CAP 29 - Part 1 - Concept Submissions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rabia

perfection
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator
GP Co-Leader
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.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name:
Child Prodigy (Originally Play-Fighting)

Description: A CAP who fully explores the benefits (and the downsides) of working with a pre-evolved eviolite ‘mon.

Justification: This concept falls primarily under the Archetype category, but also fits slightly under the Actualization category. As far as archetypes go, this one is relatively unique, and has only a few notable examples; the main ones being eviolite scyther (UU), on the more offensive side and, of course, eviolite chansey (OU), who is more on the defensive side.

Questions to be Answered:
  • How stereotypically “strong“ does a pre-evo have to be in order to be effective in a tier? Is it possible that limiting stats in this way could be detrimental to the process overall? Additionally, how much defense and special defense is too much when it comes to eviolite?
  • Are there any other differences between eviolite pre-evos and fully evolved ‘mons? How can these differences be implemented in a competitive way? Can they be implemented in a competitive way at all?
  • How can this CAP avoid becoming bulky to an overpowering extent? Is it more viable or more interesting to use eviolite to gain insane bulk or to better round out a ‘mon’s stats?
  • What can this CAP do against moves and abilities such as pickpocket and knock off? How much would this solution impact the way the ’mon plays overall? Additionally, how many ways can this problem be solved, especially unconventially?
  • EDIT: How will this CAP’s evolution be handled? Is it possible to create a power dynamic in which the prevo is more viable? Would it be best to leave the evolution totally to flavor, or at least put some boundaries on it first?
Explanation: I have been long in support for a pre-evolved CAP who is still viable in OU. That said, I’ve never really considered how much it would take to work around the boundaries pre-evos face, especially with CAP’s notoriously high base stats. I personally think it would be a fun challenge to work with a smaller movepool, smaller stats, and (potentially) even simpler typing (read: normal and fairy typing slapped on pre-evos at random), though I’m not sure everyone feels the same.

Additionally, I particularly fear that this concept would just create another chansey, which would not only be incredibly boring to make but also incredibly boring to play against. I personally hope that a route either more like scyther in UU or inbetween the two would be taken, as that would be much more interesting and much more unique, at least in OU.

EDIT: In terms of its evolution, I would prefer it not to be worried about during the main process. One of the primary criticisms over eviolite concepts is that it would, in effect, create two CAPs rather than one, which seems a little too framework-y for a normal concept. This is a tricky issue, as I would like to say just leave it to flavor, similar to how prevos are handled, but even then it could still end up being randomly viable, potentially more so than its prevo and thus the main process. Unless, however, there are steps in place to make the evo totally obsolete. This would be nearly unheard of in terms of existing Pokémon, excluding the obvious Nincada—> Shedinja. Often, Pokémon that run eviolite are similar or only slightly better than their unevolved forms. Precedent isn’t very necessary in this case, however, as plenty of wacky evolution dynamics have appeared out of nowhere in official ‘mons, often unintentionally as well.

Also, I’m not fully sure whether or not this concept is completely legal as a CAP concept, as I have been known in the past to toe (and step fully over) the line of concept legality. I definitely would appreciate it if someone could let me know if my concept isn’t legal.
 
Last edited:
Name: Unusual Gains

Description: A Pokémon which has a method (or methods) of setup that isn't usually seen in the OU/CAP metagame.

Justification: With this concept we'll be actualizing the use of underutilized and sometimes underexplored methods of setup, and exploring why these methods are underutilized in the first place and the utility they might bring over more traditional setup methods. The concept also falls firmly under the Archetype category because ultimately we'll end up with a Pokémon that uses some form of setup.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What kinds of underutilized setup options are there and why do they rarely, if ever, see play in higher tiers?
  • On the contrary, why is it that certain ways of setting up are used so much more in these tiers?
  • Is it worth using these setup methods over more established methods for the Pokémon we're creating? Why wouldn't we just give it a more common setup method?
  • What are the most defining factors of how successful certain setup methods are on a given Pokémon?
  • Is there any utility tied to some methods of setup that currently don't see much play in the OU/CAP metagame?
    • By extension, how can we make sure these utilities can be used to great effect in order to define the Pokémon we're creating?
  • Can we combine the use of underused setup methods with other available mechanics to further solidify the role(s) our created Pokémon fulfills?

Explanation:

(For reference, the word "setup" in this context refers to augmentation of the user or its team rather than hindering the opposing team)

Setup as a concept is nothing new to CAP and competitive Pokémon as a whole, but often times there's only a handful of setup methods that see play in the higher tiers. This concept aims to explore more unconventional ways of setup, some of which have seen play in lower tiers or past generations. As such I would like to give some examples:

  • Mudsdale, thanks to its ability Stamina, is a great switch-in to a lot of physical attackers in the lower tiers, which often times gives it immediate value when it switches in.
    • Similarily, Rattled can be used to gain immediate value in the form of a speed boost when switching into common Bug, Dark or Ghost-type moves like U-Turn or Knock Off.
  • Kommo-O's signature move Clangorous Soul in conjunction with Throat Spray makes it a very potent special threat in just one turn.
  • Bisharp and Galarian Zapdos use(d) the ability Defiant to discourage the opponent from clicking stat-lowering moves like Defog or switching into Intimidate users because of the threat they form if they ever get the boost off.
    • Same goes for the ability Competitive
  • Volcarona in BW OU used the move Fiery Dance to snowball opponents in a similar fashion to Moxie, Beast Boost, Soul-Heart and Grim Neigh/Chilling Neigh.
  • Focus Energy Kingdra, AKA CritDra, saw use in SM RU because in combination with Sniper and a Scope Lens, it could blow past strong special walls like Cresselia and Umbreon.
  • While not entirely concept-relevant, Infernape has access to both Swords Dance and Nasty Plot as well as great STABs on both offenses, which it took advantage of in older gens by having the opponent guess which set it ran. Something similar could be done with the move Work Up.
  • ...

A lot of these Pokémon (with the exception of Volcarona) were able to carve a solid niche for themselves in their respective tiers with these tools, despite not using or not having access to the more traditional forms of setup. Overall, there are a lot more ways of setup that don't see as much play even in lower tiers because the distribution is limited or there is no Pokémon with good synergy with the move, ability or item yet.

In short, there is room for a lot of creativity during the process of this CAP and I believe with the experience we has already we can create a product that is both fun and viable to use in the CAP metagame.
 
Last edited:
Name - The Last Hope
Description - Pokemon Meta's often alter as new pokemon are introduced. Occasionally, mon not considered viable rise to prominence as counters to strongly ranked or even metagame defining new entries. This Concept seeks to encourage a specific CAP mon or mons, by building in weaknesses/Achilles heel's that these lesser used CAPmons can uniquely take advantage of, while still remaining viable enough to justify the inclusion.
Justification- This is a Target Concept - giving a square hole for previous weaker CAPmon's square peg/round hole syndrome. In the last CAP, Miasmaw was developed around specifically taking on the Pivoting strengths. This concept flips it on it's head - what would be the ideal pokemon for a weaker CAP to make use of their unique selling points. It's hard to archetype, as that is defined by the chosen CAP, and hard to actualize - as perhaps a similar example, in DP-Ubers, Quagsire rose to prominence due to its ability to counter Kyogre, despite otherwise being NU. This concept is the equivalent of designing something like Kyogre so that Quagsire would be again relevant, although to be clear, aiming for Uber's power is not necessarily intended.
Questions To Be Answered -
  • Which CAPmon should be made more relevant - are there any which are past saving even if there was a perfect meta relevant threat they are "designed" to counter?
  • Outside of being the perfect target for the chosen CAPmon (CO from now on), are there any other ways to mitigate said CO's weak points so they are less of a liability?
  • Does building specific weaknesses for the CO to take advantage of enable other prominent meta-pokemon, and if yes, by what means can these alternative choices to the CO be dissuaded without negatively impacting the CO?
  • How does CAP29 maintain its own relevance despite these intentional weaknesses - is CAP29 the evil Empire to the Rebellion Core, and the CO acting as Ben Kenobi - i.e it's "only hope"?
Explanation - So, I love the design of a few of the older mon, like Malaconda or Voodoom, but they sadly don't have much use in the metagame. Every so often there is a review of the mon, but often the issue is that there isn't a valid role for these mon to be taking up a team slot for. This concept is meant to create that niche - as mentioned earlier - Square Hole for the Square Pegs, the equivalent of creating a Slowbro for Miasmaw, or a Kyogre for Quagsire to take advantage of. Obviously, this is perhaps a circuitous "partner" concept, which historically hasn't been kind to both parts, as relevance for a partnership requires both mon to still be relevant. That this is an intended counter-concept will hopefully maintain the relevance of at least one of this strange partnership. To continue with the Star Wars theme, I nearly called this concept the "Death Star Exhaust Port", as it was intentionally building in a design flaw that a small one man/weak CAP fighter could take advantage of.
 
