-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
The moderators of this forum can be found in the CAP forum staff directory.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
CAP 37 - Part 2 - Concept Submissions
- Thread starter kenn
- Start date
- Status
WIP
Name:
Jewel Breaker
Description:
This Pokemon is undeterred by Pokemon it checks Terastallizing in front of it.
Justification:
In the competitive scene, Tera may be best known for how much weight it can put on a few prediction-heavy moments. Sweepers like Kingambit can snowball into game-enders off a single missed KO from the opponent wrongly predicting when they'll Terastallize or guessing their Tera type wrong. Tera can also potentially upgrade STAB moves and coverage moves alike, breaking through would-be checks, and Tera Blast even lets offensive Pokemon potentially pack coverage of any type they want. This concept aims to explore a Pokemon that can eliminate these moments while it is active, retaining a good matchup regardless of what type the foe may become.
Questions to be answered:
- How prepared can a Pokemon actually be against the threat of its foe changing to any of the 18 types at any time?
- The Stellar type is the only mechanic that directly counters Terastallization; is it worth it to build a Pokemon that can use Stellar Tera Blast effectively, or is it more useful to utilize tools that mitigate Terastallization's effects without directly interacting with the mechanic?
- Can the same tools be used to counter offensive and defensive Terastallization, or are different attributes needed to handle each use of the mechanic?
Explanation:
Eliminating the impact of all possible Tera types is a daunting task, which is what makes this concept interesting to me.
Depending on the Pokemon's role, it's likely innately resistant to some applications of Tera: an offensively inclined Pokemon might not mind offensive Tera as long as it can still KO the foe before it moves, while a passive wall has nothing to fear from most defensive Teras. This gives us the freedom to focus on countering the uses of Tera that do threaten us.
Some of the most natural candidates for anti-Tera attributes are abilities that interact with typing. Filter could lessen the impact of Tera boosting a coverage move, or creating one with Tera Blast. Sturdy or Multiscale could similarly act as a stopgap for the unexpected burst of power Tera can provide. On the flip side, the dreaded Tinted Lens could drastically reduce the value of defensive Terastallization. The aforementioned Stellar Tera Blast can punish opposing Tera users, but Contrary may be the only way to make a Pokemon actually consider using it. Another route could be a Pokemon that, with proper positioning, boasts enough raw power or bulk to KO through defensive Tera or shrug off any relevant Tera-boosted move respectively.
Name:
Jewel Breaker
Description:
This Pokemon is undeterred by Pokemon it checks Terastallizing in front of it.
Justification:
In the competitive scene, Tera may be best known for how much weight it can put on a few prediction-heavy moments. Sweepers like Kingambit can snowball into game-enders off a single missed KO from the opponent wrongly predicting when they'll Terastallize or guessing their Tera type wrong. Tera can also potentially upgrade STAB moves and coverage moves alike, breaking through would-be checks, and Tera Blast even lets offensive Pokemon potentially pack coverage of any type they want. This concept aims to explore a Pokemon that can eliminate these moments while it is active, retaining a good matchup regardless of what type the foe may become.
Questions to be answered:
- How prepared can a Pokemon actually be against the threat of its foe changing to any of the 18 types at any time?
- The Stellar type is the only mechanic that directly counters Terastallization; is it worth it to build a Pokemon that can use Stellar Tera Blast effectively, or is it more useful to utilize tools that mitigate Terastallization's effects without directly interacting with the mechanic?
- Can the same tools be used to counter offensive and defensive Terastallization, or are different attributes needed to handle each use of the mechanic?
Explanation:
Eliminating the impact of all possible Tera types is a daunting task, which is what makes this concept interesting to me.
Depending on the Pokemon's role, it's likely innately resistant to some applications of Tera: an offensively inclined Pokemon might not mind offensive Tera as long as it can still KO the foe before it moves, while a passive wall has nothing to fear from most defensive Teras. This gives us the freedom to focus on countering the uses of Tera that do threaten us.
Some of the most natural candidates for anti-Tera attributes are abilities that interact with typing. Filter could lessen the impact of Tera boosting a coverage move, or creating one with Tera Blast. Sturdy or Multiscale could similarly act as a stopgap for the unexpected burst of power Tera can provide. On the flip side, the dreaded Tinted Lens could drastically reduce the value of defensive Terastallization. The aforementioned Stellar Tera Blast can punish opposing Tera users, but Contrary may be the only way to make a Pokemon actually consider using it. Another route could be a Pokemon that, with proper positioning, boasts enough raw power or bulk to KO through defensive Tera or shrug off any relevant Tera-boosted move respectively.
Last edited:
Name:
Hazardless Support
Description:
This Pokemon is a pure support that cannot interact with hazards. This includes setting, removing, blocking removal or reflecting them back upon the opponent.
