• Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!

CAP 37 - Part 2 - Concept Submissions

WIP

Name:
Skill Issue

Description:
Compared to the average Pokémon, this CAP will play substantially stronger when used by a skilled player - in other words, it will have a high Skill Ceiling.

Justification:
What new territory will your Concept Pokémon explore, why do you believe it's interesting, and how would it interact with the metagame?
In order to explore the idea of a skill ceiling, we would first need to actually understand what makes a player skilled - something that is fascinating, and completely unexplored by CAP to date. It will require an understanding of high skilled play, and thus also an understanding of low skilled play, especially in understanding what causes a difference between players. Maybe it's the fact that I'm a teacher by trade, but the idea of being able to isolate what weaknesses and false assumptions are prevalent in lower skilled players is something I would find incredible.

In terms of metagame impact, the hope is that the concept's focus on 'skill' results in a metagame where more games are won and loss on the merits of the player's ability, rather than on the basis of winning or losing a matchup rock-paper-scissors. It should also help us understand how we can balance the metagame moving forward - as one of the most common reasons for moves or mons being banned is that they remove skill from the equation entirely.

How does your concept motivate in-depth discussion at each stage of the process, and why do you believe the CAP Project community should discuss these topics?
The concept asks CAP to understand something that most people only understand by vibes - I think by definition it's already going to be in-depth discussion. The questions below dive into finding the right balance of tools to create something viable - I don't think the concept risks any particular stage being sidelined.

As for why? Understanding how Skill Ceilings and Skill at-large works fundamentally supports developing a metagame which is fun. There is little fun in a metagame where matchups are settled by the time team preview kicks in - nobody gets a satisfying victory, nobody gets to make those crazy plays and highs. Understanding skill in general also helps the process of helping new players get into the metagame, which improves the health of the CAP Community at large.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What, objectively, is skill in competitive mons?
    • What factors make a player skilled? Is it metagame knowledge, 'reads', risk management, or some other factor/combination of factors?
    • Is a teambuilder a role that can be skilled in its own right? Is skill in the teambuilder different between a ladder setting and a tournament setting? Which skill should we aim to highlight?
  • What mons already represent the concept of having a high skill ceiling?
  • What traits increase the skill ceiling of a mon? Likewise, what traits reduce the skill gap (where a weaker player gets similar mileage out of a mon)
  • How do we avoid creating a 'mindless' mon without compromising viability?
    • Is it possible for a 'mindless' mon to still have skill-based elements?
  • What team archetypes generally have a high skill ceiling - and what archetypes don't? Should we aim at being used by any archetype in particular?

Explanation:
I'm mad about not winning last time I submitted this idea that's it that's the explanation

One of my favourite CAPs in pretty much every way is Tomohawk - from the design and end result, to balance, to the broad-but-fascinating concept of Momentum. I want to see a CAP which takes a similar 'you know it when you see it' concept of Skill, and actually explore what on earth that means in practice. In CAP's case, I think we learnt a lot about slapping U-Turn or Volt Switch onto everything, but shush!

The idea of a skill ceiling is well known - you will not be able to sweep with an Unown regardless of your competence, because no level of player competency can bring increase its strength to the point of viability. And likewise, the idea of mons that work well regardless of the pilot (sometimes referred to as having a high skill floor) are something we can understand - think of various banned mons over the years, or mons that simply need you to press a single button to make guaranteed progress every time, even when not used optimally. I remember a Tier Shift Stoutland in Sandstorm was exactly like that - press Return, score a KO, lather, rinse, repeat. Sure there was the skill of bringing it in with enough Sandstorm turns left, but... bluntly, any ladder I can get to Top 10 of is either made up of at most 10 people, or has a strategy that's mindless beyond belief.

What I want us to understand is that sweet spot - a 'mon that certainly is viable for anyone to use, but in the right hands punches well beyond its weight. What tools create a 'mon where the most skilled player is more likely to win? We know this archetype exists - Defensive Heatran using Leftovers healing was the example du jour when I last proposed this - but we've never looked into the specifics of what can make it so.

Ultimately, this is a project that is about fun - people have fun when they win, and they have a *lot* of fun when they feel like they've earnt a win by being the better player. It's a quite open concept - I actually don't know if we end up with a sweeper or a staller here - but I think what we learn from it could be more than worth it.
 
WIP

Name - Atypical Abuser

Description - This Pokemon takes advantage or sets up a field condition that does not align with the field condition's prototypical abusers, but compliments the field condition and uses it to their advantage.

Justification - A Swift Swim Pokemon is typically a Water Type Pokemon, notable examples being Barraskewda and Basculegion. However, Swift Swim is not an ability exclusive to Water Types -- Pokemon such as Beartic and Overqwil are notable Rain abusers possessing the Swift Swim Ability, with many Pokemon in the canonical dex sharing similar traits. However, Pokemon such as Overqwil are welcome additions to Rain Teams despite not being Water types because they provide crucial coverage, especially when dealing with Grasses and Waters that can resist other sweepers on offer. It would be interesting to explore these routes to benefit a variety of archetypes or introduce ones which are absent in Scarlet and Violet.

Questions to be Answered -
  • To what extent is type coverage on weather/terrain-based team critical in terms of sharing the typing with the aforementioned condition? Can a Pokemon benefit from having differing STAB options while still maintaining synergy?
  • Does a Pokemon that takes advantage of a weather or terrain need to be entirely structured in an offense-manner? Would it be possible to replicate more defensive roles such as Scizor or Ferrothorn used on Rain structures in Generation 5, even in consideration of the removal of permanency in weather-setting abilities such as Drizzle?
    • A majority of weather/terrain abusers are of the offense variety (such as Hawlucha, Walking Wake, and Overqwil), but notably some pokemon such as Jumbao provide defensive lynchpins to an otherwise offense-oriented gameplay while still providing synergy.
  • Does a team that utilizes Weather/Terrain need to dedicate all six slots of a team for successful gameplay?
    • Historically, Tyranitar and Excadrill have been sufficient enough for a "Sand Team" with only minor considerations for the other members of the team. Is a duo sufficient for a weather/terrain archetype, or can a Pokemon can even provide Weather/Terrain support all by lonesome without additional partners to assist?
  • What should be the proposed flexibility of a Pokemon that synergizes atypically with a weather or terrain? Should a Pokemon be able to have effectively perfect coverage through the use of Weather Ball/Terrain Pulse, or can they provide support opportunities through other means?
Explanation - This concept aims to explore team diversity for teams that, on a whole do largely feel very linear in teambuilding and gameplay, Sun teams being the major exception due the advent of the Paradox Pokemon introduced in Pokemon Scarlet. The Sun archetype possess a massive breadth of abusers thanks to the Protosynthesis ability, but even prior to Generation 9 there were prominent abusers such as Venusaur that took advantage of the Chlorophyll ability alongside Growth to deal tremendous damage, despite not a Fire type. While there are plenty of Pokemon that do take advantage of weather in ways atypical to the archetype, only Overqwil and Archaludon have been largely successful as non-Water Rain abusers with the latter being banned as of writing.

In lieu of this concept being railroaded specifically for weather abusers, it is important to also make considerations towards the terrains as well. Scarlet and Violet lacks the Tapu that provide crucial support for their team while still maintaining tremendous power, and in their absence, only Rillaboom has proven to be a somewhat reliable choice in the high-powered metagame. While Pokemon such as Tapu Koko and Tapu Lele are very powerful offensive picks, it is worth mentioning the defensive utility that Tapu Fini provides in letting its team have safe set-up opportunities with Misty Terrain blocking what would have been a critical Thunder Wave or Will-o-Wisp. Outside of set-up sweeper opportunity, Tapu Fini is a fantastic Pokemon for providing protection with Misty Terrain, both in terms of Status and Dragon Resistance. It would be interesting to explore a Pokemon that takes advantage of the Dragon Resistance as all of our Misty Surge Pokemon do already have an innate Dragon immunity.

This concept has implications for different archetypes of teams. One of the ideas to explore is if a weather/terrain team needs to have all six team slots dedicated to the structure. Galarian Slowking remains a powerful presence through its pivot move of Chilly Reception and the Snow setting capabilities of the move is underutilized. Any option to explore a terrain abuser -- whether in setting or profiting -- also has potential in exploration of teambuilding and Pokemon synergy. It is worth mentioning that while this concept has been explored frequently by canonical Pokemon, it is difficult to argue that pokemon like Houndstone or Stoutland are essential to the Sandstorm style of teams. There is much to learn in constructing a Pokemon designed around taking advantage of a field condition on both offensive and defensive merits and what an atypical abuser of said field condition can contribute to a metagame.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name - Ambidextrous Abilities

Description - This CAP's two viable abilities completely alter it's role on a team.

Justification -
Abilities are possibly the most variable aspect of a mon's kit. Many mons throughout generations have been able to viably run different abilities, such as Breloom, Gyarados, and Clefable. In the latter's case, Clefable's choice between Magic Guard and Unaware alter its role from a utility/glue for bulkier teams to a wall to stop setup sweepers.
However, very few mons from CAP have similar levels of variability. Tomohawk is the closest, with Intimidate enabling it as a physical wall and utility while Prankster combos with Haze for sweepers, although that does limit the role compression it provides. Outside of that, no other mons have experienced such success with both abilities at the same time, and those that come close like Cresceidon and Equilibra play almost identically between sets, only changing interactions with certain mons rather than their entire role.
Because of this, I believe a CAP who's role is fully altered between its two abilities would be a novel addition to CAP's roster. A mon built around its interactions with two wholly different abilities at once, rather than given a second ability post-creation, would create a very interesting discussion on how to balance and optimize two varied elements against each other.

Questions to be Answered -
  • How can two Abilities vary a mon's playstyle significantly without one overshadowing the other?
  • What two/more roles can reasonably all be accomplished by one mon depending on its set?
  • What typings are versatile enough to fulfill multiple roles?
  • What can we learn from Pokemon that have successfully ran multiple abilities in the past?
Explanation - WIP
 
WIP

Name: Sandbox

Description: This Pokémon can use its wide movepool to make a variety of sets, both offensive and defensive.

Justification: Usually, CAP's are designed with a single role in mind in order to create a clear, concise goal of what the end product will be, and to keep the process focused along the way. While this process often leads to successful Pokémon, it also has a blind spot: where normal Pokémon often have multiple movesets and roles they can take, CAP's hyperfocused nature often means that movepool additions only help enable a CAP's single role even more. In fact, movepool depth has often caused CAP Pokémon to become unhealthy for the meta, with it allowing them to bypass their normal checks and counters.
This concept, then, aims to explore how to design a Pokémon that doesn't use its wide movepool to enable a single set, but instead manages to achieve a variety of movesets and roles, both offensive and defensive, without becoming unpredictable enough to warp the meta.

Questions to be asked:

  • What features of the CAP process cause CAPmon's to become so hyperfocused? Is this a desired effect for most CAP's?
  • What are some examples of mon's that switch between more offensive and defensive roles? How do their movepools change between these roles? How do they stay the same?
  • How does a Pokémon's ability play into its role diversity? Do some abilities enable hyperfocused mons more than others?
  • How does anti-synergy (mainly when it comes to movepool) play into making a Pokémon with multiple roles?
  • What similarities do existing "Sandbox" mons stats have? Why do these stats enable more movesets?
Explanation:

(thank you to viol and bass for letting me use this concept idea!)

I wanted to give some examples of existing Pokémon that fit this concept, as to show what I'm talking about and why I feel it would be interesting to actualize. First, a Pokémon that Viol and Bass talked about in their original prompt:

  • Hisuian Samurott: Hisuian Samurott has a huge toolbox of moves to pick from, between good offensive moves like Sharpness boosted Razor Shell and Sacred Sword, to great priority im Aqua Jet and Sucker Punch, to some of the best support moves in the game, such as Encore, Taunt, Knock Off, and Flip Turn. The main linchpin in Hamurott's arsenal is Ceaseless Edge, however. Through CE and Sharpness, Hamurott provides unmatched hazards utility and strong offensive presence in one move slot, allowing the rest of its movepool to change to suit the gameplan needed. Its stats also tell an interesting story, as despite none being particularly impressive even in tandem with one another, it still has enough bulk to run Assault vest, enough speed to run Choice Scarf, and enough attack for its CE's and Razor Shells to leave a mark, regardless of the set.
  • Landorus-Therian: This shouldn't surprise anyone, as Lando-T is one of, if not the most, well known Glue mons ever. With its great typing, amazing attack, workable bulk and speed and Intimidate, it manages to fit a multitude of roles offensively and defensively, and swaps its moveset to suit the need. Even in gen 9, with superb options like Knock Off and Defog torn from its movepool, Lando-T manages to still play supportive roles and even throws in new tricks, like using its servable special attack to fire Earth Power and Grass Knot into some of the physical behemoths in the tier, like Dondozo and Great Tusk.
 
Last edited:
Explosion Badger said:
WIP

Name: Customizable

Description: This Pokémon can use its wide movepool to make a variety of sets, both offensive and defensive.

Justification: Usually, CAP's are designed with a single role in mind in order to create a clear, concise goal of what the end product will be, and to keep the process focused along the way. While this process often leads to successful Pokémon, it also has a blind spot: where normal Pokémon often have multiple movesets and roles they can take, CAP's hyperfocused nature often means that movepool additions only help enable a CAP's single role even more. In fact, movepool depth has often caused CAP Pokémon to become unhealthy for the meta, with it allowing them to bypass their normal checks and counters.
This concept, then, aims to explore how to design a Pokémon that doesn't use its wide movepool to enable a single set, but instead manages to achieve a variety of movesets and roles, both offensive and defensive, without becoming unpredictable enough to warp the meta.

