CAP 32 - Part 1 - Concept Submissions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Gravity Monkey

Que des barz comme si jtais au hebs
is a Top Artist
WIP

Title
: Fun-Sized

Description: This Pokémon's base stat total and BSR ratings are low.

Justification: CAP has had a history of bloated statlines in order to justify the use of suboptimal typings or peculiar playstyles. While there's nothing wrong with that approach, especially considering how high the average OU statline is, it could be interesting to flip the procedure for a project. Finding ways to optimize typing, abilities and movepool to accomodate for stats rather than optimizing stats to accomodate for the rest is something that has rarely been done in CAP and I think that it could lead to a very interesting process. Even with the constant powecreep, mons with lackluster stats but very optimized roles always manage to find some roles in both OU and CAP OU. For instance, there are currently 9 pokemon in OU with a BST of 500 or less, and 6 that are ranked B or higher in the current CAP VR; it's far from an impossible endeavour.

Questions to be answered:
  • What is considered "low base stat total"?
  • What is considered "low BSR"?
  • What Pokémon in the current CAP metagame fall in those categories?
  • What attributes allow them to thrive despite these flaws?
  • To what extent do solid stats provide a "foundation" for viable use cases in a tier?
  • Does a stat-poor pokemon necessarily need to focus on things like status, hazards, or support that don't interact with the stats system to be effective?
  • Similarly, do stat-poor pokemon necessarily carry particular overbearing attributes that "carry" their usage (weather, stat-warping abilities, archetype-defining moves)?
Explanation: Thanks to @Quizel for the reminder about BSR's existence + thanks to Zzuxon for both that and some very good question examples that i decided to include as well.
 
Last edited:

spoo

is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
Popping in to give feedback on the first page of concept submissions. There's a lot to work through here, so apologies if it takes me a while to get to everyone. I'm beyond excited about this lineup of concepts, though -- I feel like I could already put together a strong slate, and it hasn't even been 24 hours, which is a great feeling. Anyways, let's get into the submissions!

Old Dog New Tricks - quziel
I liked this concept the last time it was submitted and it's one that I'm still a fan of. You acknowledge the issue that many oldgen sets are impossible to mechanically replicate, and that's a concern I share; a lot of these strategies have also just aged very poorly, so our pool of options might be deceptively small. Still, given the sheer number of cool oldgen OU mons and strategies over the years, I don't think this would significantly impede the process. My other worry would be CAP's general unfamiliarity with oldgens (myself included), especially classic gens, so limiting the scope of what's allowed could be one way to improve accessibility. You might also be able to incorporate some of the questions from the last time (iirc) the concept was submitted.

NAP TIME - snake_rattler
I'm really torn with this submission: I think there's an incredible amount to explore about sleep as a mechanic, but I'm not sure if introducing something of this nature would be a positive addition to the metagame. On a lesser note, sleep's variability in turns makes it sort of difficult to design around -- in general I'm hesitant to put a somewhat unreliable mechanic at the center of a project. The final question here is the most interesting part of this concept to me, and does a great job at illustrating the kind of deep design space that this concept has, despite my concerns.

Schrodinger's CAP - Explosion Badger
I think there's something awesome at the core of this concept but I don't love the way that it's written right now. We talked about this on discord a few days ago, so I'll just rehash my thoughts here -- the way I see it, the concept is asking to make a CAP that has two distinct roles as a result of two equally strong abilities, which is a solid starting point. The worry arises that we'd make an incoherent, bloated end product after trying to fit two Pokemon's worth of tools onto a singular chassis, but this is where the moveset restriction comes in: it's a way to narrow the focus of the process and avoid overloading the CAP with options, while simultaneously exploring unique moveset-ability interactions that will give the process depth. Framed like this, it's a concept that I actually like a lot, but the way I see it written doesn't justify why the moveset restriction is necessary; your current justification isn't one that I agree with, either, as I'd say anywhere between a third and a half of OU/CAP mons are heavily defined by their ability. If you frame your justification more like what I outlined here, I think you'll be in better shape. Two last things: ask a question about what we can learn from past CAP processes where we've tried to fit multiple roles onto one mon, and it could help to have one or two examples since your concept is on the more abstract side of things.

Extremist CAP - Amamama
This one is fascinating, but it's also really broad. Each of the "extremes" you listed -- stats, typing, and movepool (no ability?) -- probably have enough depth to be their own individual concept. At the least, I would limit it to one extreme trait instead of allowing for several on the same build. This concept is also playing with fire in a way; when we go really hard in one direction, it becomes easier to misjudge exactly how much we need to compensate in the other direction, so there's a very delicate balancing act at play. I like your justification a lot though, CAP really never pursues the kind of builds you're outlining so I agree that there's a ton of value in going down that path.

Patchnote Specialist - LBN
You mention wanting to test how effective the buffs/nerfs are, but do we need a CAP process to see that? The Protean nerf clearly worked as the 3 starters are now well-balanced, the weather nerf post-BW was effective otherwise we'd still be having weather wars, and so on. Picking a mechanic that was buffed/nerfed in, say, GSC, also seems sort of pointless -- after all this time, what left is there to learn about how it fares? I think I need to be convinced that these moves/mechanics/etc are ones worth pursuing. Narrowing the scope might help with this; if you only include things changed in Gen 9, you could argue that certain nerfed mechanics are interesting because they were previously too powerful and off-limits for CAP, while certain buffed mechanics present newly viable options for us to explore. Then again, I don't actually know how many things changed between SS and SV, so that might not work. Either way, food for thought.

Sleet Dreams - sneakyjeans
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this one. I think snow is much too niche of a playstyle to be exploring in any real depth -- it's not quite as hopeless as trying to make a Gravity abuser for example, but not much better, either. This concept is also retreading a lot of old ground, which I'd like to avoid if possible. I think there are other possible weather related concepts out there, but snow seems unwise to pursue.

King of Thieves - SKIPPERGAMEZ
It would help to get clearer on the language being used here. What strategies are we disrupting exactly? Which playstyles do you think are easy to target? What do you mean by "disrupting the metagame," just not being OP? (This will be relevant for every concept.) Most importantly, what exactly is stealing? Does stealing necessitate gaining something from your opponent? If so, the Soak example is irrelevant. The notion of stealing momentum also introduces a whole new conceptual layer -- what about stealing information, or even "stealing the game" in the case of a setup sweeper? This seems much too broad to me; I think this concept would benefit by clarifying these issues and narrowing its focus.

Reliable Status Abuser - Garrett
I like that this concept explores something that CAP rarely touches. There seem to be a lot of of cool routes here, far beyond the obvious Hex bot. I'm looking forward to seeing you develop your thoughts more.

Unorthodox Passivity - Waldinji
There are only so many viable routes for resididual/passive damage to begin with, so I think the "unorthodox" restriction limits our scope too much. You ask about how we avoid this CAP being used on offense, but I don't see how that's a bad thing; you also say in your description that you want this CAP to cater to defensive teams, but nothing about the concept itself actually suggests that. If you want to make a concept to improve bulkier playstyles, then go ahead, but that's different than what you have here. You might be able to take some inspiration from Game of Inches, a very similar concept that was subbed in the past.

Stick Together! - dex
Another concept I feel really torn about. Right now, this reads like we just make a generically incredible mon, because that's really just what a glue mon is: a mon that can perform a lot of useful roles at once, and as a result, is really damn good. Glue is just so broad of a category that is almost doesn't exist at all, and the breadth of examples demonstrates this -- "glue mons" are like 50% of the A+ and above ranked mons from every tier ever, so I worry that this concept is too broad and lacks direction. What I do think is really cool about this concept is its relation to teambuilding. The laser focus on common building practices, dissecting the best cores to see what holes they have, breaking down the intricacies of role compression, etc, is all super interesting. Shifting the perspective from "make a really good mon" to "exploring teambuilding" (oversimplifying a bit) would be helpful I think.

Berry Good - Bice
This concept has been submitted in some form a few times, and it's never really caught my eye. Berries are an inherently niche item choice for a reason; the item slot is just too valuable to be dedicating to something so situational and reactive, only compounded by the mere existence of Knock Off. It also doesn't help that Natural Gift isn't in SV, eliminating one of the more interesting routes from an already limited concept.

Bang Average - D2TheW
I loved this concept the last time you submitted it. I won't make any comments since your post isn't done (or started) yet, but I'm happy to see this one make a return.

High BST Mon - chartung17
I think that a BST of this degree would significantly warp the process. Of the three examples you gave for "balanced" high-BST mons, Kyurem and Kyurem-Black were banned in SS, while Hoopa-U was banned in ORAS and wasn't even present last generation. Certain solutions to this issue, specifically the detrimental abilities, have also been explored as recently as Chromera. Gimping the rest of the process to accomodate for a bloated Stats stage isn't something that personally interests me.

Jack of All Trades, Master of One - Binacle Pinnacle
This one's not fully written yet, so I won't say much -- but isn't the saying jack of all trades, master of none? Making a mon that's both good at a lot of things + really good at one singular thing sounds potentially dangerous. As is, this sounds similar to dex's concept (giga viable role compression), so keep that in mind when you're fleshing things out.

Dead Men Walking - Brambane
I'm more a fan of this than not, though I have a few questions. You ask how we should define "removing" a threat -- and I appreciate leaving it for the community to interpret -- but maybe getting a little clearer on what you're personally envisioning would help. Does the mere presence of an Arghonaut "remove" a Weavile from the game? What about, say, knocking Kril's Life Orb, or Heatran's leftovers? Tricking Pex a Sticky Barb? Block + Spite shenanigans? The line between "denying progress," "crippling," and "making entirely useless" seems a little blurred. If "removing" only means the last definition (Block + Spite, Trick AV, etc), our options seem really narrow and gimmicky; if "removing" is broad enough to include the first definition, I don't think there's much depth in simply making a counter to a strong threat. The most interesting design space, to me, is being really good at crippling foes without resorting to niche gimmicks -- there's a lot of options to work with here, and I could see many of them resulting in a rich process. But the vague language around "removing" sort of obfuscates what you're going for.