Justification:
We're in a hazard metagame - setting hazards, removing them, selecting HDB to avoid them, removing HDB from the opponent so they can't avoid them. It's central to competitive play, and many of the top Pokemon are brought due to their interactions with hazards. Gholdengo as a spin-blocker, Equilibra setting and clearing, and Arghonaut setting and phasing are all quick examples, but the list is huge. Without a strategy to deal with hazards you're at a clear disadvantage - which is what makes the idea of a support Pokemon that doesn't have any influence over the hazard mini-game interesting. While some Pokemon do support this concept - Alomomola Wish-Passing or various Screen Setters - this is unexplored territory for CAP and I believe will prompt some healthy discussions about what makes a pure support Pokemon worth taking without hazards.
Questions to be Answered:
As a primarily VGC player - support Pokemon operate very differently. Hazards are rare, almost non-existant outside of some Glimmora team comps. Support Pokemon focus on redirection, speed control, Helping Hand and status are the primary tools. I find it fascinating how offensive Pokemon tend to be transferable between the different playstyles (see Gholdengo) but support Pokemon are completely different. Options could include cleric moves, Wish, setting status, screens, field effects, etc. The list is long, but the selection of what to include to make a support Pokemon worth taking over something else would be a great debate. The challenge of creating a support Pokemon with singles battle tools that is actually viable I think would be a fun and unique challenge for the CAP community.
Hazardless Support
Description:
This Pokemon is a pure support that cannot interact with hazards. This includes setting, removing, blocking removal or reflecting them back upon the opponent.
Justification:
We're in a hazard metagame - setting hazards, removing them, selecting HDB to avoid them, removing HDB from the opponent so they can't avoid them. It's central to competitive play, and many of the top Pokemon are brought due to their interactions with hazards. Gholdengo as a spin-blocker, Equilibra setting and clearing, and Arghonaut setting and phasing are all quick examples, but the list is huge. Without a strategy to deal with hazards you're at a clear disadvantage - which is what makes the idea of a support Pokemon that doesn't have any influence over the hazard mini-game interesting. While some Pokemon do support this concept - Alomomola Wish-Passing or various Screen Setters - this is unexplored territory for CAP and I believe will prompt some healthy discussions about what makes a pure support Pokemon worth taking without hazards.
Questions to be Answered:
- What alternative support options are the most viable choice?
- What defines a Pokemon as a "pure" support option rather than a tank or a pivot with support tools?
- How much do stats need to do the heavy lifting to justify bringing a Pokemon without a strong offensive presence?
- What team archetypes do pure support Pokemon thrive on the most?
- Does a Pokemon that cannot directly interact with hazards still need to bring Heavy Duty Boots to survive?
- Is non-hazard support a healthy option to introduce to the metagame or does it lead to more frustrating play?
As a primarily VGC player - support Pokemon operate very differently. Hazards are rare, almost non-existant outside of some Glimmora team comps. Support Pokemon focus on redirection, speed control, Helping Hand and status are the primary tools. I find it fascinating how offensive Pokemon tend to be transferable between the different playstyles (see Gholdengo) but support Pokemon are completely different. Options could include cleric moves, Wish, setting status, screens, field effects, etc. The list is long, but the selection of what to include to make a support Pokemon worth taking over something else would be a great debate. The challenge of creating a support Pokemon with singles battle tools that is actually viable I think would be a fun and unique challenge for the CAP community.
Fully Uncompetitive: Fundamentally there isn’t anything wrong with this concept, but I am not interested in entertaining the ramifications of it.
Oops! All TMs: Would agree that the move limits are a bit iffy legally, but aside from that I think this would be an interesting process, if not one that is a bit unnecessary. I’m unsure if it’s possible to make a mon in this mold that is on a similar or higher viability level to Mew without 1. being broken 2. filling the same role Mew does.
Potential Man: Please finish this concept. I think the most interesting route would definitely be one without Magic Bounce, but I’m not sure how much that can really be built into the concept. I especially love that last paragraph, I think it adds a lot of depth to the concept.
As sharp as a samurai: I think that focusing on crits has a really narrow scope and would be pretty uninteresting; the constraints on certain stages are also iffy legally in my opinion.
Crippling Drops: Is “forcing switches” a necessary aspect of this concept? If so, I think it’s a bit narrow, but even if it revolves around drops in general, I’m unsure about the concept’s feasibility. There is a reason that a lot of the moves you listed don’t see use, and of the ones that do, there is a reason why they are so good. I think there needs to be an expanded explanation to address these concerns.
Pinch Hitter: Good idea, but in practice, I’m unsure how many routes there could possibly be to accomplish a concept like this, and in particular I’m unsure how you could make switch-in opportunities universally quite narrow in a metagame with very strong slow pivots like Slowking-Galar and Alomomola.
I’m Gonna Spam!: I actually quite like this concept, but there are a lot of practical constraints holding this back. Facilitating any type-spam offense has massive implications for the metagame, particularly because offense and hyper offense are easily the best team styles in the metagame as is. I do like your write up a lot; a suggestion might be adjusting the focus to redundancies in team typings, as we’re left with broader design space that way. Think “this CAP fits best on teams where its own typing is redundant” or something? Unsure.
Typecast: I like what you have so far. There is something to be said about the nature of this concept making the typing stage pigeonholing all subsequent stages, but I still think it is workable.
