CAP 30 - Part 1 - Concept Submissions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wulfanator

Clefable's wish came true!
is a Pre-Contributor
Here is some round 2 feedback. I still have about 5 more I need to address, but figured I would not leave you waiting.

I am fond of these mechanics and have wanted to explore them in the past. I worry that the lack of options limits the concept too much out the gate. Options like soak and magic powder also risk being unexpectedly powerful since they strip the opponent of their stabs and resists.
Partner concepts have failed to work in the past, and I am not keen on repeating those mistakes. I think a better approach would be to use the Young God concept and build a stronger version of a UUBL mon as opposed to trying to bolster viability.
First Come, First Served can cover these mechanics without being specifically limited to them. That really puts this concept in an awkward position, and I am unsure of what can be done to set this concept apart from its competition.
I think it is different enough from Get It How You Want It so you do not need to delete it. I have made similar comments towards other concepts that we probably need to build in a way that not only encourages one move but disincentivizes the other. It would be unfortunate if one utility is the default for both forms.
Pacing of a match usually is not dictated by a single mon. It is mostly influenced by team compositions. As is, the concept feels like a convoluted way of saying make one form defensive and the other offensive.
Holy hell this scares me. When I brought up the issues with Equilibra’s two abilities for Two Sides of the Same Coin, I had spaced on the fact we have two different forms. This just exacerbates that problem with an additional ability. Not to mention, two Pokémon would have this problem as opposed to just one.
The design space here is very limited. It also sounds like we are making a mon that will counter itself which I am not thrilled about. This could maybe be spun so that only one screen gets used per form sort of how Gen 6 Tomohawk sometimes ran reflect as its last move.
I think Young God and this have a lot in common. Taking mechanics we are not currently using and giving it new life is something I am always willing to explore. I do know that some strategies from older gens were based on weird mechanic interactions that no longer exist like gen 2 resttalk being able to use rest while asleep and gen 1 hyper beam not having to recharge if the opponent was KOed. Is that problematic for this concept?
I am more interested in the disrupting aspect of this project, but I think the entirety of this project is solid. With the example of FS+breaker combos, I would worry about us veering too close to a partner project, but I think the amount of design space lets that be a very small concern.
This would benefit from being called “Hax-Proof” or even a variation on Colossoil’s concept “Stop the Secondary” since some of the concept revolves around secondary effects. I think this could work, but I am not super familiar with all the options available here. That makes me unable to gauge how much there is to explore.
This is a fine concept. I like how some of these mechanics can stack on one another, but other than that I have no strong opinions on it.

I will hopefully have this finished up later tonight. I will mention that I am not worried about our concept playing into our framework all that much. My hope is to slate options that have lots of room to fulfill the concept. Lastly, I will encourage users to not provide commentary on legality of concepts since it is my and the mod team's responsibility to make those conclusions.
 
Last edited:

MrDollSteak

CAP 1v1 me IRL
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributor
Moderator
Given we only have a short period left, I'll leave my feedback and replies to people now, rather than wait for later. Replies first.
I just want to stress that Krazyguy75's feedback while really generous and quite detailed isn't the be all and end all for everyone. One thing that I've noticed in particular is that there are a few comments about needing the concept to specify what to do with each forme where possible which isn't technically necessary. Furthermore, points about legality here are not necessarily the most important to address as it is actually the TLT and Mod teams that will give the final pass.

I think to attempt to restate Wulf's post here and my interpretation of the phrasing:
Please remember that concept submissions must apply to both forms, similar to how the starters shared the same concept for CAP 25.
I take this mean that whatever concept we pick, the concept is something we will have to consider for both formes, not necessarily that the concept must stipulate what to do with each of the formes. There's nothing wrong with doing the latter but I don't think absolutely everybody needs to abide this just to bear in mind.

On that note I'll also be going through and discussing some of the concepts that really pique my interest now that we only have just over a day left.

First Come, First Served: This is a very interesting and elegant concept in my opinion. Finding the ways to balance different aspects of moving first, both speed and priority across the formes seems like a really fun challenge. Having one fast form and then a slower form that relies on priority that the other doesn't want or can't use effectively for example strikes me as just one of a few very fruitful avenues that would result in good discussion and end-products.

Get It How You Want It: I love this concept, and I'm not just saying that because it has a lot of superficial similarities with my own in terms of some of the discussion questions and examples. I think the specification to find certain broad utility moves and roles that both formes can achieve but in slightly differently ways is really exciting for team composition.

