CAP 29 - Concept Chat

Not open for further replies.


We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Hey everyone, welcome to Concept Chat! This is a thread the CAP moderators approved for me to launch here at the start of CAP29. It's meant to be a place to more informally discuss the current process. This is not an official part of the CAP process, but rather a place to put down some ideas and share your thoughts outside of a live chat venue. Please follow these guidelines:
  • Do not use this thread to submit concepts, reserve them, or ask people to give you feedback on your concept. All of the rules of the Concept Submissions original post still apply here.
  • Do not "vote" with your posts. This is not a place to try to argue for something to be on the slate, or to predict an early winner.
  • Please continue to provide feedback on specific concepts in the Concept Submissions thread. This is a place to talk about CAP29 in a broader sense.
  • Be kind to each other. CAP is a cooperative project, so we should all be working together to make the best concept submission process we can! Everyone wants their concept to win, but it's also important that we all consider the options available to us before polling.
I'll be asking a Question of the Day for each day of concept submissions. It's meant as a guiding question that you can choose to respond to, or not! Your call. This is a place for more freeform discussion about concepts, what's been submitted, trends you're noticing, or any other ideas (short or long) you have about our concept submissions for CAP29. Tagging the concept submitter (e.g. Birkal) is a nice way to alert them that there's some buzz about their ideas. Use this thread to post your own thoughts, respond to the Question of the Day, or respond to someone else's responses.

What's a concept (other than your own) that sparked some inspiration in you? What about that concept hooked you in right away? Is it important for a concept to have a hook? How could that initial spark carry us through the project and lead to a variety of informed discussions?
Last edited:
Maybe it's just because I've been paying closer attention this time around, but there seriously are a lot of concepts that have struck me as being interesting so far. There's a huge spectrum of ideas being presented and it's really great to see. As far as concepts that have hooked me and sparked inspiration, though-

quziel has been talking about submitting his "defective ability" concept for a while now, and I'm really glad he did it, because three or four of these abilities are super intriguing to me and each one of them would likely have a radically different and unique process. Something I noticed a lot during Miasmaw (especially the typing stage) was the ongoing conversation about power budgets and how we can benefit from something that might ordinarily be a flaw, and to me, this concept narrows in on both of those things in a pretty cool way. Having a bad ability would let us raise the levers of power in other stages, and I'm sure the discussions about how we could turn something that seems so intrinsically horrible into a potential benefit would be fascinating - the example of Golisopod works great here and got me thinking about some potential benefits of the other abilities more. Making something around, say, Defeatist is just totally new ground for CAP to cover and that's exciting to me. To me, that's the spark in this concept: exploring something completely new, and setting foot where CAP's never dared to go before. I also just think Archeops is really cool though, so perhaps there's a little bias.

Jho's concept "don't judge a book by its cover" is also one that struck my eye. I was toying with the idea of submitting a concept that was similar, but I'm glad that he was the one to do it because it's a bit more focused than what I had in mind, and it meant that I got to submit something else I thought was cool in addition to it. Contradicting/subverting design elements with your in-game role is just a super cool idea to me and I'm excited to see this one get more fleshed out. Similar to quziel's, there's no one way for this to go down, which I think is something in general that's appealing to me when I think about a concept. There's potential here to create a Pokemon with a completely individual and unique end product, and while you can technically say that about any of the concepts, I feel like it's especially true for this one, and quziel's as well.

I don't want to go in depth on every concept I like right now because it would take way too long but a some others that have stood out to me are Passive Agressive Warfare, Double Edged Armory, Rolling the Snowball, Moving Forward, and especially Limit Break. All of the concepts will only get better as they get more feedback and leave WIP, so the fact that we're already off to this good of a start is definitely reassuring.


As far as I know, I'm immortal
is a Pre-Contributor
MrDollSteak has contributed a concept which is my favorite so far: Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero. CAP plays host to some true BST behemoths, with the lowest by far being Malaconda at 500, and an average BST across the board of 549. While there is some concern that this concept could lead to CAP making a Clefable-like mon or even a Pheromosa-Lite, I see that as a unique balancing challenge that would be fun to discuss. It would lead to the most engaging stats discussion in quite a while, and the concept assessment stage would be extremely variable, which is something I really appreciate in concepts. This is a chance for CAP to take a step back from the high-BST mons we pump out and figure out how some of the mons that run rampant in OU, like Slowbro and Nidoking, manage to make it work so well with such low stats.

Some others I like are:
Jho's Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover, for how it takes a look at how mons like Moltres and Colossoil play roles that their stats and typings seem to disagree with.
Rabia's Boxing Gloves, for how it investigates what makes typings good or bad offensively, and what goes in to making a good breaker outside of typing.
JAGFL's Play-Fighting, for how it looks into Eviolite, which is no longer seen in the metagame thanks to Heavy-Duty Boots outclassing it.
> What's a concept (other than your own) that sparked some inspiration in you? What about that concept hooked you in right away? Is it important for a concept to have a hook? How could that initial spark carry us through the project and lead to a variety of informed discussions?

There were a lot of concepts that seemed to revolve around playing against trends in CAP, such as MrDollSteak's Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero or Quanyails' Break the CAP Mold, but Pipotchi's Double Edged Armory is the one that got the most gears turning in my head. It stuck out as a concept that wanted to play against trends that are common in CAP by making a project that is wholly outside our comfort zone throughout the process in a specific manner. I thought a lot about speed here as a stat, and how even though we are always looking at speed ceilings, there are some Pokemon that don't mind or even thrive going second. Being forced to take a hit is a drawback to having a slow speed, but this allows us not only to invest stronger in our damage capability or our defenses, but it can be a key to our gameplan itself in some cases, such as tanking a hit and safely pivoting out, or intentionally getting hit for the boost with Stamina to power up the upcoming Body Press (inspired by Voltage's Limit Break.) There were other probably less viable ideas I came up with here as well, such as replying with an immediate Encore after reading an opponent's move, or applying something like Poison Point just to immediately punish the opponent with Hex.

What hooked me was just how much it felt like this concept was a direct response to CAP 28's typing. Miasmaw's typing was a controversial double-edged choice that seemed to be getting flak all through to the end of CAP 28, but I thought it was a great success when it came to accomplishing our goal. Bug/Dragon is an offensively weak typing, and defensively it gets hurt by a lot of common threats such as Flying, Fairy, and Stealth Rocks, but it also targetted exactly what we wanted to, and did it well (at least before Crown Tundra.) I feel that a concept such as this one might change how we approach not just CAP 29, but all future CAPs as well.
I don’t really have a favorite concept so far.
I do think it is interesting to observe, where a lot of these concepts are trying to take us.
A whole bunch of the submitted concepts are trying to question the tendencies that the CAP process has displayed in the past.
There are several instances, where the premise of the concept is to go against those tendencies and exploring, why the CAP process has shown these in particular.
The rather philosophical question of how we can break this mold is at the center of Quanyails concept, which seems the broadest in that sense.
Others try to tackle more specific questions like quziels bad ability, Mr doll steaks Average Joe or gekogesos stonejourner syndrome to name examples.

I believe that all of the concepts tackling these kind of questions, hold very interesting design spaces and answering the questions that they pose might help improve the process as a whole.

The last concepts where very focused on roles and in Miasmaws and Equilibras case the state of the Metagame was a huge influence.
As the need for a change of pace and the question, what leads to these biases during the process is driving many of the members involved in this community, trying to go a more esoteric route with 29 compared to these last processes (while obviously keeping it competitive) is the way to move forward imo.
It presents the “hook” that will keep us going until we can answer these questions, make a change or inevitably are confronted with more questions.

I think it will be hard to eventually choose between these concepts, but any of them will make for a very interesting journey.
Last edited:
The concept that really got me thinking the most yesterday was chuckeroo777's Hidden Potential. Hidden Power has been an important move in the metagame for a long time, and a lot of Pokemon have been left without needed coverage with its removal (although some got compensation moves, like the Lati twins with Aura Sphere and Mystical Fire). Multi-Attack is an interesting proposal for a replacement; it has a similar ability to be any type the user wants, but it has a much higher base power, comes with an arguably higher cost of requiring an item (as opposed to messing with IVs), and perhaps most importantly, is physical. Physical adaptable coverage hasn't been seen since before the physical-special split, and as chuckeroo777 notes in their post, Silvally is limited to only using Multi-Attack as STAB as a consequence of its ability, so there's both unexplored territory and familiar territory here.

In addition, the item-dependent nature of Multi-Attack means the concept could go in a number of directions: either we sacrifice the ability in order to hold onto a specific type of Multi-Attack, or we leave CAP 29 vulnerable to item removal and get left with a still powerful, but probably less useful, Normal-type Multi-Attack. Is it worth sacrificing a stage to guarantee holding onto the item? Maybe we want CAP 29 to still be able to punch holes with the Normal-type Multi-Attack? Or maybe CAP 29 will be completely dependent on Multi-Attack for appropriate coverage, and needs to avoid item removal. There's a lot of possibilities here.

