• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer (CAP Edition) - Mark II (READ THE OP)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Horndrill11 said:
Earlier thus thread, Magikrap touched upon the idea of CAP prevos. I have sketched a few of these in my free time and would like to find a good spriter who can make sprites for them, but first I want to ask if this is okay with the site. I dont know if the CAP pokes are copyrighted, or if im allowed to do this.
Click to expand...

Some of them already have prevos in various places. However CAP as a whole isn't concerned with pre-evolutions. If you'd like to put them in a private art thread in Smeargle's Studio then by all means do so. However they don't go here at the moment. If this ever changes (doubt it), then we'll start accepting prevos.
 
Hmmm, I made a new team lately, and it is doing quite well. However, 4/6 of my team are CAPs. A lot of people say my team fails, or it sucks, or I'm going to lose just because I have so many CAPs. In fact, the original version had 5 CAPs! While I did have that partly in mind, as the team was built to abuse CAPs in the LNT against noobs, it functions wuite well and has since evolved from that, to a point where each CAP simply preforms their role. So my question is: Is it bad to have a large amount of my team be CAPs? If they are varied and fulfill roles, and the team is succesful, I don't see the problems.
 
No, it is not bad to use a lot of CAPs in a single team. Many of the most successful teams do so, as CAPs are top-tier in virtually every respect.
 
If I have an idea for a potential future CAP, like the next one in this case because Krillowatt is pretty much made, what do I do? Do I PM my idea to someone in charge here, post a topic explaining my idea, or just wait patiently for the next CAP to come into discussion?
 
Does CAP really have OHKO clause?

Rules: Ladder Match, Sleep Clause, Freeze Clause, OHKO Clause, Evasion Clause, Species Clause, Strict Damage Clause

Pyroak used Stealth Rock.
Pointed stones float in the air around the foe's team!
Sandcastle woke up!
Sandcastle used Fissure.
But it failed!
The sandstorm rages.
Pyroak is buffetted by the sandstorm!
Pyroak lost 6% of its health.

toshimelonhead: that crap isn't banned on this ladder?
toshimelonhead: good grief
 
OHKO Clause makes it say "but it failed!" If it wasn't banned, you would see the message to the effect of "Fissure missed!" or "It's a One-hit KO!".
 
Okay, just one question. Why is the OU metagame the only thing that people care about with the CAP pokemon?? There's so much more to pokemon than just battling (granted it is a big part of the game but still...).
 
I might be violateing the whole "no questions about when X will happen" thing, but i'll ask this anyway. Why hasn't the CAP Gallery been updated for CAP 10 yet?
 
We have been busy with Policy Review, updating the website with the new procedures, and getting ready for CAP11. The CAP10 gallery will be up when Doug has an opportunity to put it up.
 
No, because we don't let the community vote to "do" whatever they want. Their votes all must align with the CAP Project's mission statement. Learn more here.
 
Only if it is related to some CAP update or is policy review related. If it follows the rules in this thread, it is generally fine to post without approval.
 
I'm still not to sure about his, but once art submissions begin, am I allowed to enter without any involvement beforehand? I intend to know as much as i can about the pokemon before creating it of course, but voting/discussion-wise is it necessary for me to a part of it?
 
If a CAP concept breaks a battle clause (such as, say, evasion clause) in the major part of it's concept, is it's concept thrown out due to it conflicting with the clause or would the concept still be allowed to be voted for?
 
Has the idea ever occurred to take an existing Pokemon that had a good concept, but failed due to typing, movepool, stats, or ability, and re-create it to fit it into the OU metagame for the CAP server? I love the new Pokemon on the CAP server, but wouldn't anyone like to see shitty Pokemon make a comeback? Pidgeot :(
 
The.Lost.Hylian said:
Has the idea ever occurred to take an existing Pokemon that had a good concept, but failed due to typing, movepool, stats, or ability, and re-create it to fit it into the OU metagame for the CAP server? I love the new Pokemon on the CAP server, but wouldn't anyone like to see shitty Pokemon make a comeback? Pidgeot :(
Click to expand...
CAP isn't the place for changing bad Pokemon into good ones, it is instead a place where we make brand new Pokemon for the OU metagame.
 
i know that this has never been done before, but does the CAP process allow custom-made items for the CAPmon, similar to how Lustrous Orb, Adamant Orb, Stick, Quick Powder, Metal Powder, DeepSeaTooth, DeepSeaScale, Thick Club, Lucky Punch and Light Ball power-up their respective Pokemon?
 
zyrefredric said:
i know that this has never been done before, but does the CAP process allow custom-made items for the CAPmon, similar to how Lustrous Orb, Adamant Orb, Stick, Quick Powder, Metal Powder, DeepSeaTooth, DeepSeaScale, Thick Club, Lucky Punch and Light Ball power-up their respective Pokemon?
Click to expand...

No. We only allow custom-made abilities and moves if the CAP really needs them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top