Not All Dragons Are Dragon-type: One of the stranger concepts, but one that appeals to me for this reason. Thinking about how to use a type in unconventional ways or to follow the model and roles of other types seems like some great exploration. Even if we are hot on the tails of a type concept with Chromera, making something more reliable is definitely more interesting, especially considering there are two formes that could play out rather differently.

Young God: While I think this one probably needs quite a lot of discussion and padding out in concept assessment it's one that I think could be really quite rewarding. We all have our own examples of unviable Pokemon that we love the playstyle of but just can't work in the CAP or OU metagames, and I think being able to narrow in on some cool mechanics and playstyles and making them work would be great.

Optimized Ability: This is quite similar to Young God in my opinion but being more specific and targeted does it a lot of favour. While we have just had a full ability concept, this is a completely different beast (pun intended) because we're actually starting with something that isn't a major impediment, and can instead balance our power budget very differently.

Pacing: A really abstract and appealing concept. I think it gives us a lot of room to have some interesting discussions about aspects of the metagame that are hard to pin down. It makes me think of processes such as Tomohawk's and Astrolotl's that were really fun to be a part of and observe and which of course ended up with some quite fascinating, unique and powerful Pokemon irrespective of whether or not they fully embodied the ideas they were exploring.

Teaching A New Dog Old Tricks: Another great concept here (and what a good name!). This was one of my favorites from the concepts last process, and is one that I think is only improved with our particular framework, it opens up the possibility to attempt different takes on the same old strategy, or to even try two different old strategies per form and going from there. Not much to add apart from the fact that it will be really fun.

Combo Maker / Breaker: Apart from the fact you've missed the opportunity to add a few C-C-'s in front of your title, I think this one is very solid and interesting. It's one of the best times to test out such a concept because we've seen this generation the ability for previously unviable combos such as delayed damage to become staples of the metagame. I'd be really curious to see if we could take other unviable move combos and give them some much needed life. If we also choose to take the breaker route, that's perfectly fine too for the same aforementioned reasons.

Game of Inches: I wasn't completely sold about this concept in our previous processes but the longer I've thought about it, and particularly now that we have two formes to play with, I think this might be my absolutely favourite here. I think we have an unprecendented opportunity to explore a range of the many gradual effects in the game. Having one focus on recovery and the other damage could be one exciting route, or even just having one explore pseudo-status effects and the other chip equally valid.

Risk vs Reward: Big fan of this one, it does a great job of explaining what to do with each of the formes and contextualising what's interesting about it. It reminds me of the pacing concept but with some helpful parameters to guide discussion. I think it's very exciting to think about what to do with different types of Pokemon, and trying to balance both in a game that for the most part values consistency is something I think that it is very helpful.

My Own Worst Enemy: This is quite an intriguing concept that I think works particularly well with the framework we have chosen. Creating a Pokemon that counters itself is something can be quite dangerous and uninteractive as recent CAP experience shows with Equilibra and Chromera, however, the fact that we have two formes to play with here effectively makes it more healthy. I also think the fact that this encourages the two Pokemon to have some form of perpetual viability or purpose in the metagame in order to counter eachother is an interesting way of promoting the use of both formes. I also like the discussion questions about Giratina and whether or not it successfully embodies this.
 
Nonstandard Booster: I like this concept, but I feel like it's another one that's more suited to a normal CAP process rather than a two form framework. Cause as is, you are asking for us to make two sub-par stat stages, where stats are one of the ways this 'mon can be unique.
I was afraid of that. Thanks.
 
Partner concepts have failed to work in the past, and I am not keen on repeating those mistakes. I think a better approach would be to use the Young God concept and build a stronger version of a UUBL mon as opposed to trying to bolster viability.
I think this actually works a bit better for what I was trying to get at with this CAP, so I have edited my concept accordingly.
 
Holy hell this scares me. When I brought up the issues with Equilibra’s two abilities for Two Sides of the Same Coin, I had spaced on the fact we have two different forms. This just exacerbates that problem with an additional ability. Not to mention, two Pokémon would have this problem as opposed to just one.

I think people are really underestimating the constraints the framework places on these mons' (we're designing two different but related threats) viability. Losing an item means losing a potential:

1.5* damage/speed boost
1/16 passive healing each turn
hazards immunity
1/8 passive damage on contact
Seed boost
one-use practical status immunity
One-use OHKO immunity

These are massively important in making or breaking set viability. This loss needs to be factored in discussions on CAP30i. It's because of this loss that the Abilities stage will be totally crucial to the project regardless of the concept, but I think that alone is enough of a reason for the concept to be Ability-centric by necessity. The issue of unpredictability is heavily mitigated on CAP30i, and having 3 Abilities by itself isn't really enough to make a Pokemon too much to deal with. Tomohawk and Aurumoth are projects that can utilise all three Abilities available to them in competitively viable sets, and they also have access to items lol.
 