Combat Medic: I like this idea a lot. One thing I would say is if there is an example of your specific interpretation of this from lower tiers, oldgens, or OMs, I think that would help a lot for purposes of clarity.
Double Battles Supporter: This concept is illegal.
Jewel Breaker: Your explanation is kinda toeing the line as far as legality goes, but beyond that, I’m not sure how feasible this concept is. Tera is a ridiculously expansive mechanic and its various interactions cannot really be checked in a way that would make a mon categorically “undeterred”. I think there needs to be an extra spin or angle on this.
Hazardless Support: I’d add some examples of specific Pokemon, because a lot of your examples have very viable users in SV, and there are reasons why the ones that don’t, don’t.
Oops! All TMs: Would agree that the move limits are a bit iffy legally, but aside from that I think this would be an interesting process, if not one that is a bit unnecessary. I’m unsure if it’s possible to make a mon in this mold that is on a similar or higher viability level to Mew without 1. being broken 2. filling the same role Mew does.
Potential Man: Please finish this concept. I think the most interesting route would definitely be one without Magic Bounce, but I’m not sure how much that can really be built into the concept. I especially love that last paragraph, I think it adds a lot of depth to the concept.
As sharp as a samurai: I think that focusing on crits has a really narrow scope and would be pretty uninteresting; the constraints on certain stages are also iffy legally in my opinion.
Crippling Drops: Is “forcing switches” a necessary aspect of this concept? If so, I think it’s a bit narrow, but even if it revolves around drops in general, I’m unsure about the concept’s feasibility. There is a reason that a lot of the moves you listed don’t see use, and of the ones that do, there is a reason why they are so good. I think there needs to be an expanded explanation to address these concerns.
Pinch Hitter: Good idea, but in practice, I’m unsure how many routes there could possibly be to accomplish a concept like this, and in particular I’m unsure how you could make switch-in opportunities universally quite narrow in a metagame with very strong slow pivots like Slowking-Galar and Alomomola.
I’m Gonna Spam!: I actually quite like this concept, but there are a lot of practical constraints holding this back. Facilitating any type-spam offense has massive implications for the metagame, particularly because offense and hyper offense are easily the best team styles in the metagame as is. I do like your write up a lot; a suggestion might be adjusting the focus to redundancies in team typings, as we’re left with broader design space that way. Think “this CAP fits best on teams where its own typing is redundant” or something? Unsure.
Typecast: I like what you have so far. There is something to be said about the nature of this concept making the typing stage pigeonholing all subsequent stages, but I still think it is workable.
Combat Medic: I like this idea a lot. One thing I would say is if there is an example of your specific interpretation of this from lower tiers, oldgens, or OMs, I think that would help a lot for purposes of clarity.
Double Battles Supporter: This concept is illegal.
Jewel Breaker: Your explanation is kinda toeing the line as far as legality goes, but beyond that, I’m not sure how feasible this concept is. Tera is a ridiculously expansive mechanic and its various interactions cannot really be checked in a way that would make a mon categorically “undeterred”. I think there needs to be an extra spin or angle on this.
Hazardless Support: I’d add some examples of specific Pokemon, because a lot of your examples have very viable users in SV, and there are reasons why the ones that don’t, don’t.
Which Road Leads to Rome?
Skill Issue
Combat Medic
Trade Offer
When All You Have is a Hammer
(2 extra spots with potential for use)
Last edited:
Finally have a working pc to be able to comment on stuff, although given its a bit too late Im gonna limit myself just talking about the concepts for the preliminary slate.
Concepts I support staying in the preliminary slate
Concepts I support staying in the preliminary slate
- Skill Issue: The idea of a CAP that´s riskier to use has been always a common concept throughout the years and its not hard to see why. I think this one can lead to some very interesting questions regarding what exactly makes a mon take skill to use and what does not, with multiple avenues to explore how it could work.
- Trade Offer: Possibly the idea I like the most of the concepts introduced in the preliminary slate. An attempt was made for a CAP that play around getting benefits for your death with plasmanta but in general it didn't really work out and this seems like a good chance to redo it, especially since it has a more clear sense of direction and multiple ways that we could explore the ideas of trading with opposing mons.
- When all you have is a hammer: Somewhat simple, but I do kinda like the idea of exploring making a pokémon that serves as mostly a support with a powerful offensive option to still makes progress. It feels like the design space is quite large with this one and can serve for a fun concept.
- Which Road Leads To Rome?: Not a bad concept by any means but I think its a bit limited in what we could make with it. Maybe my imagination is too shallow in this particular case but it seems we would be making a mon with either a sweeping ability or a more defensive option to justify the slow playstyle it suggests, and im not sure we could find the balance between the two modes to make sure one isn´t being used over the other.
- Combat Medic: Im gonna be honest, out of all the concepts in this slate I really don't like this one for one specific reason: as mentioned on the concept submission Astrolotl pretty much did this concept and did it pretty well, and it is still a somewhat viable option even in this metagame. Im not someone to be against reusing old concepts but usually I think they are best referred for cases where a) the original concept was tackled a while ago (think 2-3 gens prior to the current one), or b) the concept didn´t work out as intended, and this is not either of these.
