CAP 37 - Part 2 - Concept Assessment

[earthflax]

Looks like we’re winding down a little, so let’s move to the next set of questions. Some quick personal thoughts on what has been said so far:

Spoiler

To address Abilities in general (particularly Merciless, though other “conditional” abilities fall into this category as well), I’m going to come out and say that from a process perspective it probably will not make sense to pick a conditional ability when 1) the concept specifically delineates moves and 2) this would greatly diminish, if not eliminate, the impact of the Ability stage as a whole.
I also think, and I’m near-universally supported on this from what I can tell, that it’s necessary for us to figure out a specific move or moves to work around early. This reduces the incentive to vote on a slated element for the future aspects that it likely entails, which is a real issue, especially considering our pool of realistic options is not particularly large when accounting for synergies with typing/abilities/what have you.
The point on CAP37 ideally preferring a conditional move to a more reliable one is definitely also something worth considering from the perspective of “this concept’s realization is probably a failure if we turn around and go ‘oh, hex guy is/would have been better with shadow ball’” but I don’t think it necessarily has to force our hand regarding distribution, echoing what quziel said on this front. Following from his example, over a 2-turn sequence, Stomping Tantrum will invariably have the same BP (0+150=75+75), allowing Garbodor to be more liberal in its use of a relatively risky move. Earthquake has a higher damage ceiling, but it requires prediction to reach that level and is thus more variable.
Lastly, I’d like to say that, in general, I’m not a huge fan of overly risky conditional move pairings. Stuff like Sucker+Focus Punch is interesting on the surface but this implementation of the concept is pretty lazy considering what a combination like this would actually do in games, especially when we can use conditional moves in ways that viably minimize risk instead.

A couple more questions for you all:

1. One move or two? Why? Specifically, I am talking about how many moves we should make our primary focus.
2. Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter? A lot of the moves we are discussing have conditions which are reactive - in particular, “hit me” or “don’t hit me” type moves like Sucker and Focus Punch respectively. There are moves with conditions that CAP37 or its teammates could help activate proactively, though, such as Barb Barrage. Is clicking the move itself proactive enough?
3. Is there a standard for consistency in activation? Is it simply enough that the reward of the move outweighs the risk of using it?
4. Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one? Some of the moves that have been discussed, including Beak Blast, Sucker Punch, and Hex, are known to produce effective and engaging conditional dynamics in the current gen through what we can see in official metagames and OMs, whereas others, such as Focus Punch and Metal Burst, have very few parallels to draw from. Is there any lean towards optimizing a move known to be viable versus introducing a dynamic that is novel to the tier and, perhaps, generation at large?

I’ll give another 36-48 hours for this round. Reminder that specific move suggestions aren’t permitted outside of usage for examples and illustrations. Cheers!

 

[dex]

One move or two? Why?

I believe the process should be based around one conditional move. This is the move that will inform typing and ability. We are super free to discuss other conditional moves that might synergize with our chosen move in Defining Moves, but choosing more than one conditional move at this juncture feels like we are jumping the gun a little bit. There is no reason to limit our design space beyond choosing one move to investigate. You could point to inherent synergy of stuff like Beak Blast + Infernal Parade for instance; however, that same synergy is achieved with Will-o-Wisp or Flame Body or Scald. I'd rather leave our design space as open as possible to create the best user of our chosen conditional move that we can. Again, if there is synergy between the chosen move and other conditional moves, that is a great conversation for the Defining Moves stage.

Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter?

I don't think it actually matters that much. Both sides of this coin have viable options to choose from, and I think both present interesting choices that we can make later on.

Is there a standard for consistency in activation?

There has to be some consistency, but really what we need to talk about is how consistency interacts with the move's payoff. For example, Focus Punch is not a consistent move whatsoever. The drawback is so massive that it makes Focus Punch a near unviable choice; the payoff does not support the risk. On the flip side, you have something like Sucker Punch, which is similar in that it fails if the condition is met, but the risk is lessened by the move's priority, making it a much more consistent option. Overall, that interaction of risk vs. consistency should really be what we evaluate all the move options by.

Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one?

I think the goal for this concept is to achieve main set usage for a conditional move. What that means is that CAP 37 should prefer to run this move on most of its sets. I think there are some presently unviable options, like Barb Barrage for instance, that are mainly unviable because of their distribution, that present promising prospects for the process. I also think that more-common options like Sucker Punch are perfectly fine as well. What really matters is if our chosen move can achieve main set usage.

 

[Guingil]

One move or two? Why? Specifically, I am talking about how many moves we should make our primary focus.

One's great as it's less constraining than two. Most conditional moves have multiple options that can improve their conditions, but also can themselves reward multiple other moves. Having two could really diminish our Typing/Moves stages, where people might just want STABs corresponding to the two moves, or additional options in Moves anyway.

Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter?

Both could lead to interesting processes, but I personally like the reactive options more. From an implementation standpoint, proactive moves like Hex or Barb Barrage will have more straightforward paths. By no means is this trivial. Fake Out or First Impression can be considered proactive, and VGC Incineroar which is built around switching demonstrates how many aspects just this could involve (namely, rewarding switching in, ways to switch out, fishing Protects, switching to another Fake Out user etc). My attraction towards reactive, or prediction-based conditional moves, is because they could allow us to explore slightly more unconventional ways to improve our conditions. For example, Pursuit + Sucker trapping worked so well because the moves implicitly complimented each other and reduced opponent options. Moves like Encore, Taunt or Disable could also improve some reactive moves, as could trapping. Opportunistic reactive moves like Temper Flare, Retaliation are fun but I'm not sure how they can be built around, and thus think they might serve better as coverage options.