Questions to be asked:

  • What features of the CAP process cause CAPmon's to become so hyperfocused? Is this a desired effect for most CAP's?
  • What are some examples of mon's that switch between more offensive and defensive roles? How do their movepools change between these roles? How do they stay the same?
  • How does a Pokémon's ability play into its role diversity? Do some abilities enable hyperfocused mons more than others?
  • How does anti-synergy (mainly when it comes to movepool) play into making a Pokémon with multiple roles?
Click to expand...

A potential name for this concept could be “Taskmaster”.
 
WIP

Name: Item manipulation

Description: A pokemon that's primary function is to manipulate what item it and its opponent have or have not.

Justification: Items are extremely important in the pokemon metagame if a pokemon has the wrong item it could easily be dead weight. A handful of pokemon actively mess with their opponents items, such as rotom-wash and gholdengo when using choice scarf. These two scratch the surface of item manipulation other items while often harder to use could show more interesting benefits.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What makes a pokemon good at item manipulation?
  • Which items can be used? Are berries viable? Should scarf be considered base line disruption?
  • How do we deal with knock off or do we ignore it?
  • How can we make CAP 37 be fine with almost any item, depending on methods?
  • Which moves should be considered for item manipulation?
Explanation: I think that their are a lot of interesting interactions to do with items that haven't been fully utilized. Things like a fling mon, or a klutz trick mon. Berries could be used with trick, harvest, tea time or stuff cheeks.
 
WIP

Name: Accept the Unexpected

Description: This CAP uses a move or type of move usually reserved as a "tech" option as a defining aspect of its viability.

Justification: A number of moves are infrequently used not because they are too weak or unreliable, but because they tend to work better when the opponent isn't expecting them. Playing off this surprise factor often allows said Pokemon to bypass a check or flip a seemingly lost situation, but this same property means the more its being run, the more likely an opponent will anticipate and play around such an option. The challenge here is designing our CAP to not only be capable of using such moves effectively, but while the opponent also knows it's our primary objective. This asks us to identify "surprise moves" that we can use successfully even if expected out the gate, through crafting strong cohesion across our entire kit.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • Why do certain moves work best when they are less predictable? What can we find in common between them?
  • How important is the element of surprise in allowing these moves to function?
  • What strategies are helpful in getting the most out of our chosen move(s), when the opponent is expected to recognize its presence?
  • Are there any good examples of existing Pokemon running an unconventional move as part of an established set?
Explanation: I want to clarify that this isn't about running an off-kilter coverage/utility move: while many coverage moves or utility options many be unexpected from a particular user, in a more general sense they are completely standard. For example, Play Rough is rather rare for Ogerpon, but is functionally no different from Ivy Cudgel, it just has different targets. If I'm facing down a Kingambit and bring in a check to handle its attacks, only for it to set up Stealth Rock, yeah I wasn't expecting that, but I do understand the value of Rocks and have likely factored in a way around them. My concept is looking more at moves that aren't used much, but not because they're ineffective, just often very reliant on catching players off-guard. A CAP that uses a known but rare option as essentially its signature trait has potential to play completely different to everything else in the metagame, which I find quite enthralling.
 
More rambling than review for everything posted until now:

Perfect Conditions – Conditional moves somehow find their way time and time again into any meta, so this is a timeless concept. I wondered on Discord if the concept can be executed through either setting the conditions up more easily (for e.g., with a status spamming team for Hex, or as you mention, DPP Breloom), or by the conditional moves working as a natural complement to the kit (Gambit, Raging Bolt). But maybe this is really a mixture of the two, and to get into the nitty gritty would make for a really interesting process. One clarification I’d like is if you imagine us honing on one specific conditional move and making it work, or making a Pokémon that can viably inhabit/make easier various sorts of conditions and possibly work with multiple conditional moves (I can think of the Pursuit + Sucker Punch combination as an e.g.)?



Big Guy – Simple, sweet, and has room for many directions. I would love to see some of your initial thoughts on the examples you give, as to why they might differ in success. For example, is there a difference in an active stat (like Speed) vs a reactive one (like defences, unless it is a Blissey-level F you bulk)? Why has this largely failed on big offense with nothing else (the Hoenn special and the like)? But otherwise, I could see it going many ways and am excited for what directions people propose, if it wins.



Butter Knife – This is similar to the second part of my own Risky vs Consistent submission, but distilled into one question, so I like it :D I think some clarification might be required in terms of examples, as I believe utility Pokémon, as you mention, often do use these moves even without STAB for their effects. So, do we want an offensive Pokémon that uses low-powered moves, or is being utility still fine? And is the STAB part necessary? Given that Tera can allow any move to become STAB, we have seen examples such as Dragonite that run non-STAB. CAP has already done Smokomodo as a foray into this concept, although of course, multi-hit moves don’t actually count, I guess.


Priorities Straight – I think the sphere of priority has already been explored a bit in CAP, as you mention, with Hemogoblin recently, or my sworn enemies Revenankh and Cawmodore. Is the novel part of the concept the matchup into the current meta aspect? Or is the fact that low speed is a necessary condition as well? In that case, we could have interesting things that result from low-speed as well, for example, how Scizor functions as a hard-hitting slow pivot in addition to Bullet Punch shenanigans. I’d like some more examples to understand your vision better.


Another STAB at It – Could see this working well, especially in tandem with Tera. I think we have discussed how fantastic offensive types like Rock or Ice might prefer not having the weaknesses that come with the type. I think the aspect that maybe gives me a bit of a pause, or that you can include in your questions, given that you’ve already brought it up is: what reward in extra coverage justifies not having an ability, effectively? At the moment, due to Tera, not having STAB is often overcome easily enough so this might be something to be taken into consideration. Also interesting to me is how many offensive moves such a Pokémon ends up running, based on its roles. I could see three move coverage that hits many things super effectively; but also something with a fantastic defensive type that uses only its “non-native” STAB on a great offensive type, or something that runs one native and one ability-granted STAB, for perfect coverage. Would be illuminating to see some examples of mons that would benefit a lot from a STAB on a move that they normally run.



Selfish Support – I love Rillaboom, and this concept could definitely work to even a greater, more selfish degree than it. It’s similar to Vile’s OTR, so maybe some of the questions I raise there will be relevant to this until you have the questions and explanations written down.



Stallbreaker – The anti-stall agenda continues. As you mention, how to reliably deal with modern, more varied stall (my fav is Hoopa-U at the moment) is a great exploration space, but I am also quite curious as to how often one is likely to encounter stall as part of the justification for this. This is related to my other question: how easily can a stallbreaker be able to fit into teams? An answer against stall is a must on good teams. I have used CB Zama for this, but would that be called a stallbreaker by your definition? Or would it require more specialisation into the role, and does it come at the cost of matchups with other team structures? I suppose a dedicated breaker could allow the rest of the team to be more vulnerable to stall otherwise, is that the sort of role it would occupy? Since you mention Gen 9’s iterations of stall, I think it might be interesting to list out the new tools available to it in more detail.



Big Numbers – I think the design space you propose is “how can underpowered moves/types/abilities be compensated for by big stats”, and that is interesting in itself. I’m curious to see how the process plays out, as in, do we do moves/types/abilities first, choosing unconventional or niche options, as you mention, knowing they will still be viable enough with big stats; or go in a nerf-nerf-nerf sort of way after doing the stats? I feel like the unconventional rather than underpowered routes, among the many that you thoroughly define, might be the best way to deal with this, but I am excited to see how it might play out.



Which Road Leads to Rome? – MINE



Trade Offer.png – I immediately think of Final Gambit mons when I see this, and I think some more concrete examples in the explanation of things you already mention (DB, Explosion) might help visualise the different ways trading has been implemented till now. One question I have, related to your fourth question, is whether specific situations can be manufactured to maximise your trade value. When you mention Webs, for e.g., I think Custap sets on Araquanid after setting up webs, have used up their functionality, so with Endure + Endeavour you are exchanging dead weight for an actual useful Pokémon. Also interesting to me is how to deal with opponents knowing there is a possibility for trade and playing around it (as you mention, the Team Preview makes this possible now); and also if there is a place for good trading outside of Hyper Offense teams, which don’t mind giving up Pokémon anyway.



Colourblind – You mention Shox, and I think the concept is already very well explored through it on the defensive side. Offensively, however, there are bits and pieces of the offensive side in the modern metagame (with Tinted lens; unresisted coverage often being run with Ground-Ice, although that is still a bit different from neutral; of course with Tera Stellar Tera Blast on the two Contrary mons; or Mind’s Eye/Scrappy), and this is the space where I think the concept can really shine. Another aspect maybe that I would consider is if the offense is achieved through one type alone, this frees up slots for other things or could take advantage of unconventional items (e.g., Ice-types running Blizzard and Freeze Dry with Nevermelt Ice), but this is just my take.



Only Room For One – I think the limiter on the TR turns is the most interesting aspect of the concept, as it is explicitly not intended to be used by your teammates or could be detrimental to them. You mention the defensive counterplay by opponents (Protect, Substitute), but you have also mentioned on Discord how things like Explosion/Destiny Bond have unique interactions taking advantage of the timer aspect by the TR user. Maybe useful to include these in the write-up as well? A question I have is: how do you prevent the Pokémon, on its non-TR sets, from being generally good enough (with good bulk, offenses, etc) such that TR becomes essential to its functioning? Or, as you mention, from being slapped onto a TR team, where it can use the extra moveslot for something else. The bulk + counter-speed aspects of TR make it unique compared to other speed boosting setup, but I think it also comes at an opportunity cost. Offensive Pokémon sometimes get their setup on turns they threaten KOs while outspeeding opponents, but you do not have this option or are getting switched in on by a defensive Pokémon anyway. I see this concept working very well against offense, but how do you prevent it from being a matchup fish and providing consistent value against other archetypes as well?



Create-A-Parasite – Making a consistent reactive Pokémon is a great idea in theory, but the dependence on opponents' boosting or doing things according to your plan is, by nature, inconsistent. Your examples of moves show how in one instance of usage, they can take advantage of opponent actions, but to make this a central aspect of a Pokémon’s strategy seems like a difficult, but still possible, endeavour, as you show with your examples. I have a question if it is possible to broaden the interpretation to stuff like Supreme Overlord, where knocking out your allies improves you? It’s a shame Rage Fist is banned, because as you mention, Annihilape shows a good road towards implementation. Another example I’d ask you to consider is something like Pickpocket Tinkaton, which uses Air Balloon to shore up its already amazing defensive profile, but when it is popped, can punish Pokémon for making contact with it or punish them again if they carelessly click Knock Off. Does that count? I suppose I have a hard time visualising this, but it can work for sure.



E.M.P – This is evil, and has a lot of options. Would be interested to see what your vision is with more material.



Absolute Power – The idea of an all-encompassing offense mon could be fun, and I am interested in how we will balance this between being overpowered or being too easily walled (or if it is even possible). Is this meant to be slapped onto hyper-offense, since you mention it threatening balance and stall, or is it meant to function more generally? When you say it is meant to be prediction-reliant, and is in trouble against the wrong opponent if it lets them in at the wrong time, despite possessing tools to deal with it otherwise, I have a hard time imagining a scenario. Is it like: say it could set up to overpower an opponent, but is weak against the same opponent without setting up or can’t set up against them, and thus struggles against them unless it made the right call (i.e., to set up) as the opponent switched in? Some more details would help paint a clearer picture of what you mean.



You’re Just Not My Type – I think this is interesting, especially, as you say, in the context of Tera Hogging: how do you make a Pokémon that is functional because of its bad typing and not just despite? I believe this is similar to Mollux’s concept, maybe? I love the distinction you make between a counterproductive and a bad type, and I fear that if we reward a Pokémon with too many compensations in ability, move and stats we will just end up making a Tera Hog that sees its typing as something to be rid of quickly. Among your examples, I see Tyranitar as probably the closest to a good-faith implementation of this: Sp. Def boost only when you’re Rock, ability to boost teammates and counter other weather, fantastic offensive options with your STABs, and generally a good movepool. But by no means would it be the only way to implement this, and I am excited to see what hidden advantages could be found in other bad typings. Also, I believe a typing’s effectiveness is somewhat relative to the rest of the meta, e.g,. with Heatran’s drop this generation, so it could be interesting to address this aspect.



Snowball in Hell – A slow tempo double dance mon seems good, but from the name itself, I believe stuff like Quaquaval/Moxie/Soul Heart mons might also be something you would like to include? Or Speed Boost mons? Would love to see you flesh the entire idea out.

One of the Cool Kids – I think this lacks a bit of direction and was better suited to our framework, where we had more freedom, seeing as some of the unique abilities you mention are not fully banned in ability discussions (see here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-35-part-4-primary-ability-discussion.3752164/), so it might very well be possible to choose some of these abilities in service of a concept with more direction.



Trapping Opportunist – Isn’t this very similar to Pajantom’s concept? https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-23-final-product.3621906/ I suppose the “taking advantage of them staying in” is the primary distinction in your concept, which in and of itself is interesting. Moves like Octolock, Jaw Lock (which I believe had seen some usage on Roaring Moon) are ripe for experimentation, and I would be very interested in seeing this play out if you could elucidate more on the taking advantage of opponents staying in aspect to sufficiently separate this from Pajantom.



When All You Have Is A Hammer – Move over 6-7, 3-1 is my new favourite ratio. I love how you evolved this concept from its initial iteration into something that still studies why we run certain moves, or how many of them. The idea of the 1 move “deterrent” is something commonly seen on support Pokémon, but the idea that all of the other moves support the one move (on presumably an offensive mon) is fascinating and I am curious as to how this will pan out. I think your examples in your explanation are still for your previous iteration, so I eagerly await your elucidation for this one.



This isn't even my final form – When you say form, do you mean an actual forme or more a general term for a boosted/setup state? Because I’m pretty sure a forme change is illegal unless we have a framework CAP. I believe your general idea itself is similar to “Snowball in Hell”.



Another Hazard Retainer – I think the proposing specific abilities in the description are not allowed (see first post). Even if it were possible, I think Ghost types are in a pretty good state and do see use so I’m not sure what we’d learn from another blocker.



