokemon, especially set-up sweepers. Transform is highly dependent on the opponent's team, and there would be a huge risk to take a turn to use Transform, since the opponent gets that turn to deal damage, set up statuses/passive damage, and switch. There's also no guarantee that you would defeat the pokemon you'd go up against, not without a Choice Scarf, and even then, that just makes the opponent's switching and choice of move easier against this predictability. I don't see this as being feasible. :/
• Arcticblast: It's one of those concepts that examines one aspect of the pokemon while forgoing everything else. I've said this to people who had concepts previously, but one has to look at the entire pokemon--and the metagame it's in--to determine what is 'good'. Sure, taking away stats and a moveset makes one pay attention to abilities and typing, though there are pokemon with some of one and less of another and more of another. The Ubers metagame made Shedinja usable previously, and Ninjask remains usable in many tiers for its ability to Baton Pass. That's the metagame's influence on pokemon despite its stats and (majority of) its movepool. I'm honestly asking, what's new?
• Gloppagus: The 'forme' changing part of the concept is likely to be ignored in CAP, seeing as we'll just be making a pokemon with a given set of attributes. That makes this concept moot.
• ChrisTehAwesome: The question of what 'glue' is is interesting; I think of it as a pivot that works well with defeating common pokemon that would break the rest of the team apart. The concept of a powerful, versatile pokemon, though, recurs, and these pokemon usually end up as the pivot alongside their main role. I wonder if 'glue' really exists, or is it just something reworded from something more recognized? Well, CAP can try it out, if it's willing.
• akela: It's a take on phazing, essentially, but it does provide an interesting side to it other than just switching. With hazards and momentum in consideration, would these volatile status effects be more advantageous? My concern is the effect, if at all, these status effects bring to the metagame, which has shown that such status effects are, well ineffective. Forcing a switch or preserving a pokemon's position in battle is interesting, though I'm not sure if these status effects would do as you predict.
• Bashfrog: It's the move version of Cyclohm's concept. It's also another concept that focuses on just one component of creating a pokemon instead of looking at its entirety. It may be fun to load status moves onto a pokemon with Prankster, weak moves with powerful secondary effects onto a pokemon with Technician, or use Swagger and Punishment/Foul Play to doubly penalize a pokemon, but that's all there is to that. What do we learn other than that stats, abilities, and moves can synergize well?
• Thepoke4ever: See my comment to The Unlucky one.
• Psylink: This concept either sounds like a lure or gimmick, and trying to organize the metagame through unpredictability ends up being predictable with all of the unusable options being, well, unusable. Prediction between several good movesets is common, but not something that relies on being unpredictable and being useless otherwise. Is Absol better using its base 130 attack and Sucker Punching pokemon or investing EVs into its Special Attack to get around its expected physical walls while failing to defeat the pokemon it's expected to defeat? Most people would like to use the former and have a teammate get around those walls.
• Unoriginal Name: Eh, pokemon is math based, and that includes percentages and randomness. There are metagames that eschew luck entirely, but they end up being predictable as Chess. It's good to develop a metagame, but a fixed game provides no chances, risk, and fun (in my opinion)--it would just be pure analysis. I don't think you can remove randomness without removing a lot of what makes this game Pokemon.
• fryfrey: Imposter Ditto addressed this for offensive pokemon, but otherwise, how would that be done? A pokemon has a niche in the metagame, and trying to adapt to another one often has it become outclassed by what is normally in that niche. I'm sure this is well-known in biology. Teams build around a playstyle, and they typically make that playstyle work regardless of the opponent's, instead of having one pokemon adapt to it and breaking synergy with the team. A hyper offensive team wouldn't want a sudden wall, nor would a stall team want a glass cannon that essentially makes the team one pokemon less. How practical would that be in team-building and in the metagame, I ask?