- I'm Gonna Spammmmmm!: Typespam is a rather unexplored concept which is a shame since this is the most optimal generation for running multiple pokémon of the same typing. In general I really like the idea behind it and feel like it could lead to some new archetypes forming in the metagame.
- Typecast: While yeah, its gonna limit the typing stage a bit and could lead to a very straightfoward process I still think this is a wonder full idea for a process. I think there is an infinite amount of ideas we could explore with it, and being able to get the most optimal usage of a typing does sounds like something that could actually teach us a lot for future concepts.
- Atypical Abuser: We haven´t really explored field condition abusers since generation 7 and I really feel we are bound for testing a concept of this kind again. I really like this one because gen 9 has given us a small glimpse of it through the paradox forms, but there are so many field conditions and so many different archetypes we could explore that it would be a shame not to test them.
- Potential Man: Another favourite of mine, I think in general not enough thought goes into how certain mons heavily change a player´s playstyle to account for the possibility of a particular man switching in and adquiring momentum. There´s multiple avenues for the concept be it a conditional sweeper or a defensive piece.
Name - Defensive Nullification
Description - This offensively-inclined pokemon is very difficult for a subset of common defensive pokemon to meaningfully impact due to typing, stat bias, and/or ability.
Justification- When designing a pokemon we're often focused on what offensive mons we can answer, as well, frankly that's our main focus when teambuilding. This CAP aims to ask, what if basically all of our focus was creating a mon that can easily and repeatedly switch into several defensive staples in the tier. What metagame impacts will occur if Equilibra, Arghonaut, Cresceidon, and Ting-Lu all were trivial entry points for a single pokemon, and what if they could do little beyond hazard control/removal once it was in.
Questions To Be Answered -
Explanation - Toxapex is one of the most interesting mons to be released. Its immune to Toxic, cares little about Knock Off, is only mildly inconvenienced by Thunder Wave and Will-o-Wisp, and as a result it basically came around in SM and made a ton of mons obsolete; if you can't touch it, it will switch into you and it will use you to cripple your switchin. Similarly, Clefable entered DPP and basically said "any mon that cannot meaningfully harm me is now unviable". These are defensive examples of the archetype, but while SV CAP is defined by our defensive mons being utter pains to switch into, there's a lot of space for a mon that just abuses their mere existence. Slowbro's an interesting example as well as it essentially does to SM era pex what it did to a lot of earlier defensive pokemon. It tells Pex that any time its in for more than one turn they have to deal with an incoming Future Sight. These are all defensive examples, and frankly its harder for me to find offensive examples; ORAS era Tornadus-Therian sorta fits, but its terrified of passive damage, paralysis, and really likes having its LO to actually KO stuff. SM-era Torn is a lot closer as z-moves let it be immune to Knock-Off, the burn nerf helps it stay around longer after being Scalded, and the lack of LO chip means it can play a lot more aggro. Finally there's the elephant in the room. SD Gliscor can switch into every single defensive pokemon currently in SV OU, at least once it's spent its Tera, and threaten to SD up 15 times in their face.
Description - This offensively-inclined pokemon is very difficult for a subset of common defensive pokemon to meaningfully impact due to typing, stat bias, and/or ability.
Justification- When designing a pokemon we're often focused on what offensive mons we can answer, as well, frankly that's our main focus when teambuilding. This CAP aims to ask, what if basically all of our focus was creating a mon that can easily and repeatedly switch into several defensive staples in the tier. What metagame impacts will occur if Equilibra, Arghonaut, Cresceidon, and Ting-Lu all were trivial entry points for a single pokemon, and what if they could do little beyond hazard control/removal once it was in.
Questions To Be Answered -
- What are some common tools that defensive pokemon in the meta use to "make progress", and what counterplay do we have to those tools.
- Does a pokemon that answers these tools feel constrained to a certain role? How much of our budget should be spent on "defensive aspects" in order to style on defensive mons.
- What does it make sense to do once we're in on a defensive pokemon such as Ting-Lu, set-up, just hitting, utility, throwing out status?
- Item manipulation is frankly a major part of defensive progress making, and many examples of this archetype are relatively item independent; how can we deal with this.
- What would it take to create a mon that gets a free in on most defensive mons without being strictly defensive itself.
Explanation - Toxapex is one of the most interesting mons to be released. Its immune to Toxic, cares little about Knock Off, is only mildly inconvenienced by Thunder Wave and Will-o-Wisp, and as a result it basically came around in SM and made a ton of mons obsolete; if you can't touch it, it will switch into you and it will use you to cripple your switchin. Similarly, Clefable entered DPP and basically said "any mon that cannot meaningfully harm me is now unviable". These are defensive examples of the archetype, but while SV CAP is defined by our defensive mons being utter pains to switch into, there's a lot of space for a mon that just abuses their mere existence. Slowbro's an interesting example as well as it essentially does to SM era pex what it did to a lot of earlier defensive pokemon. It tells Pex that any time its in for more than one turn they have to deal with an incoming Future Sight. These are all defensive examples, and frankly its harder for me to find offensive examples; ORAS era Tornadus-Therian sorta fits, but its terrified of passive damage, paralysis, and really likes having its LO to actually KO stuff. SM-era Torn is a lot closer as z-moves let it be immune to Knock-Off, the burn nerf helps it stay around longer after being Scalded, and the lack of LO chip means it can play a lot more aggro. Finally there's the elephant in the room. SD Gliscor can switch into every single defensive pokemon currently in SV OU, at least once it's spent its Tera, and threaten to SD up 15 times in their face.