Updated my sub based on feedback and just looking at it through a new lens. Thanks to you four who helped! If anyone else has suggestions please get them in as I wrote the majority of this well past midnight.

Here's some responses to those who commented:
Never Punished
This is a concept that I think works kind of like sprinkles on an ice cream. The basis, or ice cream, is the Pokemon need to be obviously viable in order to interact with the metagame, while the elements that reduce the effects of variance are the sprinkles. They are a bonus flavor that is great to have, but you don't need it to enjoy the product. As such, this concept will need a little more direction, probably by picking a specific source of RNG to avoid, i.e. Zapdos Static or Scald burns. Not a bad concept, but focusing too much on the anti-hax element would be a total design mistake.
I think I see what you're getting at, in that CAP30/30i has to do something valuable in the metagame in order to be, well, relevant, and in your opinion having some sort of resistance/benefit from random effects is nice but not exactly something that makes a Pokemon good.

Obviously it's hard to come to some sort of conclusion here since our opinions are at odds; I personally think that a Pokemon which can reduce the effect hax has on it would be quite strong, simply because such things are abundant in the metagame (and Pokemon as a whole), and when using a team you have to account for a large quantity of both individual Pokemon and full-on archetypes. A Pokemon which is "hax-proof"would be beneficial for a team that doesn't want to risk their mons on a potential Scald Burn or have a wall suddenly forced out due to an unlikely defense drop, just to name a few.

In terms of what forms of hax we are meant to deal with and what CAP30/30i would do, I wanted to leave that open as I feel these are elements which will be addressed through the rest of the process, with the former being decided during Concept Assessment. Your point on having a clearer direction is definitely on the nose, and hopefully the changes I've made make the whole concept more cohesive than before.

This is nice, because if we make this, d2 will finnaly be able to win a team tour game in CAP. No but for real I think there are some interesting possibilities to explore here and while I don’t think we can ever fix hax, looking for ways to profit of a missed hurricane or an inflicted burn, sounds like a promising idea.
Unsurprisingly, I agree! Hax is definitely hard to fix which is why I'm so interested in the creation of two mons which can be used to combat it. Just as an aside, I didn't really consider accuracy (at least inherent move accuracy) for this concept: to me it feels more "player-friendly" in that the user of a lower accuracy move has to accept that they can miss every turn, while the recipient of said move has to accept they will get hit every time. Thus there's an equal risk for both sides they have to gauge. A move like Iron Head, meanwhile, doesn't have this dynamic. For the user it's extremely safe to use, as there's no risk of missing, while the recipient has to accept they might be afflicted with the secondary chance to flinch every time. Obviously an exaggeration of what normally happens in a game and it gets much more complicated than this during a real battle, but I think I've made my point get across: accuracy is more of a two-way relationship while the move's I'm looking at are much more one-way.

Never Punished: That's an interesting concept, at least. I could see ways to make it work with our framework relatively well. That said, I don't know if that's the most interesting end product; it will just be a 'mon whose entire concept is limiting counterplay, which, well... limits counterplay, making for a less interactive fight.
I guess that's an aspect of this concept, but I wouldn't say "limiting counterplay" is the entire concept. You are right that one of the uses of hax, and why it's so prominent, is that x-factor where a Pokemon you would otherwise struggle to beat is now much easier to get past. By denying certain forms of hax, you're essentially making a Pokemon more difficult to answer.

I don't see this an an issue, though, nor as the purpose of this concept. Rather, I see it as a chance to make use of abilities and moves which can reduce the stress of random effects happening. Abilities that help versus hax in particular tend to be less favorable compared to some of the more popular and powerful abilities that boost your offensive/defensive strength. Not that they are all bad (especially with regards to that one ability that lets you avoid all passive damage), but there's certainly a lot which have potential. Typing as well can play a huge role in dealing with hax. As for limiting counterplay, well yes that's a result and could be problematic, but I imagine we will be factoring in appropriate counterplay for 30 and 30i during the process, so I'm not too concerned.