• WebsterVanCooney: Phazers are infrequent but influential, I understand, and, with residual damage, are important to several sorts of teams' composition. I'd be happy to explore phazing further, since it provides a halt (to momentum, perhaps) to several sorts of playstyles.
• toshimelonhead: This seems like a variation on Perfect Nemesis, though this has slightly different (theoretical) effects. If this pokemon counters several large threats and is weak to many other pokemon, teams will want to keep this pokemon on their team. However, knowing that that pokemon is on a team and does nothing outside of keeping those threats in check, other teams will adapt around it and bring pokemon that would otherwise be less used to use. In my mind, this has a better effect on the metagame than Perfect Nemesis since the CAP is not a dominating force.
• heartsonfire: Examining the viability of hazards... well, I do feel like it's been done, as has weather, but not formally. Have you seen Pwnemon's concept? I think that's what you're getting at, but a bit vaguer. Keeping that in mind, I suggest this idea be sharpened as well--not necessarily in Pwnemon's direction, but more so that it's not simply a vaguer version of another concept.
• Electrolyte: I do like concepts about the metagame and entire composition of a pokemon, so I give kudos to you. That being said, I'm hesitant about intentionally trying the border between OU and Ubers. If it was just how what makes a pokemon in OU, I'd be for it, but I would rather not perpetuate the implication of CAP making overpowered pokemon, especially if it's intentional.
• Enguarde: I've seen weather quite a bit nowadays, and I have to say, to you and to those people I've commented to previously, is it feasible? Does Terrakion threaten a group of pokemon based on their abilities, or from their stats and typing? Weather teams usually carry pokemon that can stop opposing weather nonetheless, but if a rain team wants to defeat sand or sun, it doesn't usually give that responsibility to one pokemon. Even if the pokemon was capable of defeating other weather starters, it's likely that the opposing team will have a pokemon capable of defeating it while preserving that starter. In short, like jc104's idea, it's a bit too audacious for it to seem realistic.
• Scorpio: Speed isn't considered an issue for bulkier pokemon, and even less so for Trick Room teams (as rare as they are). I think we have plenty of examples that show why speed isn't critical to the metagame. :)
• Others1212: I've said this to another person who wrote a concept, but you're trying to make a pokemon that's weak to all weathers, but is still usable. It's likely that it becomes unusable because of the weather wars. Removing weather for one pokemon is, I agree, wasteful. Removing weather in general is like removing hazards or removing VoltTurn. It's part of the metagame, and removing it is possible, though teams sometimes just play around it if it's not too threatening.
• Menace13: See my comment to nyttyn's concept.
• Little Battler: The problem with such a pokemon is that it would disrupt the overall offensiveness/defensiveness of a team, being inconsistent when it the pokemon would be better otherwise. Reliability is what teams depend on, for the most part (yes, percentage chances occur in pokemon, but battles happen with that risk in mind). If it could happen at the player's notice instead of being triggered, like Meloetta, it would give the player a unique control over the flow of battle. Unfortunately, Darmanitan-Z does not work so well when it's not a voluntary switch.
• iamdanielcruces: See my comment to Base Speed, only with all of a pokemon's components considered instead of just typing.
• The Steam Punk: I've seen this before in Hackmons, Dream World, and Doubles, and people have mixed results. That's good! Depending on the ability chosen, it can end up becoming a complete gimmick. That's bad! However, seeing what examples exist previously, CAP could create a pokemon that works by itself, with a partner, or with an entire team to use what is normally considered a competitively hindering ability. It does make me question what limits there are to offset a detriment--if there's just something that needs to get rid of it or if higher stats/more moves/better typing would do. That's an area for learning!
• JEFLIV: I do suggest you look at some of the other concepts posted and add to your post with the concept posters' typings in mind. Alakazam fits your description, and it rarely uses Recover.
• Lster728: See my comment to chuckeroo777.