I also wanted to give some attention to Quanyails's Break the CAP Mold, which is interesting from a meta perspective. CAP (or at least the regular contributors to the project) are very aware of the trends in CAPmons, and the Discord conversation between her and Birkal (which you can find in Birkal's feedback post) provides a pretty good summary of those trends. This awareness has been around for a while now, but that hasn't exactly stopped these trends from appearing time and time again (the comments on burn immunity, SR weakness, and switching in easily ring particularly true in the wake of Miasmaw's process). I think a concept and project that is actively aware of these trends and attempts to investigate and perhaps even subvert them would be intriguing, although bucking the trend solely for the sake of bucking the trend should be avoided.
Last edited:


I am the Scientist now
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Simulator Driver
Hey, keeping this short as I'm dealing with a wrist injury that makes typing painful.

-Voltage- 's concept of "Limit Breaker" is one that I think is really cool not necessarily from the standpoint of "how can we design a mon", but rather from the sheer number of in-battle decisions that we have to make with a mon that needs to take some damage to be at its peak. I'm sorta reminded of early gen Berserk Drampa this gen where you'd often have to make the decision of "do I switch out and preserve health" or "do I aim to use Roost enough times to get enough SpA to OHKO threat X" which is just, like, a really cool one to make. I'm always for CAPs that introduce more in-battle decisions, and this concept really enables a ton of them. That's only one particular view on it, and lets be honest, Smokomodo's schtick of "do I get low to hit that mon with a Blaze Flare Blitz or keep spamming Morning sun to hope they misplay" is equally cool and is a lot of why I like the lizard.

aaronarium 's concept about a mon that abuses field effects is very cool, and I've traditionally loved the "self abusing" mons, eg Gravity SD Landorus, or Rain Dance Ludicolo, but I fear that hte most interesting direction this concept could be taken (that is a self-setting mon), could be supplanted by basically "this mon is run with Fidgit". I don't know any way to fix that though.

Gekokeso, MrDollSteak, and Jho all have very cool potentially stat related concepts. I think I like MDS's most because it really asks how we can make a CAP without a single outstanding stat, which is a crutch we've traditionally leaned on. I would like ot type more and will do so when I can. Jho's also is really cool because pokemon that go "against type" eg Zapdos being a Physical Wall instead of the Special Wallbreaker its spread suggests are some of the coolest in mons, and bring a ton of flexibility as they always have a bit of their original "type" in their new role.

Jewvia I really like Eject Pack, and I've explored it a ton. This concept as a result is something I think is cool. That said, I think you need to answer why pokemon like Latios (Future Sight + Draco Meteor) and Heatran (SR + Overheat) don't touch the item, and why pokemon like Duraludon (SR + Draco Meteor) do. This kinda stuff (as seen in your examples) can work in lower tiers, the question is if it could work in higher ones.

Darek851 I like this concept, as simultaneous setup and damage dealing is something we've never really covered in CAP before. That said, its a very dangerous CAP because it inherently is double dipping in its turns. This has room for offensive (see Garchomp with Scale Shot), and Defensive (see Diamond Storm Diancie) paths. Overall I like it, there's enough complexity, and its not solved instantly. Also the name will scare voters, please change.


Luna's Banned now has a really cool concept. We've already seen a ton of exploration of Toxic itself, in terms of offensive mons using it to break checks (Smokomodo, Colossoil), and defensive mons using it to wrack up damage (Toxapex). I'd like to see a bit of a refocus to look more at regular poison, and explore what advantages it has over Toxic, but that's just my view. There is still a load of space left with both ways, and this is probably an argument for Concept Assessment rather than here.

Apologies, I can't really cover everything I want to, and there are definitely concepts that I like and would have liked to cover that I can't.
Last edited:


is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributor
Want to give my own 2 cents on some of my personal favorite concepts:

Type Traitor: This one has consistently caught my eye every time I read through the thread; I think it's really quite interesting to approach matchups in this way, and could create some really interesting stages for us. My big concern is twofold, however- looking at typing in a broad view like this worries me that we miss what makes the good mons of that type good- ex, Rilla being good for many reasons beyond its mono-Grass typing that are also different reasons than what makes fellow OU Grass Ferrothorn good- and that it feels rather metagame dependent? If the type we pick has a turnover of popular mons, and the new slate of that type we don't answer as well, what then?

Double Edged Armory: Very intriguing concept, and I like adding some sort of limiter or curiosity to the process (expect to see that sentiment come up a lot this post). However, as written this is a bit confusing and vague? I understand keeping it more open for CA, but clarity would be nice- as it stands I'm not sure if we're baking in one theme of problem throughout all stages, adding a new issue to each stage individually without comparison to the rest of the stages, etc. There's a lot of potential here, and I like the idea a lot; but clarity and almost a bit of direction would go miles for this, in my view.

Don't Judge a Book by it's Cover: Jho's absolutely right that there's more depth to this idea than his examples of Nidoking and Blissey have shown in the past, but I think as it gets more fleshed out, the concept needs to start us off in that direction. How do we start getting to that deeper level?

Limit Break: This one is SUPER cool to me, and I think it's genuinely really deep. It's also striking me as VERY difficult- not undoable by any means, but difficult. It forces us to think about the game in an almost fundamentally and completely new way, which is both where that depth comes from but also where the difficulty comes from: that's very hard to do, especially dealing with mostly theory. I think it's a very high risk, highreward concept that I really like because of that challenge of re-wiring how we look at the game.

Cheapskate: This intrigues me with a bit of an asterisk, especially as movepool leader. If we wanted to, I think we could probably get away with something like 2 STABs and 4 good moves like Knock, a hazard, a status, a pivot move, etc, but were we to go into this expecting to handcuff ourselves some? That's where this could be really really interesting, personally.

Toxic Specialist: I love and hate this concept at the same time. It's a very cool idea to go super in depth into one specific element of the game, and I think narrowness like that is not something we often look to do in CAP. I don't love the idea of doing it for Toxic, though- sounds like it could be rather unhealthy for the game.

Break the CAP Mold: I do LOVE the underlying idea of this concept: it'd give us a chance to look at and understand the CAP process to a level of depth we rarely do, and I think it'd be very fun to do so personally; however, I think it needs a bit more secondary direction, a bit more of an end goal, oomph even- talking about it some it was described as a bit of a guide to an end goal thats not clear yet.

Unusual Gains: This thrills me as movepool leader. I think it's very well written, and I also love the ideas that come to mind for this: it's a concept that sure, we could go with a move that's more similar to standard options, but we could also push the limits here very, very hard and make something very deep and very cool.

Hidden Potential: I would ADORE this concept if not for one thing: not knowing the typing of Multi Attack until it's used. The concept implies to me that you'd be able to use multiple for coverage, and it seems to me that if this were any good, then we'd have a very unhealthy time dealing with it.

Rolling the Snowball: I really like this concept, I think it'd make for a very interesting movepool stage in particular. It hits a core idea I like a lot for this CAP that i've referenced a few times already: approaching something very conventional (boosting/sweeping) in a very unconventional way, and again, is a concept that can be pushed very hard in several ways while still having direction.

Moving Forward: Wulf really wants me to go first... On a serious note, this may be the single hardest concept in this pool. And I love it. It's similar to me to Break the CAP Mold, where it forces us to think about the process on a way deeper level than normally, but I think as it's finished out it needs to address some more of the how this would play out, and some more direction for it- similar to Break the CAP Mold should as well.

Thank You, Mr Fish: I think this concept has a lot of potential if it was written a bit differently, and it's a bit funny because it goes against a lot of what I've already said I liked for a number of other concepts. Put us in a box with this one: make it actually more narrow. Vish was so strong because it did literately one thing at the strength of a nuclear warhead: ignore the bit about self utility or self boosting, just focus on how limited we can make X role while still being effective. I could see it playing out as something like a slightly better than mediocre typing, just barely enough stats to get the job done, just enough of a movepool, etc.


is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
I plan on doing a much longer post at another point, but at this stage I just want to talk about one particular concept that I find really interesting, and that is Hidden Potential. I'd previously commented about how much I liked the concept when it was first subbed in CAP 28. It honestly has quite a bit more depth than it would initially appear to at first glance, as it forces us to think about trade-offs between versatility and the sheer power that other items may afford, as well as how to best utilise it, as coverage or reliable physical STAB for example.