In terms of this leading to "less interactive" fights, this to me just sounds like speculation. If anything I'd argue it'd lead to more interactive fights as a whole, though that depends a lot of which direction we would take and thus is speculation as well. What I do know is I've seen and played enough games where two bulky Waters click Scald on each other for multiple turns not wanting to bring anything else in and get burned, which might be one of the least interactive fights you can have. I don't think a hax-proof Pokemon is guaranteed to result in less interactivity and if anything should be designed to keep things moving forward. That's just me, though.

This would benefit from being called “Hax-Proof” or even a variation on Colossoil’s concept “Stop the Secondary” since some of the concept revolves around secondary effects. I think this could work, but I am not super familiar with all the options available here. That makes me unable to gauge how much there is to explore.
I wasn't too sure what to name the title: Never Punished came to me since it's a nuzlocking meme and it actually fit quite well with this concept I'd been thinking about for a while. Hax-Proof is certainly better for getting the point across and to me that's way more important than being cute.

Reviewing Colossoil's concept, "Stop the Secondary" was looking at the impacts "secondary" elements had in a match, whether they were move effects or effects themselves. This included stuff like Trick, Stealth Rock, and Taunt, which isn't covered here. From my outlook that concept was to make a Pokemon which was equipped to deal with anything that wasn't a damaging move. What I've submitted is similar in that an anti-status route is totally within reach, but where it differs is that damaging moves play a major role in what CAP 30/30i is going to do, as I am addressing secondary effects instead of a more general "secondary." Overlap exists in that an ability which blocks burn, for example, would both be an answer to Scald and an answer to Flame Body or Will-o-Wisp, neither of which aren't damaging moves like Scald is.

What I've learned from all of this is that going the "Hax-Proof" route is a bit more clearly defined and the concept would benefit from being less fixated on moves with secondary effects. Such moves will still have serious weight in discussion and building, but there's no particular reason for them to be singled out amongst the rest.
 

Wulfanator

Clefable's wish came true!
is a Pre-Contributor
Last handful of concepts
This is something I want to revisit at some point since Aurumoth notoriously failed this concept, but I think the framework stands to work against this concept since both Pokémon share movepool. The example you list of ORAS Keldeo highlights the issue I bring up since focus blast Keldeo always has the secret sword same with hydro pump and scald. If there is a safer option and room on the moveset, the mon will usually run both. There are some routes where we can fulfill our concept, but this would be much easier if the movepool were separate.
This is fine. I do not think that it offers us much to learn from since it is so broad in its proposal, but this could yield solid products easily. The HO element is more interesting to me since it feels like we naturally drift to building balance mons in other projects.
This could be interesting depending on how loose of a definition we choose for “boost.” Would abilities like Merciless, Bersek, and Steam Engine be included? The design space could be interesting or really restricted depending on how we choose to interpret the concept.
This concept is trying too hard to be all encompassing. I think this would have been a strong submission if it had just picked the two playstyles to build for. This is like having no direction and makes me uninterested in it.
 
This is something I want to revisit at some point since Aurumoth notoriously failed this concept, but I think the framework stands to work against this concept since both Pokémon share movepool. The example you list of ORAS Keldeo highlights the issue I bring up since focus blast Keldeo always has the secret sword same with hydro pump and scald. If there is a safer option and room on the moveset, the mon will usually run both. There are some routes where we can fulfill our concept, but this would be much easier if the movepool were separate.
I think the point is that low acc. moves aren't the only way to explore risk. The concept aims to explore the ways in which you could make a mon risky or safe, either inherently or through gameplay.

In Keldeo's case, it isn't an inherently a risky mon, because you can always click Secret Sword. But it does reward risky play if you click Focus Blast and hit. Is that enough of a risk-reward interaction for this CAP? The community would have to decide that.

On the other hand, Hustle Durant doesn't have the option to click an easy 100% acc move (besides Aerial Ace, I guess). That's an inherently risky mon.

Additionally, I don't think mons running both risky and safe move options is generally true. The key phrase you mention is "if there is room on the moveset". Can a mon like Magearna really run both Focus Blast and Aura Sphere? It runs Focus Blast on offensive sets and Aura Sphere on AV because the risk-reward balance in each of these sets is different. Nobody runs Hurricane and Air Slash or Gunk Shot and Poison Jab on the same mon. I guess my Keldeo example was poor, but it was more to demonstrate risk tolerance in player decisions than to demonstrate the inherent risk of a mon or its moves.

That's why I think the movepool restrictions are especially interesting for this concept. If both CAP30 and 30i had both Focus Blast and Aura Sphere, which one which choose to run which? If they both had decent coverage options and a couple of utility moves, would they both run coverage AND utility?