Switch Bait - Enderwither02
I like this one a lot in theory, but I'm worried that it's a little limited. With the removal of Pursuit, I have a hard time coming up with a lot of directions to take this concept in, especially since you clarify that "the goal of this Pokémon is to directly punish the opponent for switching out of it, as opposed to simply setting up on a switch or pivoting out to keep momentum" which further limits our routes. Your questions are a nice start, but you can go deeper; maybe take some inspiration from Miasmaw's winning concept which has a lot of similarities to yours. Overall a great concept, but could it be broadened?

You Only Live Twice - big pichu
Playing against Leppa Berry Pawmot has made me want to rip my hair out on a couple occasions, but putting my biases aside, I think there's a lot to consider here. What kinds of team styles/specific Pokemon appreciate Revival support the most or least? Are there any Pokemon/styles that would benefit too much from Revival support, and should thus be made to have poor synergy with us? What's most important in a good Revival Blessing user -- high Speed, strong offenses to force switches, or good bulk? How easy or hard should it be to get off a Revival Blessing in the first place? Feel free to use/edit these questions yourself, these are just things that come to mind off the top of my head. I think the most interesting part of this concept to me is the teambuilding aspect, i.e., designing ourselves to have synergy or anti-synergy with certain Pokemon (like a partner concept but less limited). Ultimately though, my thoughts on this are mostly the same as snake_rattler's concept: Revival Blessing has great design space, but it also legitimately feels like cheating and might not be healthy for the metagame.

Terrain Savant - faithviolet
Off the bat, I don't think a terrain abuser is a good choice. The viability of abusers is tied to how good the setters are, and our best setter right now is Indeedee, which should be saying a lot. Focusing on only terrain setters is more limiting, but it's also much more interesting design space: each terrain offers unique support capabilities, and considering how awful our setters are right now, it's good real estate. I also might recommend shifting your focus from using less-prominent terrain effects to using terrain effects unselfishly? This would expand your scope to, say, an ETerrain setter that's intended to support Electric-types or teammates that use Electric-type coverage moves. I'll leave that up to you.

Speed Demon - Pipotchi
I like this one. I wish I had more to say about it, but it's well written, the questions are interesting, and the concept itself is a compelling idea that would drive a good process.

CATCH THESE HANDS - Rabia
This is a fun idea, but the choice of punching moves specifically feels arbitrary to me. Other than certain punching-specific items/abilities (Punching Gloves and Iron Fist), what do punching moves have going for them that makes them mechanically interesting and worth pursuing? You could concievably take this concept in a lot of directions, which I love -- AV user/drain tank, Choiced user, a revenge killer with priority, utilizing unique abilities like Poison Touch/Long Reach, and so on -- but why not just have a concept about contact moves more broadly? All of the same interesting routes would still be there, but with punching moves, it feels like we're narrowing our scope without good reason. Obviously this concept isn't finished yet, so I'm reserving my judgment; the above is just food for thought as you flesh out your submission.

FOR THE ONE TIME - nutritious blend
I intially thought this one was a bit gimmicky and limited, but I think there are more possibilities than I first gave it credit for. I'm specifically reminded of Shadow Force being a possibility that I liked for CAP31. I also like the idea of exploring a mon that performs differently before and after consuming its item, but is viable in both roles -- say, an early-game tank that becomes an unburdern cleaner late-game. I'm not fully onboard yet, just because CAP has made a lot of these mons in the past: Cawmodore, Throat Spray Chromera, Stratagem, Necturna, WP Aurumoth, Sash Syclant, there might be more too. But these were usually side effects of the process rather than intentional design choices, so it could be interesting to explore this idea with more purpose.

Snowballer - Joeshh
Finally a concept that lets me make Espathra 2.0, I'm in. Jokes aside, this concept is honestly great. I love your questions and explanation: they do a great job at illustrating the depth of play that a mon like this can bring to the game, and raise some incredibly important discussion points that I would have never considered. This concept would result in an interesting process every step of the way. My one hangup is that CAP has explored similar territory very recently with Saharaja and Venom-P, but that's a minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

Risky Business 2: Electric Spoogaloo - Da Pizza Man
10/10 Name. The submission is intriguing in a lot of ways, letting us revisit a concept that didn't get a fair shake and seeing if we've learned anything since then -- we tried to balance risk/reward with Auru, but in the end, all of the risk ended up being the opponent's. Personally speaking though, mons with highly volatile performances usually don't interest me that much. I wouldn't be too excited to make a Cawm twin, or worse yet, NP Torn, but perhaps there are other routes I'm not considering to explore the concept of risk management.
 
WIP

Name:
Crystal Collector

Description: This Pokemon can compensate for its poor typing by being an excellent abuser if Terastalization.

Justification: As of writing this, we are currently living in a Terastalization meta. While the generational gimmick has been tested once already, it's undeniable that Tera has turned the game on its head and introduced a new breed of strategies that could never have been dreamed of before. The inherent power of changing your type on the fly and completely flipping your matchup into a supposed counter cannot be overstated, and thus, numerous Pokemon use Tera as a key part of their game play, often to shore up the weaknesses of their base typing. I think that orienting our project around this could give us all a richer understanding of the mechanic and how to play with and against it in a competitive setting.

Questions to be Answered:
- What traits make a Pokemon a strong abuser of Terastalization?
- How do we build a Pokemon around abusing Tera without making it too powerful?
- How would such a Pokemon be used in a metagame without Tera?
- Does Tera succeed at adding depth to a Pokemon's playstyle?
 
Popping in to give feedback on the first page of concept submissions. There's a lot to work through here, so apologies if it takes me a while to get to everyone. I'm beyond excited about this lineup of concepts, though -- I feel like I could already put together a strong slate, and it hasn't even been 24 hours, which is a great feeling. Anyways, let's get into the submissions!

Old Dog New Tricks - quziel
I liked this concept the last time it was submitted and it's one that I'm still a fan of. You acknowledge the issue that many oldgen sets are impossible to mechanically replicate, and that's a concern I share; a lot of these strategies have also just aged very poorly, so our pool of options might be deceptively small. Still, given the sheer number of cool oldgen OU mons and strategies over the years, I don't think this would significantly impede the process. My other worry would be CAP's general unfamiliarity with oldgens (myself included), especially classic gens, so limiting the scope of what's allowed could be one way to improve accessibility. You might also be able to incorporate some of the questions from the last time (iirc) the concept was submitted.

NAP TIME - snake_rattler
I'm really torn with this submission: I think there's an incredible amount to explore about sleep as a mechanic, but I'm not sure if introducing something of this nature would be a positive addition to the metagame. On a lesser note, sleep's variability in turns makes it sort of difficult to design around -- in general I'm hesitant to put a somewhat unreliable mechanic at the center of a project. The final question here is the most interesting part of this concept to me, and does a great job at illustrating the kind of deep design space that this concept has, despite my concerns.

Schrodinger's CAP - Explosion Badger
I think there's something awesome at the core of this concept but I don't love the way that it's written right now. We talked about this on discord a few days ago, so I'll just rehash my thoughts here -- the way I see it, the concept is asking to make a CAP that has two distinct roles as a result of two equally strong abilities, which is a solid starting point. The worry arises that we'd make an incoherent, bloated end product after trying to fit two Pokemon's worth of tools onto a singular chassis, but this is where the moveset restriction comes in: it's a way to narrow the focus of the process and avoid overloading the CAP with options, while simultaneously exploring unique moveset-ability interactions that will give the process depth. Framed like this, it's a concept that I actually like a lot, but the way I see it written doesn't justify why the moveset restriction is necessary; your current justification isn't one that I agree with, either, as I'd say anywhere between a third and a half of OU/CAP mons are heavily defined by their ability. If you frame your justification more like what I outlined here, I think you'll be in better shape. Two last things: ask a question about what we can learn from past CAP processes where we've tried to fit multiple roles onto one mon, and it could help to have one or two examples since your concept is on the more abstract side of things.

Extremist CAP - Amamama
This one is fascinating, but it's also really broad. Each of the "extremes" you listed -- stats, typing, and movepool (no ability?) -- probably have enough depth to be their own individual concept. At the least, I would limit it to one extreme trait instead of allowing for several on the same build. This concept is also playing with fire in a way; when we go really hard in one direction, it becomes easier to misjudge exactly how much we need to compensate in the other direction, so there's a very delicate balancing act at play. I like your justification a lot though, CAP really never pursues the kind of builds you're outlining so I agree that there's a ton of value in going down that path.

Patchnote Specialist - LBN
You mention wanting to test how effective the buffs/nerfs are, but do we need a CAP process to see that? The Protean nerf clearly worked as the 3 starters are now well-balanced, the weather nerf post-BW was effective otherwise we'd still be having weather wars, and so on. Picking a mechanic that was buffed/nerfed in, say, GSC, also seems sort of pointless -- after all this time, what left is there to learn about how it fares? I think I need to be convinced that these moves/mechanics/etc are ones worth pursuing. Narrowing the scope might help with this; if you only include things changed in Gen 9, you could argue that certain nerfed mechanics are interesting because they were previously too powerful and off-limits for CAP, while certain buffed mechanics present newly viable options for us to explore. Then again, I don't actually know how many things changed between SS and SV, so that might not work. Either way, food for thought.

Sleet Dreams - sneakyjeans
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of this one. I think snow is much too niche of a playstyle to be exploring in any real depth -- it's not quite as hopeless as trying to make a Gravity abuser for example, but not much better, either. This concept is also retreading a lot of old ground, which I'd like to avoid if possible. I think there are other possible weather related concepts out there, but snow seems unwise to pursue.