Final Submission

Name
- 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.
 
Last edited:

Birkal

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
Ain't no rest for the wicked, baby.

Pipotchi - Double Edged Armory - Thanks for allowing me to IOU on the last go-round. As a CAP Contributor, you realize the importance of having interesting discussions at each stage of the CAP process, so kudos on you for making a concept that directly addresses that. Overall, this concept feels fuzzy, and I worry that it would make for a disjointed process where each stage is sort of isolated from the others. That's not unfixable though, so let me provide some thoughts on what you could do to provide some clarity.

You use the word "flaw" and "disadvantage" interchangeably, but I think it might suit the concept better to define one of these terms and stick to it. As we discussed on Discord, a "flaw" in the movepool stage might simply be an omission of STAB options that typing would normally have access to, yet I don't see that defined anywhere in your concept. I also think you should address the idea of "expectations" when it comes to learning about a Pokemon for the first time, because that largely determines whether it's "flawed" or not. Kartana is a really good example for this, because you hear "Grass/Steel type? It'll be like Ferrothorn!" but then it's not. You hear "181 Base Attack?!" but then find out it's flawed due to its paper-thin defenses. What you're looking for here is almost a comedy of errors, which has some merits, but that comedy doesn't come through unless we discuss the pre-conceived notions we have about what makes for a good competitive Pokemon in general.

Your first question is solid, because it lets us research the CAP metagame. Your second question I think you could go in-depth onto, because that's the basis of your concept, and each of these is wildly different. Like in Abilities, we could give it one situationally-amazing ability, and one ability that's base-line passable in the metagame for that double-edged feel. But Typing doesn't have that luxury, as the two typings we choose are completely linked to the identify of that Pokemon, so the double-edged sword there should probably dive into what's really good about a particular typing, and what are its significant flaws (makes me think of quad weaknesses like Ice/Fire offensively, or Rock/Steel defensively). There's so much variance here that you should address a bit more in the concept before it went to an assessment phase.

Jewvia - Ejection Pivot - This concept made me go out and do some research, because I wasn't familiar with this item. So as a result, I went through all of the stages that someone discovering a new item in a generation would feel. At first, the realization of self-switching Overheat, Draco Meteor, Close Combat, and a plethora of other moves sounded real powerful. And while that initial reaction might still hold true, the fact that this item is one-use only severely limits not only this CAP, but also the types of teams that it can find success on. Your questions could address some of these teambuilding concerns. I would also compare and contrast Red Card somewhere on here: the differences between the items, AND which past gens Red Card found viability in, and whether or not we can predict if Eject Pack could find a similar level of viability, if at all. I'd love to hear others comment on the viability of a project focused on this mechanism.

Zephyr2007 - A Taste of Your Own Medicine - I'll let you clean up your concept before giving you full feedback. But I want to address a few of your questions. Your second question is weak, because the tools we have to achieve any concept are obvious: the ones GameFreak gives us. I think that question would be better suited as: What tools are commonplace for each role archetype in the current metagame? Which of those tools currently see the widest usage against that archetype? In general, your concept is something that already exists within the world of competitive Pokemon, and that's not a bad thing. In fact, it's something I'd lean into more with your questions, and perhaps even provide a few more examples in your Explanation section.

Rabia - Boxing Gloves - Esteemed YouTuber. You've submitted this concept before, no? It might be worth you setting aside some time to read over the CAP21 (Crucibelle), specifically its concept assessment and typing discussion, which has some similarities to your concept. Also, Mollux has a similar concept too. This news shouldn't deter you from pursuing this concept; in fact, I think it's a good omen that it's been so popular in the past. I'd lean a little harder into what differentiates your concept, because those feel a bit understated at the moment. I think you've got the right idea of what an arch looks like with a CAP build, in that starting on the "back foot" as you put it can result in a really juicy set of discussions.

Let's clean up your questions though. The first one is biased, because you clearly don't want this CAP to become just another pivot. It's also easily answered: if we determined that this CAP shouldn't pivot, we won't give it any pivoting moves. But be cautious, because all of the examples you listed (sans Kartana) do use pivoting moves frequently on their sets. Maybe draw up some more examples too? (Side note: if you're struggling to come up with more examples, maybe the concept Description itself should mention a lack of pivoting moves, in a sort of break-the-mold fashion? Your call.) Your fourth question is by far your most interesting one, so I'm glad you explored it deeply. Conversely, your fifth question is pretty weak, because we consider all CAPs in the CAP metagame when building, meaning we shouldn't avoid Bug-type just because Miasmaw conveniently has that typing and accomplishes some of the same things. We could take this in a much different direction even if we were Bug-type, no?

20Yelram02 - The Swan - This is probably the broadest concept in this entire thread. What are you looking to get out of this? I'm all for exploring a concept of competitive Pokemon in a vague sense, but this feels like the doors are flung wide open, and not in a good way. Status effects AND stat-boosts/drops on their own are probably too vague, and you're trying to address them both? This really needs to be focused up. If you're trying to talk about where status and stat changes interweave, then go in that direction and provide examples. Otherwise, this really needs some workshopping to become something intriguing that we pursue.

JAGFL - Play-Fighting - This concept took second on the CAP14 (Mollux) Concept Polls, and we've seen variations of it over time. It's probably one of those concepts that tiptoes the line, which means it's at least worth discussing, no?
[9:15 AM] Birkal: so I'm working on giving feedback to this eviolite concept
[9:15 AM] Birkal: and something I've always thought is curious is: what do you do with its evolution?
[9:15 AM] Birkal: if the eviolite user is offensive in any way
[9:16 AM] Birkal: it would almost have to be a mon that's so powerful we ban it to ubers, imo
[9:16 AM] Birkal: which is ok, I kind of like that flavor haha
[9:16 AM] Birkal: but we'd clearly have to do something with its final evolution
[9:16 AM] Birkal: I can't think of any mon where the evolution becomes strictly worse
[9:16 AM] Snuffutari: you could do something like the porygon situation
[9:17 AM] Snuffutari: where they just do different things
[9:17 AM] Birkal: yeah but porygon-z is still very usable
[9:17 AM] Birkal: and at that point we're just making 2 caps
[9:17 AM] Birkal: which is kind of... framework-y?
[9:17 AM] Birkal: I'm not sure that's allowed
[9:17 AM] Snuffutari: yea
[9:17 AM] Birkal: I'm not opposed to trying, that being said
[9:17 AM] Muff1nB0y: question : is a new mon is gonna be voted soon ?
[9:17 AM] Birkal: but if that concept was slated and won, I would probably argue the most for its evolution just being a defacto ubers cap and we just leave it at that
[9:17 AM] kjnjkmjk1: Yeah I remember that last time this was discussed, the conversation went into framework territory
[9:17 AM] Snuffutari: we should save our framework cap for form changes
[9:18 AM] minmin (he/him): scyther/scizor situation? except scizor's the one with bug flying and scyther's the one with bug steel
[9:18 AM] minmin (he/him): if that makes sense
[9:18 AM] minmin (he/him): lol
[9:18 AM] Birkal: oh that's true, you could make the evolution a really bad typing
[9:18 AM] Birkal: that's obv not the case with scizor
[9:18 AM] Birkal: but it is a work around
[9:18 AM] Snuffutari: I mean iirc scyther is still viable
[9:18 AM] Birkal: I just don't really like the idea of a process where we have to actively tiptoe around what the final evolution would be