[GatoDelFuego]

Edited my original submission by changing the questions to make them a bit more broad and giving some explanation as to how the concept could potentially work, as I know these were questions people had asked.

[Jukain]

Originally Posted by Fat Quanyails

pokemon0078: While abusing percentage chances is amusing, sure, random is random. What's there to learn about random numbers other than how to get perfect pokemon on consoles with it? The effects of random numbers (paralysis, mostly) is more open to questioning, though that would be a different concept in of itself.

I think that you might be misunderstanding my concept a little. This is not about "abusing" percentage chances; this is about managing luck. This is about weighing risks in luck, and the goal of the concept is to be able to force your opponent to manage their luck more carefully and to reduce the luck you the user are affected by.

[inanimate blob]

Originally Posted by Fat Quanyails

inanimate blob: I was interested in this concept when it was posted. It's a separate form of risk that can be beneficial, albeit the current examples you give may or may not fit my idea of your concept. Psycho Shift with Sigilyph is strategic, but not a hamper to Sigilyph nor its team. Life Orb users, for example, reduce their longevity to deal more damage than they receive in return to take down the opponent's team. This ephemeral concept does make me think of a potential CAP's viability when its own existence in battle is reduced. It also reminds me of risk, but making it more obvious than last time--use that to your advantage, if you will.

Actually, this is a really good description of what I hope to accomplish. Somewhat of a "Aurumoth 2.0", so to speak, but more defensively inclined and not Über.

[WhiteDMist]

Ok, so I'm a long-time lurker and first-time poster in the CAP sub-forums (since Cyclohm if I'm not mistaken). I'll try to be careful to not put anything on the board that completely disregards the rules. Any feedback would be excellent to see what I should adjust/change.

Name: Pacifistic Stall
General Description: A Pokemon specializing in PP stalling the opponent until the have little choice but to Struggle or switch out.

Justification: PP Stall is a very rarely seen strategy in competitive battling, except maybe in the Ubers tier. This concept would help players learn how far one can attempt to PP Stall the opponent, as well as the various ways it can be done. It also can take advantage of the fact that many powerful Pokemon rely on certain low PP moves for STAB or coverage, since those are usually the ones that NEED to be stalled out.

Questions To Be Answered:

• Is PP Stalling a viable "win condition"?
• What are the various ways to PP stall?
• What are the necessities to make PP stalling feasible?
• What effect will PP stalling have on moveset choice?
• Can a Pokemon rely solely on PP stalling and still be competitive in the OU metagame?
• What is the difference between offensive and defensive PP stalling?
• Will PP Stalling affect how conservative players will be with their lower PP moves?
• What kind of teams could this concept fit onto?

Explanation: PP Stalling is such an ignored strategy because there are not Pokemon dedicated solely to it. There are many Pressure Pokemon to be sure, but they are used more to tank hits and inflict something inhibiting on the opponent. There are moves aimed solely at reducing PP, but they are usually a waste of a moveslot. What this concept would look at is what is truly required to make an effective PP staller. There are several other strategies that work well at PP stalling, including: SubRoost, WishProtect, RestTalk, and maybe a few odd ones. One can even try to be a status magnet in the hopes that they lose the ability to attack while their opponent loses more PP.

Offensive PP stalling would relying on a high Speed stat, while Defensive stalling prefers more bulkier stat spreads. Neither are truly required, but they do tend to make the best PP stallers. I would think a smaller moveset is a good thing for this Pokemon in order to truly focus on PP stalling. Also, immunities will play a big part in this (resistances almost as much). This concept doesn't really have a way to fail, because it is focused mainly on figuring if PP stalling itself is viable if a Pokemon specializes in it; the CAP would just be the vessel to study from.

[CabooseFTW]

I am also a first timer on CAP so don't judge TOO harshly.

Name: Arghonaut 2.0

Description: A Pokemon that can check a majority of the current top 5 Pokemon.

Justification: Let's wind the clocks back a few years. These OU players wouldn't dare make all of these precautions just to face a rain team of all things. I mean what happened? Answer: Gen5 took all of the teamstyles and fun balanced strategies we all knew and loved from DP and just sorta took a crap on them, never to be seen again. All of it has been replaced by Politoed, Ferrothorn, VoltTurn,and other teamstyles that resulted in an almost balanced metagame going down the crapper. A redux of what we did with CAP 6 would solve some of these issues. It's all the more important now that every team seems to be centralizing around ridiculous stuff like Politoed.

Questions to be Answered: Is it possible to check this many pokemon and playstyles on one Pokemon?
What pokemon would rise to the top once these common threats are dethroned?
What kinds of strategies are successful in conquering OU's top 5?

Explanation: As you could see, there are several ways one could go about this. With the diversity of those in the top spots, it could be difficult, but I believe it is necessary to give us a better understanding of the metagame and a better metagame in general. Ways this could be done include Storm Drain to beat Drizzle, Shield Dust to keep from being haxed by Jirachi, etc. The description also only says a majority of the top 5, meaning very little pressure on trying to do everything at once. You all decide which of these common mons need to go to make OU a better place.