Again, the moves aren't (necessarily) the focal point. If Kartana had Ferro's exact movepool (plus Sacred Sword, for argument's sake), you are still far more likely to bring Kart in on a risky double than Ferro to force a KO. This case isn't about Power Whip's accuracy vs Leaf Blade; it's about Kartana's sheer power and defensive frailty vs Ferrothorn's defensive sponginess. Even with Ferro's movepool, you predict wrong with Kart? Dead. You predict wrong with Ferro? No problem, just click Leech Seed a couple times, or at least get a Spike up/Paralyze something. You predict right with Kart, you might instantly win the game. You predict right with Ferro, you might get an extra Spike.

Let me clarify that I am not suggesting that low defenses or low acc. moves are the only ways to explore risk. But how great a reward makes the mon worth the risk? Would Kart still be viable if it had 120 Attack and Levitate instead? Would it still be balanced if it had its current offenses and ability but 90/90/90 defenses? In my opinion, the fact that Kart has the same movepool as Ferro in this scenario makes this contrast all the more compelling. In fact, I think the movepool constraints are actually HELPFUL, because if the movepools were separate, we would probably just give one a bunch of 70-80% acc. moves and the other one a bunch of utility and recovery options.

Sure, you risk (hah!) bloating the movepool here, but that's a risk that will have to be dealt with by any concept that aims to create 2 contrasting mons.
 
Last edited:
Wanted to clarify and expand upon some points on my Pacing concept.
A lot of this is rewording and expanding upon points explicitly or implicity touched upon in my original submission post; I want to keep that post relatively concise, which is why I’m making this a spearate post.

To recap, what exactly is “pacing”?
“Turn count” isn’t very useful for CAP’s purposes, but I think I’ve identified two sub-properties through which pacing can be identified.
Volatility, or how much the game state can potentially change in a single turn. More volatile = faster paced.
Sustainability, or how resistant a mon is to various entropy mechanics, such as chip damage, status, and PP depletion. More sustainable = slower paced.

This is still very abstract, so let’s focus on some concrete examples.

:hawlucha: I present Hawlucha as the ur-example of what “fast-paced” is. It is ultimately volatile (once it hits the field, it either sweeps, or splats into a wall and dies), and ultimately unsustainable (Unburden only activates once; no second chances).

:toxapex: Pex, like most stall mons, is slow-paced. Infinitely sustainable thanks to its bulk and Regenerator, but very non-volatile due to its reliance on residual damage.

:kyurem: Kyurem is proof that offense can be slow-paced. With a Substitute/Roost/Dragon Dance set, its gameplan is similar to Hawlucha’s - get in at the right time and set up for a sweep - but in doing so it grinds the match to a halt, dancing around with Substitute and PP stalling with Pressue as it accumulates boosts. Further unlike Hawlucha, it can attempt this multiple times in a single game, thanks to the sheer amount of recovery it has access to.

:tapu fini:On its face, Fini is defensive mon like Pex, built to sponge hits and support its team with utility. However, its lack of recovery means it gets worn down if the game drags on; unlike Pex, Fini wants to end the game quickly. And, while not particularly volatile, it can shut down passive mons with Taunt and threaten frailer mons with its decent solid offensive typing, ie more than what Pex can do per turn.
(Quziel said on discord that fast-paced defense is just defensive pivots. That’s basically true lmao)


There are few other concepts and comments in this thread I’d like to go over briefly.

Even with Ferro's movepool, you predict wrong with Kart? Dead. You predict wrong with Ferro? No problem, just click Leech Seed a couple times, or at least get a Spike up/Paralyze something. You predict right with Kart, you might instantly win the game. You predict right with Ferro, you might get an extra Spike.
This is a pretty good summary of what I mean by “volatility”. Using previous examples: predict right with Hawlucha, you might instantly win; predict right with Kyurem, and you might get another Dragon Dance.
More related to your actual concept, here’s a food-for-thought hypothesis: the faster-paced a match is, the more impactful hax becomes.

Name: Get It How You Want It

Description: Both formes can provide the same utility effectively, but each forme differs in the methods that they can provide the utility and what Pokemon it may affect.
One interesting thing I’ve noticed in contemplating this concept is in how many utilities have “fast” and “slow” variants.
Compare Wish and Healing Wish. Healing Wish (like most self-KOing moves) is the Hawlucha of team support; high potential impact, single-use, all-or-nothing. Wish, by contrast, has the sole utility of allowing fast mons to play slow. A well-played Clefable can turn any pokemon into Toxapex.
Or, compare Scald to Will-o-Wisp. Isn’t it strange how the 85%-accurate burn of Will-o sometimes feels less consistent than the 30% burn chance of Scald? I think it’s because Scald is slower-paced; the expectation is that you’re fishing for it over multiple uses of the move, vs with Will-o where you expect to burn on the first use.