King of Thieves - SKIPPERGAMEZ
It would help to get clearer on the language being used here. What strategies are we disrupting exactly? Which playstyles do you think are easy to target? What do you mean by "disrupting the metagame," just not being OP? (This will be relevant for every concept.) Most importantly, what exactly is stealing? Does stealing necessitate gaining something from your opponent? If so, the Soak example is irrelevant. The notion of stealing momentum also introduces a whole new conceptual layer -- what about stealing information, or even "stealing the game" in the case of a setup sweeper? This seems much too broad to me; I think this concept would benefit by clarifying these issues and narrowing its focus.

Reliable Status Abuser - Garrett
I like that this concept explores something that CAP rarely touches. There seem to be a lot of of cool routes here, far beyond the obvious Hex bot. I'm looking forward to seeing you develop your thoughts more.

Unorthodox Passivity - Waldinji
There are only so many viable routes for resididual/passive damage to begin with, so I think the "unorthodox" restriction limits our scope too much. You ask about how we avoid this CAP being used on offense, but I don't see how that's a bad thing; you also say in your description that you want this CAP to cater to defensive teams, but nothing about the concept itself actually suggests that. If you want to make a concept to improve bulkier playstyles, then go ahead, but that's different than what you have here. You might be able to take some inspiration from Game of Inches, a very similar concept that was subbed in the past.

Stick Together! - dex
Another concept I feel really torn about. Right now, this reads like we just make a generically incredible mon, because that's really just what a glue mon is: a mon that can perform a lot of useful roles at once, and as a result, is really damn good. Glue is just so broad of a category that is almost doesn't exist at all, and the breadth of examples demonstrates this -- "glue mons" are like 50% of the A+ and above ranked mons from every tier ever, so I worry that this concept is too broad and lacks direction. What I do think is really cool about this concept is its relation to teambuilding. The laser focus on common building practices, dissecting the best cores to see what holes they have, breaking down the intricacies of role compression, etc, is all super interesting. Shifting the perspective from "make a really good mon" to "exploring teambuilding" (oversimplifying a bit) would be helpful I think.

Berry Good - Bice
This concept has been submitted in some form a few times, and it's never really caught my eye. Berries are an inherently niche item choice for a reason; the item slot is just too valuable to be dedicating to something so situational and reactive, only compounded by the mere existence of Knock Off. It also doesn't help that Natural Gift isn't in SV, eliminating one of the more interesting routes from an already limited concept.

Bang Average - D2TheW
I loved this concept the last time you submitted it. I won't make any comments since your post isn't done (or started) yet, but I'm happy to see this one make a return.

High BST Mon - chartung17
I think that a BST of this degree would significantly warp the process. Of the three examples you gave for "balanced" high-BST mons, Kyurem and Kyurem-Black were banned in SS, while Hoopa-U was banned in ORAS and wasn't even present last generation. Certain solutions to this issue, specifically the detrimental abilities, have also been explored as recently as Chromera. Gimping the rest of the process to accomodate for a bloated Stats stage isn't something that personally interests me.

Jack of All Trades, Master of One - Binacle Pinnacle
This one's not fully written yet, so I won't say much -- but isn't the saying jack of all trades, master of none? Making a mon that's both good at a lot of things + really good at one singular thing sounds potentially dangerous. As is, this sounds similar to dex's concept (giga viable role compression), so keep that in mind when you're fleshing things out.

Dead Men Walking - Brambane
I'm more a fan of this than not, though I have a few questions. You ask how we should define "removing" a threat -- and I appreciate leaving it for the community to interpret -- but maybe getting a little clearer on what you're personally envisioning would help. Does the mere presence of an Arghonaut "remove" a Weavile from the game? What about, say, knocking Kril's Life Orb, or Heatran's leftovers? Tricking Pex a Sticky Barb? Block + Spite shenanigans? The line between "denying progress," "crippling," and "making entirely useless" seems a little blurred. If "removing" only means the last definition (Block + Spite, Trick AV, etc), our options seem really narrow and gimmicky; if "removing" is broad enough to include the first definition, I don't think there's much depth in simply making a counter to a strong threat. The most interesting design space, to me, is being really good at crippling foes without resorting to niche gimmicks -- there's a lot of options to work with here, and I could see many of them resulting in a rich process. But the vague language around "removing" sort of obfuscates what you're going for.

Switch Bait - Enderwither02
I like this one a lot in theory, but I'm worried that it's a little limited. With the removal of Pursuit, I have a hard time coming up with a lot of directions to take this concept in, especially since you clarify that "the goal of this Pokémon is to directly punish the opponent for switching out of it, as opposed to simply setting up on a switch or pivoting out to keep momentum" which further limits our routes. Your questions are a nice start, but you can go deeper; maybe take some inspiration from Miasmaw's winning concept which has a lot of similarities to yours. Overall a great concept, but could it be broadened?

You Only Live Twice - big pichu
Playing against Leppa Berry Pawmot has made me want to rip my hair out on a couple occasions, but putting my biases aside, I think there's a lot to consider here. What kinds of team styles/specific Pokemon appreciate Revival support the most or least? Are there any Pokemon/styles that would benefit too much from Revival support, and should thus be made to have poor synergy with us? What's most important in a good Revival Blessing user -- high Speed, strong offenses to force switches, or good bulk? How easy or hard should it be to get off a Revival Blessing in the first place? Feel free to use/edit these questions yourself, these are just things that come to mind off the top of my head. I think the most interesting part of this concept to me is the teambuilding aspect, i.e., designing ourselves to have synergy or anti-synergy with certain Pokemon (like a partner concept but less limited). Ultimately though, my thoughts on this are mostly the same as snake_rattler's concept: Revival Blessing has great design space, but it also legitimately feels like cheating and might not be healthy for the metagame.

Terrain Savant - faithviolet
Off the bat, I don't think a terrain abuser is a good choice. The viability of abusers is tied to how good the setters are, and our best setter right now is Indeedee, which should be saying a lot. Focusing on only terrain setters is more limiting, but it's also much more interesting design space: each terrain offers unique support capabilities, and considering how awful our setters are right now, it's good real estate. I also might recommend shifting your focus from using less-prominent terrain effects to using terrain effects unselfishly? This would expand your scope to, say, an ETerrain setter that's intended to support Electric-types or teammates that use Electric-type coverage moves. I'll leave that up to you.

Speed Demon - Pipotchi
I like this one. I wish I had more to say about it, but it's well written, the questions are interesting, and the concept itself is a compelling idea that would drive a good process.

CATCH THESE HANDS - Rabia
This is a fun idea, but the choice of punching moves specifically feels arbitrary to me. Other than certain punching-specific items/abilities (Punching Gloves and Iron Fist), what do punching moves have going for them that makes them mechanically interesting and worth pursuing? You could concievably take this concept in a lot of directions, which I love -- AV user/drain tank, Choiced user, a revenge killer with priority, utilizing unique abilities like Poison Touch/Long Reach, and so on -- but why not just have a concept about contact moves more broadly? All of the same interesting routes would still be there, but with punching moves, it feels like we're narrowing our scope without good reason. Obviously this concept isn't finished yet, so I'm reserving my judgment; the above is just food for thought as you flesh out your submission.

FOR THE ONE TIME - nutritious blend
I intially thought this one was a bit gimmicky and limited, but I think there are more possibilities than I first gave it credit for. I'm specifically reminded of Shadow Force being a possibility that I liked for CAP31. I also like the idea of exploring a mon that performs differently before and after consuming its item, but is viable in both roles -- say, an early-game tank that becomes an unburdern cleaner late-game. I'm not fully onboard yet, just because CAP has made a lot of these mons in the past: Cawmodore, Throat Spray Chromera, Stratagem, Necturna, WP Aurumoth, Sash Syclant, there might be more too. But these were usually side effects of the process rather than intentional design choices, so it could be interesting to explore this idea with more purpose.

Snowballer - Joeshh
Finally a concept that lets me make Espathra 2.0, I'm in. Jokes aside, this concept is honestly great. I love your questions and explanation: they do a great job at illustrating the depth of play that a mon like this can bring to the game, and raise some incredibly important discussion points that I would have never considered. This concept would result in an interesting process every step of the way. My one hangup is that CAP has explored similar territory very recently with Saharaja and Venom-P, but that's a minor concern in the grand scheme of things.

Risky Business 2: Electric Spoogaloo - Da Pizza Man
10/10 Name. The submission is intriguing in a lot of ways, letting us revisit a concept that didn't get a fair shake and seeing if we've learned anything since then -- we tried to balance risk/reward with Auru, but in the end, all of the risk ended up being the opponent's. Personally speaking though, mons with highly volatile performances usually don't interest me that much. I wouldn't be too excited to make a Cawm twin, or worse yet, NP Torn, but perhaps there are other routes I'm not considering to explore the concept of risk management.
I just wanted to add information based on the logic I originally had with "unorthodox passivity" and what may have accidently been too limiting for a CAP Submission (which is something I completely understand , as a newcomer to the Concept Submissions as a whole).
The Logic was , because of gen 9's heavy scope on offense , defensive team , as I explained in the original post seems almost never used by comparaison to opposing offense , Part of why anti-offense pokemon like Stratagem , Krilowatt (assuming you count Spikes Stack as offensive teams) and Booster Speed Iron Valiant are incredible in their own right. The original goal with the Submission was to help lower the gap of viability between Offensive and defensive teams by adding a pokemon focused mostly on Passive damage that wouldn't have been abused on offense (tbf , Blissey was used on Bulky Offense for generations ,so I'm not sure how that would have been 100% done the way it'd be intended). I do understand the complex limitations that would have been in place and why it wasn't agreed upon.
 

Baloor

2020 hellom draco
is a Social Media Contributoris a Community Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Past SPL Champion
PUPL Champion
WIP

Name: Good artists copy, great artists steal

Description:
A pokemon that revisits old existing concepts and takes a more modern spin on it while going a completely different route with its execution than we did previously. Creating a distinctly different CAP functionally while still being notably similar through concept. (Think Convergent Species esque)

Justification: It's no secret to any CAP player that as time goes on, older-generation CAPs tend to lose touch with their initial concept. Whether that be buffs / nerfs needing to make them fit better in the current generation's metagame or the execution of the concept being products of their time, it's safe to say that sometimes no amount of reworking can save a CAP conceptually. Since we are at the beginning of a new generation, revisiting one of these more ancient concepts and executing it completely differently than we previously did while adapting it to work within generation 9 seems like a particularly fun prospect at this point in time. With the general infancy of generation 9, I find taking a more broad concept like this more appealing than the very particular ones as we are very much still polishing this meta.