[JEFLIV]

Originally Posted by Fat JEFLIV

Name: Versatile and Shielded

General Description: A specially attacking versatile pokemon who has access to powerful moves but is frail HP-wise and needs recovery moves to work well. Should be genderless.

Justification: I often want a team member who can deal out real damage, but I know that it should have a flaw. I am open to suggestions that change this flaw. I think that it would have a niche in many teams.

Questions To Be Answered:
* Should it have a boosting Ability or a status one?
* Can it have powerful non-STAB moves?
* I want it to be genderless, but should it be?
* Should it have an item to abuse?

Explanation: I've always wanted a pokemon such as this, and I think that it would be an asset to many teams. Not as the centerpiece, but as support.

Maybe to give it a different niche than Alakazam, it could have an unconventional typing (like Rock-? or Steel-?) with high Sp Def and utilize resistances to physical attackers to its advantage rather than STAB and Recover/Roost. This would give us a specially oriented pokemon in a generally physical type.

[DetroitLolcat]

Name: Let's (Not) Get Physical!

General Description: A Pokemon that mitigates the effects of Physical Pokemon, specifically the attackers, in the OU metagame.

Justification: A quick look at OU's usage stats suggests that OU is a physical tier. Although Special moves definitely have their places, Pokemon like Breloom, Scizor, every Dragon whose name doesn't start with Lati-, and Terrakion strike fear into any Pokemon's heart with their massive Attack stats and priority moves.

This concept will do something no CAP has done before: thoroughly explore the Physical/Special split of Pokemon that occurred in Gen IV, specifically by shifting the balance of OU from a Physical tier to a Special tier. For a long time, CAP has concerned itself with topics such as momentum, abilities, weather, etc., but we have not dedicated a project to exploring the roles Physical and Special Pokemon.

Questions To Be Answered:

• What is the current state of OU from a physical vs. special standpoint?
• With all of the Physical attackers roaming OU with their Choice Bands and such, is it possible to adequately defend against them, especially when many of them possess coverage to handle nearly any type?
• How beatable should we make this Pokemon by Physical means?
• What Special threats will emerge as a result of this Pokemon, and will this Pokemon in conjunction with Special walls revitalize stall in OU?

Explanation:

I want to see this concept in action because it fulfills every criterion of a successful CAP concept. First and foremost, it's a safe concept in that it is not difficult to fulfill. While topics such as "Momentum" and "Utility Counter" were abstract and difficult to adhere to, this concept is much more straightforward. Straightforward concepts are nothing new to CAP, just look at Cyclohm and Necturna, two bare-bones, clear concepts that led to successful creations. To succeed in this concept, all we would have to do is identify all of OU's significant physical threats and design a Pokemon that can defeat those Pokemon more often than not. Since adhering to the concept is not difficult, we can spend our time experimenting, theorymonning, and just having fun with Let's (Not) Get Physical. Instead of arguing over whether or not a proposed stat spread, move, or ability fits the concept, we can debate whether or not a proposed stat, move, or ability would be a "good fit" on this Pokemon.

What sets my concept apart is that as long as our Pokemon is "good enough", it is automatically a success. As long as we give it the tools necessary to combat the majority of Physical Pokemon, we can choose everything else. We can decide whether or not to give this Pokemon decent Special Defense. We can decide which non-concept related moves to grant this Pokemon, as countering Physical Pokemon is not a difficult task.

I want to see this concept realized because it would give the CAP project an unprecedented degree of freedom when designing this Pokemon. We can choose which bells and whistles to add to this Pokemon while making a dedicated effort to understand an oft-overlooked aspect of competitive Pokemon. This isn't as much a "concept" as it is a "framework", as it will be our job to fill this frame with whatever we choose, only bound by the defining principle of countering Physical Pokemon.