Skill Issue – Okay, so I like this, but I strongly believe that this concept will need further sanding down into something concrete for implementation (which could very well be done in the Assessment stage). You mention risk management in play, and I believe, personally, that middle-ground plays where you consider all options constitute high skill play… but also knowing when to make a read and take a risk, I guess. So a Pokémon that is good for middle-ground plays, then? Honestly, I have no idea because it is a little bit out there. Some more examples, or play-by-plays, could help illustrate what you have in mind, maybe?



Atypical Abuser – Very concrete, a clear design space and many options within the weather + terrain conditions of how to take advantage. No notes, really, you mention interesting options and this is a concept that I see working out in a very systematic manner.



Ambidextrous Abilities – Welcome back Sap Sipper Azumarill. But I like this very much, and deliberately accentuating the differences between sets based on which abilities it runs would raise interesting design requirements for the common elements (stats, typing). I would love to see something that completely flips its role based on the ability, so eager to read the rest of your writeup.



Customizable – This is very pertinent to the current metagame, with stuff like Iron Valiant, Dragonite coming to mind as primary abusers of variety. Because you mention the possibility of also having offensive and defensive sets, I’d be really excited to see how this works out. I suppose some examples of why Pokémon like Mew were successful could also go into your explanation section? But I’ll wait till you have finished your writeup.



Item manipulation – I think things like Magician/Pickpocket could also be relevant here? But I’m not sure if item removal (with Knock, for eg, or Harvest) could be the only defining aspect of a Pokémon, or just something in its overall kit.



Accept the Unexpected – Okay, from what I understand, this wants to make “tech” moves, as you define them, still function well despite the lack of surprise because we’re designing around them? It’s a bit out there as well, so I can’t immediately imagine how this would work, because as you mention their primary value is in being surprises. Maybe some examples where this has been used? I can think of being surprised by your Curse Garganacl suddenly running Tera Ghost and Block in this battle: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9cap-2419069367, (or your Corviknight, for that matter). Is this the sort of thing you mean? Or my Equilibra trying to fish for a DB? Lmaoooooooo. But I would be curious as to how you propose "expected" surprises can still work.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name: Balancing Sweeper (formerly Balance Factor)

Description: this CAP aims to make less common pokémon viable, at the expence of more popular mons thanks to its offensive presence.

Justification: The fundamental of competitive play is that there are always some mons that are just better than others. Power creep has became more and more relevant over the years, and pokémon like Glimmora, Gholdengo and Kingambit are simply better in their role than Lycanroc-Base, Magnezone and Honchkrow, just to name a few. This make few relevant options for a determinate role, and this CAP tries to check these, in fact, OverUsed mons, and at the same time wants to be countered mainly by uncommon mons in CAP: this will (hopefully) eventually end in a more varied metagame, and a more fun experience overall.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • Which kind of pokémon should actually be scared by this pokémon?
  • Which kind of mons this CAP will like as partners?
  • From how down in the tiers should these potential counters be chosen?
  • Will those mons that will rise in CAP be used as counters or as supports?
Explanation: like said before, the metagame is kinda stuck with a few pokémon that really work on they role, and that's quite repetitive; some people would call even this annoying. CAP 37 tries to make a more variegate and unpredictable metagame. Something similiar happened like 18 years ago with Arghonaut (as Guingil pointed out to me), but Arghonaut is rarely seen as a powerful wallbreaker, and that's what this CAP wants to be. And afterall, CAP 6's goal was just to counter the top 5 mons in DP, while this CAP aims to have some rarely used counters, too.
 
Last edited:
Guingil said:
More rambling than review for everything posted until now:

Perfect Conditions – Conditional moves somehow find their way time and time again into any meta, so this is a timeless concept. I wondered on Discord if the concept can be executed through either setting the conditions up more easily (for e.g., with a status spamming team for Hex, or as you mention, DPP Breloom), or by the conditional moves working as a natural complement to the kit (Gambit, Raging Bolt). But maybe this is really a mixture of the two, and to get into the nitty gritty would make for a really interesting process. One clarification I’d like is if you imagine us honing on one specific conditional move and making it work, or making a Pokémon that can viably inhabit/make easier various sorts of conditions and possibly work with multiple conditional moves (I can think of the Pursuit + Sucker Punch combination as an e.g.)?



Big Guy – Simple, sweet, and has room for many directions. I would love to see some of your initial thoughts on the examples you give, as to why they might differ in success. For example, is there a difference in an active stat (like Speed) vs a reactive one (like defences, unless it is a Blissey-level F you bulk)? Why has this largely failed on big offense with nothing else (the Hoenn special and the like)? But otherwise, I could see it going many ways and am excited for what directions people propose, if it wins.



Butter Knife – This is similar to the second part of my own Risky vs Consistent submission, but distilled into one question, so I like it :D I think some clarification might be required in terms of examples, as I believe utility Pokémon, as you mention, often do use these moves even without STAB for their effects. So, do we want an offensive Pokémon that uses low-powered moves, or is being utility still fine? And is the STAB part necessary? Given that Tera can allow any move to become STAB, we have seen examples such as Dragonite that run non-STAB. CAP has already done Smokomodo as a foray into this concept, although of course, multi-hit moves don’t actually count, I guess.


Priorities Straight – I think the sphere of priority has already been explored a bit in CAP, as you mention, with Hemogoblin recently, or my sworn enemies Revenankh and Cawmodore. Is the novel part of the concept the matchup into the current meta aspect? Or is the fact that low speed is a necessary condition as well? In that case, we could have interesting things that result from low-speed as well, for example, how Scizor functions as a hard-hitting slow pivot in addition to Bullet Punch shenanigans. I’d like some more examples to understand your vision better.


Another STAB at It – Could see this working well, especially in tandem with Tera. I think we have discussed how fantastic offensive types like Rock or Ice might prefer not having the weaknesses that come with the type. I think the aspect that maybe gives me a bit of a pause, or that you can include in your questions, given that you’ve already brought it up is: what reward in extra coverage justifies not having an ability, effectively? At the moment, due to Tera, not having STAB is often overcome easily enough so this might be something to be taken into consideration. Also interesting to me is how many offensive moves such a Pokémon ends up running, based on its roles. I could see three move coverage that hits many things super effectively; but also something with a fantastic defensive type that uses only its “non-native” STAB on a great offensive type, or something that runs one native and one ability-granted STAB, for perfect coverage. Would be illuminating to see some examples of mons that would benefit a lot from a STAB on a move that they normally run.



Selfish Support – I love Rillaboom, and this concept could definitely work to even a greater, more selfish degree than it. It’s similar to Vile’s OTR, so maybe some of the questions I raise there will be relevant to this until you have the questions and explanations written down.



Stallbreaker – The anti-stall agenda continues. As you mention, how to reliably deal with modern, more varied stall (my fav is Hoopa-U at the moment) is a great exploration space, but I am also quite curious as to how often one is likely to encounter stall as part of the justification for this. This is related to my other question: how easily can a stallbreaker be able to fit into teams? An answer against stall is a must on good teams. I have used CB Zama for this, but would that be called a stallbreaker by your definition? Or would it require more specialisation into the role, and does it come at the cost of matchups with other team structures? I suppose a dedicated breaker could allow the rest of the team to be more vulnerable to stall otherwise, is that the sort of role it would occupy? Since you mention Gen 9’s iterations of stall, I think it might be interesting to list out the new tools available to it in more detail.



Big Numbers – I think the design space you propose is “how can underpowered moves/types/abilities be compensated for by big stats”, and that is interesting in itself. I’m curious to see how the process plays out, as in, do we do moves/types/abilities first, choosing unconventional or niche options, as you mention, knowing they will still be viable enough with big stats; or go in a nerf-nerf-nerf sort of way after doing the stats? I feel like the unconventional rather than underpowered routes, among the many that you thoroughly define, might be the best way to deal with this, but I am excited to see how it might play out.



Which Road Leads to Rome? – MINE



Trade Offer.png – I immediately think of Final Gambit mons when I see this, and I think some more concrete examples in the explanation of things you already mention (DB, Explosion) might help visualise the different ways trading has been implemented till now. One question I have, related to your fourth question, is whether specific situations can be manufactured to maximise your trade value. When you mention Webs, for e.g., I think Custap sets on Araquanid after setting up webs, have used up their functionality, so with Endure + Endeavour you are exchanging dead weight for an actual useful Pokémon. Also interesting to me is how to deal with opponents knowing there is a possibility for trade and playing around it (as you mention, the Team Preview makes this possible now); and also if there is a place for good trading outside of Hyper Offense teams, which don’t mind giving up Pokémon anyway.



Colourblind – You mention Shox, and I think the concept is already very well explored through it on the defensive side. Offensively, however, there are bits and pieces of the offensive side in the modern metagame (with Tinted lens; unresisted coverage often being run with Ground-Ice, although that is still a bit different from neutral; of course with Tera Stellar Tera Blast on the two Contrary mons; or Mind’s Eye/Scrappy), and this is the space where I think the concept can really shine. Another aspect maybe that I would consider is if the offense is achieved through one type alone, this frees up slots for other things or could take advantage of unconventional items (e.g., Ice-types running Blizzard and Freeze Dry with Nevermelt Ice), but this is just my take.



Only Room For One – I think the limiter on the TR turns is the most interesting aspect of the concept, as it is explicitly not intended to be used by your teammates or could be detrimental to them. You mention the defensive counterplay by opponents (Protect, Substitute), but you have also mentioned on Discord how things like Explosion/Destiny Bond have unique interactions taking advantage of the timer aspect by the TR user. Maybe useful to include these in the write-up as well? A question I have is: how do you prevent the Pokémon, on its non-TR sets, from being generally good enough (with good bulk, offenses, etc) such that TR becomes essential to its functioning? Or, as you mention, from being slapped onto a TR team, where it can use the extra moveslot for something else. The bulk + counter-speed aspects of TR make it unique compared to other speed boosting setup, but I think it also comes at an opportunity cost. Offensive Pokémon sometimes get their setup on turns they threaten KOs while outspeeding opponents, but you do not have this option or are getting switched in on by a defensive Pokémon anyway. I see this concept working very well against offense, but how do you prevent it from being a matchup fish and providing consistent value against other archetypes as well?



Create-A-Parasite – Making a consistent reactive Pokémon is a great idea in theory, but the dependence on opponents' boosting or doing things according to your plan is, by nature, inconsistent. Your examples of moves show how in one instance of usage, they can take advantage of opponent actions, but to make this a central aspect of a Pokémon’s strategy seems like a difficult, but still possible, endeavour, as you show with your examples. I have a question if it is possible to broaden the interpretation to stuff like Supreme Overlord, where knocking out your allies improves you? It’s a shame Rage Fist is banned, because as you mention, Annihilape shows a good road towards implementation. Another example I’d ask you to consider is something like Pickpocket Tinkaton, which uses Air Balloon to shore up its already amazing defensive profile, but when it is popped, can punish Pokémon for making contact with it or punish them again if they carelessly click Knock Off. Does that count? I suppose I have a hard time visualising this, but it can work for sure.



E.M.P – This is evil, and has a lot of options. Would be interested to see what your vision is with more material.



Absolute Power – The idea of an all-encompassing offense mon could be fun, and I am interested in how we will balance this between being overpowered or being too easily walled (or if it is even possible). Is this meant to be slapped onto hyper-offense, since you mention it threatening balance and stall, or is it meant to function more generally? When you say it is meant to be prediction-reliant, and is in trouble against the wrong opponent if it lets them in at the wrong time, despite possessing tools to deal with it otherwise, I have a hard time imagining a scenario. Is it like: say it could set up to overpower an opponent, but is weak against the same opponent without setting up or can’t set up against them, and thus struggles against them unless it made the right call (i.e., to set up) as the opponent switched in? Some more details would help paint a clearer picture of what you mean.



You’re Just Not My Type – I think this is interesting, especially, as you say, in the context of Tera Hogging: how do you make a Pokémon that is functional because of its bad typing and not just despite? I believe this is similar to Mollux’s concept, maybe? I love the distinction you make between a counterproductive and a bad type, and I fear that if we reward a Pokémon with too many compensations in ability, move and stats we will just end up making a Tera Hog that sees its typing as something to be rid of quickly. Among your examples, I see Tyranitar as probably the closest to a good-faith implementation of this: Sp. Def boost only when you’re Rock, ability to boost teammates and counter other weather, fantastic offensive options with your STABs, and generally a good movepool. But by no means would it be the only way to implement this, and I am excited to see what hidden advantages could be found in other bad typings. Also, I believe a typing’s effectiveness is somewhat relative to the rest of the meta, e.g,. with Heatran’s drop this generation, so it could be interesting to address this aspect.



Snowball in Hell – A slow tempo double dance mon seems good, but from the name itself, I believe stuff like Quaquaval/Moxie/Soul Heart mons might also be something you would like to include? Or Speed Boost mons? Would love to see you flesh the entire idea out.

One of the Cool Kids – I think this lacks a bit of direction and was better suited to our framework, where we had more freedom, seeing as some of the unique abilities you mention are not fully banned in ability discussions (see here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-35-part-4-primary-ability-discussion.3752164/), so it might very well be possible to choose some of these abilities in service of a concept with more direction.



Trapping Opportunist – Isn’t this very similar to Pajantom’s concept? https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-23-final-product.3621906/ I suppose the “taking advantage of them staying in” is the primary distinction in your concept, which in and of itself is interesting. Moves like Octolock, Jaw Lock (which I believe had seen some usage on Roaring Moon) are ripe for experimentation, and I would be very interested in seeing this play out if you could elucidate more on the taking advantage of opponents staying in aspect to sufficiently separate this from Pajantom.