Some examples of potential exploration might include;
-With the modern CAP framework avoiding custom abilities and moves, what would Colossoil's concept look like now? In the modern meta colo has kind of strayed away from its initial intention and is more of a bulky pivot that provides hazard removal, however, it faces a lot of competition currently as hazard removal and is easily overwhelmed due to its typing and general lack of longevity.​
-Tomohawk was a CAP specifically designed as a response to the BWOU metagame, as such its role has gradually strayed away from its initial concept since generation 5 alongside a gradually drop in viability. How might a CAP with Tomo's concept look now? How can we make a CAP with the same concept that is more generalized than Tomos initial creation?​
-Kitsunoh was created in a metagame that lacked team preview, how might a pokemon of a similar concept look now? The lack of team preview was an important aspect of Kitsunoh's creation and people of the time couldn't have predicted team previews addition and its impact on how we play the game.​
-Malacondas concept in today's metagame would likely end up wayyy different than its previous execution due to the addition of the fairy typing, type chart changes and the power creep being higher than it was in gen5.​

Questions To Be Answered:
-How can we adapt a concept designed for an older generation to fit within our current environment, while preserving its initial identity?​
-What niches/roles are considered valuable in generation 9 CAP? What niches/roles are not? How would that influence which concept we choose to redo?​
-How can we make CAP32 distinctively different than its predecessor?​
-How would we react to particular core features removed from the games that otherwise existed during the previous CAPs concept creation?​
-How would an older concept react to newer features? (abilities, moves, mechanics etc...)​
-Should we target a more complex concept or a simpler one? An ancient concept or one that is more recent in history?​
-Should we target a concept that is used by a CAP that has fallen out of favor or a concept used by a still viable CAP?​
-Should we choose a "failed" concept or a concept that was historically successful? (Plasmanta vs Astrolotl)​
-What past concepts should we consider unsalvagable? How should we determine which concepts are still viable in generation 9?​
-Should we stick to one concept altogether or find concepts that are similar functionally and combine them?​
 
Last edited:
Final Submission


Name:
Workaround

Description: This Pokémon explores the importance of immunities by having it’s own to perform its role, and finds creative ways to counter the immunities of other Pokémon.

Justification: Many top-tier Pokemon have an immunity of some kind, being an immunity to a type (granted by typing or ability), or to a status. Such immunities help these Pokemon fulfill their role by easing switching in, walling opposing Pokemon, or allowing setup.

This Pokemon would be able to bypass immunities that would normally stop it on its tracks, via pressuring, punishing or straight up ignoring the immunity of the immune Pokemon, and use its own immunity/immunities to make its job a lot easier by ignoring moves that may check it without the immunity/immunities. Many abilities and moves can actualize this concept, so there is room for discussion about combinations of type, abilities, and movepool.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What immunities should it punish? (Immune via type, status immunity, immune via ability), should it punish multiple immunities?
  • How will Tera affect its immunities and the way it punishes/bypasses immune Pokemon?
  • How much switch-in pressure should it create with its immunities?
  • Should it have more broad punishing tools, or more specific ones?
  • How much should it rely on its immunities?
  • How much synergy should it have with other mons in the tier? Should it help other mons by being immune to their weaknesess and creating switch-in pressure, or should its immunities be more selfish/specific to only help itself?
  • What roles work better with the proposed concept?
  • Which roles benefit the most from immunities, and which roles benefit the most at bypassing them?
Explanation: Many top-tier Pokemon have immunities, and those immunities help them with their respective roles, being a wall, offensive mon, pivot, etc, and there are a lot of mons that rely heavily on its immunity/immunities, Venomicon, Equilibra and Rotom-Wash immunity to ground helps them a lot since without it they would be weak to it, Krilowatt and Hatterene need Magic Bounce to be as good as they are, Gholdengo is already good on its own but Good as Gold makes it so much better, Corviknight and Cawmodore make great use of their immunity to ground and poison/toxic, and Cawmodore has the added benefit of having Volt Absorb to remove another one of its weaknesess and synergizes with it because of its role as a Belly Drum sweeper, so on and so forth, so this Pokemon can punish those mons with immunities that would normally stop it on its tracks, and also have an immunity that helps it reduce the number of moves that can check it, making its job easier. Moves like Knock Off, Trick/Switcheroo, Toxic, Spore, Glare/Twave, Will-O-Wisp, Taunt, etc or abilities like Sand Stream, Flame Body, Static, etc can help it punish and pressure, or it can maybe go to another route and punish those mons by ignoring its inmunities entirely, with abilities like Mold Breaker, Scrappy, Corrosion, NeutGas, etc. And for its immunities, it can be fire type for burns, flying type for ground moves, ground for electric moves, etc, or have an ability that gives it an immunity like Levitate, Bulletproof, Soundproof, Overcoat, Volt Absorb, Flash Fire, etc.

There are many offensive and defensive examples for both its pressuring capabilities, and how it may use its immunities, Equilibra completely walls both of Gholdengo's STABs with Bulletproof and OHKO's it with EP, as well as Gholdengo being able to Trick Equilibra a Scarf to make it a lot worse, if a steel type tries to switch into Glimmora using Mortal Spin, it can pressure the steel type with EP, Astrolotl punishes Gholdengo not letting it use Defog by pressuring it out with Flame Lash, Great Tusk and Collosoil punish spinblockers by removing their items with Knock Off, or straight up inflicting serious damage on them, Ceruledge can switch into Will-o-Wisps and become stronger if it does, Cinderace can use Acrobatics to make itself immune to the ground moves that once hit it superefectively, etc, so we can get an idea of how can it work and what tools and immunities could it have for the role its going to do.
 
Last edited:
FOR THE ONE TIME - nutritious blend

I intially thought this one was a bit gimmicky and limited, but I think there are more possibilities than I first gave it credit for. I'm specifically reminded of Shadow Force being a possibility that I liked for CAP31. I also like the idea of exploring a mon that performs differently before and after consuming its item, but is viable in both roles -- say, an early-game tank that becomes an unburdern cleaner late-game. I'm not fully onboard yet, just because CAP has made a lot of these mons in the past: Cawmodore, Throat Spray Chromera, Stratagem, Necturna, WP Aurumoth, Sash Syclant, there might be more too. But these were usually side effects of the process rather than intentional design choices, so it could be interesting to explore this idea with more purpose.
Thanks for the feedback! The idea of the early-game tank turned sweeper feels really good in this meta I've seen defensive sets for :kingambit: :great tusk: :venomicon: :gholdengo: that play with a lot of pivoting and save the set up move for a late game clean. all of these sets mostly run boots or lefties or cloak. In lower tiers things like :tinkaton: and :slowking: play with more defensive utility but can carry a setup move that adds an extra dimension to their counterplay. I imagine CAP32 like this would make use of sitrus or pinch berries, as a sort of replacement to boots/lefties that can also prock an ability/move in its kit. Booster Energy works great here too (no surprise). :celesteela: can accomplish this kind of play with power herb. It's not obvious what items consumable item works best for a mon that doesn't set up the first time it hits the field like a :roaring moon:.The eject pack strat I mentioned still feels like it would be pretty viable too. It feels like this would be challenging to use as a design concept but there are definitely good examples for reference.
 
Some feedback


WIP

Name:
NAP TIME

Description: This Pokemon utilizes at least one sleep-inducing move (i.e. a move that puts the opponent to sleep) as effectively as possible.

Justification: Despite Sleep existing as a mechanic since CAP's inception in Generation 4, no CAP project has fully explored sleep as a mechanic, and no CAP Pokemon has used Sleep effectively. Furthermore, we generally have an aversion to sleep moves during the Defining Moves and Moveset stages, as they typically introduce elements undesirable to the current concept, and are typically written off as "deserving their own project." Hence, I propose we give sleep-inducing moves their project.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • How have previous sleep inducing moves been used effectively in the past?
  • What do previous users of sleep-inducing moves have in common? What are their differences?
  • Which is more advantageous: moving before or after the opponent with a sleep-inducing move?
  • Would the 100% move like Spore bring a better design space than a less accurate sleep-inducing move?
  • What strategies can a powerful tool like Sleep enable? That is, what strategies become viable to run because of a Sleep move, and not simply better because of the Sleep move?
Explanation: The only sleep-inducing move that previous CAP Pokemon have is Yawn, which historically has not been run on its users (Arghonaut, Kitsunoh, Tomohawk, Kerfluffle, and Astrolotl) or on many Pokemon at all. Additionally, Necturna rarely ran Spore in favor of Sketching stat-boosting options such as Shell Smash and Geomancy. Beyond CAP, Sleep was largely absent in Generations 7 and 8 due to an abundance of Tapu Koko and Tapu Fini setting up Electric and Misty Terrain. Without them, Generation 9 brings a favorable environment for sleep-inducing moves. For example, Breloom and Amoonguss have returned to Gen 9 OU with their ability to use Spore much more freely than previously. However, other Spore users like Toedscruel and Brute Bonnet have settled into UU instead, and the most recent users of Sleep Powder in OU have been Mega Venusaur and Tangrowth, who only ran it on occasion.
To me some more interesting questions are what CAP32 will be doing once it achieved putting an opponent to sleep/what do current sleep users with their free turns?