Last edited:
Edited my concept, hopefully it gets me some consideration
I like the slate, but think as it is, it is missing representation for some ideas which could end up being really fun. I'll group them according to the category into which I think they fit:
"X-type of move is made viable via the rest of the kit, and/or the rest of the kit needs this to be viable"
Concepts: When All You Have is a Hammer, Perfect Conditions, Another STAB at It, Big Numbers
Hammer already does this very well (how moves help moves). But this sort of chicken-and-egg problem, in which is it the kit that makes the specified thing work, or the specified thing makes the kit work, is interesting enough that we can also explore things that are improved by/improve things of a different category (conditions by kit, pseudo-STAB by typing, or "bad" move/typing by stats). I think something more abstract (conditions) would make for an interesting difference with Hammer, but something more concrete (extra STAB, dummy thick stats) could pose subtler questions.
"Support self (but in a bit freaky way, while affecting your team-building)"
Concepts: Selfish Support, Only Room for One, Atypical Abuser
The mismatch with typical team expectations poses very interesting questions which aren't explored by other things on the slate. For Selfish Support or Room, how do you keep your supportive move from helping your teammates? Is this sort of self-sustained mode even possible? I think Medic on the slate is still more agnostic towards its teammates in that way, or more focused on its own contradiction, but excluding teammates from your strategy and the ramifications of it (you can be run on any team) is very interesting to me. Atypical Abuser is sort of the opposite in that its type profile/moves would improve diversity of specific kinds of teams, but still great.
"Anti-Meta"
Concepts: Jewel Breaker, Defensive Nullification
Studying the most popular tools by breaking them, what's not to like? An anti-Tera mon, like Zacian was anti-Dynamax in VGC, could be great (and was in fact my own initial idea) and I believe that was why the Stellar was introduced, although the ban of the best mon at abusing it did not allow us to explore this. Defensive Nullification is more targeted, and I would be excited to see how the one Pokemon would affect these tools once it is introduced into the meta.
Also, Ambidextrous Abilities is different enough from Which Road... (in that it asks for different roles) that I think it could also be considered.
"X-type of move is made viable via the rest of the kit, and/or the rest of the kit needs this to be viable"
Concepts: When All You Have is a Hammer, Perfect Conditions, Another STAB at It, Big Numbers
Hammer already does this very well (how moves help moves). But this sort of chicken-and-egg problem, in which is it the kit that makes the specified thing work, or the specified thing makes the kit work, is interesting enough that we can also explore things that are improved by/improve things of a different category (conditions by kit, pseudo-STAB by typing, or "bad" move/typing by stats). I think something more abstract (conditions) would make for an interesting difference with Hammer, but something more concrete (extra STAB, dummy thick stats) could pose subtler questions.
"Support self (but in a bit freaky way, while affecting your team-building)"
Concepts: Selfish Support, Only Room for One, Atypical Abuser
The mismatch with typical team expectations poses very interesting questions which aren't explored by other things on the slate. For Selfish Support or Room, how do you keep your supportive move from helping your teammates? Is this sort of self-sustained mode even possible? I think Medic on the slate is still more agnostic towards its teammates in that way, or more focused on its own contradiction, but excluding teammates from your strategy and the ramifications of it (you can be run on any team) is very interesting to me. Atypical Abuser is sort of the opposite in that its type profile/moves would improve diversity of specific kinds of teams, but still great.
"Anti-Meta"
Concepts: Jewel Breaker, Defensive Nullification
Studying the most popular tools by breaking them, what's not to like? An anti-Tera mon, like Zacian was anti-Dynamax in VGC, could be great (and was in fact my own initial idea) and I believe that was why the Stellar was introduced, although the ban of the best mon at abusing it did not allow us to explore this. Defensive Nullification is more targeted, and I would be excited to see how the one Pokemon would affect these tools once it is introduced into the meta.
Also, Ambidextrous Abilities is different enough from Which Road... (in that it asks for different roles) that I think it could also be considered.
Last edited:
Throwing my support for Atypical Abuser/Only Room for One/Big Guy to be added to the slate. This is purely based off my opinion that each of these would lead to a wholly unique Pokemon by design and because they each have rather interesting questions to answer during the design process. I also like that the goals for these submissions are pretty set in stone, imo a streamlined process is better than something broad like say, the Skill Issue submission. And even though the goals for these subs are simple, they are still allowing quite a bit of creativity in how we can go about them (i.e. what weather/terrain is the atypical abuser gonna support? what's our OTR user's type and coverage gonna be for the meta? What stat on Big Guy is gonna be the 200+ one?).