When All You Have Is A Hammer – Move over 6-7, 3-1 is my new favourite ratio. I love how you evolved this concept from its initial iteration into something that still studies why we run certain moves, or how many of them. The idea of the 1 move “deterrent” is something commonly seen on support Pokémon, but the idea that all of the other moves support the one move (on presumably an offensive mon) is fascinating and I am curious as to how this will pan out. I think your examples in your explanation are still for your previous iteration, so I eagerly await your elucidation for this one.



This isn't even my final form – When you say form, do you mean an actual forme or more a general term for a boosted/setup state? Because I’m pretty sure a forme change is illegal unless we have a framework CAP. I believe your general idea itself is similar to “Snowball in Hell”.



Another Hazard Retainer – I think the proposing specific abilities in the description are not allowed (see first post). Even if it were possible, I think Ghost types are in a pretty good state and do see use so I’m not sure what we’d learn from another blocker.



Skill Issue – Okay, so I like this, but I strongly believe that this concept will need further sanding down into something concrete for implementation (which could very well be done in the Assessment stage). You mention risk management in play, and I believe, personally, that middle-ground plays where you consider all options constitute high skill play… but also knowing when to make a read and take a risk, I guess. So a Pokémon that is good for middle-ground plays, then? Honestly, I have no idea because it is a little bit out there. Some more examples, or play-by-plays, could help illustrate what you have in mind, maybe?



Atypical Abuser – Very concrete, a clear design space and many options within the weather + terrain conditions of how to take advantage. No notes, really, you mention interesting options and this is a concept that I see working out in a very systematic manner.



Ambidextrous Abilities – Welcome back Sap Sipper Azumarill. But I like this very much, and deliberately accentuating the differences between sets based on which abilities it runs would raise interesting design requirements for the common elements (stats, typing). I would love to see something that completely flips its role based on the ability, so eager to read the rest of your writeup.



Customizable – This is very pertinent to the current metagame, with stuff like Iron Valiant, Dragonite coming to mind as primary abusers of variety. Because you mention the possibility of also having offensive and defensive sets, I’d be really excited to see how this works out. I suppose some examples of why Pokémon like Mew were successful could also go into your explanation section? But I’ll wait till you have finished your writeup.



Item manipulation – I think things like Magician/Pickpocket could also be relevant here? But I’m not sure if item removal (with Knock, for eg, or Harvest) could be the only defining aspect of a Pokémon, or just something in its overall kit.



Accept the Unexpected – Okay, from what I understand, this wants to make “tech” moves, as you define them, still function well despite the lack of surprise because we’re designing around them? It’s a bit out there as well, so I can’t immediately imagine how this would work, because as you mention their primary value is in being surprises. Maybe some examples where this has been used? I can think of being surprised by your Curse Garganacl suddenly running Tera Ghost and Block in this battle: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9cap-2419069367, (or your Corviknight, for that matter). Is this the sort of thing you mean? Or my Equilibra trying to fish for a DB? Lmaoooooooo. But I would be curious as to how you propose "expected" surprises can still work.
Click to expand...
thanks for the feed back (one of the cool kids). i did intend to come in and delete some of the abilities later, just started with all abilities that were not doubles specific, useless, or clones of other abilities (full metal body=clear body). Though, I was under the impression that I wasn't allowed to be more specific in this case with the whole clause about not showing bias and what not.

OG post edited
 
Last edited:
Guingil said:
More rambling than review for everything posted until now:

Perfect Conditions – Conditional moves somehow find their way time and time again into any meta, so this is a timeless concept. I wondered on Discord if the concept can be executed through either setting the conditions up more easily (for e.g., with a status spamming team for Hex, or as you mention, DPP Breloom), or by the conditional moves working as a natural complement to the kit (Gambit, Raging Bolt). But maybe this is really a mixture of the two, and to get into the nitty gritty would make for a really interesting process. One clarification I’d like is if you imagine us honing on one specific conditional move and making it work, or making a Pokémon that can viably inhabit/make easier various sorts of conditions and possibly work with multiple conditional moves (I can think of the Pursuit + Sucker Punch combination as an e.g.)?



Big Guy – Simple, sweet, and has room for many directions. I would love to see some of your initial thoughts on the examples you give, as to why they might differ in success. For example, is there a difference in an active stat (like Speed) vs a reactive one (like defences, unless it is a Blissey-level F you bulk)? Why has this largely failed on big offense with nothing else (the Hoenn special and the like)? But otherwise, I could see it going many ways and am excited for what directions people propose, if it wins.



Butter Knife – This is similar to the second part of my own Risky vs Consistent submission, but distilled into one question, so I like it :D I think some clarification might be required in terms of examples, as I believe utility Pokémon, as you mention, often do use these moves even without STAB for their effects. So, do we want an offensive Pokémon that uses low-powered moves, or is being utility still fine? And is the STAB part necessary? Given that Tera can allow any move to become STAB, we have seen examples such as Dragonite that run non-STAB. CAP has already done Smokomodo as a foray into this concept, although of course, multi-hit moves don’t actually count, I guess.


Priorities Straight – I think the sphere of priority has already been explored a bit in CAP, as you mention, with Hemogoblin recently, or my sworn enemies Revenankh and Cawmodore. Is the novel part of the concept the matchup into the current meta aspect? Or is the fact that low speed is a necessary condition as well? In that case, we could have interesting things that result from low-speed as well, for example, how Scizor functions as a hard-hitting slow pivot in addition to Bullet Punch shenanigans. I’d like some more examples to understand your vision better.


Another STAB at It – Could see this working well, especially in tandem with Tera. I think we have discussed how fantastic offensive types like Rock or Ice might prefer not having the weaknesses that come with the type. I think the aspect that maybe gives me a bit of a pause, or that you can include in your questions, given that you’ve already brought it up is: what reward in extra coverage justifies not having an ability, effectively? At the moment, due to Tera, not having STAB is often overcome easily enough so this might be something to be taken into consideration. Also interesting to me is how many offensive moves such a Pokémon ends up running, based on its roles. I could see three move coverage that hits many things super effectively; but also something with a fantastic defensive type that uses only its “non-native” STAB on a great offensive type, or something that runs one native and one ability-granted STAB, for perfect coverage. Would be illuminating to see some examples of mons that would benefit a lot from a STAB on a move that they normally run.



Selfish Support – I love Rillaboom, and this concept could definitely work to even a greater, more selfish degree than it. It’s similar to Vile’s OTR, so maybe some of the questions I raise there will be relevant to this until you have the questions and explanations written down.



Stallbreaker – The anti-stall agenda continues. As you mention, how to reliably deal with modern, more varied stall (my fav is Hoopa-U at the moment) is a great exploration space, but I am also quite curious as to how often one is likely to encounter stall as part of the justification for this. This is related to my other question: how easily can a stallbreaker be able to fit into teams? An answer against stall is a must on good teams. I have used CB Zama for this, but would that be called a stallbreaker by your definition? Or would it require more specialisation into the role, and does it come at the cost of matchups with other team structures? I suppose a dedicated breaker could allow the rest of the team to be more vulnerable to stall otherwise, is that the sort of role it would occupy? Since you mention Gen 9’s iterations of stall, I think it might be interesting to list out the new tools available to it in more detail.



Big Numbers – I think the design space you propose is “how can underpowered moves/types/abilities be compensated for by big stats”, and that is interesting in itself. I’m curious to see how the process plays out, as in, do we do moves/types/abilities first, choosing unconventional or niche options, as you mention, knowing they will still be viable enough with big stats; or go in a nerf-nerf-nerf sort of way after doing the stats? I feel like the unconventional rather than underpowered routes, among the many that you thoroughly define, might be the best way to deal with this, but I am excited to see how it might play out.



Which Road Leads to Rome? – MINE



Trade Offer.png – I immediately think of Final Gambit mons when I see this, and I think some more concrete examples in the explanation of things you already mention (DB, Explosion) might help visualise the different ways trading has been implemented till now. One question I have, related to your fourth question, is whether specific situations can be manufactured to maximise your trade value. When you mention Webs, for e.g., I think Custap sets on Araquanid after setting up webs, have used up their functionality, so with Endure + Endeavour you are exchanging dead weight for an actual useful Pokémon. Also interesting to me is how to deal with opponents knowing there is a possibility for trade and playing around it (as you mention, the Team Preview makes this possible now); and also if there is a place for good trading outside of Hyper Offense teams, which don’t mind giving up Pokémon anyway.



Colourblind – You mention Shox, and I think the concept is already very well explored through it on the defensive side. Offensively, however, there are bits and pieces of the offensive side in the modern metagame (with Tinted lens; unresisted coverage often being run with Ground-Ice, although that is still a bit different from neutral; of course with Tera Stellar Tera Blast on the two Contrary mons; or Mind’s Eye/Scrappy), and this is the space where I think the concept can really shine. Another aspect maybe that I would consider is if the offense is achieved through one type alone, this frees up slots for other things or could take advantage of unconventional items (e.g., Ice-types running Blizzard and Freeze Dry with Nevermelt Ice), but this is just my take.



Only Room For One – I think the limiter on the TR turns is the most interesting aspect of the concept, as it is explicitly not intended to be used by your teammates or could be detrimental to them. You mention the defensive counterplay by opponents (Protect, Substitute), but you have also mentioned on Discord how things like Explosion/Destiny Bond have unique interactions taking advantage of the timer aspect by the TR user. Maybe useful to include these in the write-up as well? A question I have is: how do you prevent the Pokémon, on its non-TR sets, from being generally good enough (with good bulk, offenses, etc) such that TR becomes essential to its functioning? Or, as you mention, from being slapped onto a TR team, where it can use the extra moveslot for something else. The bulk + counter-speed aspects of TR make it unique compared to other speed boosting setup, but I think it also comes at an opportunity cost. Offensive Pokémon sometimes get their setup on turns they threaten KOs while outspeeding opponents, but you do not have this option or are getting switched in on by a defensive Pokémon anyway. I see this concept working very well against offense, but how do you prevent it from being a matchup fish and providing consistent value against other archetypes as well?



Create-A-Parasite – Making a consistent reactive Pokémon is a great idea in theory, but the dependence on opponents' boosting or doing things according to your plan is, by nature, inconsistent. Your examples of moves show how in one instance of usage, they can take advantage of opponent actions, but to make this a central aspect of a Pokémon’s strategy seems like a difficult, but still possible, endeavour, as you show with your examples. I have a question if it is possible to broaden the interpretation to stuff like Supreme Overlord, where knocking out your allies improves you? It’s a shame Rage Fist is banned, because as you mention, Annihilape shows a good road towards implementation. Another example I’d ask you to consider is something like Pickpocket Tinkaton, which uses Air Balloon to shore up its already amazing defensive profile, but when it is popped, can punish Pokémon for making contact with it or punish them again if they carelessly click Knock Off. Does that count? I suppose I have a hard time visualising this, but it can work for sure.



E.M.P – This is evil, and has a lot of options. Would be interested to see what your vision is with more material.



Absolute Power – The idea of an all-encompassing offense mon could be fun, and I am interested in how we will balance this between being overpowered or being too easily walled (or if it is even possible). Is this meant to be slapped onto hyper-offense, since you mention it threatening balance and stall, or is it meant to function more generally? When you say it is meant to be prediction-reliant, and is in trouble against the wrong opponent if it lets them in at the wrong time, despite possessing tools to deal with it otherwise, I have a hard time imagining a scenario. Is it like: say it could set up to overpower an opponent, but is weak against the same opponent without setting up or can’t set up against them, and thus struggles against them unless it made the right call (i.e., to set up) as the opponent switched in? Some more details would help paint a clearer picture of what you mean.



You’re Just Not My Type – I think this is interesting, especially, as you say, in the context of Tera Hogging: how do you make a Pokémon that is functional because of its bad typing and not just despite? I believe this is similar to Mollux’s concept, maybe? I love the distinction you make between a counterproductive and a bad type, and I fear that if we reward a Pokémon with too many compensations in ability, move and stats we will just end up making a Tera Hog that sees its typing as something to be rid of quickly. Among your examples, I see Tyranitar as probably the closest to a good-faith implementation of this: Sp. Def boost only when you’re Rock, ability to boost teammates and counter other weather, fantastic offensive options with your STABs, and generally a good movepool. But by no means would it be the only way to implement this, and I am excited to see what hidden advantages could be found in other bad typings. Also, I believe a typing’s effectiveness is somewhat relative to the rest of the meta, e.g,. with Heatran’s drop this generation, so it could be interesting to address this aspect.



Snowball in Hell – A slow tempo double dance mon seems good, but from the name itself, I believe stuff like Quaquaval/Moxie/Soul Heart mons might also be something you would like to include? Or Speed Boost mons? Would love to see you flesh the entire idea out.

One of the Cool Kids – I think this lacks a bit of direction and was better suited to our framework, where we had more freedom, seeing as some of the unique abilities you mention are not fully banned in ability discussions (see here: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-35-part-4-primary-ability-discussion.3752164/), so it might very well be possible to choose some of these abilities in service of a concept with more direction.



Trapping Opportunist – Isn’t this very similar to Pajantom’s concept? https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/cap-23-final-product.3621906/ I suppose the “taking advantage of them staying in” is the primary distinction in your concept, which in and of itself is interesting. Moves like Octolock, Jaw Lock (which I believe had seen some usage on Roaring Moon) are ripe for experimentation, and I would be very interested in seeing this play out if you could elucidate more on the taking advantage of opponents staying in aspect to sufficiently separate this from Pajantom.



When All You Have Is A Hammer – Move over 6-7, 3-1 is my new favourite ratio. I love how you evolved this concept from its initial iteration into something that still studies why we run certain moves, or how many of them. The idea of the 1 move “deterrent” is something commonly seen on support Pokémon, but the idea that all of the other moves support the one move (on presumably an offensive mon) is fascinating and I am curious as to how this will pan out. I think your examples in your explanation are still for your previous iteration, so I eagerly await your elucidation for this one.