In the past, we have had "catch-all" Physical walls such as Skarmory in Gen III, Skarmory and Hippowdon in Gen IV, but nothing in Gen V, because the numerous new Pokemon, many of whom are Fighting or Water-type Pokemon, can break through the Steel- and Ground-type walls of the past. Likewise, OU became an offense-based tier and "walls" were forced into a nontraditional role of "setting up hazards until they die" instead of truly wearing out the opposing team. In previous generations, Physical (or Special) walls were expected to shrug off powerful attacks and live to fight another day while supporting the team. Nowadays, even the toughest Physical walls risk OHKOs from Pokemon like Terrakion and Kyurem-B, so it becomes infinitely more difficult for them to do their jobs. If we had a "catch-all wall" like we have had in the past, we can analyze a Gen V metagame where stall is a prominent playstyle, analyze stall cores that may re-surge, and potentially even create a defensive metagame for the first time in a long time.

[Birkal*]

Final Submission

Name: Dethrone Drizzle

General Description: Develop a Pokemon that serves as both a counter and a check to common threats that abuse Drizzle. Note that it cannot benefit from Drizzle, but rather, must serve as a direct threat to all Drizzle-based teams.

Justification: I will be perfectly blunt here: this concept is not very inspiring or revolutionary. Normally, I write concepts that are pretty creative, so this alone says something about the state of our Overused metagame. Without a shadow of a doubt, Drizzle's place in OU is absolutely the question on everyone's mind as we approach the end of BW2. According to this thread, over 250 users think that Drizzle should be removed from Overused; that's an astounding number. Whether or not you think Drizzle should be banned, there is no denying that it is a hot topic. The Create-A-Pokemon Project would be an incredibly useful tool for Overused battlers to test what the BW2 metagame is like with the threat of Drizzle subdued. This is the most relevant issue in Overused, and it would be a shame if we did not address Drizzle as a competitive project.

Questions To Be Answered:

• What is the BW2 metagame like without Drizzle playing the most dominant role? This is obviously the largest question to answer here. I think we can make some hypotheses about what that metagame would look like, but we cannot know for sure until we reach that destination. Would other playstyles rise in usage when Drizzle is dethroned? If so, which ones?
  
  
• What are threats and strategies that can be utilized to dismantle Drizzle teams? Due to the dominance of Drizzle, there are many interesting strategies that have developed in order to counter it. Through this concept, we'll be able to discuss which ones work well and which ones do not. The lessons learned here hold realistic applications when it comes to teambuilding in that we can share our strategies and techniques.
  
  
• Which Pokemon benefit from Drizzle? Which of their sets benefit from Drizzle? Which Pokemon are the most threatening under automatic rain? It's pretty simplistic to make a list of Pokemon that thrive in the rain. What I'm interested in is ranking these threats in terms of their potency and discussing practical ways of stopping them. Sharing our thoughts on Drizzle will expose it bare and allow us to truly understand its nature in the Overused metagame.
  
  
• Which support options are available to dethrone Drizzle? Another interesting aspect that we can dive into is exploring which support moves best hinder Drizzle-based teams. Which status effects work best? Are Light Screen, Taunt, and hazards good choices? Which Pokemon can best benefit from support options in order to fight against Drizzle teams? All of these questions can be addressed in order to make CAP 5 a more versatile counter to rain. As many have stated before, it is impossible for a single Pokemon to counter an entire playstyle (especially one as dominant as rain teams), so it would be wise to incorporate other Pokemon in an offensive or defensive core to impede Drizzle.
  
  
• Can a Pokemon exist that threatens rain-based teams, yet does not perform well on them? When one thinks of Drizzle counters, big names like Ferrothorn and Gastrodon pop up. The problem is that they also work very well on Drizzle teams. If we are to make a Pokemon that puts Drizzle on an equal playing field, we'll need to do some clever thinking to overcome this obstacle. It's a challenge worth discussing, and it might shed some light on Pokemon similar to this that already exist!

Explanation:

The questions and the justification pretty much sum up my thoughts. To be honest, you're fooling yourself if you don't think that Drizzle is worth pursuing in a competitive project like CAP. It's entirely relevant and poses a great challenge for us over the next few months. Please note that I'm not stating that Drizzle should or shouldn't be banned with this concept; I'm personally quite indifferent about it. What interests me is how divided we are on its place in Overused as a competitive community, and that is absolutely worth capitalizing upon.