Can we design effective and common enough counterplay, that doesn’t totally invalidate CAP32.
WIP

Unorthodox Passivity


This Pokemon would use less usual or completely unique ways to deal most of its damage throught residual damage rather than actually dishing out hits itself. This could be done via a limiting attacking movepool ala blissey

Justification

Passive damage has been a key part of competitive Pokemon even before CAP's Existance since generation 3 thanks to TSS , yes. But with the vast removal of Toxic and the nerfing of the distribution of moves like Knock Off or Defog , Residual Damage is in a really unique position to both shine thanks to knock off's reduction and also be hard to make use off like in the past thanks to the presence of the new Covert Cloak for certain moves (Salt Cure) and Boots without the widespread knock Off. This pokemon would use ways to deal passive damage that could solve the issue of more defensive teams relying on passive damage without the ability to get somewhere against offense thanks to boots on basically everything.

Question To Answer

"What should be the ways to make this pokemon deal passive damage ?"
"How to make set ways not broken for defensive teams to exploit them and make themselves unbreakable ?"
"What would prevent offense from using this new pokemon and the traits it brings to its teammates?"
"Should inspiration be taken from older generation's hazard game and passive damage ways to make this pokemon deal its passive damage ?"
"Should it be forced to pair with teammates that can beat Magic Guard Pokemon or should it be able to deal with them in some capacity"

Explanation

As more and more threats get added in over the course of the generations , Defensive teams often get casted to the side , Especially this generation thank to the healing nerf (PP nerf to be more specific) , and since CAP has been a metagame riffled with offensive threats and anti-offensive threats , Support CAP Pokemon (Crucibelle , Certain variants of Pyroak to take two examples) are often seen to the wayside or untouched in their potential to do Invaluable progress toward winning for your own offense threats. This Pokemon would be exclusivitely focused in doing so because it'd make Metagame Interaction of Stall / Bulkier teams VS Offense more interesting , as comparaison to the Offense on Offense Party that Gen 9 has felt as so far. "Unorthodox Passivity" would make matches against offense for defensive teams less of the same (I'm a stall player , I know from experience the matches , no matter how different the teams I face are , always feel similar-ish in its own way) than it is now.
[My apologies for forgetting this part , I didn't even see I didn't put it in]
This concept sounds a lot like “game of inches”, which was pretty well received. I think some of your questions aren’t fully fleshed out yet. Maybe you can take inspiration from “game of inches” to make the concept more precise.
WIP

Name:
Stick Together!

Description: This Pokemon fulfills a "glue" role, working well alongside a multitude of cores while justifying its usage through a myriad of utility options and/or defensive qualities.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept because it aims to perform a role that is commonly found on many team structures in the current metagame. Every generation, there have been certain Pokemon that "glue" teams together. These glue mons typically offer incredible role compression. Tornadus-T in ORAS is a great example of this, providing teams with invaluable Knock Off and pivoting support while offering unique defensive qualities through its typing, stats, and ability. Zapdos in SS is an interesting instance of this as well, as its typing, ability, and movepool allowed it to fill a number of necessary roles for teams, causing it to have incredible usage even though its apparant "utility" may seem lacking at first glance. A current generation example would be Gholdengo, which gives teams access to Thunder Wave support, removal denial, and an incredibly helpful defensive presence that isn't passive. A lot rides on glue mons in teambuilding, so it would be interesting to see how we deal with the immense role compression that often accompanies these mons. Examples of glue mons in current SV CAP: Gholdengo, Arghonaut, Venomicon, Equilibra, Great Tusk, and Skeledirge

Questions To Be Answered:

Being a glue mon has more often been an indirect result of a process rather than a goal. How can we achieve making a glue mon directly?
What roles can a glue mon inhabit?
Are there certain roles and needs that simply cannot be condensed on one Pokemon?
How does typing play into role compression?
Is the ability to output offensive pressure a necessary component of a glue mon? If so, to what level?
How do we define utility?
How do metagame trends impact the usefulness of glue mons?
What Pokemon have such a need to be checked that they justify the usage of a glue mon when a less-than consistent check is used?
Creating a glue mon would necessitate working with existing teambuilding structures. How do we analyze and use that to our advantage?

Explanation: When CAP has created glue mons in the past, it has often been a byproduct on the process. Astrolotl is a prime example of this: there was no need for it to be as splashable as it became, but its combination of support traits resulted in an absolutely excellent "glue" choice. This concept would challenge us to look at the creation process through a different lens, taking a step back to look at the metagame as a whole and use that viewpoint for the entire process. The concept also presents a challenge in choosing what utility is given to a CAP. In the past, CAP has often slapped utility moves willy-nilly onto mons to both boost their viability and give them places in teambuilding. For this concept, the conversation surrounding utility will need to be a lot more deliberate than it has been in the past. It will also be interesting to see how CAP defines utility in a concept like this; utility is not something that is limited to just moves. Glue Pokemon need to be splashable to a certain degree, meaning what they provide will need to be consistent and usually useful.
I feel like this concept, while being a great high level idea, doesn’t fit for a process, that has to deal with a meta that still is primordial upheaval only now slowly shifting into more solid states. Additionally incoming updates might make working with current team structures futile. How do you envision us building a Glue Mon that can survive heavy changes to the meta environment? Have there been mons that have survived drastic or ongoing meta changes as glue mons? Maybe some glue mons are particularly resistant to changing metas? What are examples and what sets them apart?
WIP

Name
: Cantrip

Description: This Pokemon excels at debuffing the enemy team through whatever means available.

Justification: In a high powered metagame such as this one it's easy to get bowled over without strong defensive options. This Pokemon would be an option not necessarily to be a defensive stalwart in its own right, but rather go bolster the ability of defensive teammates to make progress through a game through various debuffs such as status and stat drops, as well as using the desire to switch out of stat debuffs we inflict to our advantage.

Questions to be Answered:
  • Can it be self sufficient in its debuffs and use them to the Pokemon's own advantage, or should it be reliant on its teammates?
  • How can we best abuse the opponent wanting to switch out of our status afflictions?
  • How can we differentiate ourselves with our status further from support mons that have come before, i.e.: Astrolotl, Grimmsnarl, Tomohawk, and what status and stat drops could we explore more effectively?
  • What abilities can be used to facilitate debuffing the opponent?
  • Is offensive support or defensive support more useful when deciding the stats and movepool?
Explanation: This one's a sort of mirror-world version of Astrolotl's concept, whereas Astro was meant to be an offensive cleric this concept seeks to focus on status and stat drops inflicted onto the opponent as team support whilst being more defensive in nature. Ideally, a mon with this concept would help slow the pace of games down and get players to think more methodically.
im wondering if offensive rebuffs could also facilitate a more defensive approach to debuffing I.e acid spray Toxapex? Would we be able to explore a route like that?
WIP

Name:
Atypical Type Usage

Description: This Pokemon would be built contrary to the biases its typing would suggest.

Justification: The offensive and defensive value of typing is a fundamental part of mons. Types and their various combinations possess varying levels of offensive/defensive bias. When one bias greatly outweighs the other, it is easy to lose sight of the value on the other end of the spectrum. This project will pick a typing with substantial bias in a singular direction and proceed to explore the other bias in greater detail.
i wonder what this even entails in gen 9 where types are much more varied and versatile than they where in gen 4 for example. Also how would we evaluate the role of tera in this concept? Looking at mons like defensive rock or ice types that suddenly are somewhat usable or even meta defining.

My favorite concepts so far that have been fleshed out really well and don’t really need much more work to be slateable imo.
  • Schrödinger's CAP
  • Dead Men Walking
  • Speed Demon
  • Not All Dragons Are Dragon-type
  • Low Life God
  • Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel
  • Hands-Free
 

quziel

I am the Scientist now
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a member of the Battle Simulator Staff
Moderator
WIP

Name: King of Thieves
I like this one a lot, and I wondered about something similar a few months ago. The one thing I'll say is that you may wanna ask the question of "how effective should this CAP be when its not stealing something from the opponent? I think it'd also be useful to sorta mentally think about every single option to steal stuff from the opponent (note that heart swap is snapped atm).

WIP

Unorthodox Passivity
As said before, I think this would benefit a lot from looking at "Game of Inches", and also not focusing as hard on trying to force a defensive playstyle. Note that while Garganacl is perhaps the best chip damage mon in the game, it still found a place even on HO earlier this gen.

WIP

Name:
Low Life God
Yo, typing is gonna be super important here; specifically how it interacts with hazards, and how that can inform item choices. Imo add a question about that cause it really, really matters to this concept.

WIP

Name:
Anger Management
I think adding a replay or something to the explanation to outline exactly what you mean by an aggressive play, eg is swapping Ferro into Urshifu an aggressive play, or is Surging Striking a Lando with Ferro in the back an aggressive play, ik you answer this in the concept but ya get what I mean. Showing a few sequences within an actual game of the playstyle you want could be useful.

Reviving this concept

WIP

Name
- Hands-Free
This is a tad pessimistic, but I feel that with the introduction of Heavy-Duty Boots and Covert Cloak most mons really have an item they can use exceptionally well. Especially now that Knock Off and Poltergeist distributions have been cut down almost to nil. This really feels like its specifically coutnerteaming Revenankh.

WIP

Title
: Fun-Sized
We generally use BSR rather than BST, cause BST, while correlating with overall stat based power, is also a measure of how efficiently a mon's stats are set out. Compare well, any mixed attacker to any non-mixed attacker, eg Hydreigon spends 328 BST on offenses, while Weavile spends 290 BST on offenses, and we all know the second of these has the far scarier offensive spread. Or how bulk can often get 10 BST for free by setting up their defenses in a BST efficient manner. I feel like this is, to an extent, just measuring how experienced stat submitters are. That said, a deliberately low BSR concept is interesting, even if its basically just saying "go nuts on stats / ability / typing".