[9:36 AM] quackarioOfLegends: Oh I missed the eviolite concept
[9:36 AM] quackarioOfLegends: Those die quickly
[9:37 AM] kjnjkmjk1: The concept or the discussion
[9:38 AM] quackarioOfLegends: The concept cause it's usually much larger in scope and basically requires making two mons
[9:39 AM] Birkal: which is why I think you'd have to make it so the evolution is just straight banned to ubers
[9:39 AM] quackarioOfLegends: Which is very difficult, since the evolution will more than likely become an afterthought
[9:39 AM] Birkal: so that way we don't even have to worry about it
[9:39 AM] Birkal: and then we just let flavor have a field-day with it later
[9:39 AM] Snuffutari: just give the evo like
[9:40 AM] Snuffutari: a BST of 720
[9:40 AM] Snuffutari: :kek:
[9:40 AM] Birkal: it wouldn't take too much to break a mon
[9:40 AM] Birkal: in fact, it'd probably be a really interesting pseudo-competitive discussion for flavor to have
[9:40 AM] quackarioOfLegends: just give it regen
[9:40 AM] Birkal: but not one we're really interested in exploring for the CAP process itself
[9:40 AM] Birkal: concepts around breaking a mon are frightfully boring
[9:41 AM] Birkal: If you're reading this in the concept submission thread, you've earned your second gold star
[9:41 AM] quackarioOfLegends: Yea it's interesting just not what we are 100% looking for

So pick a direction, because I don't think I'd personally be comfortable slating a concept where we need to build two Pokemon. With that out of the way, I would lean hard into what exactly Eviolite does and doesn't, and how that can affect different role archetypes in competitive Pokemon to have such a huge defensive boost. Talking about Knock Off should definitely be in your questions somewhere too, as that would come to define a lot of how this mon operates. Also I really dislike your name, as an aside, because it uses a typing, and doesn't really describe what we're looking to make. Pop onto Discord and we can work out some alternate titles.

Scizivire - Unusual Gains - You absolutely must read through the concept assessment for CAP17 (Cawmodore), because Quanyails' concept for that CAP is almost exactly what this is. You've tightened it up to specifically be around setup, but that's where the conversation for Cawm eventually led us to anyways. None of this is a bad thing; I think retreading good old concepts is very valuable. But you can use that process to inspire some questions that dig deeper. As a final note, I'd maybe define "setup" somewhere on here, because it seems like you're using it exclusively to define altering yourself as opposed to setting up on an opponent (Fire Lash and Soak come to mind). Not including those latter ones is fine, but I'd just be really clear which side of the fence you're on so we don't have to wrestle with that in Concept Submissions.

CharSiuEmboar - The Last Hope - This description is a hot mess, to the point of being almost unintelligible. Clean that up please. In terms of what I think of the concept itself, I think we'd be playing with a dangerous fire. If you're making a CAP that's weak to Malaconda, for example, it's going to also be weak to a LOT of other mons that do what Malaconda does, but better. Being Knock-weak is already a liability in CAP, and its STABs are also prevalent in the metagame already. I think if you really want to go in this direction, it might actually be a more viable concept to single out which CAP you're trying to increase usage of, because then at least you've done the initial legwork of figuring out if this is even possible. If you are able to come up with a really good example of this, I'd share it with us all in this thread.

chuckeroo777 - Hidden Potential - Ok phew, there is a lot to unpack here. This concept is immediately inspiring, because you made a correct comparison to Hidden Power, and how that's now suddenly gone in this current metagame. There is A LOT to explore there, so I'm just going to provide you with some stream-of-conscious questions that you should use to flesh out this concept. It's pretty barebones right now, but this could be a very relevant (and potent) discussion for this CAP.
- How did the Gen8 CAP metagame shift with the removal of Hidden Power? Who were the winners, and who were the losers?
- Is Hidden Power itself good for a metagame? Bad for a metagame? How does it impact teambuilding?
- What are the inherent differences between Hidden Power and Multi-Attack? Obviously the answers are BAP and item requirement, but I think you could learn into both of those, especially the latter one. So like:
- Will a Pokemon forego its item in order to run a Hidden Power-esque coverage move?
- Not a question, but consider the implications of this concept at each part of the CAP process (typing, ability, stats, and movepool). That's a LOT to unpack, right? Having a really juicy question for each stage might be something worthwhile to include here.
 
Last edited:
Final Submission

Name:
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.
 
Last edited:
Final Submission

Name:
You Only Live Once

Description: A primarily defensive Pokemon that does not have access to reliable recovery.

Justification: An Archetype concept. There are many, many Pokemon that don't get access to the "reliable recovery" moves that restore 50% HP, and some that don't get access to any recovery at all. Most of these are offensively-minded breakers and sweepers, but there are many that serve defensive roles, or can be EVed to do so. Examples include defensive Lando-T and Heatran sets, Tapu Fini, Ferrothorn and more. This project would see CAP 29 attempt to tightwalk a fascinating line between the best of the metagame and the useless that exists among these seemingly similar Pokemon.

Questions To Be Answered
  • One example of this project is the common role of "tank" that has high attacking stats to back up their defences. How important is CAP 29's offensive presence for this concept?
  • What gives an offensively designed Pokemon like Lando-T sufficient defensive utility to be used as a tank? Is it down to typing, Ability, stats or a combination, and how can we apply this to CAP 29?
  • There are many examples of Pokemon in this category like Coalossal, Carbink, Guzzlord, Goodra, Lanturn and Regigigas that fail to have any impact on OU play. What separates these failures from the above successes, and what can we learn from them?
  • What makes a player choose a defensive threat without recovery over one that does?
  • Pokemon that rely on Leftovers (and sometimes Leech Seed) for recovery often stall out turns with moves like Protect. What can we do to prevent CAP 29 being too exploitable it it does this?
  • Celesteela was another great example of this concept in Gen 7, but is now considered to be largely outclassed in the Gen 8 metagame. How can we differentiate CAP 29 from similar Pokemon with reliable recovery?
Explanation: Over the course of Gen 7, Tapu Fini went from being rated as "the worst Tapu" to an indispensable part of the metagame and vital defensive tool for staving off threats like Ash-Greninja. Ferrothorn is one the most iconic defensive Pokemon in the game and for 4 gens has been one of the most consistent hazard setters in the game. Lando-T, Tyranitar and Heatran are widely regarded as the faces of the OU tier and can fulfil a wide variety of roles with a single set. Snorlax is the original iconic tank that dominates Gen 1 and 2 play. What ties all these mons together?

People select them for their defensive capabilities even though they have no reliable recovery. This sounds somewhat contradictory. How can you rely on Tapu Fini to check the dangerous Ash-Greninja when it will likely get outlasted by it? Why is Heatran constantly called upon as a Magearna check when Magearna can just wear it down, or even hit it with a single Fighting move in the knowledge it will never get that HP back? Why do people use sets like defensive Lando-T over Rockers with recovery? And why do some of these Pokemon "make do" with moves like Rest and Pain Split, but not others? This is what this concept aims to investigate.

