CAP 29 - Part 1 - Concept Submissions

[Mx]

The Concept will be a guiding force throughout the ensuing project, to ensure the the final result is a cohesive competitive Pokemon. Any discussions, suggestions, or submissions in later topics, that do not support the spirit of the Concept, will be moderated by the Topic Leader, Birkal. Concepts must be presented as high-level descriptions of a general idea. They cannot be detailed Pokemon designs. Since we have polls to determine each aspect of the Pokemon, we cannot allow any specific features of the Pokemon to be determined by the details of the Concept. We intentionally have many rules regarding Concept Submissions. If you are not prepared to read and understand all the rules, then don't bother making a submission. These rules are made to help narrow the field of concepts down to those that have been carefully designed. This is not meant to be easy for everyone -- a good, legal Concept requires a lot of thought and careful wording. The following rules must be followed when submitting a Concept:

• Concepts must work with the mechanics laid out in Pokemon Sword/Shield. A concept that requires a custom ability, move, or other element that cannot be found on a Pokemon from Sword or Shield is not allowed. A concept must be feasible with the gameplay mechanics that are currently available. A concept MAY reference Pokemon unique to the CAP metagame, but the concept must be able to be fulfilled by a creation with access to only GameFreak created abilities, moves, etc. In short, "no customs." We are using GameFreak's toolbox.
• One submission per person. You may change your concept any time before submissions close. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
• Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. If you choose to change your concept's fundamental premise, you forfeit your current claim to this concept, and it is still your responsibility that you are not duplicating someone else's concept. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.
• Specific Pokemon types or type combos cannot be included or excluded in a Concept. Nor can other characteristics of the Concept specifically result in in the inclusion or exclusion of Types. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
  "This is a Dragon pokemon with..." "The pokemon should be immune to Ghost attacks..." "The pokemon should have at least 7 resistances..." "The pokemon should get STAB on Thunderbolt.."
• Specific Abilities are not allowed. This applies to existing abilities and new abilities. Do not attempt to circumvent this rule by mentioning specific battle effects that can only be achieved by the implementation of an ability. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
  "This pokemon should have a defensive ability like Intimidate or Marvel Scale..." "This pokemon has an ability that steals the opponent's held item..." "When this pokemon is switched in, all weather conditions are nullified..."
• Movepools or lists of moves are not allowed. A specific move can be mentioned if it is the basis for the entire concept. For example, the Concept "Rapid Spinner" would obviously mention the move Rapid Spin.
• Specific stat bias, base stats, or base stat ratings are not allowed. It is acceptable to use descriptive phrases like "fast", "bulky", "strong attacker", etc -- since there are a variety of ways a pokemon can fit those descriptions without specifically requiring certain stats. But, do not use overly-specific descriptions that would narrowly constrain the pokemon's base stat spread.
• Indications of Physical/Special bias are discouraged, but acceptable if it is essential to the Concept.
• Do not refer to any part of the pokemon's artistic design. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
  "This is a bright blue pokemon..." "The pokemon looks like a..." "The pokemon uses its long tail to..."
• A Concept Submission must be submitted in the proper format. The format is described below. If the proper format is not used, the moderators will not evaluate the submission, regardless of content.

Concept Submission Format Use this format for all concept submissions: Here is the format with tags. Just copy/paste this into your post, and fill it out:

• Name - Don't get too clever with the name. If the essence of the concept is not intuitively obvious in the name, then you are hurting your chances of people understanding it. If the essence of your concept cannot be expressed in a few words, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your concept.
• Description - This is the official description of the concept, and must follow ALL the content rules listed above. Do not make this a long description. Long descriptions are invariably too specific or too convoluted. Keep it short. Any more than a sentence or two is TOO MUCH. Do NOT include your Explanation of the concept in the Description. See "Explanation" below.
• Justification- Utilizing the CAP Concept Toolkit, craft a concept that can fit into at least one of the following categories: Actualization, Archetype, or Target. Please explicitly state the category names as applicable to your specific justification and explain.
  • Actualization: What is the feeling your Concept Pokemon INSPIRES when used properly in the metagame, do existing Pokemon come close to that, and why or why not?
  • Archetype: What does your Concept Pokemon DO - functionally - in the metagame, and why does the metagame need something with that role? Use Smogon's Pokemon Dictionary to assist with role definitions.
  • Target: What does your Concept Pokemon ADDRESS in the metagame, and why is addressing that target important?
• If you cannot justify your concept utilizing one (or more) of the three tools above, then your concept is illegal for the CAP project. (More at the end of the OP)
• Questions To Be Answered - The purpose of the CAP project is to learn new things about the metagame, and each concept submission is a proposed "experiment". Each tool has its own specific set of questions, but good concepts often can explain other facets of competitive Pokemon. Use this section to pose those additional questions. Note that this is different from Justification where you are answering tool-related questions, in this section you are proposing questions.
• Explanation - This can contain just about anything. This is where you can explain your concept without restraint. You may make suggestions, even specific suggestions, regarding the possible implementation of the Concept. This explanation should help facilitate discussion of the Concept -- but the Explanation is NOT part of the Concept and will be omitted from the polls and any future use of the Concept. Since your explanation is non-binding, regarding future polls and threads, it will not be evaluated for purposes of determining if your concept is legal or illegal. Although it is tempting, refrain from making too long of an explanation; it will deter readers from fully considering your concept.

It is the submitter's responsibility to figure out how to make a legal submission within the rules listed above. Do not complain about the difficulty of making a submission in this thread. There are many, many legal concepts that can be presented within the rules. Here are few examples of good and bad Concepts from previous projects:

Good Concepts from Past Projects
"Pure Utility Pokemon"
"Anti-Ghost Rapid Spinner"
"True Garchomp Counter"
"Ultimate Weather Abuser"
"Status Counter"
"Momentum"

Bad Concepts from Past Projects
"Ice-Resisting Dragon"
"Super Luck User"
"STAB Explosion Glass Cannon"
"Auto-Stealth Rock Remover"
"A Pokemon with Special Intimidate"
"Pyrokinetic Pokemon (Fire/Psychic)"
"Special Guts"
"Typing Means Nothing"

Note that all good concepts do not specifically dictate anything in later polls. Please try to remember that we are simply pointing the project in a general direction, we are not trying to decide anything right now. We have several weeks of polls ahead of us where EVERYTHING about this Pokemon will be dissected, discussed, voted, and decided. The concept is a very basic guide for the creation process. It is hard to provide solid concept descriptions without basically designing the entire Pokemon right off the bat. Submissions should be written and chosen very carefully to avoid these problems.

Past Projects and Concept Toolbox:
Stratagem (Break The Mold), Tomohawk (Momentum) and Kitsunoh (Ultimate Scout) were great examples of an Actualization concept. Most of the "teammate" concepts (Voodoom and Volkraken) also broadly fell under this, actualizing a core that would change the metagame. The lion's share of CAP Concepts in the past have been Actualization concepts.

Fidgit (Pure Utility Pokemon) and Naviathan (Use the Boost to Get Through!) are examples of successful Archetype projects. We didn't have concepts at the time of Revenankh, but "Ultimate Bulk Up Sweeper" fits the definition of an Archetype concept.

Arghonaut (Decentralizer) and Colossoil (Stop the Secondary) are the best examples of previous successful Target projects, Arghonaut's was literally based around re-centering the metagame, while Colossoil's purpose was to target the most common users of status and secondary effects. Malaconda's concept (Type Equalizer) was also at its base a Target project.

CAP 29 So Far

 

[Birkal]

Welcome to CAP29, folks! I'm recently-retired Head Mod Birkal, and I'll be your Topic Leader this go 'round. The world of competitive Pokemon is changing quicker than ever. When I joined CAP back during the BW metagame, it was typical to have a relatively stable metagame to build within for at least a few years. But these days, Smogon's metagames are constantly shifting due to the introduction of DLC. In that way, all of our current gen CAPs have been isolated: Astrolotl (CAP27) was made with no DLC involved, Miasmaw (CAP28) was created after the Isle of Armor released, and now CAP29 will be founded within the post-Crown Tundra metagame. We don't know what future releases will look like from GameFreak at this time either, so it's our duty to do the best we can with what we've been dealt!

We will be creating CAP29 for competitive play within the CAP metagame format on Pokemon Showdown, meaning it would behoove us to make sure you're up-to-date in your understanding of the metagame. The CAP Metagame subforum has plenty of fantastic resources to aid you, from the CAP Viability Rankings to SS Sample Teams and the CAP Bazaar, both of which you can use to scoop up some teams to try out the metagame. The CAP Project Room on Showdown holds frequent roomtours that can help you get a feel for what's current.

If this is your first time around the block here in CAP, swing on by to the CAP Process Archive to see some great concepts from past projects. Furthermore, it's ok to gather inspiration from past projects; this link contains a compendium of all slated concepts throughout CAP's history. But remember, CAP isn't all about submitting your own ideas! It's a community project, so if you see a concept you really like, make sure to comment on it here. Making long posts with lots of thoughts is great (and I will read every post in this thread), but sharing your thoughts about other concepts succinctly is equally valid.

Personal Advice on Concepts & Questions

Everything in this section is my own personal opinion. It's intended as advice for how to proceed with CAP29, but ultimately, you as a community member will decide which direction this project goes in, with your comments, submissions, and votes. I am approaching CAP29 with a blank slate. I have no pre-conceived notion of CAP29, and I'm open to literally any and all ideas. So take everything I say from here on out with a grain of salt. If you're feeling inspired, run with that, and see if the rest of the community latches on or not. I'm not perfect and will be the first to admit when I'm wrong, but these are some observations I've made over my decade with this project.