I agree that there is potentially a power level risk in being potentially unable to scout drives, particularly as a 2x Super effective hit would do the same damage as an old 4x effective hit against most targets. That said, being unable to run it with a Choice item is a major drawback that I think may balance it somewhat, particularly if we keep this in mind when designing our stats.

Some things to be aware of in comparison to last time is that I believe it has now been confirmed that Knock Off will remove the drive unless our ability is Multitype (which it won't be), and as such it forces us to also think about the potential drawbacks of having to run a normal move. This isn't necessarily a flaw in my opinion, as it can allow us to question how to best take advantage of this possibility. I think that chuckeroo777's write up is also quite a bit more focused this time, and there are a few more interesting questions in there that address further possibilities.

Overall I'd like to say that I think this is a concept that would lead to very interesting discussion across all the various discussion stages, which in my opinion is somewhat difficult to achieve with move-based concepts, and fair play to chuckeroo777 for only having improved it further since last time!


We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
LOVING the discussion right now. It's great to hear some opinions and thoughts in a thread like this. I'm going to ask another Question of the Day, but you can choose to respond to the previous one, or provide your own thoughts on concepts in general. These questions are just meant as a way to get the gears turning about the concepts that have been submitted. So just continue sharing about whatever you think is relevant!


I wrote up the following list to start to "compartmentalize" some concepts into semi-similar groups. These could certainly be rearranged in another way, and in a variety of ways, but I think having them in groups is a good way to start comparing and contrasting them.
[Restrained Process] - These concepts are about restraining the CAP process in some way.
quziel (Harmful Ability)
Pipotchi (Benefit & Flaw)
Jho (Different Role from Standard)
Orig Stall Guy (2 Primary Abilities)
MrDollSteak (Average Stats)
Gekokeso (Min-Maxed)
Quanyails (Break CAP Mold)
Rabia (Bad Offensive Typing)
20Yelram02 (Equal SpA/SpD)
JAGFL (Eviolite)
NumberCruncher (Undervalued Ability)
wulfanator72 (Moveset First)
Rogitation (Limited Design)

[Non-Offensive] - These concepts are about taking CAP in a non-offensive direction.
Mx (No Attack Stats Used)
Tommaniacal (Incremental)
Shadowshocker (Fast Wall)
theotherguytm (No Recovery Bulk)
2spoopy4u (Bad Defensive Stats)
Plancklength (Bad Offensive Stats)

[Specialized Counter/Check] - These concepts are about making a CAP that is a specific check, counter, or fulfills a specific metagame role.
dex18 (C/C Same Type)
-Voltage- (Damaged Power-Up)
DrifblooomCF (PP Drain)
Zephyr2007 (C/C Same Role)
CharSiuEmboar (Loses to Bad Mon)
Slapperfish (Partners w/ CAP)
Granny Pie (No Setup Sweeper)
BitBitio (Viable Old Mon)

[Moveset-Based] - These concepts are about movepools and/or specific moves.
SunMYSER (Priority)
Binacaleisthebest (Self-KO)
Estronic (6-8 Moves)
D2TheWest (Shallow Pool)
Jewvia (Eject Pack)
Scizivire (Rare Setup)
chuckeroo777 (Mult-Attack)
Darek851 (Setup + Damage)
Zicofool (Consumable Item)
Starfalcon555 (Octolock)
EthanLac (Explosion)

[Field-Based] - These concepts are about lasting field effects.
Salty Tempura (Janitor)
Mova (Terrains)
aaronium (No Auto Set-Up, Abuser)
My question today is to compare and contrast some concepts. They can be within the same category, or two concepts in different categories with a similarity in some other area. What could these concepts learn from each other? How do you think this group of concepts could make for a good concept? And with tact (aka don't be harsh about any concepts), which of these concepts do you think would best suit the CAP process?


As far as I know, I'm immortal
is a Pre-Contributor
I'll choose the easy answer to Birkal's question and compare Jewvia's Ejection Pivot and Zicofool's Consumable Item User. Really, these concepts are both studies in the viability of single use items. The big question that both need to answer is how do we ensure during our process that a single-use item will outclass items that provide benefits over the course of battle, such as Choice items and Leftovers. We saw some of this used in SM CAP with Iapapa and Wiki berries being quite popular on particular mons like Rotom-Wash, so looking into how and why those berries outclassed Leftovers, and what types of mons preferred the berries over Leftovers, would be helpful towards honing in on a solid idea. As for Jewvia's concept in particular, it would be good to ask what kinds of teams appreciate the pivoting allowed by Eject Pack (I would also love to see you broaden your idea to include Eject Button and Red Card). Will Eject Pack be limited to gimmicks like Shell Smash + Mimic?

Overall I like the two concepts, even if they are quite similar. Ejection Pivot could use a little more breadth, as it would be very limiting in its current state, and Consumable Item User could do with the opposite, as it could use a little more direction in its conversation. If I had to choose, I would go with Jewvia's at the moment because it is more succinct and specific in its questions, which I do appreciate, and I have experience with Eject Button and would love to have a concept that makes that item work.


I am the Scientist now
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Simulator Driver
Hey, I play the CAP meta a lot and also do process stuff a lot, so wanted to give my opinion on concepts that are still super valid, but could potentially be dangerous from a meta perspective if they're too strong. Either due to leading to dangerous interactions by just running away with stuff, being annoying to face, or making teambuilding a bit degenerate. These are my opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of either the TLT or the Metagame Council.

Type Traitor: There's sorta an inherent danger here in being a great counter to your own typing, because well, you are your own typing. This is demonstrated sorta well with Equilibra which is a frankly amazing answer to bulky Steel types, and as a result sorta just became the best bulky steel in the meta by supplanting the rest of them. I think there's space to avoid this danger, see Krilowatt that is a great answer to Water types, but by virtue of a complete lack of recovery doesn't really supplant defensive water types. Still its present, and I fear the spectre of Normal/Ghost appearing.

PP Extractor V1.2: PP stall just isn't very fun to play against. I know that's like, not a factor that really affects the viability of the concept as a whole, but its something that would force us to really like, consider how strong the mon is allowed to be. Again, like its a totally valid area, just the worry of "this will make the CAP meta unfun to play" is really present.

Hidden Potential: I think there's a fairly safe route, in terms of scouting, and an unsafe route, and they're the opposite of what you think they are. If we assume a specific Memory for the mon w.r.t. its STABs and available coverage, the mon becomes far, far better at luring, and I honestly think that's the route where we have to worry more. However, if we really set up the typing and coverage such that it has a lot of possible options, and then budget its power such that the opponent scouting it is allowed, the mon becomes far safer. Because of the risk of "I randomly OHKO'd your answer with memory X" exists I am a bit wary here.

Boosting and Blasting: I like this one, but its inherently sorta subject to the Serperior Syndrome, where a single missed turn means you lose game. This would have to be treated with a lot of care to really get the mon to a place where it uses these dual attacks as part of its gameplan without becoming unmanagable. I suspect we'd have to constrain coverage, or take on a less potent version of boosting. Contrary is obvious but imo the most dangerous. Contrary Scale Shot + Body Press is hype. Speed boosting, aka Rapid Spin or Scale shot is medium risk, I don't think I know of any defense boosting bar Diamond Storm, which is inaccessible.

Oh CAPtain, my CAPtain!: This is only tangentially related to the meta, but I think there's the inherent issue of designing to work with a mid power CAP, eg Naviathan, and then actually working best with a good OU mon, eg Magearna, as there's a lot of OU mons that are fairly similar to our mid power CAPs. Note that voodoom was designed to work with Togekiss and ended up working with Zapdos.

Thank You, Mr. Fish: There's a large danger here of just making an Ash Greninja 2, where it has such power and speed that you have to have a perfect answer to it, and if you don't you just get swept early. I think its valid, we'd just have to exercise a lot of caution with this kinda concept.

Octo-Locked and Loaded: Octolock is an inherently dangerous move because there's very few cases where you can't OHKO a -6 mon, even with resists. Octolock + Protect means you're at least at -2 vs every single switchin, and if we have any kinda bulk it could go further. This is a mon where I fear we'd need to nerf it down the line because of that high roll potential.
Last edited:


is a Pre-Contributor
To answer the Question of the Day, one parallel that I think some might not be seeing as much are between spoo's Bulletproof Glass and MDS's Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero. In both cases, it's clear that there's a focus on the stats stages and that the CAP itself would have some strict limitation n the ways it takes damage. Spoo's post specifically highlights Defenses being mediocre, while leaving the offenses more open ended, while MDS actively notes that each stat should be below a certain threshold. However, I think it's clear that the goal for both concepts would be to have a Pokemon using lower stats still be a significant threat in the metagame, albeit one concept specifically mentioning defenses, while the other leving it more open-ended.