This isn't even my final form – When you say form, do you mean an actual forme or more a general term for a boosted/setup state? Because I’m pretty sure a forme change is illegal unless we have a framework CAP. I believe your general idea itself is similar to “Snowball in Hell”.



Another Hazard Retainer – I think the proposing specific abilities in the description are not allowed (see first post). Even if it were possible, I think Ghost types are in a pretty good state and do see use so I’m not sure what we’d learn from another blocker.



Skill Issue – Okay, so I like this, but I strongly believe that this concept will need further sanding down into something concrete for implementation (which could very well be done in the Assessment stage). You mention risk management in play, and I believe, personally, that middle-ground plays where you consider all options constitute high skill play… but also knowing when to make a read and take a risk, I guess. So a Pokémon that is good for middle-ground plays, then? Honestly, I have no idea because it is a little bit out there. Some more examples, or play-by-plays, could help illustrate what you have in mind, maybe?



Atypical Abuser – Very concrete, a clear design space and many options within the weather + terrain conditions of how to take advantage. No notes, really, you mention interesting options and this is a concept that I see working out in a very systematic manner.



Ambidextrous Abilities – Welcome back Sap Sipper Azumarill. But I like this very much, and deliberately accentuating the differences between sets based on which abilities it runs would raise interesting design requirements for the common elements (stats, typing). I would love to see something that completely flips its role based on the ability, so eager to read the rest of your writeup.



Customizable – This is very pertinent to the current metagame, with stuff like Iron Valiant, Dragonite coming to mind as primary abusers of variety. Because you mention the possibility of also having offensive and defensive sets, I’d be really excited to see how this works out. I suppose some examples of why Pokémon like Mew were successful could also go into your explanation section? But I’ll wait till you have finished your writeup.



Item manipulation – I think things like Magician/Pickpocket could also be relevant here? But I’m not sure if item removal (with Knock, for eg, or Harvest) could be the only defining aspect of a Pokémon, or just something in its overall kit.



Accept the Unexpected – Okay, from what I understand, this wants to make “tech” moves, as you define them, still function well despite the lack of surprise because we’re designing around them? It’s a bit out there as well, so I can’t immediately imagine how this would work, because as you mention their primary value is in being surprises. Maybe some examples where this has been used? I can think of being surprised by your Curse Garganacl suddenly running Tera Ghost and Block in this battle: https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen9cap-2419069367, (or your Corviknight, for that matter). Is this the sort of thing you mean? Or my Equilibra trying to fish for a DB? Lmaoooooooo. But I would be curious as to how you propose "expected" surprises can still work.
Click to expand...
On the Colourblind feedback, I definitely feel Mega Lop as a Pokemon and Scrappy as an ability are great examples of taking advantage of having strong neutrally-effective moves to spam that thinking back I should’ve mentioned in my original concept post. Normal + Scrappy is a pretty nice type on the neutral-attacking side, only resisted by Steel and an uncommonly-used-for-Defense type in Rock and it’d especially be nice to see that being capitalized on.

Good note on a Pokémon comfortable with constantly clicking its STAB moves making way for more flexibility in using things like the Plates/Type-Boosting items. That can allow for sets that hit hard, but can also afford to run utility moves since Choice items won’t be a major need for it while also allowing it to last longer on the field due to not wanting Life Orb all that much.
 
Guingil said:
More rambling than review for everything posted until now:

Absolute Power – The idea of an all-encompassing offense mon could be fun, and I am interested in how we will balance this between being overpowered or being too easily walled (or if it is even possible). Is this meant to be slapped onto hyper-offense, since you mention it threatening balance and stall, or is it meant to function more generally? When you say it is meant to be prediction-reliant, and is in trouble against the wrong opponent if it lets them in at the wrong time, despite possessing tools to deal with it otherwise, I have a hard time imagining a scenario. Is it like: say it could set up to overpower an opponent, but is weak against the same opponent without setting up or can’t set up against them, and thus struggles against them unless it made the right call (i.e., to set up) as the opponent switched in? Some more details would help paint a clearer picture of what you mean.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for the feedback (Absolute Power), even if it is just to make what I’m saying clearer. I’ll do my best to unjumble the brain circuits.
 
BIG ASS FEEDBACK POST IS HERE.
Perfect Conditions: Good concept, adequately narrow while leaving a good bit of workable design space, and a great writeup. One thing that I would add is that I would specify that the concept includes both moves with conditional activation and moves with conditional effects, as I think that people think a bit differently about the idea of a viable ‘mon using one versus the other.

Big Guy: Spongebob big guy pants ok. I’ll be honest, I think this is a pretty one-dimensional concept as it stands. I don’t think that, especially in recent years, we have shied away from minmaxing and putting big stats on our CAPs; we obviously have never gone as high as you stipulate, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. This concept needs a spin or something else to make it more than just a check box.

Butter Knife: Just as a note, I would use the explanation for a bit more than just laying out your own preferences as to where to take this concept. That aside, I do worry about if this concept will naturally just lead to the creation of a stat ball. I’d encourage you to add examples of ‘mons that you think are good portrayals of this concept, but to me, a ‘mon that comes to mind as a good example is Kartana. Leaf Blade is strong enough that it’s not a perfect reflection of what I think you imagine, but its Steel STAB and its coverage are relatively weak but more than workable, as Kartana itself has an astoundingly high Attack stat. I don’t want to end up pigeonholing ourselves into a path like that, personally; that’s my main concern with the concept as it stands. I’d also flesh out your questions a bit more.

Priorities Straight: Good writeup and I do like this concept, but I don’t think there is a ton that there is to learn from it. As you point out in your explanation, there are already plenty of ‘mons that fulfill this concept: Hemo and Scizor but also Revenankh, Breloom, Conkeldurr, Bisharp/Kingambit, Crawdaunt, Ursaluna-Bloodmoon (it ran that, right? I don’t even remember anymore). There isn’t anything wrong with your concept, but it could definitely be uninteresting to some people and from some perspectives as written.

Another STAB at It: I’ll note quickly that I think that there’s a big difference between Blaze/Torrent/Overgrow/Swarm and the other abilities you mention. This concept is pretty restrictive on the Ability stage, and I’m unsure that the opportunity cost is worth it, especially in a generation with Tera. The intersection between Typing and Ability stages would also complicate things a lot. I would flesh out your explanation a lot to try and address these concerns, which I’m sure aren’t exclusive to myself.

Selfish Support: I like it, I just hope you finish it LOL. That aside, I do hope you include the aspect of this concept that we were talking about a while back about specifying what the interaction with this CAP’s setup and its teammates would be: would this ‘mon simply benefit from its field effect more than its teammates, would its field effect have little utility for its teammates, etc.

Stallbreaker: Not much to say about this concept. It’s good. Mon does thing. My only concern would be that stall isn’t really the best archetype in the tier, so on that front it’s not exactly super necessary for the meta, but a concept doesn’t have to be necessary to be slated/voted for.

Big Numbers: Similarly one-dimensional to “Big Guy”, but the check box isn’t as easily fulfilled. I will say that the mons in CAP/OU with a BST over 650 (Kyurem and Zamazenta) are, like, incredibly powerful linchpins of the tier that are borderline broken and have been banworthy (and in Kyurem’s case, banned!) at points in the gen. That doesn’t mean that we can’t find a happy medium, but I’m unsure if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Which Road Leads to Rome?: The name is tuff. The concept is great by every criteria, as are the questions. How on earth is your explanation not final man it’s like 800 pages long LOL. Not much to say on this one, just make sure that you do get around to finishing anything that’s WIP.

Trade Offer: Trading is an underutilized art in the current gen, and I think making a mon around it would be awesome with all of the generation’s mechanics and the environment of the gen itself in context. I would maybe add a few more examples in your explanation to paint a clearer picture of routes this concept could go down.

Colourblind: We aren’t very far removed from a process that revolved heavily around defensive neutralities (Shox), but this is still a good concept. I think this does end up being quite restrictive on the typing stage and, depending on the route we decide to take, the Stats stage as well, but not necessarily in a bad way. Your explanation is really good but I would add or expand on some of your questions.

Only Room For One: My thoughts on this are similar to Selfish Support. Particularly because of how you describe the ideal OTR ‘mon at the start of your explanation, I do appreciate that you touch on the idea of limiting or at the very least keeping synergy/interactions with teammates low or weak at best. However I am unsure of its practicality, much like Selfish Support.

Create-A-Parasite: I think this concept can be quite good, but you need to reframe the way in which this ‘mon would function. The most glaring example of this would, in my opinion, be “does not have any immediate presence”. In my eyes, the best way for a concept like this to succeed would be for “parasitism” to raise the ceiling of the ‘mon higher rather than catapulting its floor into the stratosphere. Also your replay for Gapdos is snapped.

EMP: Feels way too broad. I think you need to narrow this down in some way or form because if not there is almost zero coherent vision due to there being a ton of possible routes to take the concept. Also, “this mon has a ton of disruption moves” becomes a moot point when said ‘mon can’t run all of them, and I don’t think that deliberately adding cheese like normalize+skill swap is desirable either.

Absolute Power: I would strongly disagree with your assertion at the start of your justification, but if your power level is surpassing the heavy hitters of current OU/CAP, then we are going to have a hell of a time balancing it in any way, especially in a meta where hyper offense is one of if not the most dominant teamstyles. I also flatly cannot think of an offensive ‘mon in the current meta that does not have some form of utility, defensive or otherwise. Dunno about the feasibility here.

You’re Just Not My Type: This is probably fairly uninteresting for most considering how many concepts we’ve done in this generation and the last that are pretty much this. I’m pretty averse to these “mon but bad” concepts at this point and I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Snowball In Hell: Similar thoughts to Create-a-Parasite. Starting off as “exceptionally weak” is just not feasible in a generation as fast-paced as this one barring very specific game states. As you mention in your explanation, the last few offensive CAP mons are high tempo, but that is specifically because they are designed to excel in a metagame that is high tempo itself. Like Create-a-Parasite, there needs to be some reframing here.

One of the Cool Kids: There are a lot of hard banned abilities on here, by the way, but aside from that, I find this concept to be fairly uninteresting, but fundamentally pretty sound. I would review/expand on your questions to be answered and I’d add some examples of abilities that (in particular) are good but are locked behind mons that are not viable in OU.

Trapping Opportunist: We did this already (Pajantom); I’m fine with revisiting past concepts but there needs to be more nuance than this. Otherwise, we won’t be learning anything new. .

When All You Have Is A Hammer: I’d change the first half of your explanation since you changed the rest of the concept pretty drastically. Besides that, I think this concept is pretty fundamentally sound, and everything else looks great to me. I like the idea and there are clearly adequate precedents and examples to visualize what a mon like this would look like (although Vish and Spectrier are really sus examples… :worrywhirl:)

This Isn’t Even My Final Form: This concept is illegal.

Another Hazard Retainer: This concept is illegal.

Skill Issue: I am a sucker for concepts like these. There really is no issue I have on a personal level, but I do wonder if burnout increases among the community and if viability can take a backseat in analytical processes like these.

Atypical Abuser: I’m not sure how much there is to learn from this concept when there are “atypical abusers” on pretty much every field effect team archetype. Sun has Walking Wake, rain has Overqwil in certain metas, Electric Terrain has future Paradox mons in NatDex (and Hawlucha, which is also an atypical abuser for all other terrain (technically). Idk if there’s a ton of clean design space for us with this concept as it is written.

Ambidextrous Abilities and Customizable: Grouping these because my feedback is exactly the same. I personally do really like these concepts, but I think that with the way the process is structured and the lack of direction aside from the concepts themselves (which isn’t a flaw of either of your submissions, it’s just how CAP works) these concepts are not easily executed as it stands. There is just so much to consider with how these concepts would move around stage order and how some stages would inform others and such. I’m not even sure how to fix this myself, but a bit of specificity might help to create a direction that proceeds purely from the concepts.

Item Manipulation: I think the design space is probably more limited with this concept than I would like, but it’s workable nonetheless. I would back off from less common items like berries as an aspect of this submission in general, though. If a mon is meant to establish its niche through item manipulation it should probably be through something more impactful than tricking Scarf or harvesting Maranga Berry or something, and using berries seems almost counterintuitive because it stops you from messing with the opponent’s items as much.

Accept the Unexpected: Ominous ahh concept name. PLEASE add examples. Everything else is fine, but currently there is no way to really visualize what you’re describing. I will also note that making a “tech option” a mainstay is effectively just making (a) lesser-used move(s) common, which is a way more clear way to describe what you’re saying. Incidentally, it is also Cawmodore’s concept. Should I be worried?

Balance Factor: I’d take a look at Decentralizer (Arghonaut’s concept) because this one is very similar. I do actually love the idea of revisiting that concept in the current gen, but I’m unsure how feasible it is. Arghonaut arguably (argh-uably? heh.) is a pretty big decentralizer in SV as well, so it might be hard to carve out design space. However, if this submission could be fleshed out a little more it could definitely be a very solid concept.
I do want to apologize to those who submitted their concepts later, because I feel like I ran out of steam a little bit. Feel free to tag me in the CAP Discord if anyone would like clarification or elaboration.

I might do one more round of feedback, but it will probably be more focused on concepts that are newly submitted/heavily changed/need slight tweaks for consideration. Stay tuned for that and any deadline-related announcements!
 
earthflax said:
BIG ASS FEEDBACK POST IS HERE.
Perfect Conditions: Good concept, adequately narrow while leaving a good bit of workable design space, and a great writeup. One thing that I would add is that I would specify that the concept includes both moves with conditional activation and moves with conditional effects, as I think that people think a bit differently about the idea of a viable ‘mon using one versus the other.

Big Guy: Spongebob big guy pants ok. I’ll be honest, I think this is a pretty one-dimensional concept as it stands. I don’t think that, especially in recent years, we have shied away from minmaxing and putting big stats on our CAPs; we obviously have never gone as high as you stipulate, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. This concept needs a spin or something else to make it more than just a check box.