The past several Topic Leaders have all shared in their introductory post that the "Questions to be Answered" section of your concept is a crucial aspect to a successful concept. I have nothing new to add in that regard; the questions we ask will inform all of our discussions and lead to the finale of a competitive Pokemon released on Pokemon Showdown. I'll be reading your concepts in their entirety, but the majority of feedback I provide will be about how to improve your questions and dig deeper with them.

Throughout my decade with CAP, I've found that the best questions asked are specific, and use metagame-relevant examples. The slate for Astrolotl was filled with some great concepts with amazing questions, and I just wanted to highlight a few of them that, in my opinion, set up their concepts for success. Quanyails' Tempo did a phenomenal job of asking starting questions at a basic level: "what is efficient switching?" and "what are abilities/moves/etc that are efficient?" are questions that led into discussions that would put us all on the same page. But the concept's later questions become more advanced, and while they may feel vague and unanswerable, wrestling with those higher-level questions leads to fantastic conversations about competitive Pokemon.

Voltage's Offensive Team Support (which went on to win), asked questions in a similar way, where some were hyper-specific to CAP27 and its goals in each battle, while others were 'zoomed out' in a way that let us glean information about competitive battling as a whole in a way that's not limited to the CAP metagame. The questions you ask should be specific to your concept, in my mind, so questions that apply to every concept are generally weaker, in my opinion. "How can we balance CAP29?" strikes me as an odd question, for example. Making sure we balance our CAPs is extremely important, but that applies to literally every CAP we create, no? The whole process will be about making sure our CAP is viable in our metagame (not too broken, nor unusably bad), so there's no need to ask a question like this. "Is it possible to..." strikes a similar vein, in that anything allowed within CAP's process IS possible, and our goal is always to fulfill our concept, so any question you ask that could somehow be impossible is counterproductive. Ultimately, I've found that you really want to dig into your questions and whether or not they're worth asking in the first place. So make sure the questions you ask are things you're genuinely curious to discuss too!

Also, I am open to giving feedback in real time! If you'd like to chat with me about your submission, you can either tag me (Birkal) in the #cap room of our Discord, or send me a private message. I'll also be commenting on every concept in this thread, but don't be surprised if I copy/paste some of our discussion logs into this thread so that everyone can learn together, regardless of their timezone or schedule. CAP is all about learning, so I'll do my best to share publicly the feedback I have on each concept with everyone, so they can learn too.

That's all I've got for now. Remember, (as snake_rattler put it): the Topic Leadership Team (TLT) aren't dictators. We're here to serve and guide the community, so don't ever be afraid to reach out with any questions or ideas. At the end of the day, your words and votes are what will make CAP29, and we're here to help facilitate those discussions and polls. This is a team project, so be supportive and courteous of others and their ideas. When someone gives you constructive criticism, take it with grace and presume positive intentions.

Enough chat; let's hop to it!

 

[quziel]

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?

Explanation:
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.

 

[Mx]

Name: Passive Aggressive Warfare

A Pokemon that doesn't use either of its attacking stats but avoids a traditional slow wall build.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept. Many Pokemon that don't use standard damaging moves already exist, but they're limited to slow walls like Toxapex or Blissey. This project aims to explore what other roles a Pokemon without traditional offensive prowess can accomplish.

Questions to be answered:

• What non traditional roles can a Pokemon like this accomplish?
• What are the inherent disadvantages of this kind of approach? Do we need to compensate for them? If so, how much?
• Can we make a Pokemon avoid traditional attacking moves despite having some theoretical potential or does this concept mandate near zero offensive stats/moves?
• What tools can be used to prevent us from being too passive despite lacking direct offensive presence?
• What level of counterplay should the opponent have against this kind of threat?
• What typings can be successful without any offensive prowess?
• How important is the speed stat for a Pokemon without traditional attacking moves?

Explanation: Almost every Pokemon in the metagame uses at least one standard attacking move (by this I mean a move that calculates damage normally and you primarily use for its damage) and the few that exist are limited to slow walls/pivots like Toxapex and Blissey. Despite this I believe there are many underexplored ways to make a viable Pokemon without any offensive prowess can accomplish. Roles like status spreaders, stallbreaker and hazard support can be accomplished without needing any offensive stats and with tools like Taunt, Leech Seed, Super Fang, Toxic, Seismic Toss, and many others there's a lot of room to explore very different and unique builds with this concept.

 

[dex]

WIP

Name: Type Traitor

A Pokemon that specializes in countering or checking other Pokemon that it shares a type with.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept. We see some of this in the metagame, as Ferrothorn is used to check Rillaboom and Kartana and Dragapult is used to counter slower Ghosts. This project aims to investigate how types play against each other, and how defensively and offensively good typings work when faced with Pokemon that match it.

Questions to be answered:

• What role does coverage vs. status play in pressuring Pokemon that will most likely resist our STAB? Example: Toxapex doesn't exactly exert a whole lot of offensive pressure, but it pressures opposing Water types with Rocky Helmet, Scald, Knock Off, and Toxic Spikes.
• Secondary typing will play a large role in this concept. How will CAP 29's secondary typing complement it's ability to check/counter Pokemon that it shares a type with? Example: Swampert having a Ground type allows it to check Krilowatt, something no other Water type in the tier can claim to do.
• How will CAP 29 deal with Pokemon that have expansive coverage options that it is supposed to check? Example: Moltres is the only Fire type that has the tools available to check Cinderace, which possesses unpredictable coverage.
• How do types fade in and out of the meta? Example: Ghost was fairly uncommon in ORAS CAP outside of Necturna, yet in SS CAP, Ghosts dominate the meta. A counterexample is the role bulky Water types have played steadily in the tier for years.
• What are common themes/roles among types that CAP 29 will be able to take advantage of? Example: Most Dark types have taken on the role of SpD walls/utility in the tier with the introduction of Dragapult and Spectrier, so countering them shouldn't be too complicated. However, the Grass types of the tier range from breaker (Rillaboom) to wall (Ferrothorn) to sweeper (Kartana), presenting a much more difficult path towards checking them.

Explanation: The interaction between differing types has been explored quite a bit in CAP. That is what the typing stage is for after all. What has not been fully explored, in my opinion, is the interaction between Pokemon that share a type. Dealing with strong coverage is something that I want to point out as the sticking point for this concept, as the tier currently plays host to a number of Pokemon that cannot be reliably checked until their moveset is figured out (ex: Melmetal can run a number of moves that do well into different checks, such as Toxic, Ice Punch, Thunder Punch, Earthquake, and Superpower). Additionally, I really like the idea of toying with how secondary typings play a role in checking particular Pokemon. The example I brought up earlier of Swampert is a good one, in that it provides the team with a bulky Water type that can play the role of VoltBlocker, while also pressuring out Krilowatt with Earthquake and Stealth Rocks. Overall, this concept aims to identify what pressures particular Pokemon of a type, and how typing plays its role in checking/countering.

 

[SunMYSER]

Name: I’m First!!

Description: A Pokemon that excels in going first; doing so through use of priority, high speed, slowing the opponent, or other means.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept. The goal of which is to have a pokemon that gains an explicit advantage through it’s ability to guarantee it going first. This advantage can come through many different means: having access to a high natural speed, access to priority, ways of increasing their own speed, or even lowering the speed of the opposing party. However, too often, Pokemon of this role become pivots of some kind; this is something I would like to avoid if possible. Too, a key part of this concept is that it can fill either a defensive or offensive role; as long as it maximizes it’s ability to move first. For this CAP i would like to explore a mix of the offensive and/or defensive benefits of going first in a metagame where going last (@slowtwins) is such a sought after position to be in.
Questions To Be Answered:

• What ways can we ensure that this pokemon is able to not only go first, but also to make sure it succeeds more when going first?
• What defensive pokemon ‘specialize’ in going first? What can we learn from these pokemon?
  • This role is comparative under represented. What benefits do going first give to a defensive Pokemon?
• What offensive pokemon ‘specialize’ in going first? What can we learn from these pokemon?
  • Typically, this role is almost exclusively populated by offensive pivots. To not pigeonhole this Pokemon into being a pivot, what tools does a fast offensive Pokemon need to succeed?
• This pokemon will likely be quite fast. As such, how will it’s other stats be compensated?
• Are there abilities that would allow our pokemon to better when going first?
• Are there moves (other than fisheous rend/bolt beak) that would work better when going first?
• In what way can we decentivize this pokemon from going second?

Explanation: Every generation has one or two pokemon that’s entire reason for viability is their ability to ensure that they will go first. In the past, Mega Alakazam, Mega-Loppuny, and Hawlucha all occupied this role. Too, CAPs like Prankster Tomo, and Cawmadore viability hinge on performing their tasks first. In gen 8 especially, the pokemon with this designated role was at the peak of viability. Dragapult from pre-dlc, Zerazora after in DLC-1, and the late Pheromosa recently all too occupied this concept.
I however, don’t want this Pokemon to be solely an offensive pivot, as we have enough of those. I want this pokemon to be able to pull off defensive or offensive sets that benefit from going first. We've seen this be successful in previous generations; Prankster Tomo from Gen 6, the myriad of sets Gen 6 Talonflame could run both come to mind here. Too, effective Scarf users that don't rely on pivoting have seen success across generations; Kartana and Kyorge both can win games sheerly based on their speed. I feel as though consistent access to going first is going out of style as of late, with most Pokemon relying on their base speeds to carry them. As such, I want this concept to resurrect this role in a new light; one that isn't inherently tied to it's pivoting potential.