I think I like spoo's concept a wee bit more only because of the explicit sentiment of "we're making a mon with bad defensive stats, but good defense everywhere else" and the framework allows us a lot of ways to work. In contrast, I think MDS's concept is also neato, but I worry that with this focus on lower stats, we may lean into over-compensating in multiple stages. But I htink both are clever, well thought out submissions that would be fun to do.
Guess I will also do my own take on my favourite concepts:

Putting these two together cause they both talk about doing X with an undervalued or bad aspect of the meta such as with typing and ability and I am a sellout for those concepts. The idea of getting to make the most out of an otherwise terrible aspect of a Pokémon is always a very fun challenge which leads to some great discussion.

This concept is also very interesting. It is a very known fact that tank Pokémon are usually stereotyped as extremely slow, as people generally view speed unnecessary for a Mon that is designed to take hits on the pretext of "it's job is to take the hit anyway, speed doesn't matter". This cap could change our views in that subject, and help us See the advantages of speed even on slow mons.

Won't say much about his one since it's already been heavily discussed but it's still a pretty good concept. Making stats or typing for a Mon that will use it in a very different way is a fun challenge that this project can take, and one that will warrant some very heavy discussion.

While I have seen people be distressed by this subject, I personally really love it. PP is an aspect of Pokémon that often gets overlooked, but get to be very important in certain matchups, especially stall. It's true that this concept could cross some dangerous waters like substitute spam, but generally its a really good concept that will warrant great discussion about the effects of PP.


Again, putting these two together as they talk about unconventional methods of set up. These concepts can also warrant interesting discussion of themselves, with Darek's concept being the best of the two with good discussions about momentum.

I already gave some feedback about this concept and the complex discussions it can produce about unused aspects of terrain, so I will just say, this can be a fun concept.


We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
Keep the comments coming! Love y'all; you're beautiful people. Remember that we're going to have a finalized slate on Wednesday, meaning it's time for us to really start considering which concept is the best fit for CAP29.

As I noted here, everyone posting in this thread (including me) has the right to be critical or concerned about any and all concepts. This is our process as a CAP community, so it's healthy for us to discuss which concepts will suit us, and which ones potentially won't. Please do not take anything said about your concept as an insult to you as a person. Your ideas are not your identity, so don't feel that you're a bad contributor if the community is not particularly receptive to your concept. Rather, let it guide your understanding of CAP29 and be feedback for how to create a different concept in the future. With that all in mind, here is our question of the day. Again, feel free to respond to it, or post your own thoughts about whatever's on your mind about CAP29.


Which concept could lead to a really interesting CAP process, full of good conversations and furthering our site-wide understanding of competitive Pokemon? Conversely, which one could potentially lead to a disengaging CAP process filled with confusion and a lack of learning?
Which concept could lead to a really interesting CAP to use in the CAP metagame and inspires creative and/or competitive teambuilds? Conversely, which one could lead to an either an unviable or over-centralizing competitive CAP?

Take this question in whichever direction you see fit, but I encourage everyone to be constructive and/or kind with their criticism. Bashing a concept won't get us anywhere, because I firmly believe that all 41 of the concepts submitted thus far have at least some merit. Furthermore, just because a concept could lead to a negative aspect of one of these questions, doesn't mean we still can't explore it. It just means that if we select and vote on that concept, we need to be extra careful to avoid the pitfalls that accompany that concept inherently.
Not sure this is framed for the question but here's some of the concepts I like:

Cheapskate: i like this for the same reasons it got submitted last time. its an interesting thought experiment and forces cap to go against its usual movepool desires. we are looking at multi-purpose moves and in a sense item compatibility

Bulletproof Glass: its a defensive concept which is rare, and it explores it in a fresh way. there has to be a meta discussion here to understand how to best make use of the low defensive stats in a way that matters

Passive Aggressive Warfare: there are a lot of routes here and all of them are interesting. I appreciate that its not leaning fully into a gimmick since a lot of its routes are also pretty valid and have examples in the meta, and we can take it further than those examples

Ordinary Superhero: Its interesting to go against regular stat spreads. but im not sure if it will be a bit weird going 2 stages without cracking the concept directly

Unusual Gains: its just interesting to see new stats being boosted at the same time and how it warrants different counterplay. as long as theres some discussion first on which route of booster this pokemon will go in the concept assessment
Which concept could lead to a really interesting CAP process, full of good conversations and furthering our site-wide understanding of competitive Pokemon? Conversely, which one could potentially lead to a disengaging CAP process filled with confusion and a lack of learning?Which concept could lead to a really interesting CAP to use in the CAP metagame and inspires creative and/or competitive teambuilds? Conversely, which one could lead to an either an unviable or over-centralizing competitive CAP?
Quanyails (Break CAP Mold)

In this post, I'll only be covering the positive for the questions provided.

Granted I haven't read up on much of these concepts but the one that stood out to me the most was breaking the CAP Mold by Quanyails. I've been lurking and trying to help create CAP Pokemon since 2013 when I first came onto PS via a different user name. When I look back on some of the CAP that I helped create I can see a lot of similarities in the Pokemon we create for the meta. My favorite CAP, Plasmanta, falls into this category. What I'm seeing a lot of is Pokemon that step up and play some sort of Supporting Role in teams that are equipped with the firepower to function as an offensive Pokemon as well. This blanket description sums up a lot of the Pokemon we create.

If we can somehow devise a plan to step out of this habit we have been in for a while then I believe we will learn much more about the meta and what makes a pokemon function properly. This is a concept we can learn from as a collective.


As far as I know, I'm immortal
is a Pre-Contributor
In terms of the conversations they will create, there are a few that stick out to me as really interesting from a process point of view.

Quziel's Defective Ability: This concept is pretty wild, and could go any number of ways wrong, but still whenever I look over the concept submissions I am somewhat enchanted by the idea of it. Making a truly negative ability work would pose a fun challenge to the community, and the concept would result in one of the most unique CAP creations to date.

Pipotchi's Double-Edged Armory: This concept isn't super clear on what it means, but I interpret it to mean that in every stage we build in a weakness to something this CAP should beat, while making it much better at disposing of other threats discussed during concept assessment. While this does sound very interesting, I fear that it is going to inevitably end up either very broken or completely outclassed. Defining a unique niche for this concept would be imperative, which is a difficult task in and of itself.

Jho's Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover: This concept would call for a great amount of synergy between the stages, and while I'm sure that our TLT is more than able to make it work, it still worries me that this concept more than any other could lead to conversation be derailed by interesting yet inherently too strong options. Still, it would be fun too look into what makes mons like Moltres and Krilowatt tick.

MrDollSteak's Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero: This concept remains my favorite, as it is both a doable challenge and quite unique. Every stage would have quite the interesting conversation as, for the first time in a while in CAP, we will not be able to rely on calcing with high attacking stats.

Quanyail's Break the Cap Mold: Discounting the ugly mess that is Snaelstrom, CAP hasn't made a non-offensive mon since Malaconda. I like that this concept doesn't force us into a role like other Wall concepts do, and it gives us a wide range of variability for what we want to create. I do worry that this could turn into a "do everything" CAP, but it still promises a fun experience.

Rabia's Boxing Gloves: Typing is perhaps my favorite stage, and this concept gives us the opportunity to step back from the Fairy/Dragon/Steel spam CAP has become accustomed to. Working around a poor type will lead to challenging debates in the other stages, particularly Ability and Stats, but those conversations will definitely have more juice to them than in previous CAPs.

NumberCruncher's Unable: Similarly to Quziel's concept, this concept proposes a unique challenge in using a mediocre ability. Looking into how mons like Scizor and Rhyperior make use of Technician and Solid Rock, respectively, makes this concept very intriguing to me.
I've been interested to see the variety of defensive concepts posted, I enjoy seeing different ideas of what a defensive pokemon could do, or how it could be designed. I think I feel especially intrigued by You Only Live Once, as lacking reliable recovery is a huge downside for a defensive pokemon, and I would be interested in how such a pokemon could be successful. I think that generally speaking, producing a defensive pokemon (with a reasonable power budget) should be helpful to the metagame, providing another check to some of CAP's offensive powerhouses.

I think that Janitor sounds like it could potentially be healthful for a metagame. Access to good hazard removal is often very helpful in teambuilding, although I must admit I'm not familiar with the state of hazards in the current CAP metagame. Still, I find it hard to view "more hazard removal" as anything but a positive.

I think I may have spent the most time thinking about the particuarily abstract concepts: Double-Edged Armory, Break the CAP Mold, & Moving Forward. However, I'm less sure whether this is more because they ask interesting questions, or because I find it confusing to think about how they would work. Perhaps in the case of Moving Forward and Break the CAP Mold, my confusion may be because I'm newer to the process, and have difficulty thinking about what they imply, but I think having such wide-open concepts is a bit of a mixed blessing.