These Pokemon are very rarely in practice regarded as broken or unhealthy unless their offensive presence is massive, and some of them are held up as some of the best-balanced Pokemon in the game. This lack of recovery either helps provide a clear drawback to these titans, or reduces them to would-be kings lounging far down the tiers. There is often a stark line between successes and failures in this category despite many of the "failures" being not too obviously different from the "successes" at first glance. It is this aspect of these Pokemon that intrigues me the most, and prompted me to submit this concept. I think this project can become a fascinating CAP that gives us a real insight into why certain movepool omissions are made, as well as challenging us to find a creative niche for a CAP that on paper appears outclassed by more obvious defensive options.

(For the purpose of what is reliable recovery, I consider all the 50% healing moves (including Moonlight etc) and the Regenerator Ability to be reliable recovery, but this and other things like Rest, Leech Seed and Pain Split can be discussed in Concept Assessment if anyone wants to disagree.)
 
Last edited:
Final Submission

Name:
Unable

General Description: A Pokémon which utilizes an undervalued ability to its fullest potential.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept built around getting the most of a traditionally undervalued ability. Basically, it would be something like Mega-Slowbro from previous gens. Where it took the usually below average Shell Armor ability and used it to become a premier defensive threat, CAP would do the same for another similarly undervalued ability.

Questions to be answered:
  • What abilities have the potential to form a niche in the current CAP landscape?
  • What are the most important traits the Pokémon gains from the chosen ability?
  • How significant is the niche provided by the ability in the CAP metagame? Are there any striking boons in the ability that can be played into and give the Pokémon an interesting plan of attack?
  • Are the unique characteristics granted by the ability enough to set the Pokemon apart, or does it face strong competition for its role from Pokémon with more traditionally useful abilities?
  • What distinct playstyle or playstyles suit the chosen ability the best?
Explanation: So recently in our policy review for CAP 28, we've been going pretty deep into discussion about how often CAP discussion at the ability phase tends to center on a few dominating, generically-good abilities.

If you want an example on what a concept like this might look like we've actually done something similar with typing with the Crucibelle concept. You could also make an argument Kitsunoh somewhat fits the bill, making use of Frisk, though that was done a long time ago. I still feel that there's a ton of unexplored potential in this concept, and it's highly relevant to the current discussion around CAP.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name
– Consumable Item user

Description – A Pokemon that is able to use a wide variety of consumable items

Justification – Actualization: The concept is to explore the idea of getting the most out of what are normally one shot benefits.

Questions To Be Answered
  • What consumable items have viable use?
  • How can we encourage the use of consumable items over stable items?
  • What roles are benifited by the boosts given by consumable item?
  • What makes the more commonly used consumable items good, what makes others not see any use?

Explanation: Pokemon has a bunch of weird consumable items, I doubt all of them can actually be used but there’s a fair number I think have genuine potential, Eject pack, blunder policy, adrenalin ball, various berries like weakness berries and stat raising berries. Moves and abilities like recycle, harvest, ripen, check pouch, unburdened all have the ability to give additional benefits or uses to these using various types of consumable items while all being fairly underutilize (sans unburdened) in singles.
I’d love to see something like snowball or cell battery get used even just in niche, but I think even just the exploring what’s already good and used could be interesting in the meta, seeing if it’s possible to reusing consumable items viable, maximizing the potential of power herb, another throat spray mon.
 

Wulfanator72

Clefable's wish came true!
is a Pre-Contributor
Name: Moving Forward

Description: A Pokémon created by having the moveset step completed earlier in the process.

Justification: Instead of exploring a specific element of the metagame, this target concept attempts to better understand the process we have created. Given that CAPs are 3/4th of the way completed before moveset starts, we often have self-imposed restrictions that limit the stage for the sake of balance. The restrictions we normally see involve focusing primarily on STABs, limiting coverage to options that do not disrupt the C&C list, and blacklisting moves that change its intended role. This stage seemed to be a promising avenue of exploration since we have never experienced what “full flexibility” in the stage would produce.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • How early can moveset realistically be held in the project before we lack any sense of direction?
  • How will other stages need to adapt to this change since no other step has been impacted by the decisions made during moveset before?
  • Given the traditional blueprint we use when designing a CAP, what would less power in the typing, ability, and stats stages look like in order to replicate late-project flexibility in the future?
  • What moves have wide distribution and what type of roles can they create?
  • How can ability complement existing movesets as opposed the traditional order of movesets complementing ability? Does anything substantially change by swapping their order?
  • Given that stats would be the new "last stage", how will stats be used to finalize balance in the process? How will stat submissions try to optimize spreads under these more rigid limitations?
Explanation: There are three major events that lead me to suggest this concept. All three pertain to the same issue of selecting powerful options early in the standard project structure.
  1. In CAP24, We decided to give Jumbao a strong ability in Drought and followed up by providing it a 124 base special attack stat. As we proceeded into moveset discussion, there was a consensus for Jumbao to have access to fire coverage since Drought provided a pseudo-STAB that elevated the offensive potential of grass and fairy. This was quickly followed by the realization that options like flamethrower would make Jumbao an overwhelming presence in the metagame. These concerns forced leadership to limit fire coverage to flame burst as a midground solution, but many may argue that was still an overbearing addition.
  2. Exactly one project later, we saw similar problems in the moveset stage for Smokomodo. Between our ability, attack stat, and speed stat, we were once again barred from options like bonermerang and flame charge. The former allowed Smokomodo to practically 2HKO everything and the latter allowed it to outspeed prominent scarfers in the tier at +1. These two incidents prompted the creation of a new intermediate stage held prior to the stats step: defining moves. This was done to mitigate the limitations stats imposed on moveset which works for the most part.
  3. Fast forward three projects and we find an increasing desire in the community to create flexibility in later stages of the project. This was sparked primarily by the creation and aftermath of Equilibra and Astrolotl. Miasmaw attempted to introduce this design philosophy into the process, but it really struggled to gain traction. We still managed to have substantial flexibility in moveset for Miasmaw’s project, but I think it happened despite the efforts made by other users.
The real problem is we fail to understand the impact movesets need to have on other stages since the project forces us to think in the moment and limits us to the information established in previous steps. (Insert issues about poll jumping here.) By pushing moveset discussion to the beginning of the project, we can gain greater understanding of what restraint ought to be since the other steps will naturally be limited by the decisions made before them. Once we have a grasp on this idea, we can use it to replicate late-project flexibility in the future.

I think the primary concern of this concept is how we execute it. I think there are 3 realistic approaches we can take.
Since we would have absolutely no information to influence our decisions, it would be necessary to look at moves that have wide distribution. Think flamethrower/ice beam/thunder bolt, elemental punches, focus blast, earthquake, stealth rock, toxic, etc. This would give us a solid foundation as to what are acceptable moves to give CAP29 since these moves can appear on just about any type of Pokémon. The best analogy I can provide is that we would be making a generic early generation moveset. Clefable, Starmie, Nidoking, and Dragonite would all be good reference Pokémon to better understand what I am attempting to convey. I would also like to specifically highlight ORAS Starmie since it has both an offensive set AND utility set. This would mean we are not limited to filling a singular role. Essentially, we are painting with very broad strokes with this structure.
Quziel briefly mentioned this type of structure in the discord. In this process, we would start the project with typing but only select primary typing. Then when we transition into moveset discussion, we have some information to base our decisions on. There would be a vague idea of our C&C list, but it would be more fluid since secondary typing is not locked in. This ensures the mon gets at least a few options it can reliably use, and we might be able to pinpoint some options we want to avoid. Afterwards, we would then revisit typing to provide the community the option to round out CAP29 with a secondary typing.
This is probably the most straight forward approach since typing is completed as normal. We would have the most information needed to proceed and have a greater sense of direction. We would also have a more concrete idea of the mons that would appear on the C&C list. I don't think there is much to explain here.
 