As a general note, I would very much like to avoid auto-weather abilities with this concept. I'm not interested in changing BW2 OU to be centralized around some other weather. Rather, my focus is on decentralizing rain-based teams in order to see what occurs in its absence. That is why my concept differs significantly from Korski's Weather Warrior; I'm upfront that we should be attacking Drizzle and doing it without the use of auto-weather. Furthermore, what I'm proposing is more manageable and relevant than jc104's Weather Balancer. While exploring the dominance of a;; weathers is intriguing, it fails to address that Drizzle is the primary topic on everyone's mind. I'd argue that the majority of battlers wonder what BW2 OU would be like without Drizzle-based teams as the number one playstyle, plain and simple. What I'm suggesting in this concept will not only challenge us as a Pokemon-creating community, but also has a good chance of successfully answering some relevant questions about Overused.

Furthermore, you must consider that this concept is entirely relevant to the current Overused metagame. Through this concept, we're diminishing Drizzle, the primary playstyle of Overused, in order to see which Pokemon can flourish. The point is that we're learning about the most relevant question on any serious OU player's mind: "What would this metagame be like without Drizzle being the largest threat?" What we learn about the BW2 metagame is Drizzle's role in it, and what its absence would be like if a threat existed to consistently combat it. Also, don't pull the "If Drizzle is so bad, it should be a susepct" card. CAP does not make the rules about what is suspected, and Drizzle has been in its spotlight since day one of BW1, and yet we still haven't seen a suspect round for it. Overall, this concept has the potential to challenge us greatly AND give some relevant learning to the Overused community at large.

[Sonic The Hedgedawg]

Originally Posted by Fat Base Speed

Name: Type Equalizer

Description: A pokemon whose presence in the metagame increases the usage of one or more underused types and simultaneously decreases the usage of one or more overused types.
Questions To Be Answered:

• Is a types usefulness relative to the metagame or is it intrinsic? (Ie. Can any type be the "best" type given the right circumstances or do type match-ups, available STAB moves etc mean some types will always be better than others?)

I'm trying to look more on typing in relation to the build of the metagame and and what new opportunities existing pokemon will have in the modified metagame, without the presence of certain types.

I really REALLY like this idea, after all, it's stealth rock that cripples many pokemon who otherwise may have been fine in the metagame and, likewise, elevates other pokemon for their ability to resist it. In that obvious example, the metagame has shifted which typings are favourable and, as a result, things which match unfavourably against those typings and/or stealth rock are considered unfavourable.

I get the idea here: Ice would probably be a bad typing no matter what, but fire or flying types might seem more attractive if it weren't for stealth rock.

The issue I have is . . . how exactly can one acheive this concept. I mean, sure, it's easy enugh to create a fire/ice pokemon and give it the Mountaineer ability, or clone charizard and give him magic guard, and they would intrinsically cover some of their meta-based weaknesses, but, even then, that only makes that particular pokemon viable and doesn't do much for all the other pokemon sharing one of it's types.

The only way I can actually see to shift the meta's ostracism of certain typings is to actually completely reshape the meta, which is not a simple task. Or, well, I suppose it is, for Game Freak. They could easily nerf stealth rock to the ground, or create an item which protects its holder from enviornmental damage or an ability/item which pushes away entry hazards when the pokemon enters and such things would be EASY, and woud clear up paticularly troublesome portions of the meta.


But, otherwise, you are proposing a CAP which so threatens the dominant typings/strategies of te current meta that it completely marginalizes their dominance. That's an incredibly lofty goal without some weird ability and/or some worrisomely broken power level on the pokémon.


In short, I love the concept, but, unless we, as a community, somehow feel that we can meet this task, I would shy away from a goal this hard to reach

[Lol_cakes]

Very new to the scene, but I have always enjoyed CAP, I realy want to help the community grow so Questions and Criticism are welcome!

Name: Sweeper Spook (Psych Up)

General Description: This particular CAP is aimed to act as a check or counter to the sweepers that have already set-up. Using a move that has earned the title of "gimmicky" Sounds generic doesn't it?