 

[Tommaniacal]

Final Submission

Name: 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).

 

[Binacle Pinnacle]

Name: Memento Mori

Description: Abuses self-destruction moves without entirely depending on them to preserve momentum.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept. Self-KOing moves have declined in usage since Generation 5, mainly due to the addition of team preview. Since then, self-destruction has been almost exclusively on suicide leads. This concept's goal is to fully explore self-destruction, and how it can be utilized to a team's benefit for purposes other than preserving momentum.

Questions to be answered:

• Are there any unexplored uses of self-destruction moves in current-generation competitive?
• Can self-destruction be abused to a greater extent that what we've seen in Astrolotl and Jumbao? How did they find success in using Healing Wish?
• When has a Pokemon truly expended its usefulness during a match?
• How can a Pokemon designed to take advantage of self-KO moves not be both:
  • 1. Be so unviable as to encourage the use of self-destruction through its sheer passivity and
  • 2. Still abuse self-destruction without dedicating itself to the role of a suicide lead?

Explanation: Self-KO moves defined competitive Pokemon since the first generation. Generation 5 changed this, due to both Explosion/Self-Destruct no longer halving defense when calculating damage, meaning that immediately threatening the opposing Pokemon via a trade was near-impossible, and the addition of team preview, meaning that pulling off a trade was much less useful as you already knew your opponent's Pokemon from the start of the match. Pre-team preview's most efficient self-destruction abuser was ADV's . Its banded Explosions OHKOd every Pokemon in OU, aside from ghosts and the rare defense-invested . After exploding, one of its teammates got a free switch in, allowing its team to continue exerting offensive pressure.

Since the removal of team preview, very few Pokemon were able to abuse self-destruction to its fullest without committing to the role of a suicide lead. One of the most recent examples being SM/SS OU's Final Gambit , who was able to collect a KO on its would-be checks such as and . This set functioned so well because Victini often lost all usefulness after removing a Pokemon on balance/stall-leaning teams. Final Gambit allowed it to remove one more team member before going out, leaving a hole in the opponent's defensive core. We've seen some self-KO move usage in CAP projects as well, with 's Healing Wish providing yet another layer of support to its teammates by giving them a free switch in while possibly healing a crippled breaker. Self-KO moves still haven't been fully explored in our current metagame though, and this is a great opportunity to look into the role of self-destruction moves in a post-BW setting.

 

[Pipotchi]

Name: Double Edged Armory

Description- A CAP Process in which every stage contains a different double edged sword- a large benefit and flaw.

Justification- This is an Actualization concept, encouraging CAP to go against the grain for almost all of its usual preferences. The double-edged sword is all about extremes, and aiming to find two extremes that counterbalance each other inside each process stage. We will create a viable Pokemon with clear benefits despite every single stage containing some kind of intrinsic flaw that wont be fully negated or bypassed by another stage. We'll explore the benefits and flaws that go hand-in-hand with the potential typings and abilities, as well as pick stat spreads and movepools that excel in some fields and hinder in others. In the past, the vast majority of CAPs seem to turn out to be safe all-rounders- the most common example being the 570+BST stat behemoths that tend to be created, and this process avoids the safe middle ground in each stage.

Questions to be answered:
- What constitutes a double-edged typing or ability?
- What are some examples of double-edged stat spreads? Are there individual specific stats (eg. HP, ATK) that can be double-edged swords by themselves?
- What are some examples of double-edged movepools? What are the fields in which a movepool can excel and fail?
- What separates a double-edged typing, ability, stats or movepool from a generically good or generically bad one?
- What are some examples of Pokemon with intrinsic flaws in the current CAP metagame? Do they share similar flaws?
- Are there other instances of Pokemon that contain their benefits and flaws within the same CAP process "stage" (eg. typing)?
- How flawed can a Pokemon be while still achieving a viable status, and what is the crucial niche or quality that allows it to continue being popular?
- Is there a level of strength that overrides crippling flaws and becomes overpowered regardless? Where does that boundary exist?
- How do flawed Pokemon compare to the roles of generically good all-rounders that CAP tends to produce?

Explanation:
I think its really interesting to take CAP down a path it rarely goes. I think this will lead to a really new discussion not centred around optimality and make something very unique while being interesting in each stage. An example of where this could lead is seen in something like Kartana: It has fantastic defensive typing, but a really harsh 4x weakness to fire. It had a great snowballing ability in Beast Boost, but its worthless until it actually collects a KO. Stat-wise it has a sky high Atk stat and great Defense and Speed, but an awful SpDef. Movepool-wise, it managed to get great utility moves like Knock Off, Synthesis and Defog, but really janky offensive coverage and a struggle with low BP moves.

This concept doesn't need to go as extreme as Kartana or Chansey, but it should go past the CAP average. Other fun examples for the stats stage could be Rhyperior, or Cryogonal. and an example for the movepool stage could be Landorus-T(amazing overall movepool but no recovery or flying STAB).
CAP has explored weaker ideas in the past, but its always been with the aim of exploiting something seemingly weak and turning it into a benefit. This is less about trying to find a shining underutilized quality or making the most out of something mildly useful, but more about having clear and defined strength and weaknesses, and the weakness doesn't need to be necessarily harnessed. The aim is to create something with a quality niche thanks to its undeniable strengths!

 

[Salty Tempura]

Name: Janitor

This Pokémon is centred around the concept of removing terrain and entry hazards.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept. The goal is to create a Pokémon primarily focused on removing hazards as soon as possible to allow safe switch-ins for frailer Pokémon.

Questions to be Answered:
- Do Pokémon in the current metagame that remove field effects preform well against them too?
- Will survival be focused around stalling using recovery options or will it be more of a “Remove-and-Run” approach?
- Does this Pokémon need to preform well against setters?
- Can this Pokémon preform effectively with Heavy-Duty Boots or other items common among hazard removers?
- What opportunities can this Pokémon present to threaten or pressure the opponent?
- How can this Pokémon deal with sweepers?
- What can this Pokémon do that separates it from more popular hazard removers in the metagame?

Explanation: This Pokémon’s general idea is to remove anything that could be a threat to glass cannons or any Pokémon that could take severe damage from entry hazards, such as Zard or Talon. The thought process behind this concept was to bring a Pokémon that can effectively remove both terrains and entry hazards, as opposed to the Pokémon focused on one of those (such as Spinners like Excadrill).

 

[Mova]

Final Submission

Name: Terrain-O-Saurus

General Discription: A Pokémon that can take advantage of at least two terrain field effects, with and/or without the assistance of teammates.

Justification: SS DLC 2 bought the Land Spirits of Alola to do whatever the heck they want in Galar. Anyway, each of them summon a unique terrain field effect much like Drought, Drizzle, Snow Warning, and Sand Stream. Unlike weather-based field effects however; terrains have way fewer Pokémon designed to utilize them to their full potential.

This concept would fall under the categories of Actualization and Archetype. When used correctly in the metagame, the CAP should instil a sense of synergy; like it utilises the terrain to the best of its ability and the terrain is also bringing out the best in the CAP. This creates an archetype within the meta, a form of team based around this CAP teamed with Terrain setters which is currently only seen with Rain as other forms of field effect are unviable.

In addition to the tapu returning in DLC 2, six new toys have been introduced specifically for use in terrain during DLC 1: Terrain Pulse, Rising Voltage, Expanding Force, Grassy Glide, Misty Explosion, and Steel Roller. Notably, Rillaboom exploits Grassy Glide in grassy terrain quite efficiently, while not many make use of Terrain Pulse or Steel Roller due to their lack of usefulness outside of terrain. Now that the tapu coexist with these new moves, I would hope to see more abusers of terrain if these moves assist in allowing the Pokémon to do so.

Questions to be answered:
How can each terrain's effect be utilized in a way which synergizes with a Pokemon?
How could a Pokémon synergize with more than one of the terrain effects?
How large of an effect on Terrain-O-Saurus' effectiveness should be determined by if Terrain is up or not?
If we do not make Terrain-O-Saurus a partner for another Pokémon, why would that be more beneficial than doing so?
How well can this Pokemon assist multiple teammates in making excellent use of terrain in addition to the setter and this Pokemon?
Which terrains are more viable or abusable than others based on typing or other factors, and why?
Why would someone bother to exploit terrain when more commonly-used field effects exist, such as weather?

 

[Jho]

Name: Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover

Description: A process which aims to make a CAP which fulfills a role different to what its stats, ability, movepool, or typing (or any combination of these), may entail.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept as it aims to look into the intricacies that make certain Pokemon fulfil certain roles outside of the extremely obvious, surface level characteristics and instead focusses on the subtle interactions between all of the stages. When done properly, seeing this Pokemon should create a feeling of subverting expectations on initial viewing which becomes a moment of understanding or "oh yeah" moment when all the pieces are put together. There are a few Pokemon which sort of fit this concept, but to a lesser extent than what I imagine CAP can accomplish. Pokemon such as Nidoking and Dragapult are examples of Pokemon which most often use their worse attacking stat for various reasons, while something like Blissey is almost always used as a pivot on offense when at first glance it would appear to be an extremely defensive Pokemon. Possibly the most extreme of these is Shedinja which despite paper thin defenses is most often used as a wall. These Pokemon and others like them vary slightly from their perceived roles but I believe there is space to be explored in this idea to a deeper level.