Last edited:

Slapperfish

Banned deucer.
Final Submission

Name
- Oh CAPtain, my CAPtain!

Description - A Pokémon created to be the perfect partner for an existing Create-A-Pokémon.

Justification - This concept falls under Target, as it is meant to synergize well with another CAP. While Voodoom was created with the intent of partnering with Togekiss, and Volkraken was made to be part of a core with two other Pokémon, no CAP created thus far has been created with the sole intent of complimenting another CAP.

Questions To Be Answered -
  • What difference exists, if any, between partnering with a CAP and a non-CAP Pokémon?
    • Assuming there is a difference, can this concept be achieved without it becoming the partner of a non-CAP Pokémon?
  • Would this concept best be used to boost the usage of a lesser-used CAP, or to cover the less-glaring drawbacks of a higher-tier CAP?
  • Depending on the chosen CAP, would this concept's role be better suited to that of offense, defense or support?
  • How are cores consisting of two different Pokémon created in OU and CAP?
  • What are the most rigid cores that disallow the switching of vital components?
  • How have cores fallen apart across generations, and which ones have maintained their effectiveness?
  • Would reliance on another CAP affect its ability to function independently if its partner is KO'd, or if used in a 1v1 format?
  • How does the added dependence on a CAP affect either one receiving future tweaks in the form of buffs and nerfs?
Explanation - CAP 29 is finally upon us! I initially had a couple concept ideas in the works, but some of them were pretty gimmicky at best, and this concept seemed to be the strongest of them so far. I've always wondered how the typical CAP-making process would be directly influenced by the existence of another CAP, rather than indirectly. While many CAP designs over the years have taken previously existing CAPs into account for teambuilding options, as well as counters and checks, it's never been explicitly for the benefit of a single CAP over others. Even voting on the flavor aspects of this concept would likely be affected in some way, depending on which CAP is chosen as its partner.
 
Last edited:
WIP
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.

Questions:
  • 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.
 
Last edited:
Final Submission

Name
: Active Wall

Description: A wall that avoids being passive despite having relatively low offensive stats.

Justification: This is an Actualization/Archetype concept. Being able to serve as a useful wall requires this pokemon to fulfill an archetype, while it also needs to actualize the idea of avoiding passivity.

Many walls tend to be passive-- meaning that they easily exploited by other pokemon and have trouble removing or reducing opposing threats. There are some existing pokemon to take inspiration from, such as Mandibuzz, which can remove items, use Foul Play to deal reasonable damage, or pivot with U-turn. However, there are other potential ways for a pokemon with traditional wall stats-- high defenses, low offenses, can work to actively reduce the threat of pokemon on the other team.

Questions to be answered:

What qualifies as low offensive stats?
What amount of offensive power is required to function in the context of the CAP metagame?

How can a pokemon with limited offenses make progress against the opposing team?

What is the best way to identify pokemon to be walled?
Is it better to focus on specific prominent threats in the metagame, or to serve as more of a blanket check?

What should a wall contribute to the teams that use it?

How should a wall make progress in a match? What moves are useful for a wall to make progress?

Explanation:

Making progress in a match is an difficult to measure. The easiest way to measure this is simply looking at what pokemon are KO'd, but there can be other forms of progress within a match. If you knock off Cinderace's HDB, it will eventually be worn down by stealth rocks. If you burn melmetal, it poses considerably less offensive threat. These also remove, or reduce the threat that the other team poses. A wall that is only capable of sitting in front of something and clicking recovery moves invites free switchins, and runs the risk of falling victim to hax.

Considering how to make a wall would make for a differen process, because it asks different questions than seeking to make an offensive pokemon. In particular, there needs far more consideration of what the wall should check/counter, in order for the wall to carve a space in a metagame. CAP has produced relatively few walls over its history, so it could be novel to explore how defensive pokemon can serve a role in a metagame. In the past, some of CAP's more notable walls, such as Tomohawk and Cyclohm have very respectable offensive stats, which is one way to avoid being passive. However, lower attack pokemon can also manage to serve a useful defensive role in a metagame, as exemplified by toxapex. I feel that it would be interesting to explore other ways that walls can avoid passivity in a match than the strength of their attacks themselves.

I would like to note a few examples of how walls can avoid being passive, because I think there are quite a few ways to accomplish this. Knock off removing items makes other pokemon less threatening, or more vulnerable to being worn down. Burn cripples most physical attackers, and puts them on a (very slow) clock until they run out of HP. Pivoting moves make walls able to safely bring other pokemon in, as exemplified by Blissey. Setting or removing hazards controls which team gets worn down when it switches. Foul Play and Body Press both avoid using your own attack stats, and while I'm not sure they're in the spirit of this concept, they do allow pokemon with lower attack stats do deal damage.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name: Route 2 Blues

Description: A Pokemon that succeeds at its niche despite its limitations – stats, typing, or otherwise – as an Early Route Pokemon.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept. It seeks to create a CAP that feels like it could be found in an early route of a mainline series game, while still having a place among the rest of the CAP metagame. A point of discussion around some of the more recent CAP designs has been the way those processes had a "pseudo-legendary" or "late-game" feel to them. This concept would aim to do the reverse – create a Pokemon that feels "Route 2 or 3" while still having a viable niche in the metagame.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What are the shared characteristics of Early Route Pokemon in the mainline series?
  • What limits Early Route Pokemon from having a greater presence in competitive metagames?
  • In current and past metagames (CAP or not), which niches have Early Route Pokemon been able to find for themselves?
    • How have they succeeded despite (or because of) these limitations?
  • How much wiggle-room is there to carve a niche while maintaining an Early Route feel?
Explanation: I've been watching the CAP process for a couple of years now, and I'm excited to finally participate in CAP 29! There has been some interesting discussions recently about the CAP design process, and how it tends to design along certain lines – either having an unusual typing (Electric/Grass, Rock/Poison, etc.), certain types (Steel, Fairy, and Dragon), abilities (Regenerator), or high-end BSTs.

While I think that a "design within limitations" concept would be really compelling, I wanted to craft something of my own to bring to the table. So, I thought it would be nice to have a broad Actualization concept – kind of in line with what was done with the CAP 25 Framework of a "starter trio".

This concept might also introduce some unusual lines of discussion. "Route 2 Blues" is facing limitations from multiple ends – it'll be important to establish which "Early Route" limitations are rules and which ones are just suggestions.
 

Birkal

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
Tomorrow afternoon, I will be going through and giving feedback to anyone who's edited their concept thus far. Until then, why not read some other concepts and sound off about them in Concept Chat?

Darek851 - Rolling the Snowball - Your examples are really thorough in this, and the focus doesn't feel too broad. We had a lot of great conversations about this for Smokomodo's moveset stages, so make sure to read about the debates we had about Flame Charge. A lot of users found it to be pretty broken on it in testing, and that doesn't mean our CAP would be at all. Rather, I think doing some digging there will allow you to ask some more thought-provoking questions. I particularly like your second and fifth questions. The one I'd workshop is your question about balance; it's obviously imperative that we balance CAP29, like all of our CAPs, so if you want to discuss methodology to do that, you might want to either provide some examples, or change the structure of the question itself.

theotherguytm - You Only Live Once - Your Justification takes us halfway there. You provide some good examples of how this concept manifests itself in OU, but what can we learn about them with a CAP process? That's probably my biggest concern with this concept: it's treading on a well-worn path. Competitive OU on Smogon has been studying and wrestling with Landorus-T basically since its introduction, and we know that it's a combination of its immunities, Intimidate, and diverse kit that make it a staple. You've got some good questions here, particularly your first one, but I can't help but want to go further with them. I guess what I'm most interested in is what CAP can specifically bring to this concept, that you couldn't already get from studying OU and its teambuilding and meta.