Justification: We all know there is nothing more scary than a Salamence that has grabbed a couple of moxie boosts, or a Volcorona that grabbed a QD somewhere. Well I for one think that it would be a real challenge and learning opportunity for he community to learn new mechanics behind a move that is often disregarded as "bad" and at the same time seeing how heavily sweepers affect the metagame. Psych Up could present new tactics and play styles between rather than often relying on a sweeper to win you the game, in fear that this CAP may be lurking to copy those boosts. This creates a niche that has not yet been created in the competitive metagame. This could essentially help balance the reliance on sweepers if you didn't catch that.

Questions To Be Answered:

• How could a Pokemon find the time to use Psych Up, especially against a sweeper that is ready to go?
• Can gimmicky moves ever be considered on true sets?
• How could this Pokemon find a way to use the boosts it copied and use them to good effect and at the same time stay alive to use those said boosts?
• Would this Pokemon have heavy affect on our fast-paced hard hitting metagame?

Explanation: This may seem like the Pokemon is aimed to just become another sweeper but in order for it to get those boosts it needs to have a opposition that has 1 or more already. The niche should cover almost all sweepers, Special and Physical alike, at the same time have the right movepool, abilities, and stats to get its job done without being completely gamebreaking or underwhelming. Turning the game around in your favor against those x2.5 SpA-SpD-Spd Volcoronas.

[Meganium Sulfate]

Name: Labyrinth Wall


General Description: A pokemon that can defend exceptionally, but cannot attack at all.


Justification: There has never been a pokemon in this niche, so hard to take down that it makes up for pitiful offensive capabilities. I'd be interested to see what it would accomplish.


Questions To Be Answered:
- How much bulk would such a pokemon need to have?
- What pokemon in the OU metagame are vulnerable to a pokemon that can't harm?
- How will versatile players use this strange pokemon in unforeseen ways?


Explanation: Some of you may know a Yu-Gi-Oh card by the name of Labyrinth Wall. It, by definition, can withstand almost any attack and stay standing (note: I have not played the game, but rather looked with fascination at a single card. I realize that in all fairness "Labyrinth Wall" is probably fairly easy to take down. Not my point.) The trick is, it can't fight back.

I'm proposing a pokemon with massive defensive potential, whether just through sheer stats or through an ability as well, such defensive prowess that pokemon has never seen before. In return, this pokemon must not be able to do anything offensive. Nothing substantial at all. No extensive damage dealing, no setup moves, no Toxic, no Seismic Toss, and maybe even no hazards. We would limit the movepool to only basic protection against setup, like Taunt, perhaps some utility moves like U-Turn, or some other distracting factors.

What could be the use of that, you might ask. That is the whole point of the concept: to find out. Such a pokemon might become the ultimate switch-in, soaking up moves and then letting another pokemon in on another opening. Maybe it will still be effective to utilize externalities like the hazards that other pokemon set up. Maybe it will be so hard to KO that it will make PP significant, a task that an ability like Pressure could help along. No matter what happens, I'm confident that a bulky enough pokemon, regardless of its lack of offensive merit, will earn a place in OU. In my mind, it would make a fitting CAP5.

[SlimMan]

Name: Substitute Abuse

Description: A Pokemon which, through all of its qualities, is able to abuse Substitute as well as possible, and in as many different ways as possible.

Justification: Substitute is a weird move. When you use it, you aren't attacking, you aren't healing, you aren't boosting, you aren't status'ing... It is truly in a category of its own. Additionally, Substitute is a move which has indisputably had a large impact on the OU metagame. It's easy to argue that Substitute single-handedly, or at least to a large degree, led to the banning of Garchomp, and later Sand Veil. Despite this though, I feel that it is a relatively unexplored move. This CAP will explore what makes Substitute so good in some scenarios and on certain Pokemon, while making it a lesser choice in others. It will attempt to reveal all the possible different utilities of the move Substitute, which no current Pokemon does.