Questions to be answered:
- What makes a Pokémon a good fit for the various roles in the metagame?
- What tools can be utilized for a Pokémon to fulfil its role despite not being conventionally equipped to do so?
- How many charectistics can a Pokémon can be given that do not fill its intended "subverted" role before it falls into filling the role that is immediately obvious?
- What trends do Pokemon that already somewhat fill this concept have in common, if anything, and what can we learn from those?
- How do stats, ability, movepool, and typing all come together to create a situation in which this concept can be successful?

Explanation:
I think this concept gives a good opportunity to look into how each stage interacts with one another in a really interesting way that could lead to a lot of creative results. We can see that Pokemon which fit this concept are influenced by factors from all of their "stages"; Nidoking for example has a higher Physical Attack than Special Attack and while it has similar coverage on both sides, its Physical side has much less synergy with Sheer Force, which overcomes the stat differential. So this would be a case where the Ability is the factor which flips the roles. Dragapult, on the other hand, uses its weaker stat not because of synergy with its ability, but due to its much better Special sided movepool and specifically, betterl Ghost-type STAB and is such an example of the Movepool being the stage which inverts expectations. It is quite hard to pin point existing Pokemon which do this with Typing and Stats and as such I think those would be really interesting to explore with this concept.

 

[MrDollSteak]

Name: Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero

Description: A Pokemon that is able to thrive in the metagame despite having a balanced stat spread made up of primarily average stats.

Justification: This concept is a textbook Actualization concept because it aims to create a Pokemon that can make the most out of an average balanced stat spread by considering the various ways in which this commonly manifests in the OU and CAP metagames. Although I don't want to be too prescriptive in defining what an 'average' or 'balanced' stat spread is as I think this would be better served in the concept assessment, I would consider Pokemon like Clefable, Nidoking, Pelipper, Seismitoad, Quagsire, Mimikyu, Alolan Marowak, and Dracozolt to be the best examples as they have relatively low BSTs and often only one stat that cracks the 100 mark, although I would argue that Pokemon such as Corviknight, Slowbro, Slowking, Galarian Slowking, Swampert, Venusaur, Hawlucha, Amoonguss, Kingdra and one of our most ubiquitous CAPs, Tomohawk, to name a few could also qualify despite having slightly higher BSTs on average as well as more than one strong individual stats.

Questions to be answered:

What do current low BST Pokemon that are viable in the CAP and OU metagames have in common?

What does it take for a Pokemon with balanced, average stats to be viable in the CAP and OU metagames? Is there a particular role or playstyle that is less affected by having balanced, average stats?

How low can a Pokemon's stats be without impacting its effectiveness at its role? Is this threshold different for offensive or defensive Pokemon?

Will this Pokemon be added to teams in spite of, or because of its balanced, average stats?

Is having balanced, average stats primarily a hindrance? Are there any possible benefits that it could have?

How might an understanding of the fact that the final product will have balanced, average stats impact the competitive stages of CAP 29? For example, might it allow for TLs to slate more powerful type combinations, abilities or moves?

Explanation: It is common knowledge in the CAP community that most of our creations have very high BSTs relative to common OU Pokemon, often being comparable to legendary and mythical Pokemon. While there have been processes that have resulted in CAPs with low BSTs, the majority of processes since Gen 6 in particular have been above 550, unless specifically limited like the starters, and are often more optimal than existing Pokemon's spreads through the use of dump stats anyway, as a means to improve their chances of success in the metagame.

Despite this, as we can see from the current viability rankings, some of the most successful Pokemon have relatively low BSTs, with Clefable, Blissey, Cinderace, Slowking, Tomohawk, Toxapex, Mandibuzz, Nidoking and Rillaboom all being below the previous mark. In the case of Blissey, Toxapex and Cinderace, it is clear that much of this is the result of having key stats with particularly large and optimal values, although the same cannot be said of the others. As such, I am interested in challenging the way that the CAP project thinks about stats to show that bigger doesn't necessarily mean better, especially now that we have a new BSR model that doesn't blatantly reward stat dumping. I think there is a lot to learn about how to optimise stats without necessarily going high, and that's a challenge I'd love to see CAP meet!

As far as the benefits of this concept, because of the limitations established by the stat spread, it will also allow CAP to potentially explore some higher power level options in terms of typing, ability and moves, which as far as the aforementioned Pokemon, always tend to require at least 2 of those 3 to be at a strong power level. Stats aren't exactly linear in terms of their impact on power level, nevertheless, the lower they are, the more they allow for other strengths as they do limit the ability for the Pokemon to capitalise on them somewhat. In this regard, rather than just making a Pokemon with low stats for the sake of it, we're actually designing a Pokemon that has stats that are as high as they can be without making its other strengths such as movepool, ability or typing completely unreasonable. I think doing so presents a rare opportunity for CAP to think about how it deals with power level in its process, and the best ways that it can ensure that mons have designated flaws and potentially higher individual strengths.

 

[aaronarium]

WIP

Name: Field Effect Favorite

Description: A Pokémon that is a potent abuser of a specific field effect (weather, terrain, rooms, Gravity), despite lacking an ability which automatically sets up the decided upon effect.

Justification: This is an Archetype and Actualization concept. Archetype because of how this concept focuses on an uncommon approach to setup, which I believe the metagame needs, since, when possible, Pokémon tend to focus on convenient methods of setup (typically through abilities like Drizzle or Grim Neigh), and using a move instead is a largely unexplored avenue even though there are conceivable benefits to freeing up the ability slot. Actualization because this Pokémon not only can inspire interest in unexplored ability/field effect combinations (perhaps because existing Pokémon have unsuitable typings/movepools/etc to be considered abusers), but also puts the spotlight on field effects that have heretofore almost never been seen (mainly rooms and Gravity), primarily due to the struggles of setting up.

Questions to be Answered:

• What are the benefits of using a move to set up a field effect as opposed to relegating that job to the ability?
• What are the best ways to encourage the inclusion of the field-effect-setup-move as opposed to opting for arguably more consistent moveslot options?
• How should a Pokémon that will almost always require a turn of setup be designed, especially when the setup has a time limit that you will need to spend another turn reapplying?

 

[Voltage]

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 (https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Limit_(Final_Fantasy_VII) ) 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.

 

[Gekokeso]

Final Submission

Name: Stonjourner Syndrome

Description: This pokemon has a very unconventional or one sided spread, with stats that are the definition of min-max.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept, giving us an idea of what a mon that has a heavy stat bias needs to become a successful OU level pokemon, as well as its influence in the metagame, such as more defense investment or movepool variations just to get through it. CAP is commonly known for doing some very specfic spreads and min-maxing certain mons, but this would take those spreads to the next level. This concept could potentially also help us systematically, as it could allow us to play with the order of the CAP process by making us build a mon on stats first rather than ability first.

As for examples of pokemon that supposedly fall into the Stonjourner Syndrome we have Stonjourner (obviously), Blissey, Chansey, Shuckle, Steelix, Cloyster, Barraskewda and the ultra beasts. Mons with heavily biased stats have been present ever since gen 2, with different amounts of success for each of them.

Questions to be answered:

• What are the barriers that allow certain min-max mons to perform better than others?
• How do min-max Pokémon adapt to fit their respective metagames? By increasing their already good capabilities or by patching holes in their weaknesses?
• Why is it that so many min-maxed Pokémon are relegated to lower tiers, and why have some of them been banned from OU?
• What are common roles or trends that successful min-maxed Pokémon share?
• Which types of playstyles are min-maxed Pokémon found in typically? How do these playstyles make use of the min-maxers?

Explanation: It is not new for CAP to do very unconventional stats spreads, as sometimes min-maxing leads to more preferable results both offensively and defensively. However, this CAP would take this to extreme levels, with a disbalance between stats never seen in the project.

Now, min-maxed Pokémon aren't a new thing outside of CAP, as these types of Pokémon have been present ever since gen 1 with Mons such as the Chansey, and seen more recently in gen 8 with the obscenely fast regieleki, as well as minor examples such as barraskewda and Stonejourner (obviously).

Now, not all min-maxed are equally strong, with a large amount of them being banished to lower tiers such as the extremely frail Stonejourner or the one completely ou unviable beast of Guzzlord. However, a few of them managed to establish legitimate OU niches, such as one of the most successful min-maxers in Blissey.

Blissey was built with ridiculous special bulk, mediocre physical bulk and terrible offenses. Blissey players adapted to the mon's flaws by investing in its physical defense and pairing it with more offensive teamates which coupled with a decent defensive typing and titanic movepool became one of the most successful walls in Pokémon history.

Another example of successful min-maxers include the ultra beasts, specifically Kartana and Pheromosa. Kartana boasts high defense, attack and speed, but it's ridiculously weak to special attacks. Despite its flaws it has become a metagame staple thanks to its enormous snowballing potential due to its speed, offensive stats, and the synergy with its ability beast boost. Similarly, Pheromosa also became a metagame staple thanks to its sky high speed coupled with its incredible movepool and decent offenses. In fact, Pheromosa was so successful that it even got banned from OU, which is a testament to how strong min-maxed Pokémon can become.

In short, with this concept we will have the opportunity to play with the stats of the cap to create a weird, albeit considerably threatening mon. Systematically, this could also bring an interesting challenge for the CAP community, as we would have to adapt to the challenge of building around stats but without the help of an established typing or ability.

 

[Astra]

Final Submission

Name: Cheapskate

Description: This Pokemon only has 6-8 competitively viable moves that it can use effectively, but the great synergy the moves have with each other and the Pokemon itself allow the Pokemon to perform a wide variety of roles on many team playstyles.