There are some concepts I feel more concerned about:

PP Extractor v1.2-- I think that PP stall is especially "unfun" for both players, and it is relatively non-interactive. I would be interested to see whether it could work, but I'm not sure I would want to use or face the result. Also, there are relatively few tools for PP removal, and I, personally, don't feel especially excited by the possibilities here.

A Taste of Your Own Medicine & Type Traitor-- I worry both of these would just become the new face of whatever they beat, overall reducing metagame diversity. They could work well, but I worry that, for example, the best counter-rain abuser would just become the only rain abuser.

Octo-locked and Loaded-- Octolock is an interesting move. It's also a very strong move. In general, I'm not fond of trapping being prominent in a metagame, and Octolock is probably the strongest form of move-based trapping. I am especially concerned about what defensive counterplay would be available to check an Octolock abuser.

Thank you Mr. Fish-- I think the concept of sweeping without having to set up already starts this at a very interesting power level. I can't say that this would be guaranteed to be unhealthy, but I feel there's a very narrow window of acceptable power for this to be viable but not overly dominant.

The Last Hope-- Maybe my understanding of this concept is off, but is the idea really to introduce an offensive threat that only has (currently) crappy counters/checks? That sounds very worrying to me. I am concerned that mentioning the Kyogre-Quagsire dynamic is indicative of what the problems might be with the result.
I think Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero and Cheapskate would lead to fascinating discussions, essentially asking the question "What are the minimum [stats or movepool] required to make a Pokemon viable?" Either one would allow us to examine how typing, ability, stats and movepool can play off one another to create viability, rather than trying to make a Pokemon viable in spite of drawbacks or limitations in stats or movepool, respectively. This would help us break the mindset that limited = bad, and help the discussions held throughout the process would help the wider Smogon community grapple with the question "What does it take for a pokemon to be viable?" I also think that either of these concepts would be good candidates for re-arranging the stages of CAP process (as per this PRC thread), which would help us learn about how we make Pokemon and try something new.

Paradoxically, I feel like these two concepts run the risk of both creating an unviable pokemon or a centralizing one. Trying to get the mix just right seems like a challenge that would teach us all a lot about what makes Pokemon viable, and so would be a worthwhile endeavor even if the final product comes out differently than intended.


We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
I'm going to make a post here about some of my opinions. I've become very acquainted with each and every one of your concepts over this weekend, and I'd like to highlight a few that have sparked some inspiration in me. I want people to note that these thoughts are not indicative of the eventual slate I'll be sharing on Wednesday. I'm omitting some concepts from this post that I'm considering for the slate, and I certainly won't be slating everything I talk about here. Ultimately, I'll be putting together a slate that represents what we as the community would like for CAP29, but I think me sharing my opinions as a CAP veteran is helpful at this stage in the submission process.

Defective Ability and Unable captured my interest right away. We've had several CAPs about utilizing underused moves, like Belly Drum for Cawmodore, Spirit Shackle for Pajantom, and Doom Desire for Equilibra. We've also done CAPs about underused/bad typings, such as Crucibelle and Mollux. But we haven't explored intentionally what it means to have a bad ability, so I'd be eager to strike new ground here as a process. It also doesn't hurt that we can shift the process around now, meaning we could very easily pick our ability first! These concepts fit my QOTD for today positively on both fronts: it would lead to an interesting process, and give us a really unique mon for the metagame.

This CAP has seen more demand for a defensively-oriented CAP than ever before, meaning I will definitely represent it on our slate in some fashion. Mx (No Attack Stats Used), Tommaniacal (Incremental Damage Study), Shadowshocker (Fast Wall), theotherguytm (No Recovery, But Bulky), 2spoopy4u (Bad Defensive Stats, But Defensive), and Plancklength (Bad Offensive Stats) have all submitted concepts that are in a way, variations on the same theme. I'm not entirely sure how these will play out from a process perspective, since this puts a big emphasis on stats. I'm also wary of concepts that focus hard on having no offensive capabilities, as we've seen that bulky mons in general tend to be the most desirable when it comes to teambuilding this generation. I'm all for making something passive, but I think there should be some fear struck in all of us that it might end up being unviable if we don't give it proper tools. Still, sounds like a nice change of pace though, doesn't it?

Edit: Had a nice chat with 2spoopy4u in #cap about these concepts, so I wanted to share it with y'all.
[11:37 PM] spoo: aye birkal, would just like to get some clarification/elaboration on your paragraph about all of the defensive concepts since its especially relevant to me
[11:38 PM] Børkal: yes
[11:38 PM] spoo: from what im picking up it sounds like youre equating being defensive with being passive and i dont think thats necessarily true
[11:39 PM] spoo: and the last bit about being unviable if we dont give it the proper tools- technically this criticism is true for any concept, and a lot of concepts risk running the opposite way of being broken or overcentralizing instead which id argue is worse than initially ending up unviable
[11:39 PM] pip: o yea i thought that was a strange interpretation also
[11:40 PM] Børkal: sorry, yeah I think I phrased it poorly
[11:40 PM] Børkal: I guess I was sort of alluding to like stall builds, which is not technically what this concept is about, but how they feel less viable in this meta rn
[11:41 PM] Børkal: in general, I think there's a reason CAP trends towards bulky offensive mons, so what I'm moreso saying is that we should be wise to that
[11:41 PM] Børkal: does that make more sense?
[11:42 PM] Børkal: but I do agree that those builds of concepts could be broken up more
[11:46 PM] spoo: i also think we havent really tried to break that mold enough times to know for sure that it's for a good reason- sorta feels like an "if it aint broke dont fix it" mentality which isnt always productive
[11:46 PM] spoo: the first point is fair too, stallier builds are definitely among the options for all of the defensive concepts, but they're far from the only option either (mostly talking about my own concept here but this is true for the others as well)
[11:47 PM] spoo: and id hope that the community would come to the same conclusion that you have (stall builds arent good) and we would move away from that idea

Doubled Edged Armory and Moving Forward both ask us to manipulate the CAP process in severe ways. My feedback to both Pipotchi and wulfanator72 has been to justify their concepts as much as possible, as in a reason for why our learning of competitive Pokemon would be increased through this process shifting, and how that might inform the tip of Pokemon we make for the metagame; they've done a great job of addressing this in their future revisions. These concepts seem like interesting exercises in restraint, but as you are aware from my above two paragraphs, we have a lot of concepts that are a bit more focused that are simultaneously justifying their existence. These sorts of concepts scare me to slate, because I think they could go kind of haywire in the process, but they're far from unslateable either.

There are a lot of concepts that deal with small amount of moves, or even singular moves. I think Multi-Attack has my attention most intrigued. I adore that it would be a historical concept that would give us a reason to dig into the history of Hidden Power, and how lacking it in SwSh has fundamentally changed how we build teams and battle. It would certainly be a balancing challenge though, and I've likened it to Necturna's process, where we had to stay hyper-vigilant about balance in order to not make that project entirely broken, despite having such a wide scope and variety of options that CAP could pull out in a match. We've succeeded once, and I believe we could do it again.

That's about all I have to share for now! To recap, I think a finalized slate would include at least a couple of concepts based around limiting the creation process; we've seen a whopping 12 concepts submitted that request this in some form: over a fourth of all submitted concepts! Some concepts that consider defensively-minded builds will also make the slate, and the rest will probably be a mixed bag of the things we find most intriguing as a community overall.

I've been loving reading your posts here in Concept Chat, so keep them rolling. I'm interested to see what you all think too!
Last edited:
dang I wish I'd seen this a while back

Anyway, I also like the fact we've got several different concepts for defensive mons. May the best one win!

There does seem to be an awful lot of concepts around trying to "shake things up" or "do something different". I can't help but wonder if this is change for the sake of change, with Miasmaw already subverting a lot of established CAP patterns with its typing and slightly "odd" stats. The new movepool process, BSR formula and other changes I've seen discussed, and in the former case, put into action all make me feel this process is going to lead to a fresh proccess. These concepts are still cool though, and they will certainly hurt our heads a bit...

I agree that a CAP that checks itself, or other similar mons, should set off certain alarm bells. That's not 100% a reason to not go down this route, but it would have make us think very carefully about normally trivial steps.

My favourite so far outside the ones I mentioned is Unable. Finding creative uses for Abilities is awesome.
Child Prodigy seems neat.
Raviolite raviolite, give me the eviolite.
Don't really have much more I can say than that. Would probably be a bit of a funneled process since a mon that takes advantage of Eviolite is going to be some variation of a bulky wall, either with offensive potential (Doublade, Offensive Pory2) or blanket checking potential (Chansey, Defensive Pory2).