Questions To Be Answered:

• Have all of the methods to effectively abuse Substitute been discovered already? Or can a Pokemon designed for the purpose find new ways to use this move?
• A Pokemon's ability and movepool clearly affect how well it can use Substitute, but how much of an impact can other factors, such as stats and typing have?
• Similar to the above, what is required for a Pokemon to abuse Subtitute well? Are certain "builds" of Pokemon simply better suited to this move than others?
• With the limitations of a single Pokemon (one ability, one typing, etc.), is it possible to create a viable set for the each of the many uses of Substitute?
• How much does the drawback of Subtitute (25% health) affect the cost/benefit of using this move? Does the drawback make certain Substitute-strategies nonviable all by itself?
• Which is more important to a Substitute user: minimizing the cost of the move, or maximizing the benefit? Does the strategy in which Substitute is used affect which is more important?
• Is there a best strategy for Substitute? (only on a single Pokemon could they all be compared) If so, what is it? Is there a worst strategy with Substitute?

Explanation: There are a lot of uses for Substitute. Blocking status (SubCM Latias), Baton Passing it (SubPass Jolteon), stalling (SubToxic Tentacruel), using it as a buffer during set-up (SubSD Garchommp), easing prediction (Sub+3 Attacks Hydreigon), and that's just the tip of the iceberg! You've also got SubSeeders, SubPunchers, and a myriad of other Pokemon which use this move. But out of all the Pokemon who use Substitute, Breloom is the ONLY one which comes to mind who is able to utilize Substitute on more than one set (SubSeed and SubPunch for Breloom). I think that a Pokemon which could use Substitute in multiple different ways would be a very fresh and interesting addition to the OU metagame. When I was giving an example of Pokemon who abuse Substitute in different ways, just a moment ago, I tried to list the strongest example for each role that I could think of at the time. It would also be exciting for us to create a Pokemon which excels at using Substitute to the point where it could become the strongest at certain roles for Substitute.

I can imagine that this concept seems initially limiting: "Oh, so it's movepool has to include Toxic, Leech Seed, and a few set-up moves. It also has to have Poison Heal to negate Subs and a STAB Focus Punch". But given the versatility of the move Substitute, I think that we can be much more original than simply throwing together a bunch of moves which jive well with Substitute. Although the infinite possibilities of CAP make it a very creative process, I feel that the inherent quality of Substitute to have so many different uses would allow us to create a particularly creative one this time.

This also gives us an EXCELLENT opportunity to learn more about the role of unpredictability in a Pokemon's effectiveness. I've seen many people talk about how Pokemon like Jirachi benefit from having enough viable sets that you can't immediately counter it. This Pokemon would show us precisely how unpredictability can benefit a Pokemon, as its set would remain hidden even after using its first move (probably Substitute) most of the time!

[jc104]

Originally Posted by Fat Birkal

Name: Cripple Drizzle

General Description: Develop a Pokemon that serves as both a counter and a check to common threats that abuse Drizzle. Note that it cannot benefit from Drizzle, but rather, must serve as a direct threat to all Drizzle-based teams.

First of all, I'm glad that you've explicitly stated which weather you're referring to, above all else. Rain is the main problem, although I would argue that sun is not a long way behind, and probably presents the strongest challenge to weatherless teams. Now, referring to my concept, you state that "while exploring the dominance of different weathers is intriguing, it fails to address that Drizzle is the primary topic on everyone's mind." Is this not what it means to balance the weather; if rain is the main priority, why would it not turn out to be the focus of my concept too? Looking at the very same poll you quoted, roughly 40% of those people wanting to ban rain also wanted to ban sun and sand, and were even willing to ban hail just because it had be lumped in with the others (probably; there's no way of knowing this since the poll was rather flawed). So would it not seem reasonable to give perhaps a third of our attention to the other weather conditions?

Also, I worry that we would go wildly overboard with your concept, as far as balance is concerned. I would worry that we'd end up with a rampant sun metagame, which sounds to me much worse than a rain-based one. I think rain is actually the easiest weather to target by far; aldaron's proposal is a major, major weakness which for other weathers there is no parallel. Imagine if we had a kingdra that could break through the likes of ferrothorn (e.g maybe a poliwrath with better stats and a decent fighting move. EDIT: or even a keldeo with swift swim as its only ability...). Rain also has a very strong tendecy to spam water moves, which are easily resisted, and for which there are several abilties that grant immunity. I don't think crippling rain proposes enough of a challenge, unless we deliberately forbid ourselves some of the easier options.

edit: perhaps you could make the concept more challenging by referring to rain instead of drizzle. Makes the swift swimmer thing difficult because we'd need to avoid it setting rain up for itself.