Justification: This concept would mostly fall into both the Actualization and Archetype categories. This Pokemon's identity would come from the fact that it can easily flex onto any team that requires any role while having an incredibly smaller pool of useful moves to work with when compared to other Pokemon. Moreover, the fact that this Pokemon has a very small viable movepool by itself would grant it an identity, as such a trait is often why a Pokemon would lack viability in a metagame, yet this Pokemon specific would be able to break such a stereotype.

Questions to be Answered:

• What specific roles would this Pokemon be able to play with a small competitively viable movepool?
• Likewise, what team playstyles would this Pokemon be able to play on?
• What combination of moves would this Pokemon need in order to be viable while only having a small movepool?
• How would this Pokemon's other aspects, such as typing, stats, and abilities, compensate for its small movepool?
• What exactly makes a move "competitively viable" for a Pokemon? What makes a move "competitively viable" to one Pokemon but useless to another Pokemon?
• What would be the range of items this Pokemon would be able to use due to this restriction? Could it be possible that we can make this Pokemon to use unorthodox items not usually used?
• Would it be easier or harder to teambuild with a Pokemon with such a restriction? Should be Pokemon be designed to be built around, or should it be designed to fill in the gaps?

Explanation: Many Pokemon are viable in whatever metagame they're in with big thanks to their movepool, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their movepool has to be huge like, say, Magearna. A good example of a Pokemon that has an incredibly small competitively viable movepool is Kartana. Kartana's movepool is incredibly shallow, and number of moves it can run gets smaller when you narrow it down to moves it can viably use in the metagame. As shown here, Kartana has three competitively viable sets, yet only around six moves are actually being used across them. It's not just the fact that its small competitively viable movepool is good alone, though. The combination of a good offensive and defensive typing, amazing offensive stats, and a useful ability in Beast Boost is what makes Kartana usable despite its shallow competitive movepool. Additionally, trying to emulate Kartana's competitively viable movepool in SM OU would also prove to be interesting; it was able to run Defog (at least it was more flexible to run it than in SS OU), granting its team some utility alongside its sheer power, and it was able to make use of Giga Impact thanks to Normalium Z, becoming an insane nuke. Of course, we don't have Z-Moves in SS OU, but the concept of making of move viable based off of an item other than a Choice item or Life Orb can really be interesting. Since this concept would warrant CAP 29 to have only a few moves it can find competitive use in, its other aspects would need definitely be molded around its movepool in a way that allows the Pokemon to perform a variety of roles, which could very well be an interesting challenge in itself, considering the order of the stage of the CAP process.

 

[D2TheW]

WIP :]
Name: Shallow Movepool

Description: This pokemon makes efficient use of a shallow movepool to achieve success.

Justification: This is an Actualisation concept, as it focuses on building around a limitation of the pokemon, with the goal of making a pokemon that can succeed through this limitation.

Questions to be answered:
- What makes a movepool shallow? If a pokemon has access to a hundred moves but will only ever use four of them, is that movepool deep or shallow? On the other hand, if a pokemon only has eight moves but each one is realistically useful, is that movepool still shallow? Do movepools with limited offensive coverage but good utility moves still count as shallow?
- Should this pokemon still be able to run more than one set? If so how could this be achieved without compromising the concept?
- How can this pokemon still be useful when faced with a hard answer? For example, regieleki is pretty useless right from the off if the opposing team has a ground type, however, it can still support it's teammates with screens and rapid spin, despite it's barren offensive movepool
- How would it be possible for a pokemon to circumvent it's checks and should it even be able to do so? For example, Spectrier, a pokemon with basically no coverage can still beat some of its checks for example using dark pulse to beat Blissey or a colbur set with wisp and nasty plot to beat mandibuzz.
- What coverage should this mon be afforded? Should coverage be limited or non exiestent?
- How can a movepool be shallow but efficient? What kind of move synergy let's a pokemon make efficient use of it's movepool? For example Spectrier's movepool has some excellent synergy between wisp, hex and nasty plot or calm mind.

Explanation: The release of sword and shield made some pretty big changes to the franchise. While Dexit is the outstanding candidate, the cut in distribution of Toxic and the total removal of Hidden Power have had some pretty big effects on the competitive scene. The cut down on these universal moves has allowed Gamefreak to experiment with some pretty interesting movepools. Several new pokemon have very shallow movepools such as the new regis, moltres-galar, various less viable mons like eldegoss and, the most obvious candidate, everyone's favourite balanced horse, Spectrier. The horse didn't get a great reception on release as it has basically no useful offensive coverage. However it has continued to strive to the point of being potentially banworthy thanks to superb stats and a synergistic movepool that helps it break down it's answers.

The horse and regis has had me thinking about how we could go about creating a mon that is, while not horse level, viable through the use of a shallow movepool. The current shallow movepool users are all rather typing focused with their abilities just providing power boosts in various ways (this concept gives a decent reason to create an oh so rare monotype cap btw) but focus less on interaction between movepools and abilities and I think there's a lot of potential there.

For example if given the options would this pokemon favour an ability that gives it some coveted extra coverage such as the -ate abilities or powers up it's existing coverage rather than stab such as steelworker? Or would it prefer to forego these for more generally useful abilities like Intimidate that let it perform more consistently? There's also some interesting movepool options that Gamefreak hasn't really experimented with such as type changing moves like weather ball or nature power.

Another reason I think this concept has potential is because of how varied it can be statwise. While all my examples so far have been offensive mons, many defensive mons such as Florges have minimal offensive coverage and therefore prioritise their utility. Another route for a bulkier model would be to follow in the footsteps of suicune and make a bulky set up mon that has to rely on boosts to circumvent it's lack of coverage.

Overall I think there's a lot of potential in this concept with several ways of approaching it and I'll hopefully write more about it when I have time.

Edit: seems like I've been kinda sniped while I was writing this. They're not the exact same so I'll see what people think but if they're too similar I guess I'll take the L and come up with something else.

 

[LBN]

Name: Toxic Specialist

Description: This pokemon is able to fullfill it's role specifically by utilizing poison to break and wear down the opposition.

Justification: This is a Actualization Concept, begging the simple question of: How strong is Toxic when abused as much as possible, while not entirely being Selfish in the use of its poison, whether to break open a teammate or to passively put pressure on the other side that can be abused.

Questions to be answered:

• How well can Poison/Toxic as a status perform when pushed to it's absolute best?
• How will the tier adapt to the presence of a Pokemon who is designed around getting off a poison and abusing it?
• What seperates Poison/Toxic as a status apart from the other statuses which have stat lowering effects such as burn and paralysis?
• How well can the Clerics of the tier function with abuse of status at such a relatively extreme level?

Explanation: Toxic/Poison as a status has seen different uses over the years, truly becoming a staple with ADV in the climate of TSS (Toxic Sandstorm Spikes) and how they were played around continuing into DPP with the introduction of Toxic spikes, meanwhile status Absorbers such as Blissey, Gliscor, Clefable, Alakazam and Breloom rose, while pokemon who abuse Toxic well from either themselves or their teammates such as ADV Aerodactyl, Gen 7 Regular Kyurem, and Reuniclus, and excellent users of it such as Toxapex, Blissey again, and Pokemon like Mega Scizor in gen 6 Ubers. However, we have never seen a pokemon truly built around Poison as a status succeed in the role before, as the closest was Salazzle being niche in Gen 7 OU (great in RU though it was more an offensive Nasty plot sweeper, and I don't consider Toxapex as a pokemon made to abuse Poison) So a pokemon specifically designed from the jump to make full use of Poison would be an interesting concept to see how strong it is when abused to it's absolute fullest.

 

[Quanyails]

Name: Break the CAP Mold

Description: Create a Pokemon that has its own competitive niche despite defying the popular patterns seen in CAP Pokemon.

Justification: This is a Target concept, since this Pokemon is defined in contrast to existing CAP Pokemon and, consequently, the CAP metagame. Addressing how CAP Pokemon are typically built helps characterize the CAP metagame and informs future CAP processes.

Questions to be answered:

• Using previous CAP processes as reference, what competitive aspects are often included/excluded in the Pokemon we build?
• What game mechanics affect whether certain competitive aspects are included or excluded?
• What specific elements of the CAP metagame affect whether certain competitive aspects are included or excluded?
• To what extent do regular OU Pokemon follow or defy the patterns seen in CAP Pokemon?
• How many of the competitive decisions we make in CAP are due to "hard" reasons (viability) vs. "soft" reasons? Which soft reasons are these?
• How do these reasons reflect the state of the metagame the Pokemon is built for?
• How do these reasons reflect the state of the CAP community?
• Out of the competitive aspects that are excluded due to soft reasons, which are competitively viable regardless?

Explanation: The CAP process tends to follow certain patterns when building the Pokemon, which people have recognized. Some observations I can think of are:

• General: If we introduce a weakness in a stage, we often want to patch up that weakness in a later stage.
• Typing: CAP hasn't created a single-typed Pokemon since 2008.
• Typing: CAP has never created a fully-evolved Normal-type Pokemon.
• Typing: CAP has never repeated a type combination.
• Typing: Recently, people have remarked that CAP has been circling around Dragon/Fairy/Steel-type Pokemon, as those tend to be the most effective in the metgame.
• Typing: Before HDB was an item, we always wanted to patch up a weakness to SR.
• Checks/Counters/Targets: We often design the Pokemon to be "good" against the top meta Pokemon.
• Ability: We often want to give Pokemon an ability that makes it easier to switch in (e.g., Regenerator/Magic Guard/immunity abilities).
• Ability: We always want to give burn immunity to physically-offensive Pokemon.
• Stats: We never make defensive Pokemon.
• Stats: Before Miasmaw, we never gave a Pokemon below-average bulk on one side.
• Stats: CAP has a reputation for giving Pokemon inflated stats.
• Stats: Before Hidden Power was removed from the game, we never gave Pokemon a usable Special Attack stat if it was physically-oriented.
• Movesets: CAP has a reputation for giving Pokemon inflated movepools.
• Movesets: We always give Pokemon the "best" STAB moves of its type and offensive lean.
• Movesets: We never give Pokemon "useful" boosting moves (e.g., Work Up is fine, but not Dragon Dance) unless the concept specifically calls for it. Note, however, that this is due to how the CAP process is set up.