Obviously will throw support for my own concept. I do agree with EarthFlax that there are considerations to be had over introducing a new teambuilding style into the meta, but I think we could steer the concept away from a match-up fish style Type-Spam like Psyspam to something more balanced / considered less problematic like FairySpam / DarkSpam which would hopefully alleviate the concerns. Would try to edit based on your suggestions, but unfortunately between being sick / having IRL stuff to do, I didn't have the time. Will submit the concept again in Gen 10 if this one doesn't go through since I imagine the concept would be easier to handle then.
As for concepts on the slate-- I really like Skill Issue-- to me, skill in pokemon = highly EV-able spread / patient defensive play that yields high value through positional play-- both would be interesting to explore. Also like all Roads lead to Rome-- I imagine the process would be us trying to balance a more greedy offensive version of a mon with a more consistent defensive profile which would be an interesting concept to tackle in practice.
Also throwing support for Room for One More onto the slate. I think there's a lot of potential for exploring OTR abuse especially because every OTR mon we've seen so far has fit a very specific mold of a mon which we could break when exploring this concept.
As for concepts on the slate-- I really like Skill Issue-- to me, skill in pokemon = highly EV-able spread / patient defensive play that yields high value through positional play-- both would be interesting to explore. Also like all Roads lead to Rome-- I imagine the process would be us trying to balance a more greedy offensive version of a mon with a more consistent defensive profile which would be an interesting concept to tackle in practice.
Also throwing support for Room for One More onto the slate. I think there's a lot of potential for exploring OTR abuse especially because every OTR mon we've seen so far has fit a very specific mold of a mon which we could break when exploring this concept.
Going to throw my support towards both Only Room For One and Atypical Abuser to be added to the slate.
Whilst both slate ideas have risks of potentially limiting at least one section of the upcoming voting processes, both concepts I feel would create very unique outcomes that hasn't been touched on yet in CAP and can also be made in a way that isn't entirely meta defining as not every CAP has to be made in mind of being an A/S tier on release and be adjusted where necessary.
Whilst both slate ideas have risks of potentially limiting at least one section of the upcoming voting processes, both concepts I feel would create very unique outcomes that hasn't been touched on yet in CAP and can also be made in a way that isn't entirely meta defining as not every CAP has to be made in mind of being an A/S tier on release and be adjusted where necessary.
I'm going to advocate for Defensive Nullification and Perfect Conditions to be added to the slate. These are both fantastic concepts with a large amount of design space. While one could argue that Perfect Conditions has already been shown off with Kingambit and Raging Bolt this generation, the examples provided still show there's a massive amount of design space (I'm an especially big fan of Counter/Mirror Coat/Metal Burst/Comeuppance, as I was working on a concept centering around those moves before I saw Perfect Conditions) and Defensive Nullification is just fascinating all around and would be so fun to work with. Honorable mention goes to Only Room For One - the only reason I'm a bit leery of this being on the slate is because Trick Room teams tend to sort of cascade in viability, but it's still a really good concept and an offensive Trick Room mon is honestly something I'm stunned CAP hasn't done before LMAOOOOOOOO
Last minute buzzer-beater, apologies for any typos / grammar errors, just wanted to get this out before the deadline
Name: Tera Hog
Description: The value that this Pokemon gains from Terastallization is so large that it will always or nearly always terastallize in-game.
Justification:
What better way to end gen 9 than a tera-focused concept? Terastallization is the defining feature of this generation, yet it has not been directly addressed during the CAP process; it has been the elephant in the room for years now. By intentionally placing terastallization at the very center of the CAP process - instead of how it has operated in past projects, as merely one extra factor to account for (if that) - we stand to learn much about the mechanic's strengths, limitations, and unique implications on teambuilding and gameplay.
Questions to be answered:
Explanation:
This concept basically stems from 1) my fascination with tera as a mechanic, and 2) my experience using Chromera in recent months. Terastallization is like nothing we have ever seen before; changing your typing on the fly literally upends basic tenets of competitive Pokemon and fundamentally changes the way the game is played. The mechanic is controversial for this reason, yes, but it is also deep, complex, and I don't believe has been fully explored. I find tera hogs interesting because, much like tera flies in the face of Pokemon, tera hogs fly in the face of tera. Tera hogs disregard all common sense about how the mechanic is best utilized because they simply gain so much power from it. And, in SV CAP, there is only one true tera hog: Chromera. Even common tera blast users like Dragonite are not always identifiable as the tera recipients at team preview preview, because the opponent obviously doesn't know they are running tera blast, while other powerful tera abusers like Garganacl and Gliscor are still great in their base form. By running Chromera, you are mentally committing to terastallizing it vs most non-HO teams before the game has even started. The implications this has on teambuilding and gameplay is unlike anything else in gen 9. While Chromera achieves this concept to a tee, it was also completely accidental, and I don't believe it is the only (or best) example of what a tera hog could be. By intentionally, instead of accidentally, creating a tera hog from scratch, I believe we could create something even more interesting and rich.