The FlashCAPs have taken a few of these concepts and ran with them. Unable in particular was used on one of their mons: A bulky Water/Ghost with Emergency Exit and Stall. Made for an interesting pivot, in theory. I'd be interested in seeing what could come of that concept given the full CAP treatment.
Which concept could lead to a really interesting CAP process, full of good conversations and furthering our site-wide understanding of competitive Pokemon? Conversely, which one could potentially lead to a disengaging CAP process filled with confusion and a lack of learning?
Im going to try to pit up some of the concept against each other or answer this question.

Quziels „Defective ability“, was the first to catch my eye (probably because it’s the first Submission to be posted, but also) because the underlying idea to this concept is unique as is nothing else.
Not only has CAP never treaded this path, but neither has any Pokémon with a defective ability found viability in any other Metagame.
Working with and around this will certainly have us tackle a lot of previously unanswered questions and engage with the creation of a Pokémon, like no CAP before.
I think depending on which defective ability would be chosen, this concept should guarantee interesting problems throughout all stages.
Trying to answer, which traits can balance a crippling ability or which might even bring out unique benefits of such an ability, will certainly be challenging and rewarding.

Number Crunchers „unable“ asks a pretty similar question. How can a generally undervalued or maybe even unhelpful ability be used in a way, that benefits a Pokémon and makes it even stronger for those particular traits.
Rather than working with an entirely incapacitating ability, we would try to shine a spotlight on the pool of abilities generally untouched by viable Pokémon, but still beneficial enough to really make a positive impact on one.
This should spark some very interesting conversations, during both ability stages, but I fear, that this could be the extend of the really engaging discussions.

If we go with a reordered process, which both of these concepts call for imo, I fear that „unable“ might exhaust all the interesting questions during the ability stages and then be pretty straightforward and maybe less engaging.
“Defective ability“ on the other hand should stay interesting throughout all stages, because balancing out a disability, without overshooting, should take a serious amount of work and thought in every stage.

Which concept could lead to a really interesting CAP to use in the CAP metagame and inspires creative and/or competitive teambuilds? Conversely, which one could lead to an either an unviable or over-centralizing competitive CAP?
Again I will pit up similar concepts against each other.

Starting with “defective ability „ vs. „unable“ I think my preference for the concept changes a bit here.
Quziels concept asks a lot of really interesting questions, throughout all stages, but I cannot help but think, that The end result might turn out to be a bit gimmicky. Trying to make a crippling ability viable, could result in a Pokémon, that plays like some of the meme sets seen in some OMs. I also fear that there is both the possibilities for overshooting/undershooting the compensation for the disability and creating a Pokemon, that is unbalanced and uncompetitive and/or ends up unviable, because it relies on match up fishing or a very specific way of playing.
On the other hand, I believe, that the CAP designed with „unable“ as its concept, would turn out pretty wholesome but still unique. Maybe a niche pick, which offers an interesting quality, no other Pokémon can or even an overall strong Pokémon, that can make use of its ability in an very distinctive way.
Overall I believe that this concept will produce a unique mon, that is easily balanced and offers some interesting ways to play.

I will edit, this post as I talk about some other intriguing concepts I enjoyed reading as well as some i found engaging and divisive at the same time.


We have the technology.
is a Top Artistis a Top CAP Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Site Content Manager Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Admin Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnus
The slate for CAP29's concepts has been decided! At this time, we are no longer taking submissions for concepts for CAP29. The next 24 hours are for us to discuss the pros and cons for each concept. Here are a few guidelines to keep in mind for this thread:
  • Do not try to change the slate; it's been finalized. These 24 hours have been granted to discuss the finalized slate, leading to informed voting.
  • This is not a place to "pre-vote" and say what your ballot is going to be. It's ok to have a concept that you prefer over the others, but state why you are so intrigued by that concept.
  • Please be kind to everyone. Everyone has different opinions, and that's what makes CAP exciting. Don't let those differences escalate into arguments that are intended to hurt feelings. We're all on the same team.
Use this space to discuss what you find exciting about each concept, and to air any concerns you may have. Note that the TLT (all five of us) feel confident in the community's ability to successfully synthesize all seven of these concepts. It's ok to have doubts about some concepts, but nothing here will lead us to certain doom, eh?

Here are the seven slated concepts for CAP29:

Name: Defective Ability

Description: This Pokemon manages to work around an ability that is generally considered harmful, and is viable, or even better for it.

Justification: Defective Ability is an Actualization concept; aiming to create a Pokemon that works around, or works with, an ability that would be considered bad on most pokemon.

There is not a single Pokemon ranked above NU that has a generally negative ability; for good reason, while most pokemon gain a benefit from their ability, these Pokemon are held back. Golisopod, the currently highest ranked pokemon with a negative ability is also unique among its brethren in that its movepool is set up to synergize, and benefit from its ability Emergency Exit, with First Impression benefiting heavily from being switched out directly after use. A non-exhaustive list of negative abilities is Color Change, Defeatist, Emergency Exit, Klutz, Normalize, Slow Start, Stall, Truant. These abilities are yet-untouched by CAP, and I believe that exploring them with typings, movepools, and stats specifically meant to work with, and work around their shortcomings can help us to understand more about how abilities interact with CAPs, and how important the ability slot really is. I do not consider a NCA to be a defective ability as it does not specifically have to be planned around.

This concept aims to question how impactful these abilities are when their downsides are specifically planned for, their strengths, if any, are accentuated, and how viable of a CAP we can make with a handicap in the ability stage.

Questions To Be Answered:

  • How much of a drawback is a negative ability? How much should a negative ability be compensated for in the typing, move, and stats stages?
  • Are there some negative abilities that are more suited to exploration in a CAP process? Why or Why not?
  • If a negative ability is chosen for a primary what abilities are suitable for a secondary ability slot? Purely negative ones, or is there a situation where a pokemon would prefer an ability generally thought of as negative?
  • How does typing interact with a negative ability like this; slow start obviously wants a Toxic immunity due to how long it'll stay on the field, but is it needed, do other abilities have strong typing-ability interactions.
  • How can movepool change the impact of a harmful ability? Golisopod shows that it is possible to leverage the early switch out, are other negative abilities something that can be leveraged or minimized with the correct movepool?
  • How much do stats have to compensate for a negative ability, what are the ideal stat spreads for each negative ability?
  • How can we define a "generally harmful ability"? What are some metrics to define it? Are comparisons with neutral abilities helpful?
  • Which abilities can be worked with? Which abilities can only be worked around? Is it better to choose an ability that can be worked with? or only around?
Wishiwashi in NU and Archeops in NU are two examples of pokemon adapting to, and changing their playstyles from what they otherwise would be thanks to negative abilities, arguably for the better. ORAS Era Archeops looks to initially be a nuclear wallbreaker, sporting 140 base attack, a 110 BP STAB, and great coverage, yet, thanks to its ability Defeatist, it often runs a bulky set with Roost that aims to keep it above half HP as long as possible, and uses its naturally high base Attack to still hit like a truck. This is a case where a pokemon that would not normally run recovery and defensive EVs ends up doing so often to work around its ability, and has more depth as a result. Wishiwashi is a Gen 8 example, which was run with a very bulky set through much of NU this generation because of its ability Schooling, and its necessity to stay above 25% HP. I believe this concept has a lot of room to work because the existing negative abilities are often paired with movepools and stat spreads that do not give any room to work around them.

Slow Start is on Regigigas, a Pokemon with literally Rest and Leftovers to help it get through the 5 turns needed, Truant is on a pokemon without even a single pivoting move, Defeatist was on perhaps the frailest Pokemon imaginable, where even resisted hits could put it below 50% HP. These abilities are all paired with stat spreads and movepools that are deliberately set up to make it difficult to work around them, and even minor changes could yield a lot of information about how impactful a bad ability is.
Final Submission

Game of Inches

Description: A Pokémon that explores the use of incremental damage and recovery effects in the CAP metagame.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept. In a meta full of high damage dealers and walls with perfect recovery, it would allow exploration in some of the other types of damage and recovery. Another idea worth considering are the ways to dissuade or block these effects. This Pokémon does not have to be completely passive with its moves, but it would be beneficial to consider attacking moves for their additional effects, not their damage output.