Is there a standard for consistency in activation?

For sure. I believe that a good conditional moves serves a purpose even in inactivation. It cannot be stressed how worse Focus Punch is than Sucker Punch, for example. For Focus Punch, you failing to activate means you've taken damage and wasted a turn. For Sucker Punch, you have taken no damage, and you could have also used that turn to setup for free. The idea of 50/50s are thrown around for these scenarios, but the best conditional moves keep the status quo or at least minimize harm to you even if you fail, which makes it more like 50% chance you lose, and 50% we play this game again.

Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one?

I mean it depends on whether the dynamic is mechanically infeasible (like anything with Focus Punch), or if it's infeasible due to its user being bad. If there is a less-used strategy which is limited only by its user, that could be an argument for exploring it more, even.

 

[the_strikelasercl4w]

1. One move or two? Why? I guess I am in a bit of a minority here, but I think it should be more than 1 move (ideally 2 with skill expressive synergy). I personally find it to be boring when a mon is completely centered around doing 1 thing, and as soon as you see it on team preview you know exactly what the plan is. As an added bonus when we get to the typing and ability stages having more than 1 move creates an interesting puzzle on how to make it good but not broken
2. Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter? In the case of using a single move I think it should be proactive. When you have to rely on your opponent to do something it gives up too much control of the flow of the game. In the event we build around more than 1 move, it should likely be one of each to push the predictive aspect of the concept
3. Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one? I am all for an already viable move. Hex seems kind of lazy, but Beak Blast / Focus Punch and the like feel way more interesting. And in the event we build around 2 moves it could be one of each as well

TLDR I feel like the concept will fall pretty flat if we don't build around 2 moves that do something different to create skill intensive gameplay

 

[Gekokeso]

One move or two? Why? Specifically, I am talking about how many moves we should make our primary focus.

One, full stop. If we try to focus on 2 different moves we will heavily restrict our design space, when the point of this mon is to make the most of a particular move.

Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter? A lot of the moves we are discussing have conditions which are reactive - in particular, “hit me” or “don’t hit me” type moves like Sucker and Focus Punch respectively. There are moves with conditions that CAP37 or its teammates could help activate proactively, though, such as Barb Barrage. Is clicking the move itself proactive enough?

As Dex mentioned, it doesn't really matter. Both routes are pretty viable to follow, so it makes no sense limiting us on options to explore.

1. Is there a standard for consistency in activation? Is it simply enough that the reward of the move outweighs the risk of using it?

There's two types of moves worth exploring:
- The move's "condition" isn't that limiting so the move gets to do something even without it (eg hex still dealing damage, shore up still healing)
- The payoff is high enough to get the move to activate (eg sucker punch being a priority move, electro shot boosting spa)

Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one? Some of the moves that have been discussed, including Beak Blast, Sucker Punch, and Hex, are known to produce effective and engaging conditional dynamics in the current gen through what we can see in official metagames and OMs, whereas others, such as Focus Punch and Metal Burst, have very few parallels to draw from. Is there any lean towards optimizing a move known to be viable versus introducing a dynamic that is novel to the tier and, perhaps, generation at large?

We should definitely aim to choose moves that are either stuck on lame mons (beak blast on toucannon, barb barrage on Overqwil) more than common options like Hex or Sucker Punch.

 

[escarlata]

Going by the "actively wants to use the conditional move, rather than being limited by options" feels like it sorta paradoxically limits our options.
...
3 again is a very valid route, although we might have to do some weird design where we accept that our chosen move is supporting a main move rather than being our primary click. That's totally fine; again, to give a simple example (SMNU Garbodor) a mon that supports Gunk Shot with Stomping Tantrum plays in a very unique way, and has very different considerations to the same mon if it had Earthquake.

I agree that going by the "actively wants to use the conditional move, rather than being limited by options" is extremely limiting of our options, but I personally think that it's the approach that is most likely to result in an actual viable mon. Trying to run conditional moves that are, under most cases, outclassed by generically more useful moves, while denying access to those moves, runs a high risk of our CAP being unviable entirely.

I think the example of Garbodor in SMNU is a pretty good example of how Stomping Tantrum can be a good complementary move to a good reliable STAB option. But the question becomes, how much of it is because the main option is a strong, reliable STAB? And would it still work if the main STAB is also "conditional"?

Take the example of Barb Barrage + Stomping Tantrum as mentioned in an earlier post. The intention of the concept is that if Barb Barrage hits a Steel type we get a supercharged Stomping Tantrum. Sounds good on paper right? But the moment our opponent has a Poison resist that is not Steel type, we are working with 2 moves that have sub-80 BP. And the end results is just something extremely unthreatening.

Calcs

Here's when you wish you had Earthquake:
252 Atk Tera Ground Sneasler Stomping Tantrum vs. 248 HP / 252+ Def Muk: 212-252 (51.3 - 61%) -- 92.2% chance to 2HKO after Leftovers recovery

Here's when you wish you had Gunk Shot:
252 Atk Tera Ground Sneasler Stomping Tantrum vs. 252 HP / 252+ Def Vileplume: 99-117 (27.9 - 33%) -- 80.2% chance to 4HKO after Leftovers recovery

And here's how you'd do against a non-Poison type:
252 Atk Tera Ground Sneasler Stomping Tantrum vs. 252 HP / 168+ Def Sandaconda: 81-96 (23.2 - 27.5%) -- guaranteed 3HKO after poison damage
252 Atk Sneasler Barb Barrage (120 BP) vs. 252 HP / 168+ Def Sandaconda: 64-76 (18.3 - 21.8%) -- 7.5% chance to 3HKO after poison damage

And most mons don't just happen to have 130 base Atk either.