Butter Knife: Just as a note, I would use the explanation for a bit more than just laying out your own preferences as to where to take this concept. That aside, I do worry about if this concept will naturally just lead to the creation of a stat ball. I’d encourage you to add examples of ‘mons that you think are good portrayals of this concept, but to me, a ‘mon that comes to mind as a good example is Kartana. Leaf Blade is strong enough that it’s not a perfect reflection of what I think you imagine, but its Steel STAB and its coverage are relatively weak but more than workable, as Kartana itself has an astoundingly high Attack stat. I don’t want to end up pigeonholing ourselves into a path like that, personally; that’s my main concern with the concept as it stands. I’d also flesh out your questions a bit more.

Priorities Straight: Good writeup and I do like this concept, but I don’t think there is a ton that there is to learn from it. As you point out in your explanation, there are already plenty of ‘mons that fulfill this concept: Hemo and Scizor but also Revenankh, Breloom, Conkeldurr, Bisharp/Kingambit, Crawdaunt, Ursaluna-Bloodmoon (it ran that, right? I don’t even remember anymore). There isn’t anything wrong with your concept, but it could definitely be uninteresting to some people and from some perspectives as written.

Another STAB at It: I’ll note quickly that I think that there’s a big difference between Blaze/Torrent/Overgrow/Swarm and the other abilities you mention. This concept is pretty restrictive on the Ability stage, and I’m unsure that the opportunity cost is worth it, especially in a generation with Tera. The intersection between Typing and Ability stages would also complicate things a lot. I would flesh out your explanation a lot to try and address these concerns, which I’m sure aren’t exclusive to myself.

Selfish Support: I like it, I just hope you finish it LOL. That aside, I do hope you include the aspect of this concept that we were talking about a while back about specifying what the interaction with this CAP’s setup and its teammates would be: would this ‘mon simply benefit from its field effect more than its teammates, would its field effect have little utility for its teammates, etc.

Stallbreaker: Not much to say about this concept. It’s good. Mon does thing. My only concern would be that stall isn’t really the best archetype in the tier, so on that front it’s not exactly super necessary for the meta, but a concept doesn’t have to be necessary to be slated/voted for.

Big Numbers: Similarly one-dimensional to “Big Guy”, but the check box isn’t as easily fulfilled. I will say that the mons in CAP/OU with a BST over 650 (Kyurem and Zamazenta) are, like, incredibly powerful linchpins of the tier that are borderline broken and have been banworthy (and in Kyurem’s case, banned!) at points in the gen. That doesn’t mean that we can’t find a happy medium, but I’m unsure if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Which Road Leads to Rome?: The name is tuff. The concept is great by every criteria, as are the questions. How on earth is your explanation not final man it’s like 800 pages long LOL. Not much to say on this one, just make sure that you do get around to finishing anything that’s WIP.

Trade Offer: Trading is an underutilized art in the current gen, and I think making a mon around it would be awesome with all of the generation’s mechanics and the environment of the gen itself in context. I would maybe add a few more examples in your explanation to paint a clearer picture of routes this concept could go down.

Colourblind: We aren’t very far removed from a process that revolved heavily around defensive neutralities (Shox), but this is still a good concept. I think this does end up being quite restrictive on the typing stage and, depending on the route we decide to take, the Stats stage as well, but not necessarily in a bad way. Your explanation is really good but I would add or expand on some of your questions.

Only Room For One: My thoughts on this are similar to Selfish Support. Particularly because of how you describe the ideal OTR ‘mon at the start of your explanation, I do appreciate that you touch on the idea of limiting or at the very least keeping synergy/interactions with teammates low or weak at best. However I am unsure of its practicality, much like Selfish Support.

Create-A-Parasite: I think this concept can be quite good, but you need to reframe the way in which this ‘mon would function. The most glaring example of this would, in my opinion, be “does not have any immediate presence”. In my eyes, the best way for a concept like this to succeed would be for “parasitism” to raise the ceiling of the ‘mon higher rather than catapulting its floor into the stratosphere. Also your replay for Gapdos is snapped.

EMP: Feels way too broad. I think you need to narrow this down in some way or form because if not there is almost zero coherent vision due to there being a ton of possible routes to take the concept. Also, “this mon has a ton of disruption moves” becomes a moot point when said ‘mon can’t run all of them, and I don’t think that deliberately adding cheese like normalize+skill swap is desirable either.

Absolute Power: I would strongly disagree with your assertion at the start of your justification, but if your power level is surpassing the heavy hitters of current OU/CAP, then we are going to have a hell of a time balancing it in any way, especially in a meta where hyper offense is one of if not the most dominant teamstyles. I also flatly cannot think of an offensive ‘mon in the current meta that does not have some form of utility, defensive or otherwise. Dunno about the feasibility here.

You’re Just Not My Type: This is probably fairly uninteresting for most considering how many concepts we’ve done in this generation and the last that are pretty much this. I’m pretty averse to these “mon but bad” concepts at this point and I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Snowball In Hell: Similar thoughts to Create-a-Parasite. Starting off as “exceptionally weak” is just not feasible in a generation as fast-paced as this one barring very specific game states. As you mention in your explanation, the last few offensive CAP mons are high tempo, but that is specifically because they are designed to excel in a metagame that is high tempo itself. Like Create-a-Parasite, there needs to be some reframing here.

One of the Cool Kids: There are a lot of hard banned abilities on here, by the way, but aside from that, I find this concept to be fairly uninteresting, but fundamentally pretty sound. I would review/expand on your questions to be answered and I’d add some examples of abilities that (in particular) are good but are locked behind mons that are not viable in OU.

Trapping Opportunist: We did this already (Pajantom); I’m fine with revisiting past concepts but there needs to be more nuance than this. Otherwise, we won’t be learning anything new. .

When All You Have Is A Hammer: I’d change the first half of your explanation since you changed the rest of the concept pretty drastically. Besides that, I think this concept is pretty fundamentally sound, and everything else looks great to me. I like the idea and there are clearly adequate precedents and examples to visualize what a mon like this would look like (although Vish and Spectrier are really sus examples… :worrywhirl:)

This Isn’t Even My Final Form: This concept is illegal.

Another Hazard Retainer: This concept is illegal.

Skill Issue: I am a sucker for concepts like these. There really is no issue I have on a personal level, but I do wonder if burnout increases among the community and if viability can take a backseat in analytical processes like these.

Atypical Abuser: I’m not sure how much there is to learn from this concept when there are “atypical abusers” on pretty much every field effect team archetype. Sun has Walking Wake, rain has Overqwil in certain metas, Electric Terrain has future Paradox mons in NatDex (and Hawlucha, which is also an atypical abuser for all other terrain (technically). Idk if there’s a ton of clean design space for us with this concept as it is written.

Ambidextrous Abilities and Customizable: Grouping these because my feedback is exactly the same. I personally do really like these concepts, but I think that with the way the process is structured and the lack of direction aside from the concepts themselves (which isn’t a flaw of either of your submissions, it’s just how CAP works) these concepts are not easily executed as it stands. There is just so much to consider with how these concepts would move around stage order and how some stages would inform others and such. I’m not even sure how to fix this myself, but a bit of specificity might help to create a direction that proceeds purely from the concepts.

Item Manipulation: I think the design space is probably more limited with this concept than I would like, but it’s workable nonetheless. I would back off from less common items like berries as an aspect of this submission in general, though. If a mon is meant to establish its niche through item manipulation it should probably be through something more impactful than tricking Scarf or harvesting Maranga Berry or something, and using berries seems almost counterintuitive because it stops you from messing with the opponent’s items as much.

Accept the Unexpected: Ominous ahh concept name. PLEASE add examples. Everything else is fine, but currently there is no way to really visualize what you’re describing. I will also note that making a “tech option” a mainstay is effectively just making (a) lesser-used move(s) common, which is a way more clear way to describe what you’re saying. Incidentally, it is also Cawmodore’s concept. Should I be worried?

Balance Factor: I’d take a look at Decentralizer (Arghonaut’s concept) because this one is very similar. I do actually love the idea of revisiting that concept in the current gen, but I’m unsure how feasible it is. Arghonaut arguably (argh-uably? heh.) is a pretty big decentralizer in SV as well, so it might be hard to carve out design space. However, if this submission could be fleshed out a little more it could definitely be a very solid concept.
I do want to apologize to those who submitted their concepts later, because I feel like I ran out of steam a little bit. Feel free to tag me in the CAP Discord if anyone would like clarification or elaboration.

I might do one more round of feedback, but it will probably be more focused on concepts that are newly submitted/heavily changed/need slight tweaks for consideration. Stay tuned for that and any deadline-related announcements!
Click to expand...
(one of the cool kids) thanks for the feedback. i mentioned in my last reply that i literally listed EVERY unique ability that wasnt for doubles only or a clone of another ability. i was under the impression that i couldnt be too specific. definitely going to narrow it down and maybe give some ideas of where it could be headed. thanks again

OG post edited
 
Last edited:
Bringing this one back from 12 years ago (with some minor edits):

Name: Fully Uncompetitive

General Description: Design a Pokemon that is deemed and defined as uncompetitive in the current metagame. Ultimately, discuss and discover strategies which remove control from the players' grasp.

Justification: This Pokemon should not have a positive effect on the metagame — we must make something truly unhealthy. What this submission brings to the table, however, is a large knowledge gain on how exactly 'uncompetitive' is defined in competitive Pokemon play. Search for the term 'uncompetitive' on any metagame forum here on Smogon and you’ll see heated debate about what this word does and doesn’t mean, and passionate arguments about how certain Pokemon, sets, items, and strategies are unhealthy.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What exactly does the word 'uncompetitive' (and 'unhealthy') mean in terms of competitive Pokemon? How does it differ from 'luck'? Does it?
  • Which strategies are considered uncompetitive? What makes them that way?
  • Are there varying degrees of uncompetiveness between differing strategies? If so, what are they?
  • Are uncompetitive elements desirable in a metagame? To what degree?
  • Through which means can a player remove uncompetitive elements from matches? Is this possible?
  • Do uncompetitive elements come and go in phases? If so, is this pattern predictable?

Explanation: Uncompetitive elements in competitive Pokemon is neither insular to Smogon nor new. Pokemon Online and PokeBattle have both considered these elements in their tiering decisions many years ago, and Smogon has joined the discussion for decades. Furthermore, uncompetitiveness has been considered from as far back as Generation IV tiering with the banning of Shaymin-S and Deoxys-S. This topic has come up time and time again in our competitive metagames, and I believe it's about time that the Create-A-Pokemon Project tackled it head on.

In my eyes, approaching this topic from a perspective of "banishing uncompetitiveness" is trite and nigh impossible. Rather, we should be viewing this through the lens of a devil's advocate. This concept encourages us to get creative with how we leave a match to the hands of fate. Sure, we could approach this from a perspective of flinch hax (please, let's not). But the underlying questions here dig much deeper. What exactly defines uncompetitiveness? Are there levels of uncompetitiveness? Does it include mental games that are 'above the table' in psyching out opponents? Do these tactics reach a diminishing return of usefulness at any particular point?

Finally, I am most interested in the philosophy of 'uncompetitive phases' in Pokemon. One of the first examples one could reflect on is Wobbuffet. It was banned in DPP OU because it did its job so effectively that it made matches pointless. Sure we've had power creep, but can that solely explain the sudden dip in Wobbuffet usage in BWOU? Shed Shell was not widespread by any means, and Wobbuffet's movepool hasn't changed in the slightest. And what about Pokemon such as Jirachi and Thundurus, both of which rely on some uncompetitive traits to win matches? How did Deoxys-S fit into the mix; it didn't rely on hax, but it was definitely considered uncompetitive when banned. Speed ties... guaranteed outcomes... Where is the consistency here? I'm not only curious on tackling this concept by creating a nefarious Pokemon to cause dicey situations, but also greatly interested gathering some data on deeming a Pokemon as 'uncompetitive' throughout history.

There's much to discuss here. I believe this concept combines the fun of creating a Pokemon that everyone will consider unhealthy in some way with the thoughtfulness of observing our past and predicting the future. Let's see what it takes to be considered fully uncompetitive.
 
earthflax said:
BIG ASS FEEDBACK POST IS HERE.
Perfect Conditions: Good concept, adequately narrow while leaving a good bit of workable design space, and a great writeup. One thing that I would add is that I would specify that the concept includes both moves with conditional activation and moves with conditional effects, as I think that people think a bit differently about the idea of a viable ‘mon using one versus the other.

Big Guy: Spongebob big guy pants ok. I’ll be honest, I think this is a pretty one-dimensional concept as it stands. I don’t think that, especially in recent years, we have shied away from minmaxing and putting big stats on our CAPs; we obviously have never gone as high as you stipulate, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot. This concept needs a spin or something else to make it more than just a check box.

Butter Knife: Just as a note, I would use the explanation for a bit more than just laying out your own preferences as to where to take this concept. That aside, I do worry about if this concept will naturally just lead to the creation of a stat ball. I’d encourage you to add examples of ‘mons that you think are good portrayals of this concept, but to me, a ‘mon that comes to mind as a good example is Kartana. Leaf Blade is strong enough that it’s not a perfect reflection of what I think you imagine, but its Steel STAB and its coverage are relatively weak but more than workable, as Kartana itself has an astoundingly high Attack stat. I don’t want to end up pigeonholing ourselves into a path like that, personally; that’s my main concern with the concept as it stands. I’d also flesh out your questions a bit more.

Priorities Straight: Good writeup and I do like this concept, but I don’t think there is a ton that there is to learn from it. As you point out in your explanation, there are already plenty of ‘mons that fulfill this concept: Hemo and Scizor but also Revenankh, Breloom, Conkeldurr, Bisharp/Kingambit, Crawdaunt, Ursaluna-Bloodmoon (it ran that, right? I don’t even remember anymore). There isn’t anything wrong with your concept, but it could definitely be uninteresting to some people and from some perspectives as written.