NumberCruncher - Unable - You lack focus in terms of what "undervalued" and "lame" mean here, and use them in a seemingly interchangeable way. Maybe provide some examples of abilities? Or better yet, viable Pokemon that use these in their respective metagames. Some of your questions don't ask anything of substance either, like "Is there any distinct playstyle that suits the chosen ability the best?" is either going to have a yes or no answer, and we're not gaining anything useful from that answer. The third question also doesn't guide us in the process, or give us anything that we won't just learn about this CAP after we make it. I think underutilized abilities is a good restriction, but I think you should approach it with more purpose and intention.

Zicofool - Consumable Item User - Jewvia and I discussed this quite a bit for their concept (Eject Pack), so I think you can find some similar feedback within their concept as well. Ultimately, these items aren't being used very often (if at all) in competitive Pokemon. If you yourself doubt the validity of this concept, then I'd recommend going in a different direction. Submitting something like can feel like it's set up for failure, so can you provide anything to assuage our fears?

Wulfanator72 - Moving Forward - You're not done writing this up, so I'm not going to comment fully. Like Pipotchi's this aims to mess with the CAP process to make an end result, so you need to be very explicit about WHY we're making that change. It's not just for giggles, but we could actually learn something here about distribution of moves, hierarchy of the importance of moves, and what constitutes a desirable moveset. Like Pipotchi, I'd encourage you to really consider how this concept will affect each and every stage of CAP29.

Slapperfish - Oh CAPtain, my CAPtain! - Oof, these sorts of concept can be brutally hard, especially since the partner tends to pair with something that you don't intend it to. I'm pretty sympathetic towards the idea of a partner concept in general, but I think you're disillusioning yourself if you think this could raise the viability of an underused CAP. It's ok to have a concept that isn't entirely original, but I want to know how you think doing a partner concept like this is different from Voodoom's; just because we'd be making for a CAP instead of a Pokemon doesn't mean it's inherently different. And what viability ranking of CAP are we talking about here? Your explanation should also describe the nuances of the concept itself, not necessarily what you're looking forward to this CAP.

2spoopy4u - Bulletproof Glass - My goal right now, as the topic leader, is to make everyone's concept the best it can possibly be. I haven't been interested in playing favorites (just yet), and I'm not about to start here with you, spoo. Rather, I wanted to note that this is the sort of concept that I personally don't enjoy, but you've done an excellent job crafting and revitalizing this concept. Your questions are REALLY intriguing (especially the one that relates this to speed). This is a great concept for people to read if they want to start taking their questions to the next level.
Congrats, this is your third gold star! Shh, don't tell anyone!
In terms of my own feedback, your Justification doesn't feel boiled down enough, with some of it feeling overly wordy. Just say what you want to say and let the reader's mind do the imagining and heavy lifting. If that stuff is essential, throw some of it in Explanation at the bottom. Your last question also tasks us with doing most of the work "what are the pitfalls and how do we avoid them," where I think you might do well to identify a few of those pitfalls, or even offer up some suggestions on how to avoid them.

Plancklength - Active Wall - You've got some interesting thoughts going on here that differentiate this concept from many concepts that are very similar to it this time around in CAP29. Lean into those. I always like to order questions in most basic to answer to most in-depth, and I think a similar format would suit us well here, since some of your questions are much easier to knock out of the park than others. You're also at a pretty good place with this concept right now, so at this point, you might want to comb through each sentence, and remove any cruft that isn't absolutely essential for conveying what this concept is about.

Rogitation - Route 2 Blues - This concept is borderline unacceptable because it's dealing with a flavor aspect: "early route" Pokemon, as you call them. Sure, comparisons could be made to Staraptor, Talonflame, and Corviknight, but each of those mons are doing pretty significantly different things within their respective metagames. No one is teambuilding with "early route" Pokemon in mind. This might be similar to you asking us to make a "Legendary" Pokemon, but even those have some competitive commonality with a typical 600 BST. If you think we should make a weak CAP, then that's cool, but your concept should be about what that means competitively to the project, not just with in-game flavor.
 
modpost: This PRC motion has passed, and the rules in the OP have been updated accordingly. Please be sure to review the rule change. Happy concept posting!
Quick revision, does my concept and Dollstreak are way too similar things to each other to not comply with this rule or are they fine? Just asking cause both concepts talk about stat management, even though they talk about it in complete opposite ways
 

snake_rattler

is a Community Leaderis a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
Quick revision, does my concept and Dollstreak are way too similar things to each other to not comply with this rule or are they fine? Just asking cause both concepts talk about stat management, even though they talk about it in complete opposite ways
This amendment to the rules doesn't change how two concepts can't be too similar to another. All the rule change does is make it so you can change your concept's fundamental premise after initially posting it, but your new concept's fundamental premise cannot be too similar to someone else's currently posted concept. Thus, what you're asking about isn't dependent on the rule change.

That said, from what I've heard, your concepts are sufficiently different, so your concepts as they are currently are fine.
 
WIP

Name: Thank You, Mr. Fish

Description: A Pokemon that focuses on sweeping or cleaning with little to no self-setup or self-utility whatsoever.

Justification: Archetype: This concept seeks to explore the cleaner or sweeper archetype that can succeed outside of Trick Room with no setup moves or utility options, similar to Dracovish and Arctozolt.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What makes cleaners or sweepers good or worth using? Strong coverage like Krilowatt or Aurumoth? Powerful moves like Head Smash Aggron? High offensive stats like Kyurem-B? Pivoting and an ability to switch in with like Tapu Koko or Landorus-T? Good setup like Calm Mind Magearna?
  • How is a Pokemon without good utility moves or setup supposed to wallbreak or sweep?
  • How necessary are moves like Toxic, Swords Dance, Dragon Dance, or U-Turn for a good offensive threat?
  • How necessary is Trick Room for an offensive threat with a lack of options?
  • Can players fit extra utility or strength into an offensive threat's options or abilities, or even into its teammates?
  • Dracovish and Arctozolt are already prime examples of great sweeper/cleaner/offensive threats that require little setup and succeed outside of Trick Room, one example clearly being too powerful for the metagame, and the other being almost completely overlooked by the metagame. Is it possible to create a Pokemon like this without making it broken like Dracovish or underwhelming like Arctozolt?
Explanation: Recently, Rabia showed Arctozolt's potential in the CAP Snake Draft tournament, giving me an idea to explore the fascinating and fun niche that Dracovish and Arctozolt fill.
Creating a balanced yet viable offensive threat is no small feat in the defensive, slow, Dexit world we live in. Dracovish and its younger sibling, Arctozolt, demonstrate that creating an offensive threat that relies on little more than team support and a single good move is possible, but they both overachieved and underachieved, respectively, Dracovish being banned from OU and Arctozolt sitting at a measly C-rank on the CAP viability ranking.
I'd love to explore the raw strength of the Galar fossils, and see what it can tell us about the role of an offensive threat, and what it takes to be successful even with a lack of conventional offensive tools.
 