Sure, we can have a third move to cover those, but at that point, is it really Stomping Tantrum discouraging them from coming in, or the reliable third option?

And here I segue to my next take:

1. One move or two? Why? Specifically, I am talking about how many moves we should make our primary focus.

One. As aforementioned, conditional moves succeed because they are supplemented by reliable move, not other conditional moves.
Dragapult can afford to use Hex because it has Dragon Darts; Raging Bolt can afford to use Thunderclap because it has Draco; Kingambit can afford to use Sucker Punch because its other moves also deal a billion damage.
If in the process of focusing on one move, we find incidental synergy with other conditional move, so be it; but trying to focus on 2-conditional-move comboes will just end up in mediocrity.

—————————————

Also, as for if we want a proactive vs reactive condition; while other posters seems to suggest that it doesn’t really matter, I do think that we want to work with a proactive move if we decide to focus on a move with variable base power.

To clarify what I mean, a move like Barb Barrage or Hex is proactive; while the condition is not always active, you can push the activation by applying the status. A move like Eruption is also proactive; it has variable base power, but the opponent has to interact with you to make it weaker. Meanwhile, a move like Avalanche or Metal Burst is reactive. Because the move itself is weak when its condition is not fulfilled, you have no way of discouraging the opponent from just clicking Spikes or Swords Dance; so the mon would prefer something more reliable. A good example to illustrate this is with Glastier; it has the perfect chassis for what is a good user of Avalanche… and it uses Icicle Crash.

 

[Blizihguh]

One aspect that hasn't quite been touched on that seems notable for the process is opportunity costs. To their credit, a few have mentioned the reliability of conditional moves. That is a related topic. However, we should also consider what the moves are doing at base, separate from any conditional effect, and the inherent risk in using the move.

To give some examples, Beak Blast seems a popular candidate. At base it's a 100 BP Flying move. Even accounting for the negative priority, few Pokemon will regret clicking it even if the conditional effect fails. Other candidates, like the Protect clones or Knock Off similarly have little downside. The conditionall effect is simply a bonus on top of an already good move.

There are other candidates that have variable opportunity cost. Yes, First Impression is conditional depending on the turn used, but, in its optimal use case, it has very little downside. Choice Items and moves like Encore can exacerbate these costs, but can easily be accounted for. Moves like Hex similarly have little opportunity cost when used in optimal conditions and arguably should and often will not be used outside of them.

That leaves moves with very high opportunity costs. These are not necessarily bad moves, but they have tremendous downsides if used incorrectly. Focus Punch and Sucker Punch, for instance, risk whiffing and allowing your opponent a free turn. These candidates will require much more forethought in their application.

I don't have a ton to add that hasn't already been said, but I want to highlight this post -- I think this idea is really important here.

A move like Knock Off is "conditional," but it's still a very easy click most of the time. We know this already about Knock Off I think! But for low-distribution moves like Beak Blast, it's easy to forget this. Realistically, Beak Blast would be extremely splash able if more mons got it. And yeah, it's cool to see a rare move, but that doesn't feel pro-concept to me. A mon that just clicks Beak Blast isn't trying to leverage a conditional effect to achieve an advantage; it's just clicking a generically good move that happens to have a condition attached.

To me, something like Hex or Avalanche makes more sense, but it runs into some of the same issues as Knock Off. If the mon needs a Ghost move, and its only option is Hex, it will just run Hex. Avalanche is better here because it at least has that -4 priority, which makes it a little harder to justify without having some strategy to proc it.

Basically, I think we should be shooting for a move that feels underwhelming when you don't proc it, with a condition that you can make a plan to activate, but not something you're just guaranteed to activate (eg Acrobatics).

 

[Shock3600]

Want to add support to the idea that the cap should be glad to run the conditional move, not forced to. Not saying we shouldn't force it to, but it should actually be something of a benefit. It's not much of an exploration if we only give it a single stab move and it ends up running it, and while it may be limiting for our options, a big part of the concept to me is understanding what makes a conditional move actually worth running, and forcing it isn't answering that question.

 

[a fairy]

One move or two? Why?
I came into this thread thinking that two would be better, but I've been convinced against it. Let's keep this to one to properly focus on what we're using and make it work. If, when we get to moves, we see value in another move, then so be it, but for the purpose of concept assessment, let's take one move and find the value in it. I know for myself that I hope to not bow to the mental/informal pressure of, say Focus Punch wins, to prioritize a Dark-type to push Sucker Punch agendas, y'know?

Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter?
I'm preferential to proactive, I think, but I also don't think this is as important to me as the specific move we choose. I kinda don't see the dichotomy as being super important here, to be totally honest. Like, Sucker Punch is great and super reactive, but then Hex is great but real proactive. I think that it's fine to have this distinction be important, but I think when I'm going to be ranking stuff on whatever the slate ends up being, I kinda am not even going to think about this personally.

Is there a standard for consistency in activation?
Now here's my big thing, and it's why I kinda don't like Beak Blast personally. I think standard for consistency is going to be the big one I chew on when deciding my votes. To use Beak Blast as an example, I view this as a pretty meh option, because it's standard for consistency is kinda garbage. We already see in the Static/Flame Body mons that these conditionals are not super fun to play against, and that for Iron Barbs/Rough Skin mons that it either doesn't matter at all (you are still going to Spin as Tusk when facing non-hazard Chomp because the value of getting hazards off is so important) or is so important that you avoid it at all cost (Primarina is not Flip Turning against Ferrothorn, it'd rather hard switch out, because the 5% or whatever you end up doing is just not worth the chip even if the Ferro doesn't have lefties), leaving these sorta feast or famine options where either the 'mon activates and it doesn't matter, or it never gets to activate. I think that a move should not have to always activate, but I think the activation should be meaningful when it does happen. Maybe this is proactive/reactive in another name, but I really don't think it is.

Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one?
I think a lot of non-viable ones are frankly non-viable for a reason. Yeah, Counter/Mirror Coat don't see use and could, but let's be real, if we overtune something to make it viable to run Flail, it's probably going to try to do something else with that overtuning. On the other hand, making something that can run Knock Off reliably is probably something we can do with our eyes closed and picking almost at random. I think there is more to explore in the conditional moves that don't see a lot of use than there is in most conditional moves that we don't have to go off the beaten path to find.

 

[Explosion Badger]

One move or two? Why? Specifically, I am talking about how many moves we should make our primary focus.

Having one main focus move makes more sense to me in the long run. It keeps the process more streamlined, and allows us to figure out how any other conditional moves we want to add can assist our main one. Having more than one only makes sense to me if we have the option to "opt out" of one of them if we feel it doesn't line up with the direction the process is taking, as having to account for both no matter what they are may make it more difficult for other stages down the line.

Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter? A lot of the moves we are discussing have conditions which are reactive - in particular, “hit me” or “don’t hit me” type moves like Sucker and Focus Punch respectively.

Rather then talk about whether or not one or the other is preferred, I want to define both Proactive and Reactive moves and the roles that fit them best, as I believe that which ones we want to lean into depends a lot on our roles, and what we want this pokemon to achieve.

Proactive Moves have their conditions tied to an effect that is activated by the player using the move. For the most part, its not that these effects have to be activated by the user, but instead that they're based on mechanics opponents are not guaranteed to use, meaning they're far less consistent unless the player actively aims to activate them. For example, Hex needs to be used with a way to spread status, otherwise you're stuck hoping that the opponent inflicts status conditions on themselves, which you can't guarantee in every match. Proactive Moves like Hex, Weather Ball, Expanding Force, etc. Tend to be used on faster offensive Pokémon, particularly late game pokemon that already rely on them or their teammates setting them up so they can clean up the endgame.

Reactive Moves are moves that require the opponent to activate their effects in order for the condition to go off. Unlike proactive moves, in order for a move to be considered fully reactive, they have to be activated by your opponents actions, otherwise they're just a move that can swap between being proactive and reactive (lets call them Interactive and move them to the side for now). Reactive moves serve a unique purpose: applying pressure. The utility of Reactive moves comes not just in using them, but the threat of using them, as they encourage opponents to avoid behavior that they would normally do. A classic example of this is Pursuit. By threatening guaranteed damage on a Pokémon, even if they switched out, Pursuit forced opponents to avoid using certain Pokemon (namely frail offensive ones such as Latios and Blacephalon) until the Pursuit user was taken out, effectively reducing the number of Pokemon the opponent has at their disposal. As such, reactive moves often help with defense-related roles, such as pivots, by discouraging opponent behavior, thus enabling partner Pokémon to play their game without interruption.

Is there a standard for consistency in activation? Is it simply enough that the reward of the move outweighs the risk of using it?

For this question, I want to look at a certain move that sees limited use: Steel Roller. Steel Rollers condition is that there needs to be a terrain for its effect to activate. This is similarly achievable to the conditions of viable moves like Weather Ball, and is actually more achievable than excellent moves such as Grassy Glide and Expanding Force, as its not limited to a single terrain. There's not much risk to using it as long as there's terrain, and the reward is a 130 power move. So why, even when it was a tutor move in gen 8, is the move never used in singles?

The simple answer? It lacks consistency. However, its inconsistency stems from two parts of its design clashing with one another: 1) the move destroys the terrain when used, and 2) the move fails if there is no terrain on the field. If either of these effects were removed, Steel Roller would be a more than usable move. Heck, if it were a 65 power move that doubled to 130 power in terrain, then destroyed the terrain, it would be used far more than it currently is. But because you can only use it once before needing to set it back up again, its phenomenal power stops being phenomenal. You get more damage in 2 turns by using an 80, or even 70 power move, such as Iron Head or Smart Strike, essentially making Steel Rollers huge 130 power worthless. The lack of flexibility also makes the utility it provides not as useful, as doing 0 damage outside of terrain means that any pokemon other than a terrain setter gets in for free, allowing them to force the user out and get the terrain setter in safely.

Essentially, what makes Steel Roller never used is its inconsistent turn economy—that is, there are far too many turns where it provides nothing, not even chip damage, making it far less consistent than moves like Hex. The less a condtional move can provide on average throughout the course of a battle, the harder it is to justify that move on a moveset. If it is rare for a conditional moves effect to activate, there should either be a greater reward, or the move should be consistent even when its effect isn't active, if not both.

Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one?

While there are plenty of options in the already-viable category, I would enjoy the ability to see amd discuss if a move that's not often seen has the potential to be viable. Moves such as Metal Burst and Comeuppance may not be seen in most competitive environments, but similar moves have been, such as Mirror Coat on Alomomola in OU. If nothing else, the ability to compare and contrast such moves, and figure out if one is worth using and the other isn't and why would be more enjoyable to me than simply choosing a move that's already commonly seen in competitive play.

 

[AzothBend]

1. One move or two? Why?

At this stage, our focus should be on one move. Two may confuse the early stages. That said, there should always be an eye on where other conditional moves can compliment our primary.

2. Should our “condition” be proactive or reactive? Both? Does it matter?
3. Is there a standard for consistency in activation?