WIP


Name:
Workaround

Description: This Pokemon can punish and pressure would-be checks that are inmune to its important moves.
I think expanding the scope of this concept to just explore both using, and getting around immunity would be more exciting. While the concept as is heavily incentivizes well, mold breaker, expanding it to potentially use immunity abilities is more interesting to me. Or even a mon that uses immunities in typing and ability, while having the tools to bypass an opponent's immunities seems very cool. Think about how well Gliscor can play the Toxic stall game by being immune to Toxic while getting free turns from Ground/Flying, and hitting Steels with Toxic itself. Aka "this concept aims to explore the importance of immunities in Pokemon by either having immunities to attacks/conditions, or excelling at bypassing those, or both"

------

Feedback on some concepts where I thought they could use it, or that struct my fancy. This feedback is from me as a user, and does not represent the TLT, the mod team, or the Pepsi-Cola (TM) corporation.
 
Last edited:
As said before, I think this would benefit a lot from looking at "Game of Inches", and also not focusing as hard on trying to force a defensive playstyle. Note that while Garganacl is perhaps the best chip damage mon in the game, it still found a place even on HO earlier this gen.
As I previously said , With Feedback on my proposal and a sudden realization , I remembered that Blissey was used on Offense for many generations , so I guess that would have been cancelled , and I do get that , I'd have to rethink of another concept to lower the gap of viability between an offensive team and a defensive team.
 

quziel

I am the Scientist now
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a member of the Battle Simulator Staff
Moderator
I mean, I know several players who argue that stall is one of the best styles to bring atm because of the sheer strength of the unaware options available. I feel that you may be trying to fix an OU meta issue, not a CAP meta issue.
 
Probably had that in mind by accident because I came in CAP as a late bloomer , I didn't have the right metagame to fix (and also I think thanks to home that the unaware mons (from what we can assume) will fall of a cliff in viability , and I suspect both CAP32 and Home to come out at the same time)
 
Name: The Paradox/ Regional/ Covergent Variant

Description:
This Pokemon is based off of a previous CAP pokemon, but has a change in multiple categories such as typing, movepool, ability, base stats, to create a Pokémon with a completely different strategy.

Justification: From the shift of sunny ninetales to snowy ninetales, wugtrio splitting from dugtrio, clodsire creating a new split evolution for willer, all the way to our favorite delibird getting a pump up in the future version of itself, variants have been a fun part of Pokémon since Gen 7. Many of the variants have completely different strategies than their original form and many make their original forms much more viable. Creating a variant for an existing CAP pokemon could be a fun way to create a new competitive Pokémon.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • How can this Pokémon be separated from its original base?
  • How can a previous concept be changed into a different viable strategy?
  • Would doing something like a regional variant limit creativity?
  • How would we decide wether to do a paradox mon or a regional variant?
Explanation:
Variants have been an important part of Pokémon for the past 6 years and yet the competitive idea of them hasn’t made its way to CAP yet. Although I think doing a Paradox mon would be really fun, im interested to see what kind of Pokémon would be the favorite, wether a covergent evolution is created or a regional variant of an existing Pokémon. I think that these could be really fun to use competitively.
 
Wanted to put a little flag for spoo that I wrote a new concept based on the feedback, so I'd love another look. But figured some feedback would be great to include right now as well for some of my favorite concepts!

Old Dog New Tricks
I absolutely love this concept, I think there's a lot of interesting examples we could pick up. My one concern is that CAP since metas only go back as far as DPP, since we tend to build for CAP metas that anything before that would be less relevant as a concept? Or make a process that draws more attention away from CAP options for future play.

Extremist CAP
I really enjoy this concept and I had thought of something similar. I think a question around "how Pokemon with extreme traits remain balanced in current CAP metas" would also be worth exploring, so we can identify what pushes a mon over the line.

Risky Business 2: Electric Spoogaloo
I tend to prefer more aggressive and "risky" play so I really like this concept. I love how you call out that risk isn't necessarily just in "low probability high success set-up". No real specific feedback here outside of loving this concept!

Fun-Sized
This is the kind of constraint I can get behind! One thing I'd want to touch on in the explanation or question is if stat boosting abilities like Huge Power are pro-concept. I think it should be addressed as early as possible.
 
Name:
Third Act Reveal

Description:
This Pokémon finds strength from being able to run multiple threatening sets each with distinct checks.

Justification:
The vast majority of CAP products have been lacking in significant versatility, being created for and settling into a single role and never quite deviating from it. Notable exceptions have consistently struggled to find long-term success in the metagame for some time, the likes of Naviathan, Aurumoth, Necturna, and arguably Chromera. Leveraging incomplete information in strategy games with it is a pillar of the genre, and there’s a lot to be learned by exploring that design space in teambuilding with intent that neither we nor Game Freak have had before. With official Pokémon being more and more clearly designed for an open team sheet format, it’s time to for us to dig deep into the nuances of imperfect information that set our singles formats apart.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What has changed such that older CAPs within this archetype have fallen off in the current metagame?
  • What Pokemon have been able to pull off this archetype in the current day? What can we learn from their strengths and shortcomings?
  • How much relative strength does "surprise factor" add compared to more direct power? A properly scouted set should be below the average power level, but by how much?
  • Just how punishing do we want CAP 32 to be?
  • How do we keep CAP 32's different sets distinct?
  • What has caused previous attempts at this archetype to "converge" into a single best set, and what measures can we take against this?
  • Is it even necessary to keep each set at the same relative strength? Do we lean into the idea that the less overtly powerful an option is, the less common it becomes, and therefore the greater of a surprise it is when used?
  • This concept inherently leans offensive, but does not always have to be. What sort of defensive options could we explore?
  • How does CAP 32 explore and reward “scouting” as counterplay, and what does that look like?
  • What sort of pressure does CAP 32 put on an opponent’s decision making simply by being present in team preview?
  • How do we keep each set's checks distinct? What's stopping CAP 32 from running an option that was meant for another set to break through an intended counter?
  • How might we handle typing based checks, especially in the generation of tera? Is there a way to make those mutually exclusive as well, or is that pushing it too far?


Explanation:
What sets this concept apart is that it's specifically trying to chase the idea of being strong because it is a mystery on team preview, and would be much less viable without that mystery. We’ve dabbled in this design space before with Kitsunoh, the “ultimate scout”, though that is now heavily outdated. On a somewhat unrelated note, the fundamental idea that a strategy can be powerful because it is uncommon is incredibly engaging in any strategy game with an evolving metagame such as Pokémon, and helps future proof this concept against being “solved”.

For specific comparisons, Mew and Iron Valiant embody this archetype quite well. A team’s answer to Swords Dance Valiant might be different from Calm Mind, and a check to Dragon Dance Mew might fold to Cosmic Power+Rest, or a support set might get free hazards off simply the threat of a sweep. These two success stories do leave a significant amount of design space, as Iron Valiant is one of the most generically strong Pokémon of this entire generation and Mew had the entire kitchen sink thrown at it for a movepool, with no real exploration of its ability, typing, or stats. Clefable is also worth mentioning in a similar vein to Mew, as at surface level it also sports different sets with different counters, Calm Mind might power through some checks while status spreading sets would cripple others. What I think set Clefable and mons like it apart, is that in practice these different sets end up blending together to fit almost any team’s needs, and as a result I’d categorize them as “glue” mons, instead of versatile threats.

Naviathan is an especially important case study, as it was created with a rather similar concept, explicitly exploring the strength granted by unpredictability. Where I believe this concept fell short was in the commitment to a specific kind of set, a setup sweeper, with the unpredictability coming only from it boosting its choice of physically or specially. As it turns out, a lot of the checks to physical and special setup sweepers overlap, since most check matchups are based on archetype and not stat distribution. Both Naviathan sets will see themselves revenge killed by faster Pokémon, walled by Unaware Pokémon, and prematurely stopped with Taunt. Naviathan failed to be unpredictable because at heart it’s doing the same thing but slightly differently.

More personally, I have fond memories of running Z-Omniboost Splash Necturna, Swords Dance Kartana, Dragon Dance Hydreigon, etc etc. I feel like a lot of that magic has been lost to power creep and modern OU Pokemon having very narrow use cases with both Game Freak’s design philosophy and our own. I am an avid draft league player and these sorts of situations come up far more often in that format than they do in bo1 ladder games where the opportunity cost of not running best in slot is a lot higher.

Final submission let’s go!!! This is my first time getting into process despite playing since gen 6 so feedback is really appreciated. Looking forward to the rest of CAP 32!
 
Last edited:

spoo

is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
re: earlier discussion, I'd be careful about trying to "fix" any meta issue, period. The relative viability of playstyles is always changing -- as far as we know, stall might be the dominant style in 6 months. A concept's goal shouldn't be to create the perfect metagame by buffing and nerfing mons/playstyles as you see fit, but to learn about game design on a deeper level and create a mechanically interesting & viable end product.

If you feel like there's a reason that defensive teams perform poorly, then maybe target that; for example, if you think that the hazard game is wildly unbalanced and favors the offense player, then a concept about hazard control would be more interesting than just "this concept buffs defensive teams."

On a separate note, today and tomorrow will be busier days for me but I'll try my best to get a second round of feedback up before thursday night. As always feel free to PM me if you're looking to workshop your concept further, want clarification on anything I said, or anything else.
 
Final Submission

Name
- Hidden Potential

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


Resubmitting my old favorite. Probably just a meme submission since Game Freak thought it would be funny to make hidden power the generational gimmick with Tera Blast.
 
Some thoughts

Hidden Potential - I thought this was a cool concept in Gen 8, but I don't think it aged well into Gen 9. Every Pokemon has Tera Blast, which is stronger than Hidden Power and is guaranteed STAB, and doesn't take up an item slot.

Paradox/Regional/Convergent - This feels more like a framework than a concept. Also, Paradox/Regional/Convergent Pokemon tend to play completely differently from their base counterparts, with only the designs staying consistently similar.

Black Market Salt - This really doesn't seem like it would age well. There is no guarantee Gholdengo or Garganacl will return in future Pokemon games, and even if they do, there's no guarantee they would remain in the metagame. Even if we look at just this generation, there's no guarantee they'll stay viable (even thought they probably will).

Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal - I really like this concept. Redoing old concepts by itself is worth looking into, but I really like how you emphasize taking a "modern spin" on it, and seeing how much the game has changed since the last time the concept was worked on, and how it can be done differently.

Non-Stop Pain Train - This is a really interesting idea. That being said, I don't think trying to make a Pokemon that never wants to switch out would be particularly healthy.
 
WIP

Title
: Fun-Sized

Description: This Pokémon's base stat total is low.

Justification: CAP has had a history of bloated statlines in order to justify the use of suboptimal typings or peculiar playstyles. While there's nothing wrong with that approach, especially considering how high the average OU statline is, it could be interesting to flip the procedure for a project. Finding ways to optimize typing, abilities and movepool to accomodate for stats rather than optimizing stats to accomodate for the rest is something that has rarely been done in CAP and I think that it could lead to a very interesting process. Even with the constant powecreep, mons with lackluster stats but very optimized roles always manage to find some roles in both OU and CAP OU. For instance, there are currently 9 pokemon in OU with a BST of 500 or less, and 6 that are ranked B or higher in the current CAP VR; it's far from an impossible endeavour.

Questions to be answered:
  • What is considered "low base stat total"?
  • What Pokémon in the current CAP metagame fall in that category, and what are their attributes that allow them to thrive nonetheless?

Explanation: wip
Darn, I was thinking about submitting this, a Pokemon with notably poor base stats for OU. I was gonna call it "Deceptive Weakness." I'll go ahead and add some of the thoughts I had that I would have incorporated into my own post. Maybe you can make use of them.

I'd definitely include somewhere that this does NOT permit a highly min-maxed stat spread where 1 or 2 are really good and the rest are awful. That's lame, and not in keeping with Game Freak's general design philosophy (7 year old Timmy should not be excessively punished for not understanding the physical/special split when he teaches his physical attacker flamethrower). The overall stat spread should be fairly bad generally, i.e low BSR.

My Questions to be answered would have included:
  • To what extent do solid stats provide a "foundation" for viable use cases in a tier?
  • Does a stat-poor pokemon necessarily need to focus on things like status, hazards, or support that don't interact with the stats system to be effective?
  • Good stats are highly concrete and easily conceptualizable, and are therefore more appealing to the human brain (and perhaps easier to use) than a more nuanced, subtle option that may be equally valuable. To what extent does this cognitive bias influence metagames?
 
Last edited:

spoo

is a Site Content Manageris a Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogon
CAP Co-Leader
Back again for another round of feedback/general thoughts. I didn't quite get through all of page 2, but I figured I'd share now instead of making you wait for me to finish tomorrow afternoon like I initially planned. Here we go!

Cantrip - NoahIOTJ
Really interesting concept, I like the parallels drawn to Astrolotl. You're definitely asking the right kinds of questions -- I especially enjoy the one about whether to use debuffs selfishly or selflessly, and the one about how to abuse side-effects of debuffs such as the opponent's impulse to switch out or spend the turn on a non-attacking option. You could also ask a question about what the place of other debuffing options is, like Metal Sound/Acid Spray and whether they fit within the concept or not. I'd change the name to something more accessible too, maybe I'm in the minority but I had to look up what it meant lol.

Trap Card - Brown4Sides
The gameplay implications of this concept are very cool. Maybe this is a weird comparison, but I'm reminded of how Libra's concept tried to force win-win situations via the use of Doom Desire. Past strategies like DeoSharp really capture this for me; your opponent is either forced to play with hazards up, or give your Bisharp a +2 Attack boost, but either way you benefit. Rage Fist could demonstrate this too -- your opponent either attacks and gives you a boost, or awkwardly goes for some non-attacking move / makes a risky switch. Asking about how "traps" like these can engineer win-win scenarios, or how to best abuse the indirect effects of a trap (e.g. Defiant making your opp less likely to Defog) could be another good question.

Atypical Type Usage - Wulfanator
Love this one. We talked about this in private already but the similarities to Stratagem's concept are really cool, in some ways it's just a direct improvement. CAP has done a lot of move-based and ability-based concepts lately, but iirc the last time we messed with typing was Crucibelle -- this is a shame to me, because typing is by far the most defining aspect of a Pokemon. I'm looking forward to seeing what kinds of interesting questions you come up with.

In the Big Leagues - BobKingOfSeagulls
Initially I thought that this concept was "take a lower tier mon and retrofit it for CAP," but after reading through the whole thing, it's actually much broader than that; if I'm understanding correctly, anything from a specific move, ability, playstyle, etc that's more common in lower tiers is fair game to work with. I quite like this approach, but my concern is that lower tiers as a whole are very undeveloped because of SV's newness -- NU just got released this month, and PU doesn't even exist yet. Is it possible for a concept like this to be successful when lower tiers as a whole are still finding their identity? This would probably be a better idea for later in the generation. If you want to make this concept the absolute best it can be, though, reading through Old Dog New Tricks and Mini-Uber might give you ideas for improvement.

Not All Dragons Are Dragon-type - LucarioOfLegends
If I'm understanding right, this concept has two routes (though not mutually exclusive ones), those being imitating a typing offensively vs imitating one defensively. I think the latter is much more interesting; there seems to be a lot more to think about if we try to make, for example, a Grass- or Dragon-type that competes for a team slot with Argh, Pex, and Washtom, as opposed to offensively replicating a Water-type by just using Hydro Pump in our moveset. I worry that this has a lot of overlap with the other typing-based concepts though, so perhaps leaning into the natural questions that this concept raises about teambuilding would help? Your concept really forces us to think about why we use the mons that we do, what exactly they provide for a team, and how to replicate those same effects on a completely different chassis; these are the things that I'm most intrigued by here.

Bone-shaking! - Demanufacture
Not gonna say anything about this because it looks like it's under revision still. Make sure to carefully read the rules in the OP before editing/submitting a new one.

Low Life God - Darek
Really creative idea. I love your questions here, this would be a damn good process and result in a mon that plays like very little else. The only potential issue I see is a limited amount of options to work with. Recoil moves and the 3(?) abilities that benefit from status infliction are the obvious routes, and beyond that, we have Solar Power, items that cost HP (can't think if there's anything other than Life Orb), and like Curse/Substitute? Explosion if that's allowed? Looking at this list, we might be a little pigeonholed into certain roles, but I think there would be interesting discussions to be had regardless.

Idle Hands - What should by name be?
Not too sure about this one. If this concept means to explore turns in which we do literally nothing as a result of immobilization, then the only routes we have are two-turn moves and moves that require recharging. There are ways to circumvent the former (Power Herb) and the latter seems to have no upsides at all. Perhaps this is me being overly cynical or unimaginative, but I believe that a turn in which we do nothing is by definition a wasted turn. I think this concept could be improved by zeroing in on two-turn moves specifically, such as Phantom Force, Geomancy, Freeze Shock, and so on. A concept like this would embrace that the charge-up effect is almost always going to be exploitable, but work to create something viable and interesting even despite the restriction.

Nth Time's the Charm - shnowshner
Another very cool typing concept. I like that this encourages us to look back at the reasons for certain unsuccessful Pokemon in the past, the historical analysis element is always something I enjoy. The questions here are nice as well, notably the ones about whether to sidestep a typing's flaws vs lean into them; we've had similar decision to make in past processes (Chromera comes to mind), and I think it's an especially important discussion to have here. Really solid submission, not much more to say that I haven't talked with you about already.

Mini-Uber - SHSP
Obligatory BALLSMASHER9000 shoutout (Please Ban Gliscor Holy Fucking Shit). This one is so good though. Taking a mon/strategy that's way too strong for CAP and replicating it with a lower power level results in this really interesting effect, where we're basically boiling off all the extra power from these absurd legendaries while preserving their most basic elements; I think that this process of distilling something down to its identity is more interesting than building something up from scratch (e.g. replicating a lower tier mon), and the fact that we're not restricted to pastgens means it's very accessible.

Hook, Line & Sinker - Admiral_Stalfos19
I'm worried that this concept is self-defeating. The reason you run lures is because your opponent won't expect them, but if we design a CAP to be a lure, then surely the opponent will see it coming. My intuition for how to get around this is to design the CAP such that it can lure so many different Pokemon that the opponent can't possibly know what it's trying to target. But honestly, that just sounds unhealthy to introduce into the metagame.

Thick Paper - viol and bass
I'm being 100% honest when I say that I enjoy this concept quite a lot -- your writeup is excellent, and you're asking all the right questions -- but it does bear some striking similarities to the other typing-based concepts, specifically shnow's. On one hand I'd be ecstatic to make a purely defensive CAP for the first time in years (if you want proof, I subbed Bulletproof Glass for the past two CAPs), but on the other hand, mandating a defensive build is still narrowing the scope a fair bit; something like shnow's allows for a greater spectrum of possibilities, also having the historical analysis element which I find interesting. I'm not quite sure what my advice would be on how to distinguish your submission, but as I said, it's still a concept I really enjoy.

Brains & Brawn - ArcanineLover
Mixed attackers are awesome. I think this is a fine concept overall. My feedback here is entirely subjective, and really just boils down to personal preference: the past 4 CAPs have featured setup on their design in some way, and I'm eager to explore different territory. If we were to do a setup concept, though, others like Snowballer are still more intriguing to me. Maybe try to take some inspiration from the questions that Joeshh's concept asks, or even setup concepts that have been slated in the past.

...and Substitute my own. - Ayecrusher King
I think what made this concept strong in CAP28 was how few Substitute users there were. We've seen a lot in Gen 9, though -- Venom-E, Skeledirge, Volcarona, Dragapult, Ceruledge, probably a few more that I'm forgetting. I also worry that this concept will be pigeonholed into setup (what do all of my examples and 90% of historical Substitute users have in common), and as I said for the submission above this, there are other setup concepts that pique my interest more.