Last edited:
  • Name - We Have The Technology.
  • Description - A Pokemon which intends to fulfill a role similar to a Pokemon that has fallen out of favor in competitive play, but tooled to be viable.
  • Justification- This is an Actualization concept that is intended to explore why or why not Pokemon are viable in the metagame, and why particular niches are not considered viable. Viability is often subject to metagame trends and this concept will explore what exactly makes something viable and what factors need to be considered to be worth using.
  • Questions To Be Answered -
    • What is the definition of viability in the metagame?
    • What traits are desirable in a Pokemon to be considered viable?
    • What Pokemon have fallen out of favor in competitive play that possess a now unutilized niche?
    • What specific metagame trends result in a Pokemon falling out of favor, and how can a competitive Pokemon adapt to those trends?
  • Explanation - As metagames change and evolve with the additions of new Pokemon and the discoveries of new strategies, some Pokemon inevitably lose value as their unique traits are no longer sufficiently desirable to be worth using in the metagame. The intent of this concept is to identify a Pokemon with a unique niche that has fallen out of favor in competitive play, identify their desirable traits, identify the specific metagame trends that result in their respective drops in usage and viability, and aim to create a Pokemon that fulfills a similar role while being viable. This is a departure from past CAP projects and I believe the process and concept will be interesting to fulfill. I am open to feedback and I am also on the CAP Discord as well! and yeah the name is inspired from Birkal's quote below their pfp referencing the movie "The Six Million Dollar Man" where they rebuild him stronger and better than before
 
WIP

Name:
Octo-Locked and Loaded

General Description: A Pokemon that is built around and specializes in using the move Octolock.

Justification: This is both an Actualization and an Archetype concept that seeks to answer how best to optimize Octolock as a move, as well as exploring the usage of non-damaging trapping moves in the meta.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What is the ideal way to use Octolock? Is it offensive (set-up sweeper), defensive (Toxic/passive damage staller) or something else entirely?
  • The main trapping moves that are viable in the SS CAP metagame (Heatran's Magma Storm and Pajantom's Spirit Shackle) are also damaging moves. Why are non-damaging trapping moves used less than damaging trapping moves? Is it possible to make a viable user of a non-damaging trapping move?
  • What strategies will develop in order to counter a viable Octolock user?
  • There is currently only one Pokemon capable of using Octolock, and it isn't viable in OU at all. What does an OU-viable user of Octolock look like?
Explanation: Generation 8 introduced a plethora of new moves, but one that really stuck out to most fans was Octolock. This move traps the opponent and reduces their Defense and Special Defense every turn. Unfortunately, Octolock was only given to one mon- Grapploct, which is completely and totally unviable in the higher tiers. Even in the lower tiers, it chooses not to run Octolock and prefers to either set up with Bulk Up or straight up attack.

This situation reminds me a lot of the situation with Parting Shot in Generation 6- an interesting move that is exclusive to a Fighting-type (Pangoro) that is unable to be used effectively by said mon. This situation led to the creation of CAP 22: Kerfluffle, who was based around the usage of Parting Shot. I think it would be interesting to see a new spin on Kerfluffle's process more than four years after its creation, with the new mechanics introduced in Generation 8.

Another CAP I was inspired by was CAP 23: Pajantom, which also focused on trapping moves. Pajantom, however, uses Spirit Shackle, a damaging move, as its main form of trapping, so it just focuses on hitting as hard as possible. I think that focusing on a non-damaging trapping move will be interesting because it will allow us to focus on the strategies that CAP 29 will use in order to get the most out of its trapping of the opponent. Octolock seems like the best non-damaging trapping move to focus on because it reduces the opponent's Defenses every turn, which could lead to some interesting strategies that you can't use with a move like, say, Mean Look.
 
Last edited:
Name: Explosive Team Support

General Description: A Pokémon that provides free switches and other assistance to its team through the use of Explosion.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept, as it explores the potential that Explosion provides and the niche that could be filled by a user of it in the metagame. Self-fainting moves, most notably Explosion, see little use in the current metagame, due to their reduced power compared to earlier generations and the presence of Teleport, which fills their old role of providing free switches while being reusable. CAP29 would thus attempt to use Explosion to assist its team, reintroducing this old niche and exploring the benefits and drawbacks of the move's use over other pivoting options.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • Is Explosion worth using over Teleport to give free switches a notable amount of the time? If so, when?
  • In the current metagame, when are the powerful damage and switch-in opportunities given by Explosion strong enough to justify the cost of losing a Pokémon?
  • What traits (stats, counters, etc.) does a Pokémon need to make the use of Explosion viable on it? Of these, which are most important to the use of Explosion as a support tool?
  • Which OU Pokémon would benefit most from the setup opportunities provided by the use of Explosion?
  • How is Explosion's use affected by the opponent's knowledge that a self-destructing Pokémon is in play, and ability to predict and subvert the move's use? How can this knowledge be used to the advantage of CAP29's user?
  • How much does movepool size and coverage affect the viability of Explosion on a Pokémon? Is it more viable on a Pokémon with a small movepool to assist in breaking through counters, or does a larger movepool with the potential to keep the opponent guessing work best?
Explanation: Explosion has, in the past, provided a unique way for Pokémon to potentially subvert their checks and counters, or remove those of a teammate, but is not seen much anymore due to both the base power nerf and the presence of Team Preview. This concept would be healthy for the metagame by introducing an alternative to Teleport for safe pivoting, that can better maintain momentum and potentially soften up a teammate's counters, in exchange for being single-use. The obvious type here would be Normal to power up Explosion, many other types could work depending on what resistances are most important. If Normal is not chosen, then any of the -ate abilities would be interesting.
 
Last edited:

Birkal

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
First, I'd like to provide some feedback to everyone who has edited their concept up until this point. This feedback is a little less thorough, because I still stand by most of what I said in my full feedback on each of your concepts. If I don't say much, don't feel snubbed. That just means I feel your concept is in a generally good place! If my feedback seems harsh, know that I'm just trying to help your concept be the best it can be; to be something that will have a smooth, enjoyable, and insightful process. Y'all can take or leave my concept as you feel fit. It is your concept, after all.