Combining these because they both touch on my view of the condition in our conditional move. There should be some chance for failure. Or more verbosely, the conditional move should be conditionally better than other moves when used correctly and conditionally worse when used incorrectly. There should be some amount of skill to how it is used. To that effect, reactive moves are generally more in-line with my view, but both have their candidates.

4. Is there a preference towards introducing an already-viable conditional dynamic versus a presently unviable one?

The main goal should be to achieve the concept with a viable 'mon. If that means walking already-tread paths, so be it. There's more to learn from the latter category. I do think it possible, but it would need to be navigated carefully. Our curiosity should not outweigh the ultimate goal.

 

[Just A Shroom God]

I'm glad this concept has proved such fertile ground for discussion, especially since this gen blessed us with so many signature moves.

- What makes a move with a conditional effect work in a competitive scene like Hex or Thunderclap while others such as Thief falter?

- Why are moves with these conditional effects, outside of moves such as Sucker Punch and Hex, rarely seen? Is this just due to the nature of having to activate the condition or is it the lack of accessibility for Pokemon to utilize these moves?

- What needs to be achieved to successfully utilize the effects of these moves? How does one leverage these effects to apply pressure or put the team it is on at an advantage?

I believe conditional moves are defined by 2 factors: their Condition, their Payoff. Starting with the less interesting one, their payoff is the effect's worth. For example, Fell Stinger has a payoff of giving you +3 attack without needing to take a turn to set up. Water Spout has the payoff of being nearly 1.5x more powerful than the second most powerful non-signature water move in Hydro Pump, on top of being more accurate. However, It's important to note that the Payoff is relative to other options available. Fell Stinger's +3 attack is a great effect, but is heavily outclassed, as Ayecrusher King stated, by running Swords Dance with a stronger bug move, as a +2 X-Scissor will always hit harder than a +3 Fell Stinger. Therefore, its Payoff is minimal. When building a CAP, the Payoff is what we have the most direct control over, because generally what is good and useful stays the same - having a powerful attack or strong boosting move is desirable in any format.

The Condition is far more interesting to discuss. The Condition can be defined as what you have to do to use the move. The balance of what you have to do to use the move (Condition) and what you are willing to do to use the move (Payoff) is what makes a good conditional move. A good conditional move, like Sucker Punch, has an equally rewarding payoff, having a strong priority move as its demanding condition, doing nothing if the opponent uses a status move or a higher-priority move. Using this, we can determine why Fell Stinger is bad - its payoff, +3 attack, is mildly useful at best, while its condition, having to KO a mon with the move, is demanding. In game design terms, this is basic risk vs reward. Things are far messier in practice, of course, and not every well-balanced conditional effect will be suitable for a CAPmon to be built around, but these are our basic requirements for concept fulfillment.

There are 2 kinds of conditions that we should consider. One type of condition is the Trade - it's where you give something up, or pay a price, for an effect. A good example of a Trade conditional effect is Guts - in exchange for taking a status effect and whatever consequences that status has, and usually also in exchange for your item slot, you gain 1.5x attack, status immunity, and are hindered less by knock off. A Trade is generally always in the player's control - there is very little risk involved. The second type of condition is a Gamble - where the cost is less within your control. This can be literal gambling, like with Zap Cannon or an OHKO move, or just an effect that's not within your direct control, like with Rage Fist. It's important to note that having a gambling condition does NOT prevent a move or effect from being competitive and promoting player skill. Scald is the quintessential gambling condition, literally just having a 30% chance to burn, but no one who actually plays the game is arguing that it's uncompetitive. Scald's rng aspect is its condition - to get effective use out of it, you have to put yourself in the position to use it multiple times to consistently get burns. A Pokémon designed around a gambling condition move, though, has to have its kit support it. A hyper-offensive Pokémon with Scald will always use Hydro Pump or Surf over it, even if the burn helps it survive hits, because Scald's payoff is inconsistent on it. Likewise, Rage Fist was as broken as it was because it was on Annihilape, who not only had the fighting STAB to punish Normal types that sponged it, but also had the bulk to actually consistently get stacks on the move.

I think that Pokémon built around a Gambling (could also be called an inconsistent) condition would be far more interesting than one built around a Trade condition. Since their condition is inherently inconsistent, their kit needs to complement the move, making a synergistic CAP. A move like Crush Grip is usually unusable, but maybe on a mon with Stakeout, you would have a potent way of punishing frail foes at full hp (this also applies to Stakeout Fell Stinger, but, like, lmao...). Ghost-type curse usually results in more damage to the user than the foe, but what if it was on a mon with Poison Heal and Anchor Shot? We also have to watch out for the opposite; the move needs to be useful and consistent enough to make the CAP want to run it. Choosing our move carefully is the most important thing we can do to fulfill the concept and make a successful CAP.

One move or two? Why? Specifically, I am talking about how many moves we should make our primary focus.

One last thing I have thoughts on. I believe that one move is the way to go. There's just not much design space to dedicate to accommodating a second gimmick, and I think inevitably one of the conditional moves will end up being dropped.

 

[cat111ca]

When do we choose a move?

 

[Askeia]

Hot take, but I think Eruption/Water Spout/Dragon Energy can be pretty neat to build around. While we do have some good users of the moves, it isn’t really a defining move on any of them, at least not in Singles. It is not strong enough to be generically strong, but is strong enough to build around its condition. There’s still a lot to optimise in terms of typing, stats and abilities to make a perfect user of these moves.