In this concept, we explore the motivation behind patterns like these and more--i.e., which are due to game influences, metagame influences, player influences, or something else!

Please note that this concept falls into the same vein as a concept that targets underused mechanics. This is not a concept where we should handicap/intentionally pick "bad" options at each stage as a means of fulfilling it. Additionally, I recognize that the CAP process has its own limitations, which is why CAPs have a mold to begin with, so please don't make it a concept to pick at the CAP process. We're working on that through the PRC. :D

Feedback is greatly appreciated! I'd really appreciate it if you didn't hold back. ^^;

 

[DrifblooomCF]

Name: PP Extractor V1.224...

Description: A pokémon that explores one or more PP draining strategies as its main form of support.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept that blends one or more forms of PP draining strategies as a big part of its identity, mixing those into ways that may have never been seen in competitive pokémon.

Questions to be answered :

• How effective were other pokémon that follow this idea throughout the different metagames?
• What options do we have that fit this concept and what synergies have those that could greatly benefit CAP29?
• What pokémon on the metagame right now are the most vulnerable to these kind of strategies? Should we focus other parts of CAP29 to target them, or should we target the pokémon that endure better the PP draining strategies?
• How can we encourage the use of these moves without restraining the overall moveset of CAP29?
• With this information, what archetype should CAP29 have in order to be a good user of the PP draining strategy and what other niches could be fulfilled by this pokemon?
• Since usually this kind of strategies are conceived as slow, passive and unfun (altought this last point is mostly subjective), how can we deviate from this type of gameplay if it ends up as a concern?

Explanation: Moves and abilities that drain PP (spite, grudge, pressure, eerie spell) are not usually very popular options, in general they are conceived as "boring" strategies since they usually come from the hand of stallers like Vincune, this is definitely a path we can take and it would be interesting to have a CAP designed around stall, but I also consider that specific options like Grudge or Eerie Spell can guide the pokemon in various and interesting ways that can allow us to focus on certain threats in the metagame, maybe we can make a fast but fragile pokemon to make the grudge effect consistent and so maintaining momentum while also permanently neutralizing some option of great value in the enemy but with the cost of losing CAP29?
Or maybe we can take that idea with a fast wall but with very marked weaknesses in its type or defenses towards a move that we specifically seek to eliminate? maybe mix the latter with a typical staller and give it options like spite or pressure to make the mon more versatile?
Although simple in nature, this concept can take us on a multitude of paths and mold itself in several ways that are very rare in CAP thus far, and I think it would be a good way to carry out CAP29.
And yes, i get that the idea of a PP staller is difficult to separate from the concept, but i believe that despite not being a lot, we have enough elements to make a great and completely unique pokemon, and would give us a lot of interesting conversations and a somewhat difficult yet fun process.

 

[Shadowshocker]

WIP

Name: Fast Wall

Description: A defensive Pokemon with a focus on high speed instead of offenses to fulfill a single or multiple niches in the CAP metagame.

Justification: This is an Actualization/Archetype concept: we are exploring how speed can be utilized in a defensive manner. In the game of Pokemon, offensive Pokemon are generally considered to be fast and threatening while defensive Pokemon are considered slow and reactionary. In todays meta every Pokemon, even defensive Pokemon, need to be as non-passive as possible to survive - and Speed is a stat often associated with having an offensive advantage. We want to explore how speed on a defensive Pokemon could be used as a tool to heighten its defensive capability, and change matchups with common offensive Pokemon that rely on acting first.

Questions to be answered:
- What does Speed bring to a wall, and enable it to run strategies that would be less viable on a slower wall? What strategies can a fast wall be effective against?
- How would the presence of a fast wall affect the metagame? Can new strategies be developed to account for this rarely seen niche? At the same time, how can a wall be designed competently, yet without centralizing the metagame around it and leading to overly passive or "unfun" gameplay, as seen in the cases of walls like Clefable and Toxapex?
- How does a fast wall affect teambuilding and synergy? Does the role of a fast wall function as part of a core with existing Pokemon, or does it require a team centred around it?
- How much Speed does a wall need to be considered suitably fast? How much EV investment is necessary?
- Can Speed as a stat, instead of priority abuse via attacks or abilities, be the focus of a Pokemon's design and roleshaping? What other tools would have to be given to it for such a unique role to succeed?
- Will CAP 29 need decent offensive presence to best take advantage of its high speed? Or is it possible that high speed can support more passive gameplay?
- How do we encourage investing in speed or defences instead of offence? Can we incentivise this from focusing on the wall's individual role or through teambuilding?
- Bonus: Walls are often seen as passive and predictable. How might a focus on speed challenge this perception? Would it be possible for a wall to wall different opponents with different sets?

Explanation:
It's exactly what it says on the tin - trends of high base stat totals and type coverage have been a consistent occurrence in the CAP process, with even non-offensive approaches such as support and tank roles ending up focusing on offence-centred stats and attacks to threaten specific Pokemon or hold their own. But the aspect of Speed should not be neglected - Speed as a stat does contribute to attributes and functions expected of walls, namely avoiding being Taunted (most Taunt users fall within average speed tiers) or using attacks such as Scald or Lava Plume for chip damage and support. Conversely, a wall might not want to be too fast; pivoting walls would prefer to be slower to safely bring an ally in.
As an example, Lugia can force out threatening Pokemon in the Ubers metagame due to its higher speed stat, whereas something like Toxapex in the CAP metagame can potentially be overwhelmed due to its low speed. (i.e. Lugia can force out Primal Groudon in Ubers as it will wear Primal Groudon down by outspeeding with Roost + Pressure stall, whereas Toxapex is forced out by Excadrill as it gets worn down by repeated, faster Earthquakes.) Eternatus is another example of a fast wall, where it relies on a strong defensive typing and solid bulk to check faster threats while providing Toxic Spikes support.
While Tomohawk and Mandibuzz do exist as defensively oriented Pokemon in the CAP metagame who can outspeed slow bulky Pokemon and other walls, they're still slow enough to be overwhelmed by faster attackers, and rely on other tools (Intimidate, Foul Play) instead of speed for their defensive niches. A similar (but not explicitly defensive) example is Krilowatt whose role as utility counter gave way to offensive sets such as Magic Guard abuser despite having poorer offensive stats.
This is a challenge CAP has yet to face, but one I'm confident CAP is able to handle.

 

[Birkal]

Day one, let's get to it.

NOTE: I'm very happy to continue talking about any of these comments, whether in this thread or on Discord. I am also happy to see others comment on these concepts, and my comments themselves! Everyone, don't feel the need to respond to every concept like I am; it's ok to pick out a few concepts you want to chip away at with some further questions. Finally, I don't intend to coddle anyone with my feedback. I 'like' every single concept, but they could all be improved. The criticism I'm providing for everyone is meant to be constructive, informative, and ultimately make for a stronger project.

quziel - Gun Fort - I'm intentionally not giving you much feedback, just because I know you're still in limbo about what sort of concept you're going to ultimately submit. Once you've got that straightened out, I'll give you some feedback on how to sharpen up your questions! Contact me when you're all set.

Mx - Passive Agressive Warfare - I think your description could use some tightening up, specifically the word "traditional" and the lack of the word "slow." I think you just need to fish for the right word that matches up with everything else you explain in your concept. Many of these slow walls accomplish these roles (status spreader, hazard support, etc), so I feel that the main difference in what you're asking for is you want some speed on this thing. That's not a bad thing, but I hope you can see how the initial pitch lacks that focus. These are some of the best questions I've read this CAP, and others would do well to notice their brevity, yet each one is intriguing and unique.

dex18 - Type Traitor - This concept has a good dash of spice, in that we're countering/checking potentially multiple Pokemon of the same typing, meaning our concept order will be a bit of a 'chicken or the egg' conundrum. However, I think these questions are really messy, and don't teach us anything new. We know why immunities are valuable, and it feels like you're really targeting Cinderace here for some reason. Take some time to really sort out what you want from this concept and justify why it'd be worth studying.

SunMYSER - I'm First!! - G-Luke submitted something similar for CAP28, so it might be worth touching base with him about any advice he has from wrestling with the concept. I think you're struggling under the weight of too many ideas. The order of operations in terms of who goes first is an interesting central conceit, but it sounds like you've already pigeon-holed this concept into specific traits. "Guaranteeing" going first is likely going to mean priority (since we go have a base 200 speed mon running around), and your final sentences indicate you don't want this to solely be an offensive pivot. All of these are potentially good ideas, but you need to bring it to a level where you know exactly what we should explore.

Tommaniacal - Game of Inches - Your justification section is exceedingly long. Several of these points should be put into your explanation, in my opinion.