quziel - Question four could be stronger, or potentially broken up into three sub-questions to more adequately address the other three steps. Your final question is great, but you should dig into this more. Your final sentence at the bottom of the concept might be better included in Justification. It also might be worth explaining if you feel that NCA is defective or not.​
Mx - A few spelling/grammar errors. Might be worth asking questions about if examples of what this concept is doing exist in other metagames, past or present.​
dex18 - Maybe ditch the hide tags and put the examples underneath in italics? It might be interesting to further explore the difference between 'typings' and the disconnect that can and can't have competitively. 'Bulky waters' is a term that covers a typing, but 'wall' doesn't indicate typing, for example.​
Tommaniacal - Does this concept also explore impeding opponent's residual damage and healing? Like does this concept also mean we could have Magic Guard? Or that we'd be using moves like Heal Block or an ability-blocking move? Including this or not is fine, but I'd be specific about what your concept entails, and what it doesn't.​
Binacleisthebest - The icons are cute :) I still think this concept needs to mention Team Preview in some form, because self-KOing is much more difficult now that the opponent can see it coming at the start of the match. How can you address this with the questions you ask?​
Pipotchi - These questions are much cleaner. Your final question could use some more elaboration. Overall, some of the sentences in this still read a little vague. There's always a downside to everything when it comes to creating a Pokemon, so specifying how this concept itself is differentiated form the normal balancing act of making a CAP could help sell this further.​
Salty Tempura - I don't understand what Rooms have to do with this, and your questions need some further depth. The one about HDB, for example, could question ALL items that would be considered for a Pokemon like this, and how important mons that remove hazards in general find their items.​
Mova - Some of these questions still need some work. Your fourth one, for example, implies we shouldn't make it a partner concept. That's fine, but WHY shouldn't we? It might also be worth asking how these terrains currently manifest themselves in the metagame, in terms of how people teambuild for them and prep against them.​
Orig Stall Guy - Please clean up the name. Your concept is ordered incorrectly. Question one is good, but could use some further diving into. Ask the NEXT question that lies just beyond that one. Complete your concept.​
MrDollSteak - Having low stats in general means decreased viability, yet none of your questions seek to discuss viability for a mon with average stats. Consider how this concept would be discussed at every stage of the CAP, and some better questions might arrive from there.​
-Voltage- - Like MDS, it might be worth asking questions that pertain to each stage of this CAP, particularly Typing, which I could see being awfully confusing without some initial forethought.​
Gekokeso - Second question needs to be expanded/justified. You might want to address why some min-maxed Pokemon actively utilize their maxed stats, while others ignore them. Finally, what about this is "goofy?"​
Estronic - It might be interesting to ask a question about item usage here. Maybe one about teambuilding with a mon that has a limited movepool too (e.g. do you build around the mon? Or is it splashable?)​
DrifblooomCF - Much better questions. I think you could put some examples of specific moves/abilities in the Explanation, just to help this feel a bit more practical.​
Jewvia - Second question is kind of weak; mons just like HDB because they give it a lot more longevity in general. Your fifth question needs clarification. I would get rid of the first two sentences of your Explanation, since they don't have to do with the concept, and brevity is always a good thing.​
Zephyr2007 - The questions don't really address the CAP process, so it might be worth diving into what this could conceivably look like at each competitive stage. Some of these questions kind of overlap, so I'd keep only the very best ones.​
Rabia - These questions are good, well done. The first one needs some cleaning though, because I think it relates directly towards balance (on the overpowered end) and viability (on the underpowered end), so discussing those differences might help guide us in Concept Assessment towards what a secondary typing should look like. This question should probably go after your current third question, since it would be a continuation of questioning about the primary ability.​
20Yelram02 - Your third question is weak: every CAP we make is an attempt at viability. How is the restriction of making SpA equal to SpD an interesting consideration for each step? You mention typing, but what about ability and movesets?​
JAGFL - I still think your considerations for the evolution are too weak. We CANNOT, under this process, make two individual Pokemon. Please edit the language to accommodate this, or otherwise consider saving this for a Celebration CAP where we could build two Pokemon. It is also worthwhile to ask a question about how this mon performs with Eviolite, and without, and what sort of balance there would be between the two.​
chuckeroo777 - I don't really care about Genesect or Douse Drive, and I don't think they have much merit to discuss within this concept. Like JAGFL, your question about Knock Off should be expanded. How powerful is this mon before losing its item, and afterwards? Scouting is going to play a huge role in this mon, and that should be addressed somewhere, at least in the questions. Please clean this up ASAP.​
Darek851 - No further comment. Doesn't mean your off the hook though, continue to think about this and see if any more inspiring questions come to mind.​
Wulfanator72 - Concept is unfinished. Get this done ASAP. I wouldn't be surprised if you're struggling to finish this though, because how the concept is currently set up, it feels like you're trying moreso to play with the CAP Process than build anything meaningful for the metagame for us to learn about. Try to find that justification: WHY would building a moveset first make for a better creation process? Lean into the advantages of this, and I think the words will start to flow.​
Slapperfish - Third question could be expanded on a lot. Explanation needs fleshing out.​
2spoopy4u - I think it's worth asking some questions about typing and abilities at this point, y'know? Those will obviously play a huge role in this, since we're going to be so restricted. You might want to break up your Explanation into multiple paragraphs.​


And now, some more in-depth feedback for our four newcomers today!

Granny Pie - Thank You, Mr. Fish - Sweeping seems to imply something lategame, yet you don't address that in your concept. You also seem to be fixated specifically on Dracovish and Arctozolt, when sweepers are a HISTORIC part of Smogon's battling history. Let's dig into that a bit more, eh? Some of your questions are weird, in that they don't seem to specifically address anything. Are we supposed to be considering Toxic on a Pokemon that's meant to sweep with no self-utility? I think it'd be worth talking about stats in here somewhere too, and how that has historically looked for mons like this that are looking to close out the game.

BitBitio - We Have The Technology - Love the name! The biggest hurdle here is that stuff falls out of vogue explicitly because it's no longer effective as a strategy. Is the Pokemon supposed to be the thing that's fallen out of favor, or the strategy itself? Do you have some examples of this to share? It's hard to latch onto the vision of what you're attempting to say without any specific examples in past metagames describing what you're saying. Is it specifically for this generation, or past ones?

StarFalcon555 - Octo-Locked and Loaded - This concept actually reminds me moreso of CAP23 right after Kerfluffle, which was Pajantom, and it focused on trapping moves. I would read through the concept assessment thread for that CAP, and let some of its questions guide you. It might be worth talking about how Octolock varies from other forms of trapping, and how that should be considered when we're talking about balance.

EthanLac - Explosive Team Support - BOOM! Team preview was probably the single-most detrimental thing that happened to Explosion, so it would be worth exploring the implications of knowing a self-KOing mon is in the wings before a battle even starts. Talking about scouting moves (Protect, Substitute, Ghost-types) might also be worth addressing in your questions, like how we can use the knowledge of our opponents trying to scout us to our advantage. Flesh out your explanation with how Explosion has been healthy in previous metagames, and how it's a move that teambuilders might consider adding to CAP29 when making a competitively viable team.


Finally, I'd like to encourage everyone to start preparing your concepts for Final Submission. Starting tomorrow, I will begin talking about your concepts in terms of my own subjective preferences and ideals. Up until now, it has been my goal to remain as objective as possible, and to help everyone with their concept so that it can be as optimized as possible. But I need to start sharing (and developing) opinions on which of these concepts will eventually make a slate through intelligent community consensus found in Concept Chat, this thread, Discord, and my own understanding of what makes for a good concept to fuel an entire CAP process.
** TL;DR - Start thinking about getting your concept finalized, read through some other concepts, participate in Concept Chat and Discord discussions, and provide feedback to others. We don't have much longer before this thread will get its 48 hour warning. **

If you're reading this thread and haven't submitted a concept, it's not too late! Get something typed up and we'll get you on board. Otherwise, it's ok to not submit something, and instead latch onto a few favorite concepts and share about why you think they will suit CAP29.
 
Name: Leading the Charge

Description: A Pokemon designed to generate strong momentum at the start of a battle but has little use after the first few turns

Justification: This concept falls into the Archetype category. The intent is to create a Pokemon that maximizes your chances of victory as early as possible, and that means designing around the idea of a "lead" option. In older generations when your team was anonymous and your starting Pokemon was locked in, the concept of a lead was essential. Team Preview allowed us to rearrange our early game priorities by trying to get an edge based on what we expect the opponent to start with. We're in a flexible meta where you can choose what is best by analyzing the opponents team. This concept is about creating a Pokemon that only has significant team value as a reliable and powerful early choice. This concept has it's difficulties that will allow for interesting dialogue and key decision points, particularly around counters and threats, and if the concept of a "lead" can even exist in the current meta.

Questions to be Answered:
  • Is it possible to create an ideal lead when the opponent has visibility into the strategy up front?
  • If a counter prevents CAP 29 from fulfilling its function from the start of the battle, is it a wasted team slot?
  • What moves have the most value early on in the game?
  • What options make a Pokemon to lose their ability to contribute later on in a battle?
  • Is a dedicated lead only possible if it can run multiple sets to prevent it from being hard countered?
Explanation: I played competitively more in Gen 4 and Gen 5, and I have strong memories of building teams around the idea of Lead Azelf. At that time, when a lead was anonymous and locked in, how you started the battle was massively important. Not only did it initiate your first set of moves, but it told your opponent a hint about what you were hiding behind the curtain. I thought a concept that reintroduces the idea of core leads to teams and is designed around gaining as much early momentum as possible would be an interesting experiment in our current climate where team anonymity isn't a factor.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top