On top of this, I think the fact that these moves are inherently strong but risky is a good way to incorporate a second conditional move that it has soft synergy with if we really want to. There are a bunch of conditional move like Counter, Silk Trap etc which discourages faster attackers from trying to soften your Water Spout. My favourite example of this is the combination of Water Spout + Beak Blast on a special attacker, something similar to Zapdos stat wise. This way, Beak Blast, while normally strong, is not something you want to click all the time, but helps deters opposing priority, and allows you to lean towards the mon’s defensive utilities as Water Spout gets weaker.

Overall, a move like Water Spout actually does open us up to a lot of options be it as a single move, or as a 2 move pairing, and deserves to be under consideration imo.

 

[Lightniong]

haven't been talking much, here to just drop thoughts:

1. Focusing on a singular move is probably our best bet here, focusing on 2 is just going to weaken CAP 37's ability to effectively use both moves, and also forces us into awkward positions in the ability/typing stage trying to give a combination that works against both.

2. Dosen't matter much, if it's good and the effect can reasonably be achieved in battle then it should be up for consideration, both sides have good mons that would be good for concept. I would prefer reactive because I just feel it has the more interesting moves.

3. I feel like Gekokeso explained it best, consistency for me is if it either still does something if the prerequisite hasn's been achieved (Barb Barrage, Beak Blast), or if the move can afford to risk that turn where you just do nothing, while the prerequisite is still reasonable to achieve in battle (Electro Shot, Meteor Beam, Sucker Punch, First Impression)

4. I feel like we should explore more niche options, I probably will do another in depth post about what moves I personally would like to see, but just doing something like Sucker Punch or Hex just feels like a cop out when we can use stuff like Focus Punch, Infernal Parade, and Beak Blast, all of which see no competitive use in SV CAP, and would make for an interesting process and an interesting mon.

 

[i am a dirt]

My opinion probably doesn't matter that much since I, so far, have been wholly useless on these forums buuuutttt...
1. I feel as if one move would be better than two, because if CAP 37 was running two different conditional moves, it would either be awkward to get it to use both moves effectively (e.g. using Sucker Punch and Thunderclap well would preferably require a Dark/Electric type or an ability that boosts said moves, not to mention Thunderclap is the signature move of Raging Bolt) or it would be hard to pack both conditions into the same set (Poltergeist and Knock Off, anyone?).
2. Proactive or reactive doesn't matter, as long as it can successfully use or possibly abuse said conditional move, it'll most likely be a successful CAP.
3. If the move is consistent enough so that said CAP can contribute enough so that you don't want to toss it off your team, then it'll be good.
4. I have a couple ideas.
a. A good user of moves that deal more damage the more health you have, like Water Spout or Dragon Energy, would be an interesting build and could put some work on more stall-oriented teams. Obviously, here I agree with Askeia. We don't have any CAPs that tend to use Eruption a lot (the only two being Smokomodo and Mollux; Smokomodo's Smogon set is Bone Zone and Mollux is a wall, also no CAPs get Water Spout). I personally have in mind a CAP not unlike Typhlosion in ZU, a sort of Specs wallbreaker that relies on ways to keep its health full to, well, break walls.
b. Hot take, but does anyone remember subpunching? From ADV? This would probably be a less optimal option due to inconsistencies with Focus Punch, but a bulky Fighting-type that can set up Substitute, use its defensive capabilities to take a hit, and start blowing away with Focus Punch. Of course, its bulk could be tailormade with stats and Abilities. If needs be, it could also have a different set as a good user of a different currently suboptimal physical move or something.
c. Anything really, although I'd prefer it not be a common move like Sucker Punch, and maybe not Fake Out or First Impression, simply because a lot of Pokemon can Fake Out and Miasmaw gets First Impression.

 

[earthflax]

Thank you all for your input! With all of these questions and thoughts in mind, I think it is time that we narrow our design space and pick one conditional move to build around. After a poll on the move finishes, we can then move to Concept Assessment 2.

I will be creating a slate based on suggested moves in this thread; I’m opening move suggestions now. Suggestions should, at a minimum, include descriptions of:

• the move’s condition
• the consistency of the condition and the payoff upon activation
• relevant constraints that the move will create on the rest of the process.

Thank you all for bearing with my lateness; I’ve been pretty sick all week. I plan to keep these open for 48-72 hours. Excited to see the suggestions!

 

[cat111ca]

I think we should build around stomping tantrum/Temper Flare.
These moves are the most situational but usable. It could be woven with other conditional moves (sucker punch). I don't have a lot to say you talk bout it idk

 

[cat111ca]

Working list of all moves that can even vaguely be argued to be conditional. Mods feel free to edit/add in stuff.

List

Acrobatics
Aurora Veil
Avalanche
Baneful Bunker
Barb Barrage
Beak Blast
Blood Moon
Burning Bulwark
Counter
Curse
Double Shock
Dragon Energy
Electro Shot
Endeavor
Eruption
Expanding Force
Fake Out
First Impression
Fusion Bolt
Fusion Flare
Gigaton Hammer
Grav Apple
Heavy Slam
Hex
High Jump Kick
Hydro Steam
Infernal Parade
Knock Off
Lash Out
Last Resort
Last Respects
Low Kick
Mirror Coat
Order Up
Photon Geyser
Psyblade
Rage Fist
Shell Side Arm
Steel Roller
Sucker Punch
Supercell Slam
Thunderclap
Water Spout

Now for what the builder calls "usually useless" though given some of the moves above...