Another STAB at It: I’ll note quickly that I think that there’s a big difference between Blaze/Torrent/Overgrow/Swarm and the other abilities you mention. This concept is pretty restrictive on the Ability stage, and I’m unsure that the opportunity cost is worth it, especially in a generation with Tera. The intersection between Typing and Ability stages would also complicate things a lot. I would flesh out your explanation a lot to try and address these concerns, which I’m sure aren’t exclusive to myself.

Selfish Support: I like it, I just hope you finish it LOL. That aside, I do hope you include the aspect of this concept that we were talking about a while back about specifying what the interaction with this CAP’s setup and its teammates would be: would this ‘mon simply benefit from its field effect more than its teammates, would its field effect have little utility for its teammates, etc.

Stallbreaker: Not much to say about this concept. It’s good. Mon does thing. My only concern would be that stall isn’t really the best archetype in the tier, so on that front it’s not exactly super necessary for the meta, but a concept doesn’t have to be necessary to be slated/voted for.

Big Numbers: Similarly one-dimensional to “Big Guy”, but the check box isn’t as easily fulfilled. I will say that the mons in CAP/OU with a BST over 650 (Kyurem and Zamazenta) are, like, incredibly powerful linchpins of the tier that are borderline broken and have been banworthy (and in Kyurem’s case, banned!) at points in the gen. That doesn’t mean that we can’t find a happy medium, but I’m unsure if the juice is worth the squeeze.

Which Road Leads to Rome?: The name is tuff. The concept is great by every criteria, as are the questions. How on earth is your explanation not final man it’s like 800 pages long LOL. Not much to say on this one, just make sure that you do get around to finishing anything that’s WIP.

Trade Offer: Trading is an underutilized art in the current gen, and I think making a mon around it would be awesome with all of the generation’s mechanics and the environment of the gen itself in context. I would maybe add a few more examples in your explanation to paint a clearer picture of routes this concept could go down.

Colourblind: We aren’t very far removed from a process that revolved heavily around defensive neutralities (Shox), but this is still a good concept. I think this does end up being quite restrictive on the typing stage and, depending on the route we decide to take, the Stats stage as well, but not necessarily in a bad way. Your explanation is really good but I would add or expand on some of your questions.

Only Room For One: My thoughts on this are similar to Selfish Support. Particularly because of how you describe the ideal OTR ‘mon at the start of your explanation, I do appreciate that you touch on the idea of limiting or at the very least keeping synergy/interactions with teammates low or weak at best. However I am unsure of its practicality, much like Selfish Support.

Create-A-Parasite: I think this concept can be quite good, but you need to reframe the way in which this ‘mon would function. The most glaring example of this would, in my opinion, be “does not have any immediate presence”. In my eyes, the best way for a concept like this to succeed would be for “parasitism” to raise the ceiling of the ‘mon higher rather than catapulting its floor into the stratosphere. Also your replay for Gapdos is snapped.

EMP: Feels way too broad. I think you need to narrow this down in some way or form because if not there is almost zero coherent vision due to there being a ton of possible routes to take the concept. Also, “this mon has a ton of disruption moves” becomes a moot point when said ‘mon can’t run all of them, and I don’t think that deliberately adding cheese like normalize+skill swap is desirable either.

Absolute Power: I would strongly disagree with your assertion at the start of your justification, but if your power level is surpassing the heavy hitters of current OU/CAP, then we are going to have a hell of a time balancing it in any way, especially in a meta where hyper offense is one of if not the most dominant teamstyles. I also flatly cannot think of an offensive ‘mon in the current meta that does not have some form of utility, defensive or otherwise. Dunno about the feasibility here.

You’re Just Not My Type: This is probably fairly uninteresting for most considering how many concepts we’ve done in this generation and the last that are pretty much this. I’m pretty averse to these “mon but bad” concepts at this point and I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Snowball In Hell: Similar thoughts to Create-a-Parasite. Starting off as “exceptionally weak” is just not feasible in a generation as fast-paced as this one barring very specific game states. As you mention in your explanation, the last few offensive CAP mons are high tempo, but that is specifically because they are designed to excel in a metagame that is high tempo itself. Like Create-a-Parasite, there needs to be some reframing here.

One of the Cool Kids: There are a lot of hard banned abilities on here, by the way, but aside from that, I find this concept to be fairly uninteresting, but fundamentally pretty sound. I would review/expand on your questions to be answered and I’d add some examples of abilities that (in particular) are good but are locked behind mons that are not viable in OU.

Trapping Opportunist: We did this already (Pajantom); I’m fine with revisiting past concepts but there needs to be more nuance than this. Otherwise, we won’t be learning anything new. .

When All You Have Is A Hammer: I’d change the first half of your explanation since you changed the rest of the concept pretty drastically. Besides that, I think this concept is pretty fundamentally sound, and everything else looks great to me. I like the idea and there are clearly adequate precedents and examples to visualize what a mon like this would look like (although Vish and Spectrier are really sus examples… :worrywhirl:)

This Isn’t Even My Final Form: This concept is illegal.

Another Hazard Retainer: This concept is illegal.

Skill Issue: I am a sucker for concepts like these. There really is no issue I have on a personal level, but I do wonder if burnout increases among the community and if viability can take a backseat in analytical processes like these.

Atypical Abuser: I’m not sure how much there is to learn from this concept when there are “atypical abusers” on pretty much every field effect team archetype. Sun has Walking Wake, rain has Overqwil in certain metas, Electric Terrain has future Paradox mons in NatDex (and Hawlucha, which is also an atypical abuser for all other terrain (technically). Idk if there’s a ton of clean design space for us with this concept as it is written.

Ambidextrous Abilities and Customizable: Grouping these because my feedback is exactly the same. I personally do really like these concepts, but I think that with the way the process is structured and the lack of direction aside from the concepts themselves (which isn’t a flaw of either of your submissions, it’s just how CAP works) these concepts are not easily executed as it stands. There is just so much to consider with how these concepts would move around stage order and how some stages would inform others and such. I’m not even sure how to fix this myself, but a bit of specificity might help to create a direction that proceeds purely from the concepts.

Item Manipulation: I think the design space is probably more limited with this concept than I would like, but it’s workable nonetheless. I would back off from less common items like berries as an aspect of this submission in general, though. If a mon is meant to establish its niche through item manipulation it should probably be through something more impactful than tricking Scarf or harvesting Maranga Berry or something, and using berries seems almost counterintuitive because it stops you from messing with the opponent’s items as much.

Accept the Unexpected: Ominous ahh concept name. PLEASE add examples. Everything else is fine, but currently there is no way to really visualize what you’re describing. I will also note that making a “tech option” a mainstay is effectively just making (a) lesser-used move(s) common, which is a way more clear way to describe what you’re saying. Incidentally, it is also Cawmodore’s concept. Should I be worried?

Balance Factor: I’d take a look at Decentralizer (Arghonaut’s concept) because this one is very similar. I do actually love the idea of revisiting that concept in the current gen, but I’m unsure how feasible it is. Arghonaut arguably (argh-uably? heh.) is a pretty big decentralizer in SV as well, so it might be hard to carve out design space. However, if this submission could be fleshed out a little more it could definitely be a very solid concept.
I do want to apologize to those who submitted their concepts later, because I feel like I ran out of steam a little bit. Feel free to tag me in the CAP Discord if anyone would like clarification or elaboration.

I might do one more round of feedback, but it will probably be more focused on concepts that are newly submitted/heavily changed/need slight tweaks for consideration. Stay tuned for that and any deadline-related announcements!
Click to expand...
On the Colourblind feedback, typing being more restricted is fine for a more typing-central concept, although I agree stat restrictions (especially for a Pokemon on the offensive side) can be a bit of a unique challenge to work around. Looking at the questions again, I do feel they could have been a of a little more substance and even some re-wording. Maybe instead of asking “How much do we want this Pokémon to hit super-effectively to be considered a neutral-typed Pokémon offensively”, it could have been “What makes a typing ‘neutral’ offensively?” to keep the question less rigid. Sometimes I’m not the best at wording things, after all.
 
WIP
Name: Oops! All TMs

Description: This pokemon is capable of learning every TM available in Scarlet and Violet.

Justification: Moves are one of the most important balancing levers in the CAP project. The structure of CAP naturally treats movepool as a constraining force. Typing, ability, and stats are explored first, and movepool is later used to rein in power. This concept aims to intentionally subvert our typical creation process. Rather than using movepool to fine-tune a finished product, this concept requires the project to confront the limits of typing, ability, and stats as primary balancing mechanisms. It transforms the movepool from a corrective measure into a stress test, revealing how much competitive balance truly relies on move access, and how fragile that balance becomes when that access is relatively unrestricted.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • How much influence do the non-movepool stages have over limiting and balancing the final product?
  • How do early stages such as typing and ability need to adapt when faced with a surplus of known information?
  • How does extreme move flexibility affect predictability, counterplay, and preparation in the metagame?
  • Do pokemon with wide move access meaningfully support multiple competitive sets or does a single defining set emerge despite that flexibility?
  • At what point does versatility become the defining strength or weakness of a pokemon?
  • What competitive value, if any, do non-TM moves still provide when a pokemon already has access to every TM?
Explanation: At its core, this concept experiments with the removal of movepool as a traditional balancing tool and examines what constraints remain. While the pokemon would technically have access to an enormous range of options, its effectiveness would still be limited by its typing, ability, and stat distribution. The goal is not to create a pokemon that excels at every role, but to explore how fundamental design choices can meaningfully limit or shape extreme versatility. This concept invites discussion around role compression, matchup targeting, and if full TM access meaningfully changes how a pokemon is perceived/prepared for/countered in game.

This was a concept I previous requested moderator opinions on for CAP 36 since it fell into a bit of a gray area with the existing rules. The rule in question: movepools or lists of moves are not allowed. A specific move can be mentioned if it is the basis for the entire concept. For example, the Concept "Rapid Spinner" would obviously mention the move Rapid Spin. My understanding was that the rule was used to explicitly prevent people from building out their fakemon and submitting it as a concept. There were some mixed opinions about letter of the law versus spirit of the law, does every TM count as a list of moves, and if there is still room for an engaging defining moves/moveset stage. I'm curious if opinions have shifted almost a year after I first inquired about the legality.
 
WIP

Name: Potential Man

Description: This Pokemon demands that opponent actively plays around it potentially switching in, gaining value even without necessarily switching in.

Justification: TBD

Questions: TBD

Explanation: This concept explores how players interact with threat potential and how teams can exploit this potential to their advantage. The easiest example for this concept would be simply a Magic Bounce user. Solely by existing, a Magic Bounce Pokemon deters the opponent from clicking hazards, even if the Magic Bounce Pokemon does not comfortably switch into the hazard setter. Similarly, a Pokemon like Defiant Bisharp can deter the opponent from clicking Defog, or a Ghost type can deter the opponent from clicking Rapid Spin. On a more abstract level, all Pokemon exert some level of threat potential, to varying degrees, that demands the opponent play around them. For instance, a team may need to make riskier plays to prevent the opponent's Specs Kyurem from coming in for free due to its high threat potential, whereas a passive Pokemon like Blissey does not exert as much threat. Furthermore, this potential is also context-dependent and can change over the course of the game. The aforementioned Specs Kyurem becomes a bit less scary when Rocks are up, and a usually passive Blissey may need to be denied a free turn to heal in order to break through the opposing defensive core.

This Pokemon should almost always be able to threaten high potential value by switching in, largely independent of the context of the specific game state or matchup. As described above, this can be accomplished by exploiting specific move/ability interactions, or abstractly through high threat potential. Both implementations I believe will lead to an interesting process, with the former route focusing moreso on identifying exploitable opportunities to switch in on and designing a kit to fully capitalize on these opportunities, while the latter is more abstract and offers more unique means of defining and creating potential value. Still, these approaches are not exclusive and a combination of both could be an interesting and unique challenge.

One key component of this concept is that this Pokemon should not only threaten high potential value by switching in, but also gain value simply through this threat alone. While it is sensible for this Pokemon to be able to capitalize on its own potential(eg a Rock-weak Magic Bounce user), it is more important that other Pokemon are able to extract value off of this threat as well. Consequently, it is critical to this concept that we are particularly conscious of the teamstyles, synergies, and cores that this Pokemon will find itself on.

I still do not know how to end posts
 
WIP
Name: As sharp as a Samurai

Description: This CAP is designed to be able to use an underused specialised playstyle that is able to brute force past bulkier walls by focusing on landing critical hits.