Questions to be answered:
  • How important are incremental, residual, and any other forms of indirect damage in the current meta?
  • Which effects, whether they are moves, abilities, or anything else, should be considered incremental?
  • Which damaging moves would be useful for their secondary effects and not for their damage output?
  • How can incremental effects be dissuaded or blocked?
  • In what ways can incremental effects be worthwhile over traditional forms of damage and recovery?
  • How should this Pokémon's limitations in damage and recovery be controlled? Through a lack of moves, stats, or a combination of the two?
  • How should it fare against Stallbreakers? Should they be left as checks/counters, or should this Pokémon have ways to handle them?
Explanation: This Pokémon would serve a different playstyle to the vast amount of powerful damage dealers and fat blobs with perfect recovery. Its passive nature and not-so-reliable recovery should strike a balance between offense and stall, and should (hopefully) not encourage one over the other. Leech Seed perfectly encompasses the effects to explore, though there are other effects like Infestation, Sand/Hail, Ingrain/Aqua Ring, Leftovers/Black Sludge, Rough Skin/Iron Barbs, trapping moves like Sand Tomb or even Snap Trap, that are also worth looking at. As for blocking incremental damage and recovery effects, the first ability that comes to mind is Magic Guard, which would be very strong both offensively and defensively (looking at you, Clefable). Others to look at are Immunity/Pastel Veil/Poison Heal with their ability to block Toxic damage, Overcoat to block Weather, and Water Veil to block Burn.

The closest Pokémon that fills this role is Ferrothorn, with its main recovery being Leech Seed, and its ability to rack up damage with the aforementioned move and its ability Iron Barbs. However, Ferrothorn’s above-average attack stat allows its STAB moves to be useful against Pokémon weak to them, and those with poor defense stats.

As for CAP Pokémon, the closest to fill this role is Snaelstrom, with its main source of Recovery being through Poison Heal, and its ability to status through Toxic or Scald. It’s similar to Ferrothorn however, due to its above average attacking stats giving it offensive prowess (with it even being able to make use of Swords Dance sets).
Name: Limit Break

Description: A Pokemon that is able to increase its damage output specifically by taking damage itself.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept with hints of a Actualization sprinkled in that really focuses on a single question: “How can we incentivize a Pokemon taking damage?” There are numerous ways of doing so, all of which having incredibly varied means of producing increased damage output. However, the goal here is to provide this Pokemon with a way to truly threaten the opponent as it takes damage.

Questions to be Answered

  • How do we incentivize our Pokemon taking damage?
  • What are some existing examples of Pokemon in this and other metagames that use taking damage to their advantage (if there are any at all)?
  • How many times do we want this Pokemon to take damage before it gets a power boost?
  • Would we rather CAP29 get its boost from taking damage directly from its opponent, or from residual damage from status, hazards, recoil and other indirect damage?
  • How effective offensively should this Pokemon be before taking damage?
  • Should self-inflicted damage yield a similar power boost, or should the boost come solely from the actions of the opponent?
  • Which type combinations would inherently allow for this Pokemon to take many repeated hits? What about combinations that would inherently limit the amount of hits this Pokemon can take?
  • Are there any abilities that actively encourage a Pokemon to take damage?

Explanation: Final Fantasy 7 has dominated the gamerspace in 2020. From the remake early in the year, to Sephiroth joining Smash Bros., I’ve been on a FFVII kick. One of the primary mechanics of battling is a concept called “Limit Breaks” where, according to Cloud Strife himself “When an enemy has pushed your anger to the limits, you can unleash unimaginable power.” You can read more about them here ( ) The idea is that the player takes damage to boost a meter that, once full, allows them to launch one giant attack on the enemies on screen. Since I’m me, I like to see how mechanics from other RPGs might translate into Pokemon, and this concept is no exception. Like with my submission for CAP27, “Offensive Team Support (or the Concept formerly known as ‘Trickster Cleric’)” hailing from a Dungeons and Dragons class, this concept submission takes pages out of Final Fantasy's playbook.

We’ve seen a lot of Pokemon that are able to get boosts the longer they’re on the field (Speed Boost, Spectrier spamming Shadow Ball, Beast Boosting, general stat boosting when you can tank hits etc.), but all of these come directly from the player themselves and not the actions of the opponent. Very rarely do we see a Pokemon that is able to use the actions of their opponent to get boosts by staying out on the field of play for long stretches. And let me tell you, there are boatloads of ways we can accomplish this concept covering all four stages of the process. We have to consider the typing of this Pokemon on what kinds of STABs it would have and what types of moves it should naturally be able to survive. We have to consider if the ability will contribute to the means in which it obtains its boost. We have to consider the stats on the Pokemon to make sure that a boost to moves is significant enough to matter, as well as living this. We have to consider which moves it will be using when it gets a power boost, and whether or not its moves will also help this Pokemon get repeated boosting opportunities. There’s a lot we can work with here and we don't necessarily tie ourselves down in any stage with this concept (except perhaaaaaps typing, but that’s fine).

One immediate idea that comes to mind in satisfying this concept is the combination of having the ability Stamina and the move Body Press. As the Pokemon takes damage, Stamina causes the Pokemon’s defense to increase by 1 stage, which in turn makes the move Body Press stronger. However, without these Stamina boosts, Body Press only does mediocre damage. This combination actively incentivizes the user to take damage, thus satisfying the goal of this concept. Another, different approach is using a Pinch Berry + Acrobatics for example. Hawlucha is an excellent example of this set as it used the turns while holding the Sitrus Berry to set up with Swords Dance so that, once the foe had done enough damage to trigger eating the Berry, it suddenly got a sharp power boost when using Acrobatics. A third, albeit less commonly seen way of accomplishing this concept can be seen by using contact punishing abilities, like Poison Point or Flame Body in conjunction with moves like Venoshock or Hex. In this case, the player actively wants their Pokemon taking contact damage in hopes that the foe receives the secondary status effect, therein boosting the power of moves that do double damage when the foe has a status effect. With these three examples, these are three notably different ways of accomplishing this goal, and naturally lead into one of the questions as previously listed.

There are other aspects of the Limit Break that I’m not really considering here. I’m not considering the fact that the meter resets after a Limit is used, though that was the initial inspiration for this concept. I’m also not considering the fact that in FFVII, when the player does use a Limit it supersedes the turn order. I really want to leave this initial concept open as much as possible so that the Concept Assessment stage has plenty of engaging and interesting conversations to ensure that we have an interesting and exciting CAP29 project.
Name: Boxing Gloves (alternatively known as "god help me my typing sucks")

Description: A Pokemon designed to be an effective wallbreaker that lacks a great offensive typing

Justification: This would be an Actualization concept. The idea would be to have a CAP that despite a poor offensive typing (think Normal, Bug, Poison, Grass) still manages to be a potent wallbreaker. This could be as a result of great coverage, solid bulk, or utility options to help provide a buffer.

Questions To Be Answered:

  • How much set divergence should be encouraged? In specific, how heavily skewed should the movepool be towards that of a wallbreaker?
    • Focusing in more: some wallbreakers that suit this concept are Melmetal, Scizor, and Rillaboom. These Pokemon have dedicated, all-out attacking wallbreaker sets as is (Choice Band on all of them comes to mind), but there are also sets that capitalize on other strengths these Pokemon have. Melmetal has run defensive sets with Acid Armor + Body Press in previous OU metagames; Scizor can be a potent setup sweeper with Swords Dance and in the past has run specially defensive sets with Defog; and Rillaboom sometimes goes dedicated sweeper sets with Swords Dance and a Life Orb or Grassy Seed.
  • What makes an offensive typing lackluster/mediocre? Is it entirely a matter of looking at a type resistances chart and seeing that said typing is strong against few and weak against many? Or are there other factors at play?
    • Can a typing be considered bad for reasons beyond type effectiveness, i.e. can a typing be bad on a specific Pokemon but good on another?
  • How do movepool and coverage options play into this? Consider Gyarados, for example, whose best Flying-type attack (for its stat spread) is Bounce, a fairly unreliable attack, but it gets helpful coverage like Earthquake and Power Whip to hit otherwise solid answers in Toxapex and Slowbro.
    • Similarly, how could CAP29 benefit from utility options to make wallbreaking easier for it? Pokemon like Choice Specs Magearna are partly so good because of access to Trick to cripple their defensive answers, and we occasionally see Toxic randomly thrown on an offensive Pokemon to lure in and cripple its answers (Melmetal, for instance).
  • Is it within the realm of reasonable to have a secondary typing count as compensation? Or should the typing as a whole be mediocre/poor to stay true to theme?
    • Consider Nidoking, for instance, whose primary typing of Poison is fairly bad on its own because it's resisted by or ineffective against quite a lot and strong against not so much. Ground, on the other hand, is notoriously good offensively, with some builders mandating a Ground-immune Pokemon on every team. Of course, Nidoking has other things going for it that are the primary reasons it's such a potent breaker---coverage and ability---but typing lends it a super spammable STAB attack and some extra defensive presence.
  • How integral a role should pivoting be, if at all?
    • Choice Band Scizor makes much of its progress with its STAB U-turn, and other potent wallbreakers like Rillaboom, Choice Band Flygon, Choice Specs Rotom, and Inteleon have made use of pivoting moves to apply consistent pressure and support other offensive teammates.