Name: Game of Inches
Another way to phrase the premise of Pacing is “one form plays a game of inches, the other plays a game of miles”.

Pacing of a match usually is not dictated by a single mon. It is mostly influenced by team compositions.
“A mon can’t single-handedly define the pace of all games” does not mean “a single mon can’t have any meaningful influence on pacing whatsoever”.
Blissey plays pretty slow on a typical stall team. Bolting it onto an otherwise-HO team isn’t going to make it want to play any faster, and it certainly won’t be speeding anything up.

It makes me think of processes such as Tomohawk's and Astrolotl's that were really fun to be a part of and observe and which of course ended up with some quite fascinating, unique and powerful Pokemon irrespective of whether or not they fully embodied the ideas they were exploring.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Related to Wulf’s comment above; the Theoretical Perfect Execution of this concept is a mon that is not only itself fast/slow, but also partners best with other fast/slow teammates, and incentivizes its foes to use fast/slow mons against it.
Obviously all that isn’t practically achievable — most likely we focus on the mon’s preferred pacing, with its influence on allies and foes merely in the periphery — but, well, as that old saying goes, if you shoot for the moon and miss, you still land among the stars.

Pacing
[...] when do you want to play the long game and when do you want to try to ends things quickly? How do you create these openings; how do you deny them? How importantly is momentum, pressure, and reactivity to the pace of a game? Is it humane game design to create a Pokemon which functions best when it uses more of you and your opponents IRL time? These are questions I want to answer, which makes for a wonderful concept.
I knew going in “Pacing” is a very vague, abstract concept; it was a lot of work figuring out how the heck I could articulate it. So it’s incredibly satisfying to see someone so thoroughly Get It
 
Icing on top of the Cake: I don't quite feel like your description is very descriptive. "The generation"? As in, this generation? Isn't that just "create a generically good 'mon"? Then I read your justification, and I guess you are just saying "pick a playstyle and build to support it". To which I respond: "Isn't that just what CAP always does?" Then I got to your explanation, and I think I finally understand what you are meaning. You want to create a CAP that takes a weaker playstyle and brings it up to a standard where it will consistently usable even in future generations. I think? But this really needs some wording reworks.
Icing on Top of the Cake This concept is trying too hard to be all encompassing. I think this would have been a strong submission if it had just picked the two playstyles to build for. This is like having no direction and makes me uninterested in it.
Understandable. Ty for the feedback! I will implement the wording changes. Sorry if it sounded like I was rambling.

Edit - fixed
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dex

Brambane

burn the midnight oil
is a Contributor Alumnus
A couple new concepts to respond to before the thread locks up tonight, so I took the time to read them over and give my thoughts.

Game of Inches
If you frequent the CAP Discord (hint, you should I you don't already) you are familiar with the idea of concept built around the idea of incremental damage; it comes up in conversation a fair bit. And for good reason, since it explores a fundamental part of the game that manifests in a wide variety of forms. The gameplay and strategies utilizing incremental damage/healing, and mitigating these effects, are among most developed aspects of competitive Pokemon. There is a rich history of examples to reference for this concept; sometimes that makes things boring since you aren't really exploring anything new or flashy. In the case of this concept, it makes things interesting since some of moves and abilities of incurring or prevent incremental damage to restricted to lower tiers due to being stuck on Pokemon that can't make it in CAP/OU. Alternatively, it makes for a fun project to design a Pokemon to optimize and/or nullify a keystone element in the metagame, while making sure it doesn't break the meta in the process. Also, this concept embraces the beloved and ubiquitous word embodying bad predictions, one-hit Triple Axels, crit Rapid Spins, helmets, barbs, Druddigon's desperate need to exfoliate, and the best kind of cookie.

Risk vs Reward
This is a concept that deserves revisiting; the old version had a bug in the program. The concept write-up mentions Scald burns, missing 85%/70% accurate moves, double-switching, and the other conventional elements of risk that are usually discussed in competitive Pokemon, but it also briefly mentions the place where risk rears its head first, and most prominently: teambuilding. I wish the write-up went more into this, because it is probably the most important place when accessing Risk vs Reward. We remember missing a crucial Focus Blast or getting an important Sludge Bomb poison since it is an acute form of agony or euphoria. But you can't build a team that threatens every team, and you can't build a team that stops every threat. Teambuilding, at its core, comes down to mitigating the risk of running into something you can't beat, and/or capitalizing on something you think your opponent (immediately or eventually) won't be able to answer. That is a component that is worth exploring and highlighting, and adds another layer of depth to concept that deserves a second chance.