Name: Tera Hog
Description: The value that this Pokemon gains from Terastallization is so large that it will always or nearly always terastallize in-game.
Justification:
What better way to end gen 9 than a tera-focused concept? Terastallization is the defining feature of this generation, yet it has not been directly addressed during the CAP process; it has been the elephant in the room for years now. By intentionally placing terastallization at the very center of the CAP process - instead of how it has operated in past projects, as merely one extra factor to account for (if that) - we stand to learn much about the mechanic's strengths, limitations, and unique implications on teambuilding and gameplay.
Questions to be answered:
- How much of terastallization's strength as a mechanic lies within its unpredictability and flexibility? How much extra value must CAP 37 gain from terastallization in order to compensate for making its team's tera predictable and inflexible?
- What is more useful in gen 9's competitive landscape - a tera hog that can run multiple great tera options, or one that has a single phenomenal tera option (e.g. dragonite/valiant vs chromera)? Which route will lead to a richer creation process and more interesting end product?
- The term "tera hog" has almost always been used with negative connotations, never as a positive remark; however, if CAP 37 benefits exponentially more from terastallization than the average Pokemon, can that be leveraged as a strength?
- Does CAP 37 being a "tera hog" selfishly mandate the rest of its team to bend towards it, with its teammates dedicated to enabling it as much as possible? Or is the inverse true - is it possible for CAP 37 to selflessly benefit its teammates more effectively with the immense value gained from its terastallization?
- Does being a "tera hog" constrain teambuilding by taking away tera options from its teammates? Or can it make teambuilding more flexible (e.g. by being able to slot as a bulky steel, water, fairy, etc. depending on the team's needs)?
- It's often said that the person who teras second is more likely to win, while the player who exhausts tera early is more likely to lose; the longer you delay your terastallization, the fewer tools your opponent has to respond to it, whereas if you exhaust early, your opponent has many tools to respond. What kind of a disadvantage does this put tera hogs at, and how can this be overcome?
- Could a "tera hog" assuage long-held criticisms about the mechanic being too unpredictable/lure-based/random/etc., leading to a healther playing experience?
- Most tera hogs of past and present function(ed) as set-up win conditions. What would a non- win condition tera hog look like? Is there space for a purely defensive tera hog?
- Does this essentially mandate a bad initial typing and put the process in too much of a box? Are there other routes to incentivizing terastallization beyond this?
Explanation:
This concept basically stems from 1) my fascination with tera as a mechanic, and 2) my experience using Chromera in recent months. Terastallization is like nothing we have ever seen before; changing your typing on the fly literally upends basic tenets of competitive Pokemon and fundamentally changes the way the game is played. The mechanic is controversial for this reason, yes, but it is also deep, complex, and I don't believe has been fully explored. I find tera hogs interesting because, much like tera flies in the face of Pokemon, tera hogs fly in the face of tera. Tera hogs disregard all common sense about how the mechanic is best utilized because they simply gain so much power from it. And, in SV CAP, there is only one true tera hog: Chromera. Even common tera blast users like Dragonite are not always identifiable as the tera recipients at team preview preview, because the opponent obviously doesn't know they are running tera blast, while other powerful tera abusers like Garganacl and Gliscor are still great in their base form. By running Chromera, you are mentally committing to terastallizing it vs most non-HO teams before the game has even started. The implications this has on teambuilding and gameplay is unlike anything else in gen 9. While Chromera achieves this concept to a tee, it was also completely accidental, and I don't believe it is the only (or best) example of what a tera hog could be. By intentionally, instead of accidentally, creating a tera hog from scratch, I believe we could create something even more interesting and rich.
Last edited:
Time to wrap this up. Thank you all so much for showing up and showing out; I'm very impressed, as always, with what the community came up with this time around. Without further ado, here is your slate for CAP37:
Perfect Conditions by kenn:
Conditional moves are ubiquitous in Pokemon, but they are simultaneously very underexplored. kenn's concept asks all the right questions about these powerful moves and leaves design space that is both productive and open to learn more about their place in the metagame while making a kick-ass mon.
Which Road Leads to Rome? by Guingil:
Throughout my time in CAP, I've seen too many conversations and concepts touching on risk to count, yet we rarely ever tackle the concept of risk outside of specific circumstances such as Threats Discussion. Moreover, it is almost a running motif in CAP to propose a concept revolving around some sort of dichotomy, but this concept is a refreshing take on this theme that also allows us to tackle risk properly as a concept for the first time since Aurumoth.
Trade Offer.png by a fairy:
I'm a complete sucker for concepts that aim to introduce archetypes and roles that don't exist in the meta currently, and this concept stands as a shining example of that theme executed perfectly. Trading is a dynamic which is all too common in older generations, but in recent years has become a luxury, or even a redundancy. a fairy's proposal is both unique and specific, and I'm certain a CAP produced with this concept will shine.