Justification: Whilst it has been clear that potentially similar mons have attempted to achieve this, none of them have particularly stood out as a strong contender due to lacking components e.g. natural offensive presence such as Drapion's base attack feeling too lackluster or uses an alterior motive that happens to work in conjunction to the idea with the biggest culprits being Hisuian Samurott and Kleavor which have Sharpness but are also able to set hazards as a secondary effect which is more impactful than the sharpness boost itself or finally there's Ogerpon which just happens to have an inbuilt crit chance on one of the more broken moves we have seen in Pokémon with Ivy Cudgel that the crit effect is complete afterthought. This idea is to hopefully attempt to mitigate more passive play of current popular meta bulky walls with examples being Gliscor, Garganacl, Cresceidon etc by being able to threaten strong hard hitting damage potential without the possible need for setup sweeping which the current meta tends to favour.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • Is there any way we can prevent limitation to further processes to this slate by not limiting the movepool or abilities solely to focus on a crit build and have the Pokémon be able to function without this build?
  • Do we want to focus on this Pokémon being more of a bruiser/tank or do we want this to focus purely on the offensive presence that the CAP can bring to the meta whilst sacrificing other stat components like the bulk or speed?
  • How much raw offensive pressure are we able to give this slate without having too much offensive presence to where it no longer wants to use the slate and rather rely on other sets that go for stat setup or using brute force with common offensive items e.g. Life Orb or Choice Band?
  • How can we make this CAP stand out from potentially similar created Pokémon with very mixed results that is able to remain creative and stand out among the rest of the CAP's previously made.
Explanation: Sometimes and undoubtably secondary hax is bound to happen in games which can either be frustrating if it's a game changing outcome or on contrary it's sometimes the only way to be able to break through a Pokémon that is sitting on the field refusing to budge and this CAP mostly aims to ask the question of what if we have more control on these secondary effects to both be able to swing the CAP to break past bulkier setup walls whilst still allowing for potential counterplay so that this CAP doesn't just "win if it gets lucky." Hisuian Samurott has especially given some inspiration for this build due to feeling quite a unique experience at the start of Gen 9, with a new ability that specifically boosts slicing moves which typically goes in hand with this style of build, it also makes me want to find a way to make this sort of concept more of a prominent aspect of the meta without just spamming a singular move which becomes more of an offensive hazard bot which the meta isn't particularly in need of at the moment.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name:
Crippling Drops

Description:
This Pokemon’s main way of making progress is by forcing switches by dropping the opponent’s stat stages.

Justification:
The stat system is an extremely important part of Pokemon. Many, many Pokemon use stat boosts to fulfill their roles, whether to sweep with Attack and Speed boosts, to wall with defensive boosts, or to become unkillable snowballs with both offensive and defensive boosts. However, the other side of the stat system, stat-lowering, is underutilized. There are some uses, such as Alomomola with Chilling Water, Parting Shot, Intimidate, and Charm / Confide users of the past. The mechanic, however, still hasn’t been nearly explored to its potential. This concept aims to explore the many strategies in stat lowering. There is plenty of flexibility and the concept is quite an interesting realm to explore. This will make for an interesting process for CAP 37.

Questions To Be Answered:
- If the given Pokémon is more offensive in nature, how would we balance the incredible strength of defensive drops to prevent CAP 37 from being too hard to switch into?
- If the Pokémon is more defensive, how do we find tune its offenses to prevent defense drops from being too strong or even too weak?
- If this Pokémon focuses on lowering the opponent’s offensive stats, How do we make sure we can punish switches?
- Pokemon that use moves to drop offensive stats such as Alomomola and NDUbers Chansey tend to be especially passive, especially since they rely on a weak move to lower stats. How do we prevent this or at least make this less exploitable?

Explanation:
This concept aims to explore how Stat drops can be utilized to make a Pokémon viable. Stat drops can be used aggressively with moves such as Fire Lash and lumina Crash. It can be used more defensively with moves such as Chilly Water, Charm, Eerie Impulse, Mystical Fire, Bulldoze, Icy Wind, and Pounce. It can be used to make it hard to swap into our CAP when moves such as Acid Spray / Screech + good coverage. Stat drops can be extremely strong, so this concept aims to see the best way to balance a Pokémon that relies on this mechanic.
 
WIP

Name:
Pinch Hitter

Description:
This Pokemon finds very few opportunities to switch in but is able to make use of these switch-ins to force major progress without setting up.

Justification:
Offensive Pokemon fall into one of two main buckets. One of them is the glass cannon bucket, which focuses on immediately powerful Pokemon that use that raw power to stomp opponents but struggle to enter the field without being demolished themselves. The other is the setup sweeper basket, which is overflowing with toys to play with - Swords Dance, anyone? Calm Mind, perchance? This Pokemon aims to assist in the comparatively barren first bucket by being the ideal extreme of that style - a CAP that barely sees the field, but delivers incredible results when it does so.

Questions To Be Answered
- How much defensive utility are we willing to sacrifice in the pursuit of offensive power?
- How can this Pokemon best reward smart double switches and use of pivoting?
- One major issue with this archetype is that its Pokemon often end up with a strong attacking stat and nothing else (think Rampardos). How do we fix this problem?
- How do we punish reckless play (i.e. attempting to dry switch this Pokemon in) best with this Pokemon's design?
- How do we equalize this Pokémon’s impact on different teamstyles, from stall to HO?

Explanation
Pinch hitters are always hype. Even when they don't get a hit, seeing them enter the batters' box always leaves you on the edge of your seat in a tight game. So why not bring that to Pokemon?

Pinch hitters don't often get to see the field but are very effective when they enter, and that same problem afflicts this CAP. However, what sets this CAP apart is the restriction - no set-up sweepers allowed. Of course, in baseball, you can't sacrifice 1 strike to gain an omniboost to your stats or take steroids in the batter's box, so our CAP can't do that either. What our CAP can do in return is left up to our interpretation - it can set hazards or just do massive damage back to whatever's in its face.

However, one thing we must be cognizant of is the Rampardos problem. Pokemon like this can often end up with a strong attacking stat; however, that stat sees little-to-no usage since it is saddled with so many drawbacks like terrible bulk or speed. While pinch hitters aren't effective 100% of the time, their usage is often rewarded with a hit considering the pinch hitter's offensive leaning. How can we ensure that this Pokemon makes any form of progress?
 
Last edited:
Name: I'm Gonna Spammmmmm!

Description: This CAP will attempt to introduce a new style of typespam-offense into the meta.

Justification: Over the years of competitive Pokemon, we have seen the rise (or fall) of many different styles of type-spam offense, a team building style of hyper-or-bulky offense that neglects broad coverage or type diversity in its offensive breakers in favor of overwhelming the same checks with a singular offensive type. The most classic of these being BirdSpam from Generation 6, but other spam-style offenses have risen over the years such as Psyspam, DarkSpam, or FairySpam. Some previous generation team-building styles, although not officially called a type-spam offense, could also arguably count such as DragMag. Despite the creation of many of these spam teams, not every one of the 18 types has yet to have a easily recognizable and viable spam offense attached to their name. This concept will aim to explore the design space around type-spam offense, what factors have led to their creation, and why certain types have been spammed more often than others. Likewise, this concept will aim to explore the un-spammed types and determine which ones have the potential to give rise to spam-style offense if given the right Pokemon to enable it. Given that many of the previously mentioned spam-style offense teams only really arose after the introduction of certain powerful Pokemon, this concept, if executed well, could lead to the creation of a new meta offensive archetype.

Questions to be Answered:
- What types have been spammed, and what factors have led to spam-style offense being created around them?
- What counts as a spam-style offense, and what designs challenges do they face? For example, although Rain might be considered a spam-style offense, should we count Sun as one as well? Likewise, at what point does a team cross over from simply being an offense with two attackers of the same type to becoming a spam team?
- What types have the potential to be converted into spam-style offense teams, and what factors holding them back could be answered with the creation of this CAP? If said type already has more than 2 powerful and viable attackers associated with it, why are spam-offense teams not seen with them?
- Should we consider previously used but no longer as viable spam-offenses like BirdSpam or DragMag to be fairgame for this concept, or should we stick to the completely novel?
- Given that Spam-Offense inevitably relies on the use of partners, how can we ensure that this concept both incorporates potential partners with the same type or offensive coverage without tunnel-visioning / pigeon-holding our design around them?
- Likewise, how do we ensure that this CAP will be used in spam-style offense structures? Obviously, any strong wallbreaker will be used outside of typespam, but what factors can we built into this CAP to ensure that type-spam is one of its more prominent roles?
- Finally, what tools will this CAP need in order to provide for a newly formed typespam offense?

Explanation: I have always been very fascinated with the concept of type-spam offense, and they are one of my favorite styles to teambuild around and use, hence the inspiration for this CAP! Obviously, I've tried all the conventional ones (Darkspam, FairySpam, Rain, DragMag, BirdSpam) etc, but I've also tried to create spam offense teams around the less or even never spammed types. I've even seen enough success around some of them that I'm convinced they could become properly viable spam-style offense if given the right mon. My favorite right now is Normal-Spam (the one I'd recommend if this concept were chosen) given the sheer power of Ursaluna and Tera Normal Dragonite, but I've also had a lot of fun with BugSpam (Lokix my goat), IceSpam, Non-Rain WaterSpam, SteelSpam, and more. (Although obviously, I'd imagine things like GroundSpam or FightSpam would be more popular for this concept if it were chosen). Some people might consider these offense teams a bit mind-numbing, but I'm personally a huge fan of building with these teams and figuring out how to deal with the restrictions imposed by doubling up on typing. Since stuff like DarkSpam really only arose after the introduction of mons like Kingambit or Darkrai into the meta, I'm genuinely convinced that if we constructed a Pokemon with the full intention of creating one of these archetypes, we absolutely could, and thus I think this would be a really interesting concept for CAP to take a stab at.

Obviously, this will become a bit more involved and challenging than other CAP concepts because we both need to identify potential partners in crime for the type-spam offense as well as potential victims. We also need to clearly delineate what even counts as a spam-offense given that it is a community label that may be a bit nebulous in definition. Likewise, we will need to work hard to ensure that the CAP actually gets used on these type-spam offense builds. Furthermore, many of the never-spammed before types will have obvious problems holding them back. At the same time, not having perfect neutral coverage is not the end-all-be-all to spam, and I think we could absolutely overcome the other challenges. Afterall, PsySpam exists despite utilizing otherwise mediocre pokemon with a frankly terrible offense type in Pyschic (albeit with insane moves / psychic terrain). Because of those reasons, I have full faith that we as a community could pull off this concept.

(Also someone give me a better name for this concept lol)
 
Last edited:
Sqookblooks said:
Name: I'm Gonna Spammmmmm!

Description: This CAP will attempt to introduce a new style of typespam-offense into the meta.

Justification: Over the years of competitive Pokemon, we have seen the rise (or fall) of many different styles of type-spam offense, a team building style of hyper-or-bulky offense that neglects broad coverage or type diversity in its offensive breakers in favor of overwhelming the same checks with a singular offensive type. The most classic of these being BirdSpam from Generation 6, but other spam-style offenses have risen over the years such as Psyspam, DarkSpam, or FairySpam. Some previous generation team-building styles, although not officially called a type-spam offense, could also arguably count such as DragMag. Despite the creation of many of these spam teams, not every one of the 18 types has yet to have a easily recognizable and viable spam offense attached to their name. This concept will aim to explore the design space around type-spam offense, what factors have led to their creation, and why certain types have been spammed more often than others. Likewise, this concept will aim to explore the un-spammed types and determine which ones have the potential to give rise to spam-style offense if given the right Pokemon to enable it. Given that many of the previously mentioned spam-style offense teams only really arose after the introduction of certain powerful Pokemon, this concept, if executed well, could lead to the creation of a new meta offensive archetype.

Questions to be Answered:
- What types have been spammed, and what factors have led to spam-style offense being created around them?
- What counts as a spam-style offense, and what designs challenges do they face? For example, although Rain might be considered a spam-style offense, should we count Sun as one as well? Likewise, at what point does a team cross over from simply being an offense with two attackers of the same type to becoming a spam team?
- What types have the potential to be converted into spam-style offense teams, and what factors holding them back could be answered with the creation of this CAP? If said type already has more than 2 powerful and viable attackers associated with it, why are spam-offense teams not seen with them?
- Should we consider previously used but no longer as viable spam-offenses like BirdSpam or DragMag to be fairgame for this concept, or should we stick to the completely novel?
- Given that Spam-Offense inevitably relies on the use of partners, how can we ensure that this concept both incorporates potential partners with the same type or offensive coverage without tunnel-visioning / pigeon-holding our design around them?
- Likewise, how do we ensure that this CAP will be used in spam-style offense structures? Obviously, any strong wallbreaker will be used outside of typespam, but what factors can we built into this CAP to ensure that type-spam is one of its more prominent roles?
- Finally, what tools will this CAP need in order to provide for a newly formed typespam offense?

Explanation: I have always been very fascinated with the concept of type-spam offense, and they are one of my favorite styles to teambuild around and use, hence the inspiration for this CAP! Obviously, I've tried all the conventional ones (Darkspam, FairySpam, Rain, DragMag, BirdSpam) etc, but I've also tried to create spam offense teams around the less or even never spammed types. I've even seen enough success around some of them that I'm convinced they could become properly viable spam-style offense if given the right mon. My favorite right now is Normal-Spam (the one I'd recommend if this concept were chosen) given the sheer power of Ursaluna and Tera Normal Dragonite, but I've also had a lot of fun with BugSpam (Lokix my goat), IceSpam, Non-Rain WaterSpam, SteelSpam, and more. (Although obviously, I'd imagine things like GroundSpam or FightSpam would be more popular for this concept if it were chosen). Some people might consider these offense teams a bit mind-numbing, but I'm personally a huge fan of building with these teams and figuring out how to deal with the restrictions imposed by doubling up on typing. Since stuff like DarkSpam really only arose after the introduction of mons like Kingambit or Darkrai into the meta, I'm genuinely convinced that if we constructed a Pokemon with the full intention of creating one of these archetypes, we absolutely could, and thus I think this would be a really interesting concept for CAP to take a stab at.

Obviously, this will become a bit more involved and challenging than other CAP concepts because we both need to identify potential partners in crime for the type-spam offense as well as potential victims. We also need to clearly delineate what even counts as a spam-offense given that it is a community label that may be a bit nebulous in definition. Likewise, we will need to work hard to ensure that the CAP actually gets used on these type-spam offense builds. Furthermore, many of the never-spammed before types will have obvious problems holding them back. At the same time, not having perfect neutral coverage is not the end-all-be-all to spam, and I think we could absolutely overcome the other challenges. Afterall, PsySpam exists despite utilizing otherwise mediocre pokemon with a frankly terrible offense type in Pyschic (albeit with insane moves / psychic terrain). Because of those reasons, I have full faith that we as a community could pull off this concept.

(Also someone give me a better name for this concept lol)
Click to expand...

“So Anyways I Started Blasting”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top