Fat and furious
Here is a fun concept that can be summed up nicely as "build two Pokemon for the two most common team archetypes in the metagame." Granted, you can further divide HO and Balance into different team-styles, but you get my point. I don't really have any problem with this as a concept given the framework; it gives direction, a strong basis to build off of, and also lets us make a Pokemon that fits best on HO, which is a rare breed among CAPs. A solid concept that wouldn't work without a framework; get it while its hot.

Nonstandard Booster
Now THIS is a concept with a ton of fun potential if you look past the obvious Body Press, Stored Power, and Power Trip. There are weird mechanics and strategies that can be used to boost damage. A favorite example: Focus Energy Kingdra, who can't boost its Special Attack but has the perfect combination of moves and abilities to make the use of critical hit wallbreaking. Another example: old school Metronome Kyurem, using its fat Subs, ability to force defensive Pokemon to recover, and solid two-move coverage to become a breaker. Building a Pokemon around stuff like this sounds like an amazing project, although I think it might be stretched a little thin across two forms.

My Own Worst Enemy
This is a really cool idea, but it leave us with less of a springboard to jump off of and more of a tightrope to walk across. We aren't designing a Pokemon that can counter itself ala Aura Sphere Equilibra; we are designing two forms, or two Pokemon, that counter each other. How do you make a Pokemon that counters its counter; is the counter still a counter? Especially when we don't know what the Pokemon we are trying to counter even is right out the gate? I am not saying this is a bad concept, but it has some BIG challenge and questions to answer, while also not really providing much immediate direction towards what the two Pokemon are supposed to do outside of beating each other.

Icing on top of the Cake
I think this write-up has some things that need to be fixed for for clarity and specificity. One way would be to make one archetype the focus, or that each form focuses on a different archetype, i.e. " Description: Each form improves (insert archetype here) in its own way" or "Description: Each form specializes in an archetype that don't overlap." I would personally go with the ladder, although singling out Hail and VoltTurn is odd to me since one is a very niche archetype and the other is more-or-less fine, it just has a different flavor in Gen 8. With all that being said, a concept of building around a specific archetype is fine, albeit not super glamorous or abstract. Maybe if it was envisioned as "one form improves an archetype that is niche or uncommon in the current meta, while the other combats an archetype that is strong," such as one form fitting nicely on sand offense while the other focuses on disrupting Electric-type balance teams. But I like concepts that examine and ask questions about the meta, so maybe I am biased.

Anti synergy CAPs
Wonderful! This is a fantastic concept that looks like a joy, and is also incredibly broad. The options are limitless, although the name "anti-synergy" seems kind of odd; all the real Pokemon examples listed do have some degree of explicit synergy that allows them to function in their role. If anything, its a case of "more than meets the eye" in the case of Tyranitar and Dragonite. But I am basically just splitting hairs here, this is a fantastic concept and one that would be really fun to do with the challenge of making two Pokemon with the same type.

-

One thing I wanted to comment on is that a lot of these concepts focus on things that would still be part of the development process even if the concept doesn't explicitly win. For example, even if the concept about role compression didn't win, its not like suddenly making a Pokemon with good role compression is off the table. Or making a Pokemon that utilizes terrains, or counters Dragapult, or offers Speed control, or making a form that works best on HO while other fits best on balance. Most of the concepts in this thread are not mutually exclusive; there could and probably will be some overlap due to the diversity of concepts this time around, how a number of these concepts examine fundemental parts of the game, and how others respond directly to the metagame we are building around. Obviously its great if your concept wins, since it will be the launching point and focus of the project, but a lot of the concepts here also provide inspiration for ideas that could be used later in the project even if it doesn't take home the gold.

It was a lot of fun reading through and responding to the concepts for CAP30, especially when we are doing our first multi-form Pokemon. I look forward to all the concepts for CAP31, and hopefully seeing a few here take another swing for the win.
 