Everyone reading this, gather round. I want to show you something about how to improve a concept like this with one easy step. Here's how the description reads right now:​

​

Description: A Pokémon whose main source of damage and health recovery is through incremental effects.​

​

This is a good concept, but it's a little restrictive when it comes to learning goals, right? This concept sets up the expectation that we're going to be doing incremental damage and recovery, and while stuff like Aqua Ring/Leftovers and Iron Barbs/Rocky Helmet exist, I feel that Leech Seed inevitably would take center stage just based on how this concept is worded. That's not an inherently bad thing, and I think a concept about Leech Seed would actually be quite fascinating. But if Tommaniacal wanted to keep it more exploratory, something like this might suit the concept better:​

​

Description: A Pokémon that will allow us to explore incremental damage and health recovery in the CAP metagame.​

​

This concept now has a goal to explore a mechanism, and how it's been represented historically in previous metagames, and currently in other metagames. We could focus on doing incremental damage, or recovering incremental damage, or STOPPING incremental damage, or even stopping incremental healing. Tommaniacal, I'm not saying this is the direction you should go at all. It's your concept, but I think it's important to pick a direction and see the questions you encounter along the way. Whether that's going after a specific move, identifying a trend, or trying to make something truly unique, that's up to you and the questions you ask. If you've read to the end of this, congratulations. You've earned a gold star.​

Binacleisthebest - Memento Mori - I love a good BOOM, but that doesn't mean I will necessarily slate a concept based around it. There is some fertile ground to talk about when it comes to self-KOing moves, and which one we'd base a concept around, but sacrificing a mon is often a HUGE ask, and it's difficult to manufacture an incentive to do this. Compounded with Team Preview making these strategies less viable, and the fact that CAPs themselves have artificially inflated usage, and this could be a tall order. There's a lot of interesting questions to ask about self-sacrificing moves, and their history in competitive Pokemon, so go ahead and ask some of those questions and flesh this out.

Pipotchi - Double Edged Armory - We spent some time talking about this on Discord. I think I will make a fresh post on this in a future post. Give me a rain check. It seems like several concepts this time around want to mangle with the CAP Process itself a bit, and this one certainly gets to the heart of that.

Salty Tempura - Janitor - We've been chatting about this together on Discord as well, and entry hazards are certainly ubiquitous enough to have their own concept. However, your questions are weak. It is extremely well-researched which Pokemon are the best at removing hazards, and they're popular specifically because they are good at finding opportunities to switch-in and/or threaten out the opponent. Heavy-Duty Boots is also a thing now, so that should probably be addressed in this concept.

Mova - Terrain-O-Saurus - While you're right in showcasing the specific moves that haven't been explored with Terrains, I do think we have some good examples of what effective terrain usage looks like over other metagames. But my biggest critique is that your questions don't particularly inspire anything. Consider asking about what goes into teambuilders debating putting a terrain setter or abuser on their team. Or maybe a question that compares the types of terrain with each other, and which ones provide niches that could be see as competitively viable and potentially abusable.

Jho - Don't Judge A Book By Its Cover - I adore the Pokemon you compared this concept to; it really brought your vision to the forefront. Obviously your questions need some fleshing out. Here's a few that I am just thinking of off the top of my head, freeform. Use 'em, don't use 'em, refine 'em, or come to me if you want me to keep piling on more.
- Which Pokemon in past metagames have fit into this mold? Do they still?
- Same question, but for other current metagames. I think there's a lot to explore in this especially in like NU and PU.
- How do each of these attributes (stats, ability, typing) define a mon's role? Does one do so more than the others?
- Not a question, but I'd be interested in seeing an example of a mon that does this with their ability.

Orig Stall Guy - Multitalented - We've talked about the obvious comparisons of this concept to Equilibra, but I think you'll actually find more help fleshing out this concept by taking a look at CAP26 (Jumbao's) Concept Assessment and Ability Discussions. We had to build with two centralizing abilities (or at least, roles) at once, and I think you'll be able to glean some better questions by reading through the discussions we had there with DrapionSwing.

MrDollSteak - Average Ordinary Everyday Superhero - I posed an interesting question to a few people in voice chat on Discord tonight: "would you rather see MDS' concept, or the complete opposite, which is Gekokeso's?" Responses were divided, but I think the thing you should focus on most is what the "hook" of your concept is. I mentioned that 'Speed is King,' and if you aren't able to control turn order well enough, everything else can fall apart. At least that's my take on it. I think you've got an interesting case to study on your hands, but I'd like to see this with some more heat, yeah? It might be worth talking about stats like a knob, and how when we turn it to 'way down low,' that gives us a lot of flexibility to explore other facets of competitive mons that might normally be seen as broken. I think this concept could potentially be more than just an interesting exercise in numerical restraint.

aaronarium - Field Effect Favorite - Taking a turn to set something up in competitive mons is a big risk. You either had to engineer yourself into a position where you can set up freely, or you had to make a prediction and go for it. This concept doesn't explore any of those ideas, which I think does yourself a disservice. Mons with abilities that have self-sustaining setup are good because they are convenient, so how can this CAP assuage the fear of being a mon that is either unviable or outclassed? You've noticed an interesting trend, but I think you've currently failed to address WHY that trend exists, and how this concept bucks that trend in competitive mons.

-Voltage- - Limit Break - Porting an idea from one aspect of life into another can make for some great concepts. I think you're getting a little tripped over what you yourself want from this concept. You mention Spectrier spamming Shadow Ball, and how that's agency from the player, but later on, you describe Hawlucha and (in particular) Cawmodore using Pinch-berries, but that's also an instance of agency from the player. Since this is a pretty foreign concept for us to grasp, you might want to consider having two or three rock-solid examples to help people see this as something that is really possible to achieve.

Gekokeso - Stonejourner Syndrome - I think your first question is aces, and the rest you can probably throw in the bin. This is a very significant trend in the world of competitive Pokemon, and it's only become exacerbated further as we've acquired more generations of mons. Look at this from a historic preference and consider asking questions about how the metagame has adapted to these sorts of Pokemon. Do we notice any commonalities about them in both their roles and/or their movepools? How come so many of these mons are relegated to lower tiers? Or what about a mon with the exact same BST that's banned to Ubers? Lopsidedness is a curious thing to explore, but I think you can zero in on some questions that would make this worth our time.

Estronic - Cheapskate - I commented on Discord that if you took every concept submission, and counted up how many currently-existing Pokemon fit that concept, yours would probably have the highest number. That's not an inherently bad thing, but you're wading into some rocky waters. Landorus-T, for example, while it has a relatively high amount of moves in its movepool, it's generally going to feature the same sorts of sets, with pivoting/hazards/attacking move. It's doing relatively the same function, and it's using "overused moves" to get the job done. Rotom-W, Spectrier, Toxapex, and many other mons have access to a good deal of moves, but they have their "bread and butter" sets that they're likely to run strictly because those moves are better.

I'm not entirely sure what advice I have for you, or if what I described above is necessarily a bad thing. But when it comes to having a CAP concept that we base our entire process off of, this feels simultaneously broad and like ground that's been well-travelled. Maybe the concept could evolve into being more about exploring mons that purposefully limit which moves they use to fill niches in teambuilding, or morph into a concept about role compression, or even what it means for a mon to be predictable, yet viable. OR you might not take any of these suggestions, but that should at least give you some focus about why you don't like those suggestions, which should strengthen your Justification! Hit me up on Discord if you want to chat about this more, because this concept has a lot of layers.

D2TheW - Shallow Movepool - If you feel this is too similar to Estronic's, but you don't want to go for another concept, consider pivoting hard. Make the movepool limited to X moves, and give a justification for that number. Force this CAP to be about finding viability through a largely mono-type movepool with hardly any coverage. Look at something like Pyuku or Wobbuffet and create a mon that's viable despite severe movepool limitations. This is all just spitballing, so take or leave whatever you like.

Luna's Banned now - Toxic Specialist - I'm a pretty poor teambuilder myself, so when I'm scrounging around for teams, I find myself relieved whenever I can dig up something that has room for Toxic somewhere. Something about that move just puts my mind at ease, and I love that we've got some great mons that can unpredictably use Toxic in our meta, both from CAP and GameFreak. That being said, your Justification is borderline non-sensical, so spend some time cleaning up exactly what you think this concept should focus on. The history behind this move is fascinating, so you could potentially lean into that with your description and/or questions even further. Talking about the most common roadblocks to Toxic, and how teams in general get around those status absorbers (and teambuild to include them) could also be something intriguing to study.

Quanyails - Break the CAP Mold - We talked about this on DISCORD, YAY! Quan gave me full permission to post the log here. I'd like to do this with more of y'all, because I really enjoy chatting live. So don't hesitate to shoot me a PM or tag me in #cap (as per the OP of this thread).