Assurance
Attract
Aura Wheel
Axe Kick
Beat Up
Belch
Brine
Burning Jealousy
Burn Up
Comeuppance
Copycat
Crush Grip
Dragon Cheer
Dream Eater
Electro Ball
False Swipe
Fell Stinger
Flail
Flying Press
Imprison
Magnetic Flux
Metal Burst
Misty Explosion
Payback
Pollen Puff
Power Trip
Retaliate
Rising Voltage
Rollout/Ice Ball
Solar Beam / Soiar Blade
Stuff Cheeks
Swallow / Spit Up
Temper Flare / Stomping Tantrum
Venoshock
Pledge Moves

There's a lot of inconsistency in here. Why is power trip here but not stored power? Where's focus punch? How does hjk have a condition? This list just confuses me‍

 

[Amamama]

Combining these because they both touch on my view of the condition in our conditional move. There should be some chance for failure. Or more verbosely, the conditional move should be conditionally better than other moves when used correctly and conditionally worse when used incorrectly. There should be some amount of skill to how it is used. To that effect, reactive moves are generally more in-line with my view, but both have their candidates.

I don’t have much to add to the questions but I want to show my support for this line of thought. The conditional move should be conditionally better than other moves when used correctly, with the addition that the condition needs to not be super easily met (say opponent having an item, your mom being level 100, having terrain or weather up). Or to put in other words the activation of the condition for this moves requires skillful use and if used correctly has a payoff that can’t be replicated with other moves.

I will be creating a slate based on suggested moves in this thread; I’m opening move suggestions now. Suggestions should, at a minimum, include descriptions of:

• the move’s condition
• the consistency of the condition and the payoff upon activation
• relevant constraints that the move will create on the rest of the process.

Double Shock

Condition: This move fails unless the user is Electric Type. The users Electric Type is removed upon successful use (unless the user is Terastalyzed)
Consistency: 100% on first activation, 0% on consecutive activations.
The consistency issues of this move come from having to switch out or terastallize to reload the condition and from having to deal with Pokémon immune to the move. This means the condition is in full control of the player and thus has 100% consistency potential but at the same time forces awkward play patterns, which creates inconsistency.
Payoff: The most powerful physical Electric move. The removal of the electric type can also be situationally helpful.
Constraints: The user will have to be an Electric Type and a physicalist mixed attacker. Also this moves likely benefits from a role that wants to switch a lot (though it might be more interesting on a Mon that wants to stay in for longer periods of time.)

Why do I like this move in particular?
I like the idea of a move that has immense power and a condition that the player can control, but at the same time forces potentially awkward plays from the user, to stay in control of the condition. Reloading the Electric Type through switching can lose the player momentum, while staying in removes your most powerful attack. It also has to play around Ground types soaking up your nuke. Lastly it has an interesting interaction with Terastalliztion, which gives another layer of control while at the same time once again forces the player to make a decision wether this finite resource is worth using in that moment.

TLDR: Double Shock is a conditional move which the player has a lot of agency over activating that condition.
At the same time this agency requires the player to constantly evaluate the cost and payoff of retaining control over the condition this move requires, which introduces a layer of skillful use that I think makes conditional moves actually interesting.

 

[Guingil]

I think we should build around stomping tantrum/Temper Flare.
These moves are the most situational but usable. It could be woven with other conditional moves (sucker punch). I don't have a lot to say you talk bout it idk

I definitely like Temper/Tantrum for this concept but they're best employed as a supplementary tools rather than our primary focus. Slap em on along with any move with a conditional activation, or immunity, and you get value out of em. While there are questions about consistency with competing moves (like Earthquake), they have seen usage on relevant mons who primarily want to do other things which can fail (Saharaja or Great Tusk who want to spin or EQ/Headlong Rush; Astrolotl who wants to Will-o-Wisp) but this is mostly as "punishment" for denying the primary thing the mon wants to do. What we want from our conditional move is this primary thing itself and the direction it provides.

Speaking of which...

Submission: Water Spout

Condition: Power depends on how much health you have remaining.

Consistency: Maintaining your health can be done by many means, such as by moving first, healing, or being kept in the back till late game until it's time to clean.

Payoff: Ridiculous immediate damage with no drawbacks.

Constraints: Has to possibly have decent+ special attack and water STAB.

Different items, moves, abilities, typings, stat spreads can help with maintaining health or in punishing opponent attempts to reduce health, so not very restrictive in that aspect.

Explanation: I believe this is the more interesting case of a "damage me to prevent my best possible execution" conditional move, the other being Focus Punch. Its condition can be affected in the moment or over the course of the game. It threatens potential downsides for the opponent by inviting them in, say with another attack-induced ability or move, or things like Sucker Punch. Compared to Focus Punch's negative priority and inactivation upon being hit, you have more control and the punishment for getting hit is power reduction.

There are two other aspects which makes this more interesting to me:

1. Different ways to support: Your health can be influenced both by your opponents and yourself. Choice Scarf has almost been the only way to use this move until now. But theoretically, there are many others possible. Slowing down opponents, healing up, setting up your own speed, running Boots to not take hazard damage, healing abilities, etc are all possible. Support from teammates has made Eruption (an equivalent move) popular in VGC, with strategies like Trick Room, Chlorophyll After You, or Pollen Puff healing. In singles this support is not possible, and the more hazard-based meta also risks passive damage. This opens up interesting questions for how to make Spout viable: are there limited ways towards viability, i.e., very high immediate speed with Scarf, or even more ridiculous damage with Specs on a naturally fast Pokemon? Can teammates support the user to extract maximum value of the move? Can the user support itself? Does the threat of the big damage force the mon to be a cleaner or wallbreaker, or can it be used as a deterrent for a support mon to do its support things more freely?