Last edited:
Icing on top of the Cake
I think this write-up has some things that need to be fixed for for clarity and specificity. One way would be to make one archetype the focus, or that each form focuses on a different archetype, i.e. " Description: Each form improves (insert archetype here) in its own way" or "Description: Each form specializes in an archetype that don't overlap." I would personally go with the ladder, although singling out Hail and VoltTurn is odd to me since one is a very niche archetype and the other is more-or-less fine, it just has a different flavor in Gen 8. With all that being said, a concept of building around a specific archetype is fine, albeit not super glamorous or abstract. Maybe if it was envisioned as "one form improves an archetype that is niche or uncommon in the current meta, while the other combats an archetype that is strong," such as one form fitting nicely on sand offense while the other focuses on disrupting Electric-type balance teams. But I like concepts that examine and ask questions about the meta, so maybe I am biased.
Ty, Feedback implemented! Hopefully that is good enough to be accepted!
 
Last edited:

LucarioOfLegends

Master Procraster
is a CAP Contributor
As is, I think the concept is a bit difficult to read and comprehend. I had to reread the concept several times to feel comfortable enough to address it, but it seems others have walked away with a different understanding compared to mine. For that reason, take my commentary with a grain of salt. We are aiming to replicate functionality of a different type/types. Is this functionality achieved with only stats and ability or does movepool get taken into consideration even though both forms would have access? Are we picking types that naturally align with 30/30i’s typing (i.e. take the bulky water route and supercharge it with the defensive qualities of steel-types)? Celesteela is standing out as a mon that lightly interacts with idea expressed here since it is steel/flying with bulky grass attributes in leech seed/giga drain.
A bit late but edited my submission for clarity, mostly through adding examples in explanation. Also added a few more questions.
 

Wulfanator

Clefable's wish came true!
is a Pre-Contributor
After some discussion with the TLT, I am happy to share the concept slate. Given that the framework slate was a sizable 9 options compared to the standard 5-8, I decided early on that I wanted to balance that with a smaller slate this time around. I settled on these 6 (ordered based on when they appear in the thread):

Role Compress to Impress
Get It How You Want It
Young God
Optimized Ability
Combo Maker / Breaker
Anti-Synergy CAPs


Some reasoning for the slate:
Role Compress to Impress takes something that is usually a secondary addition in most projects and makes us focus on it from the start. With arguably the least restrictive design space of all the concepts slated, this seemed like an easy way to make a strong final product and a safe option for slate. That being said, this concept also provides the least direction from the start, so we will need to use concept assessment narrowing the avenues we wish to pursue.
Get It How You Want It was in a tight race with Utility Specialist Siblings for final slate. Both were promising options focused on varying utility. I think either could have made for a great project, so I had not personal preference between the two. Over the course of submissions, I looked to the opinions of the TLT and the community to make a final decision regarding which to slate. After speaking with my team and viewing the comments from the forum/discord, the community appeared to be more interested in Get It How You Want It giving it the spot on the slate.
Young God was another option in a race for slate. It and Teaching a New Dog Old Tricks both targeted mechanics/playstyles that are not seeing use in the current gen. Young God eventually took the slot for several reasons. Between analyzing low tiers or old tiers, it will be easier for community members unfamiliar with these formats to learn from more active formats. In most cases, this is the current generation. Also, some of the mechanics up for consideration in Teaching a New Dog Old Tricks were only strong because of mechanics/items that have changed/been removed since the generation they predominantly appeared.
Much like Role Compress to Impress, Optimized Ability stood out as another safe option to send to the poll. The community enjoys exploring mechanics locked away behind Pokémon that cannot support them. The projects that used Parting Shot, Comatose, and Doom Desire are examples of us in our element. It seemed like a no-brainer from my perspective.
Combo Maker/Breaker not only gives us the standard “build with complementary mechanics” that try for in every project but also introduces the ability to mess with opposing combos. That blend of standard design methods in our projects and exploring new territory made it a desirable candidate for slate. It also helped hearing people talking about it positively in voice chat on discord the other day.
Lastly, Anti-Synergy was covered briefly in our concept assessment for Chromera. It was quickly ruled as not falling within the scope of that concept but was still interesting to consider at the time. Taking from that discussion for inspiration was clever and will have us building in a way contrary to our norms. As I have mentioned, we like to optimize mechanics when we can, so it will be refreshing to consider the opposite.

Before we head over to the poll, I did want to share the other concepts that were in consideration for slate. I thought these all could have worked, and I even mentioned some of them in the rationale for the slate. These are concepts I would encourage being resubmitted for a future project. In no particular order:
First Come, First Served
Not All Dragons Are Dragon-Types
Two Sides of the Same Coin
Booster Beware
Utility Specialist Siblings
Teaching a New Dog Old Tricks
Game of Inches
Fat and Furious
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top