Discord Conversation

10:55 PM] Birkal: I've seen a good chunk of concepts and talk in general about this exact thing
[10:56 PM] Birkal: about breaking the mold with what we make (e.g. glass cannon, slow wall, etc)
[10:56 PM] Birkal: So to have you articulate that want that the community in general has I think is a smart idea
[10:56 PM] Birkal: on the other hand, I think it's really vague, because this is something we could easily do with another concept, y'know?
[10:57 PM] Birkal: I struggle to envision how concept assessment would go, because we'd just be picking our "mold" that we want to break, and at that point, we might have just been better off doing a more focused concept?
[10:57 PM] Birkal: so I'm not sure what my practical advice would be. I think I need to chew on this more in general
[10:57 PM] Birkal: I could see you taking it in a direction where you go specifically into WHAT trend you think we should buck
[10:57 PM] Quanyails: Hmmmm, okay.
[10:57 PM] Birkal: but keeping it vague is also more universal
[10:58 PM] Birkal: so yeah, overall clever idea, but I think you should debate if the concept should get more specific
[10:58 PM] Birkal: and if you decide to keep it less specific, know WHY you're keeping it that way
[10:58 PM] Birkal: I think your 4th question is really solid
[10:59 PM] Birkal: "How many of the competitive decisions we make in CAP are due to "hard" reasons (viability) vs. "soft" reasons?"
[10:59 PM] Birkal: I think digging into why CAP tends to churn out mons the way we do could be a good reason to keep it more broad
[10:59 PM] Birkal: anyways, I'll leave you with that to think over, and we can keep chatting about it :slight_smile:
[11:01 PM] Quanyails: Thanks for the feedback, Birkal. :smiley:
[11:01 PM] Birkal: caw
[11:02 PM] Quanyails: To be honest, I'm not sure if I can commit to any particular direction. :sweat_smile:
[11:03 PM] Birkal: yeah I think that's fair enough
[11:03 PM] Birkal: I don't know that you need specific meta knowledge for this concept
[11:03 PM] Birkal: but I'd kind of like to know what trends YOU see in CAP that would be interesting to break
[11:04 PM] Birkal: (e.g. our stat builds, the types of abilities we pick, etc)
[11:04 PM] Birkal: you went into it a little bit with typing, and I think you could expand that
[11:04 PM] Quanyails: Hmm...
[11:07 PM] Quanyails: I can give examples of other trends I've noticed:
- We always want burn immunity on physically-offensive 'mons
- We never give 'mons boosting moves (although that's in part due to the CAP process)
- We never make defensive 'mons
- Before HDB, we always wanted to patch up a weakness to SR
- I think the last few 'mons have been pivots, but I need to make sure I know what a pivot is. I guess in general, CAP likes having Pokemon that can switch in easily.
[11:08 PM] Birkal: I think all these things are interesting to note
[11:09 PM] Birkal: so if you wanted it to look like a laundry list, or put it in a paragraph, I think that would be interesting
[11:09 PM] Birkal: wax lyrical a bit, yknow :)?
[11:18 PM] Quanyails: Got it. :slight_smile: Thanks for your feedback, Birkal!

DrifblooomCF - I have to admire your focus on this. A lot of concepts keep things too broad, which can lead to frustration during concept assessment, and mismanaged feelings on "how we did" at the end of our CAP journey. I think you've actually zoomed in a bit too far. I'd assert that this concept couldn't find viability without some extreme restrictions to movepool and stats. Every turn in a battle is valuable, and risking it all on a PP loss is a steep ask. I think if you zoomed out to include abilities, we could potentially be on to something there. The metagame is at a place where PP stalling could see some use, but we'd likely have to saddle it with something else to offer competitively. It might be worth talking about that in your questions.

Shadowshocker - We've tread this ground already over the course of this first day of concept submissions, so I'd encourage you to read back in this thread and check out our other friends who have submitted something relatively similar. You've put some more focus on yours, which is a good thing, and I am glad that you saw the immediate comparison to Prankster Roost Tomomhawk. In terms of arrangement, I think your example of Lugia could be brought down to explanation, letting you cast more vision on why this is something we should see in the CAP metagame. How does priority play into this? Taunt? U-turn? I think you could dig deeper.

 

[Jewvia]

Final Submission

Name: Ejection Pivot

Description: A Pokemon whose best kit relies on using the item "Eject Pack" to pivot out of the fight exactly once

Justification: This is an Actualization and Archetype concept inspired by the omnipresence of Heavy-Duty Boots in the meta. This concept seeks to explore the decisions behind a Pokemon's item choice, as well as explore the usage of an underused item that brings something unique to the process. Eject Pack is an item that forces a Pokemon to withdraw when its stats are lowered, a unique form of pivoting that is otherwise non-existent in the current metagame. Through looking at how to design a Pokemon that revolves around a specific uncommon item, we can learn more about not just the Eject Pack itself, but items as a whole.

Questions To Be Answered:
- What kind of a pivot would benefit the most from the usage of the Eject Pack? Would it be a defensive or an offensive one? A slow pivot that wants to take a hit, or a fast one that wants to hit and run exactly once?
- Pivots that resist Stealth Rocks (such as Kerfluffle) or have no weakness to them and Regenerator (such as Slowking) take HDB anyways. Is there a way to wholly decentivize the use of boots through the process as well as through teambuilding?
- Is there a way to make the flexibility of moves prior to an Ejection favourable compared to a more offensive Choice set?
- What are some jobs that want to be accomplished once or twice in a match, and what are some teams that would want to work in tandem with a Pokemon that is designed to enter the field a finite amount of times?
- Would the presence of an opponent's stat-lowering moves like Fire Lash be a detriment to the design that we need to design around, or something that could be exploited?
- What are some Pokemon that do use Eject Pack or similar consumables such as Red Card and Eject Button successfully in lower tiers of play or prior metagames? Why is it that they see success with it in their tier or time while it goes unused in the modern CAP meta?

Explanation: I think this could be a very interesting concept that explore paths such as pivoting out on a 120BP Close Combat rather than a 60BP U-Turn, or being able to tank a hit and fight back with a powerful Overheat before swapping out rather than a Teleport. Of course, there are other self-stat-dropping tools as well that could be explored beyond high BP attacks. The possibility to go for utility moves is also an option that Choice-locked pivots can't rely on. A concept like this also wouldn't be able to abuse Unburden like other consumable item based Pokemon like Hawlucha, which could make for a much less linear and far more interesting ability stage than a berry-based concept. Overall, I think that this actualization has potential to bring something new and interesting at every step of the process.

I looked more into similar items such as Red Card or Eject Button. Eject Button was used by Weather Setters so they could switch in, set up a weather, then tank a hit and switch out. Red Card was similarily used to stop a sweep in emergencies, with Mimikyu tanking a hit with its Disguise to force the opposition to switch out, as well as on suicide sets for Pokemon like Mew. These type of Pokemon do not want to switch in and out endlessly, but instead have a specific job they want to accomplish exactly once for Red Card users or twice for Eject Button users. While weather or terrain setting are things we can do, while also pivoting out with a powerful strike, there are other routes to take as well. One big key that I think we have over generic Choice sets is the option to use Utility or coverage in tandem with our Ejection tool. For example in PU, Miltank pivots out on Hammer Arm after deploying Stealth Rocks, while Appletun can set up Leech Seed and then exit with a Draco Meteor. In all of the cases here, it seems like Pokemon on the defensive side are the ones who make the most of these pivoting consumables. Despite that, Eject Pack is an innately offensive item that feels as if it wants to be triggered on your own terms, as opposed to the purely defensive and reactionary Eject Button or Red Card.

Going through some tests on the simulator, there were a number of things which popped up that would need to be accounted for. Moves such as Defog which have a stat drop as a side effect can inadvertently trigger the pack. Abilities such as Intimidate or hazards such as Sticky Webs also forced the pack to trigger unexpectedly, which create challenges for the Ejectionist. These tools are much more common in the CAP meta than they are in lower tiers such as ZU, where Duraludon can get away with SR/Draco Meteor with the Eject Pack. In other words, dealing with these effects is a challenge in itself. To look at just Sticky Web, there are a variety of ways to approach this. It doesn't effect Pokemon with Flying types or Levitate (although Flying types would typically wear Boots for SR,) the speed drop can be ignored with Clear Body/White Smoke, it can be ignored by having our Pokemon want to switch in against common Sticky Web users before they even plant the webs, or through teambuilding by being a strong counterpart alongside a reliable Rapid Spin/Defog user like Equilibra or Mandibuzz.

 

[Zephyri]

Name: A Taste of Your Own Medicine (s/o Birkal for the name)

Description: A Pokemon that excels at beating a certain role archetype using popular tools of said archetype.

Justification: This is both an Actualization and an Archetype-based concept, as it attempts to actualize the idea presented in the description, while also guaranteeing a specific archetype or role. With this concept, we'd intend to explore the nature of roles on a team, the tools available to archetypes, and how a certain "role" plays out on paper vs. in-game.

Questions to be answered:
- Why is it that most "anti-role archetypes" are the exact opposite of the role? For example, why are there very few offensive anti-setup 'mons, etc.
- What tools are commonplace for each role archetype in the current metagame?
- What are the existing examples of such a Pokemon, how do they function, and what can we learn from them?
- How broad of a role do we want this Pokemon to target? For example, if we chose "wallbreakers" as the archetype we'd want to beat, do we try to beat wallbreakers as a whole or just those that, say, pair well with Future Sight?
- Similarly, to what extent to we want to "beat" the role archetype? Do we attempt to limit it to just forcing them out, or do we want to make it so our presence makes them not much more than dead weight
- Miasmaw's concept was a very similar one to this, albeit more focused. What can we learn from Miasmaw's process that would help us understand "anti-roles"

Explanation: For the most part, to beat a role archetype you use the opposite of it. For example, most stallbreakers are offensive in nature, phazers and setup-stoppers are usually very defensive, etc. But there is an exception to this rule: revenge killers. Certain revenge killers, like Golisopod, Aegislash, and Weavile, use their strong priority to beat out sweepers that are getting out of hand, or cleaners that would otherwise finish the game. I think another curious example of this is Slowbro/king, which act as defensive pivots, but can beat other defensive pivots like Toxapex through Future Sight+breaker like Cinderace and Urshifu. Nevertheless, the number of Pokemon that act like this isn't a very vast number, and I think it'd be interesting to see how we can achieve this concept without just making a copy of the previously mentioned examples. I also feel that the inherent idea behind the concept means that we'd be exploring different uses of popular tools in the meta, like an offensive use of Unaware, or a defensive use of Taunt, which makes me excited about the possible directions we could take with this idea.

Any feedback about this concept would be very valuable ^^!