2. Health as an immediate offensive resource: For offensive Pokemon, health is thought of as a resource not valuable in itself, except as a cost to achieve another function. The alignment of purpose of health and its "taking hit" function is seen on a top-tier ability: Multiscale, where health is helped by the ability, and the ability is helped by having health, in a reciprocal manner. This is used by Dragonite to buy itself opportunities to set-up. With Water Spout, health provides immediate offensive benefit without needing the middle step: as long as you have health, you do not have to spend any extra time setting up and can just get to blastin'. This perhaps makes health an even more valuable resource for the Pokemon which must be worked towards, and a proper "condition" to achieve.

Water Spout is chosen to see if it's possible to differentiate from the best user in singles, Kyogre, which uses the "known" Scarf mode along with a damage amplifier in Drizzle, or the Specs Pokemon in STABmons. Water is not natively weak to hazards like Fire, which might put more constraints on another typing to balance it out and/or our item.

 

[quziel]

There's a lot of inconsistency in here. Why is power trip here but not stored power? Where's focus punch? How does hjk have a condition? This list just confuses me‍

Despite my badges I am no longer a mod of CAP. I made that list as a way to assist other posters as a member of the community. I could probably update it now but we've moved past that stage of the process.


-------------

Temper Flare

Condition: If your previous move failed then Temper Flare has 150 Base Power instead of the usual 75 Base Power.

Consistency of the condition: This can be made relatively consistent depending on the typing chosen for the mon. We can contrast Hemogoblin, Astrolotl, Great Tusk, and Garbodor. Hemogoblin has both Flare Blitz and Temper Flare, and frankly would never choose to run Temper Flare due to its inability to meaningfully activate the condition barring odd situations like trying to Temper Flare a Chuggalong. Astrolotl by contrast used Stomping Tantrum to basically cover Fire Lash vs teams that also have Heatran, letting you trivially OHKO it provided you lashed it last turn. Great Tusk and Garbodor both show how easily you can activate the move if your main STAB has a common immunity, with the latter's Temper Flare set making Balloon Gholdengo quite annoyed, though that set often was outclassed by simpler Knock Off sets.

Constraints: The main one is that we need a move that we like to click a lot that has a common immunity. We also need to ensure that Temper Flare is not power crept by Flare Blitz or a move such as Knock Off. When it comes to typing it is probably advantageous to have Temper Flare not be STAB, and instead be a coverage option so we can make pokemon such as Equilibra very sad.

Note: If possible I'd like to sub this together with Stomping Tantrum, as it lets us have a bit more flex in the typing stage.

 

[dex]

Thunderclap / Sucker Punch

Condition: If the opponent uses an attacking move.

Consistency of the condition: The condition is very consistent. Attacking is how most Pokemon make progress, and the value of having a strong priority move really encourages the move's use.

Constraints: The main constraint here is on typing. These moves, while powerful, I think may require STAB. There could be some way around that for Sucker Punch on a Pokemon that really wants priority to hit stuff like Dragapult, but the meta may just be too naturally bulky for that to be worth. Otherwise, this option leaves everything pretty open. Strong priority is a very valuable asset for any Pokemon, so we wouldn't need to worry as much about the chosen move seeing play.

 

[viol and bass]

Proposing Tera Blast.

This is a "conditional effect" move: it changes its typing and category depending on the user's tera type and stats at the moment of terastallization. Every pokemon gets this move, but if we're going to build around it, there are a few reasonable routes in my opinion:

• Normal type that uses the move as a decent STAB but can also change its typing at will. This is not a tera hog route; the move is a reasonable STAB move and does not require tera to be functional.
• Tera Blast Flying Dragonite (mon that lacks a good STAB option and relies on Tera Blast for STAB). This is a massive tera hog route.
• Strong attacker with poor non-STAB coverage that relies on tera blast to hit key threats. Bonus points if it's a special attacker and can sometimes use the move without tera. Likely a significant tera hog.

The first route constricts the typing stage to a normal type. The second and third routes constrict the movepool stage a bit, but not hugely. I would personally prefer the first route although it limits the typing stage, because there are going to be situations where you're activating the condition and situations where you don't want to. It feels more like a real exploration of a conditional move.

The condition is entirely in your control, but the drawback of activating it is extremely significant: you're expending your team's tera for the battle. If you're a normal type, you're also permanently losing one of your STABs when you activate the move's condition, so the moment of activation can be quite important. The payoff can be massive though: you're gaining a new move typing without expending an extra moveslot on it. This is amazing for moveslot compression. You can run an attacker with 3-move coverage in 2 moveslots, or you could even make a Specs user that can change the typing they're locked into without switching out. Lotta cool options. Could be a fun exploration of the tera mechanic for (presumably) the last CAP of this generation.

 

[Airola]

Hi, hope this okay. Been reading and following processes for a while. Quite new to pokemon though, played red and ruby, but picked up Scarlet/Violet through my children. Found this because they like to design their own.

Submission; Hex
Condition; triggers against any targets affected by a non-volatile status; Burn, Freeze, Paralysis, Poison and Sleep.
Consistency; Status removal is quite rare, and blocking it is typically type dependent - even if one of the status is blocked, there are usually 3 others more simply able to be applied. There are other ways of applying it without relying on CAP37 needing to self-set up for it also,, and many teams already benefit from utilising status. There are lots of ways to apply it - high accuracy status moves like Spore, high %age secondary effect chances like Scald, reactive abilities like Static, or even wierder ones like Toxic Debris.
Pay Off; Double BP to 130
Constraints; Hex is a Ghost Type special attack; without any further context, CAP37 wanting to use Hex to its best effect will probably be at least in part a Ghost type Special Attacker. Possibly worth bearing in mind that most status absorbing types share a Ground weakness and that if we are looking to apply status for CAP37, and we're looking to promote Hex, what justification do we have when something like Earth Power potentially hits many targets with?