Explanation: In essentially every generation of Pokemon there have been Pokemon that, despite a poor offensive typing, manage to be incredibly potent wallbreakers. The oldest version of this would be Snorlax, whose dominance over the first three generations of Pokemon cannot be understated, while more modern examples include Pokemon such as Genesect, Rillaboom, Kartana, and Scizor. Rather than be severely hampered by somewhat lacking offensive typings, these Pokemon thrive(d) in their metagame due to them being compensated properly. For example, Snorlax was given an immense amount of bulk (for its time) and could also function as a potent setup sweeper with Curse; Genesect had coverage for days and had great Speed; Scizor had good defensive utility, trapping, and priority in Bullet Punch; Kartana was strong and fast as hell and had INSANE snowballing potential with Beast Boot, plus it had a fairly wide amount of set variety that never really removed it from the role of wallbreaker; Rillaboom was given Grassy Surge and a priority move while functioning secondarily as a great support Pokemon as a result of its terrain. I think the idea of starting on the back foot is an interesting one that encourages creativity during design to adequately address immediate shortcomings.
Final Submission

- Hidden Potential

Description - This Pokemon is designed to make use of Multi-Attack, exploring how a Hidden Power-esque move interacts with the modern meta.
Justification - This is an actualization concept, focusing on the use of a niche move. Users of Hidden Power filled a similar niche, but are not present in the SS metagame. This concept explores the strengths and weaknesses of this item based move.
Questions to be answered -
  • What gaps in coverage was Hidden Power used to fill? Are those gaps still relevant in today's meta?
  • What roles work well for a Pokemon with variable coverage? What abilities can help it in those roles?
  • Does such a Pokemon need to be a physical attacker, or can Multi-Attack work as mixed coverage?
  • How does this Pokemon function with or without a memory? Should Multi-Attack still be useful after getting its item Knocked Off?
  • Are multiple Multi-Attack types viable and/or healthy? Is there a balance between raw power and predictability that needs to be reached?
  • How do different Multi-Attack types affect team building? How obvious should the type be from team preview?
Explanation - Hidden Power has been a staple in the metagame ever since its introduction in Gen 2. Gen 8 is the first gen without this near universal move. This concept is about creating a Pokemon capable of using a similar move.
Multi-Attack is a powerful coverage move, but Silvally is only able to use it with stab. What kind of uses could a Pokemon with a fixed type find for this move? Should this Pokemon ever want stab on Multi-Attack? Should Multi-Attack's usage vary before and after having its memory knocked off?
Looking at previous users of Hidden Power and how they fared then and now could be a good start. Plasmanta is a good example of a Pokemon that regularly used two different Hidden Powers to shore up its coverage in different ways.
Final Submission

Boosting and Blasting

Description: A Pokemon that sets up while simultaneously dealing damage.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept as it is a role that not too many Pokemon have filled to a great degree. Notable examples of this would be Serperior and Z-move Kommo-O in SM and now Scale Shot Garchomp(although still reliant on Swords Dance), but this concept still remains very unexplored. I believe that making a Pokemon that actualizes this role will let us explore the nature of set-up moves and their typical counterplay.

Questions to be Answered:
-What moves/abilities can allow you to boost while doing significant damage?
-How does counterplay to setup moves change when the Pokemon is able to attack while setting up?
-Besides certain moves, what other options are there to allow a Pokemon to accomplish both simultaneously?
-A mon of this nature has the potential to snowball out of hand. What measures should be taken to prevent this mon from being uncompetitive?
-Does the concept automatically lend itself to a sweeper role, or are there other roles that it can take on?
-Do we want the boosting + attacking move to be the Pokemon's main STAB, or supplemental coverage?
-What effect does forcing players to choose between going for more damage vs going for damage+boosting have on a game?

Explanation: Setup typically operates on a risk-reward basis, sacrificing immediate progress for greater progress in following turns. At the same time, using a setup move runs the risk of still being walled out after said setup, making zero progress whatsoever rather than getting chip damage with an attack or preserving momentum with a double switch. This concept aims to challenge this notion by forcing progress while setting up. It also gives us the opportunity to explore unconventional means of setup, possibly with Fiery Dance or Meteor Mash, or even weaker options like Power-Up Punch, Flame Charge, and Fell Stinger to see if they can be viable. I also believe that there are a variety of routes and roles to explore with this concept. For instance, in lower tiers, Silvally utilizes Flame Charge to boost its speed while also using it as coverage against Steel-types; whereas in OU Serperior was able to provide its team with utility in Leech Seed and Glare in addition to clicking Leaf Storm.
taken & adapted from Cretacerus's CAP 22 submission

Name: Bulletproof Glass

Description: A Pokémon which, despite its mediocre defensive stats, poses a considerable defensive threat in the metagame.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept, as we would be creating a Pokemon within a defensive archetype whose effectiveness should be dependent on factors other than its bulk. This approach would allow us to add a defensive Pokemon with a unique scope and playstyle, explore what constitutes various archetypes and roles within the game, and act as a means to further learn about the current metagame environment and specifically the requirements it holds on defensive Pokémon.

  • How do we go about deciding which offensive threats this Pokemon should pose a defensive threat to?
  • What is the full spectrum of defensive roles in Pokemon (wall, tank, etc), and which one(s) should we aim for?
  • What constitutes "low" or "mediocre" defenses? How low can the bulk of a defensive Pokemon reasonably be, and are there certain type resistances, abilities, or moves that would let us push our bulk lower than others?
  • Is there a relationship between a Pokemon’s speed and its defensive capabilities? If so, what kind of speed benchmarks will this pokemon realistically need to hit? What's the difference between a defensive Pokemon that merely benefits from high speed, and one that's dependent on its speed to effectively check opposing threats?
  • Can offensive strength be a contributor to a Pokemon’s defensive capabilities? In other words, is it ever true that the best defense is a good offense? How much offensive pressure, if any at all, should we realistically possess to compensate for our low bulk?
  • Pokemon such as Astrolotl, Landorus-T, and Hydreigon often fulfill roles that are simultaneously offensive and defensive in nature. What is the ratio of “checking offensive threats / applying offensive pressure” we should strive for, and how can we ensure that our end product would have a unique yet concept-fulfilling identity?
  • I firmly believe that the open nature of this concept is a point in its favor, but it still bears mentioning that this vagueness can just as well lead to certain failures. Simply “checking some offensive threats” would be our only focus, with the added restriction of doing so without strong defenses. One scenario is that we zero-in on the top offensive threats in the metagame, soon finding ourselves collectively pursuing an unspoken and unattainable goal to decentralize, fix, or otherwise balance the meta by reigning in the most prevalent wallbreakers. Another scenario is that, due to the great number of possible directions this concept could go in, the community may disagree about which Pokemon we want to check and what role we want to occupy. We saw both of these things happen (to what extent is debatable) during the process for our most recent CAP, Miasmaw, and it's likely that "Bulletproof Glass" isn't the only concept for CAP 29 that will risk experiencing these pitfalls either. So, finally: In the event we choose to execute this concept, how can we--as a community--avoid collective mentalities like the ones I have described? What are the specific risks with a concept like this, and how are we going to avoid them?
Explanation: This concept aims to create a Pokémon that doesn’t rely on its raw defenses to check opposing threats, but instead takes full advantage of factors such as resistances, abilities, movepool, and speed tier to survive key hits in the metagame. It may seem like a straightforward idea on paper, but I think it could lead to a very complex and rewarding process. There are many defensive roles within Pokemon, and this concept is intentionally vague about how we approach them (despite my alluding to certain dangers of this openness in my final question). We are not required to go down any one path, and I think this concept could realistically take the form of a pivot, wall, utility support, or any number of other roles, with each one having very different implications in regard to how the process takes shape and what our place in the metagame is.

No matter what we choose, though, I think it's also likely we will still end up with clearly defined strengths and weaknesses as a result of this Pokemon's middling bulk. There will always be room for this weakness to be exploited by certain Pokemon that we intentionally choose to preserve as checks, or by lesser-seen threats that end up having a very positive matchup, or simply by intelligently playing to the Pokemon's weak spots. Pokemon in lower tiers such as Sableye, Klefki, and arguably things like Crobat and Flame Orb Sigilyph all execute this concept to some degree, and the niches they occupy as well as their C&C are very defined. However, this archetype is far rarer in tiers like OU and CAP, and it would certainly be valuable to explore why this is the case and what we can do to make a Pokemon like this succeed.
If you're struggling with what to post, consider Monday's Question of the Day. Framing your post as a critique a) how interesting/good a concept will be for the CAP process, and b) how interesting/good a concept will be for the CAP metagame might be a good direction to start at. But again, feel free to discuss the direction of CAP29 in the ways that you think will benefit us all.
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)