When All You Have is a Hammer by StarFalcon555:
It's no secret that having a strong ass move can make a Pokemon pretty good indeed. This concept aims to ask how to make a mon that only damages its opponents with that strong ass move in question. There are, of course, plenty of examples of this dynamic at play, in both the current meta and in generations past, but there is still plenty of interesting design space. I especially like the questions we will have to tackle in (shockingly) the Moves stages.
Skill Issue by Dogfish44:
If you don't like this concept, it might be a skill issue. Jokes aside, this is a bit of a heady one. I find this concept to be especially interesting, even more so than other analytical concepts in the same vein, because of how we are approaching a dynamic of the game (skill) that is both fundamental and esoteric. A process with this concept would be both cerebral and reflective, and I'm sure that our final product will be one that all can enjoy (but maybe skilled players a little more).
Potential Man by Darek:
The potential of this concept is off the charts. The interaction that Darek describes in his submission is one that we see so much in competitive Pokemon that it can sometimes go unnoticed: think about the decision making that a Volt Switch user typically has to make versus a team with a Ground type in the back, even if the Ground type ultimately does not end up being switched in at all. Taking this concept of a lurking threat and cranking it to the max is immensely interesting to me, especially as I think more about the possible options in the remaining stages.
Defensive Nullification by quziel:
The lateness of this submission is excused by its quality. This concept takes a theme that defines many defensive Pokemon in recent gens (indifference to offensive pressure exerted by given mechanics, whether it be status, stat boosting, entry hazards, etc.) and flips it on its head. It is, in a lot of ways, a concept that completely flips the way we typically make offensive 'mons, and as such I think it is intriguing to explore from a process and metagame standpoint.
If your concept was not selected for this slate, I do want to offer my own apologies first and foremost. There are a surplus of great concepts year in and year out, and oftentimes personal preference can be what differentiates them from a quality standpoint. I, and the CAP community at large, encourage you all to continue contributing towards what I can assure you all will be an excellent process that produces an excellent CAP. Once more, thank you all for your submissions. Cue the poll.
Perfect Conditions by kenn:
Conditional moves are ubiquitous in Pokemon, but they are simultaneously very underexplored. kenn's concept asks all the right questions about these powerful moves and leaves design space that is both productive and open to learn more about their place in the metagame while making a kick-ass mon.
Which Road Leads to Rome? by Guingil:
Throughout my time in CAP, I've seen too many conversations and concepts touching on risk to count, yet we rarely ever tackle the concept of risk outside of specific circumstances such as Threats Discussion. Moreover, it is almost a running motif in CAP to propose a concept revolving around some sort of dichotomy, but this concept is a refreshing take on this theme that also allows us to tackle risk properly as a concept for the first time since Aurumoth.
Trade Offer.png by a fairy:
I'm a complete sucker for concepts that aim to introduce archetypes and roles that don't exist in the meta currently, and this concept stands as a shining example of that theme executed perfectly. Trading is a dynamic which is all too common in older generations, but in recent years has become a luxury, or even a redundancy. a fairy's proposal is both unique and specific, and I'm certain a CAP produced with this concept will shine.
When All You Have is a Hammer by StarFalcon555:
It's no secret that having a strong ass move can make a Pokemon pretty good indeed. This concept aims to ask how to make a mon that only damages its opponents with that strong ass move in question. There are, of course, plenty of examples of this dynamic at play, in both the current meta and in generations past, but there is still plenty of interesting design space. I especially like the questions we will have to tackle in (shockingly) the Moves stages.
Skill Issue by Dogfish44:
If you don't like this concept, it might be a skill issue. Jokes aside, this is a bit of a heady one. I find this concept to be especially interesting, even more so than other analytical concepts in the same vein, because of how we are approaching a dynamic of the game (skill) that is both fundamental and esoteric. A process with this concept would be both cerebral and reflective, and I'm sure that our final product will be one that all can enjoy (but maybe skilled players a little more).
Potential Man by Darek:
The potential of this concept is off the charts. The interaction that Darek describes in his submission is one that we see so much in competitive Pokemon that it can sometimes go unnoticed: think about the decision making that a Volt Switch user typically has to make versus a team with a Ground type in the back, even if the Ground type ultimately does not end up being switched in at all. Taking this concept of a lurking threat and cranking it to the max is immensely interesting to me, especially as I think more about the possible options in the remaining stages.
Defensive Nullification by quziel:
The lateness of this submission is excused by its quality. This concept takes a theme that defines many defensive Pokemon in recent gens (indifference to offensive pressure exerted by given mechanics, whether it be status, stat boosting, entry hazards, etc.) and flips it on its head. It is, in a lot of ways, a concept that completely flips the way we typically make offensive 'mons, and as such I think it is intriguing to explore from a process and metagame standpoint.
If your concept was not selected for this slate, I do want to offer my own apologies first and foremost. There are a surplus of great concepts year in and year out, and oftentimes personal preference can be what differentiates them from a quality standpoint. I, and the CAP community at large, encourage you all to continue contributing towards what I can assure you all will be an excellent process that produces an excellent CAP. Once more, thank you all for your submissions. Cue the poll.
- Status