Like Shooting Fish In A Barrel - Scizivire
Lots of similarities here between this one and Pip's, main difference being the scope: Speed Demon is broader in the roles that it allows for, while this one zeroes in on a very specific build. There's an argument to be made for both approaches, I'll have to think some more about which I prefer. Your examples do a good job at illustrating the kinds of diverse routes that we could take with this. I also really like the potential discussions that this concept would foster about how to balance early-game utility vs late-game cleaning power, and the role of setup vs more immediate output.

Black Market Salt - doctrielk
I don't think that we learn anything interesting from a process about "how to beat X Pokemon," I don't think that these kinds of concepts are always as healthy for the metagame as they claim to be, and I don't think that these concepts age well into future metagames. I'm sorry, but I won't be slating this

Hidden Potential - chuckeroo777
I didn't plan on getting to this concept until later but I figured I'd throw it in now since my feedback is so short. Techno Blast and Multi Attack were snapped from Gen 9, this concept literally wouldn't work
 

Voltage

OTTN5
is a Pre-Contributor
FINAL SUBMISSION

Name: Parry and Riposte

Description:
This Pokemon is able to "parry" and/or "riposte" (counter-attack) an opponent's actions with a well-timed action from the user. This parry and riposte may be done passively from the Pokemon's inherent features like its ability, or more actively accomplished through the use of specific moves, or both.

Justification: With the trending toward a more offensively oriented metagame compared to the previous generation, it is important to consider in hat ways can players mitigate said offensive threats. In that regard, this is primarily an Actualization concept that aims to explore the ways in which a Pokemon can improve the user's positioning in a battle through carefully timed and executed play.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • How are Pokemon able to "parry" and "riposte" foes with the present gameplay mechanics?
  • Furthermore, what actions can a player make that would be considered to fall under the umbrella of "parrying" and "riposting"?
  • Does parrying and counter-attacking have to be inherently offensive, or can there be defensive parries as well?
  • To what extent does the idea / threat of a pokemon's potential to parry and reposte impact each player's gameplay throughout a match?
  • Through which mechanics are we able to generate openings for which this Pokemon may "parry" common metagame threats?
  • To what extent should misplaying a parry punish the user?
  • Should a "parrying" Pokemon be able to parry and riposte itself?
Explanation: First and foremost, some definitions:

parry
verb
par·ry ˈper-ē
ˈpa-rē

: to ward off a weapon or blow

riposte
noun
ri·poste ri-ˈpōst

: a fencer's quick return thrust following a parry

I'm always a sucker for trying to map common fighting game mechanics to Pokemon through CAP. Astrolotl, CAP 27, was an example of attempting to take the Dungeons and Dragons Tricktser Cleric and make it into a Pokemon. And so now I've returned with a similar kind of idea: parrying and riposting.

In fighting games, one of the most skillful actions a player can make is accurately reading the actions of their opponent and properly blocking said action and following with an immediate counter blow. In Super Smash Brothers Melee, for example, Marth's Down+B action is a parry that, when timed properly allows the Marth user to block the attack from the opponent and redirect the damage back onto the attacker. In order to properly use the move, the Marth user must be acutely aware of their opponent's plans of attack in order to make this move work effectively, otherwise they are left open to attack should they mistime their "Down+B". In Smash Ultimate, King K. Rool' "Gut Check" exaggerates this to an amusing degree: timing the narrow window in the proper direction leads to what is essentially a KO, but missing it or facing the wrong direction makes the K. rool user vulnerable to attacks for almost a whole two seconds.

We can see some examples of this in Pokemon as well. The move "Sucker Punch" is a direct example of such an idea, where the sucker Punch user has to be entirely correct with their read of their opponent's plan of attack to effectively use the move. Predict your opponent to be using an atacking move and you move first and likely get the KO, misread and you essentially lose an entire turn. We've seen examples where games will often come down to one player outplaying (or not outplaying) an opponent with a Kingambit (and Bisharp in generations before it) using Sucker Punch to win games or vice versa. Sucker Punch isn't the only example of this kind of gameplay as well; other more passive examples of "parrying" come from appropriate switch-ins and lures which can could catch opponents off-guard.

Switching in a Pokemon with the ability Guts to potentially absorb a burn and obtain an immediate surge in power, or switching in a Pokemon with the ability "Defiant" on an expected switch-in of a Pokemon with "Intimidate" are examples of this kind of "parrying". Make the right read and you've got yourself a much stronger opportunity to win matches, make the wrong read and you've left yourself open to the whims of your opponent. The ability Magic Bounce (AND REBOUND) is an example of this concept (almost the exact opposite of Sucker Punch too): properly predicting a status move being used, the user can switch in a Pokemon with Magic Bounce and immediately punish the status move user. Obstagoon as a Pokemon is somewhat the codifier of this idea since it has Obstruct a move that immediately creates openings if a Pokemon should make contact with it by lowering the attacker's defense 2 stages (thanks quziel). This can also be extended to more, admittedly gimmicky, concepts like Focus Sash / Endure + Reversal strategies, wherein you allow a Pokemon to be hit by an attack bringing them to HP, only to use an attack that does more damage the lower the user's HP is. one might recall dex's "Hen 5", Galarian Zapdos Set from last gen which was as follows:

Hen 5 (Zapdos-Galar) @ Salac Berry
Ability: Defiant
EVs: 252 Atk / 4 SpD / 252 Spe
Jolly Nature
- Endure
- Acrobatics
- Reversal
- Bulk Up

With a corresponding replay to demonstrate the potential (Turn 11 onward): https://replay.pokemonshowdown.com/gen8cap-1531459800

For the sake of future-proofing, I will not comment on Terastalizing, beyond the fact that it too can be pro-concept. But again, as outlined by the rules, Terastalizing shouldn't be the primary way this Pokémon operates, but could be a secondary or tertiary way it can be effective.

I think given the amount of diverse offensive threats that, if left unchecked, can barrel through teams, it is important to explore how we might be able to mitigate threats through well-timed "parries".
 
Last edited:
Back again for another round of feedback/general thoughts. I didn't quite get through all of page 2, but I figured I'd share now instead of making you wait for me to finish tomorrow afternoon like I initially planned. Here we go!
In the Big Leagues - BobKingOfSeagulls
Initially I thought that this concept was "take a lower tier mon and retrofit it for CAP," but after reading through the whole thing, it's actually much broader than that; if I'm understanding correctly, anything from a specific move, ability, playstyle, etc that's more common in lower tiers is fair game to work with. I quite like this approach, but my concern is that lower tiers as a whole are very undeveloped because of SV's newness -- NU just got released this month, and PU doesn't even exist yet. Is it possible for a concept like this to be successful when lower tiers as a whole are still finding their identity? This would probably be a better idea for later in the generation. If you want to make this concept the absolute best it can be, though, reading through Old Dog New Tricks and Mini-Uber might give you ideas for improvement.
When writing it, I considered "lower tiers" as in the tiers of a previous generation (s), like my example of fighting types being miserable in gen 1, but thanks to changes in gen 2 (dark/steel types) were more usable. That is something I should clarify in my post then since I can totally see how you would get a bit confused.
 

dex

I spoke to the devil in Miami
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnus
When writing it, I considered "lower tiers" as in the tiers of a previous generation (s), like my example of fighting types being miserable in gen 1, but thanks to changes in gen 2 (dark/steel types) were more usable. That is something I should clarify in my post then since I can totally see how you would get a bit confused.
As a heads up, "lower tiers" always refers to official tiers that are not OU i.e. Ubers, UU, RU, NU, and PU with some exceptions (there are official tiers that are not lower tiers like Monotype, Doubles, and LC due to their inherent mechanical differences). What you mean is past gens, which you should state clearly if that is what you are referring to.
 

Geysers

But my sorrows, they learned to swim
is a Community Contributoris a Team Rater Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Final Submission

Name:
Paradox Support

Description: This Pokemon supports its Paradox teammates through its abilities and moves.

Justification: All of the Paradox Pokemon were designed around operating alongside the cover legends, Miraidon and Koraidon, and taking advantage of the field conditions that they set with their abilities. Both cover legends, however, got banned, which means that the Paradox Pokemon as they currently exist are somewhat inhibited, and that the future Paradox Pokemon might as well not have abilities.

Questions to be answered:
  • Is it better to focus on Sun or Electric Terrain? Can we somehow use both?
  • How can we prevent this Pokemon from being overly tailored to a specific best partner?
  • Is manual Electric Terrain / Sunny Day at all usable or will this mon have to rely on abilities?
  • If we choose to make this Pokemon set Sun, how will it differentiate itself from extant Sun-setters like Torkoal and Jumbao?
  • How can we mitigate potential for collateral damage where this Pokemon is used extensively to support Pokemon that aren't Paradox mons?
  • Is that even a bad thing, should it happen?
  • What Paradox Pokemon stand to benefit the most from readily available Electric Terrain / Sun support?
  • What non-Paradox Pokemon stand to benefit the most from readily available Electric Terrain / Sun support?
  • How much offensive presence does this Pokemon need to be able to effectively support its teammates? Does it need any?
  • How much will this Pokemon be reliant on the Terrain Extender or Heat Rock?
  • How might reliance on a pre-determined item impact this Pokemon's ability to be an offensive or defensive threat?
Explanation: The Paradox Pokemon are all somewhat hamstrung by the lack of the cover legends here. It's not a particularly big deal for the Protosynthesis mons, because there are other Sun setters, but it means that the Quark Drive Pokemon might as well not have abilities, which severely limits their viability. If the community opts to take this down a Sun route, it'll probably have to work fairly hard to differentiate itself from Jumbao, but there's still a fair bit of potential for offensive Sun setters. If we opt for an Electric Terrain route, there will be a fair bit more room to experiment, but there's also the potential to push already good Pokemon, specifically Iron Valiant, over the edge and make them unhandleable, so a fair bit of care will need to be taken with that.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
  • How are Pokemon able to "parry" and "riposte" foes with the present gameplay mechanics?
As a Smash player I love this concept, it's a cool idea. If I think about a move like Marth's Down B, i feel like the shielding moves make a lot of sense: King's Shield, Baneful Bunker, Silk Trap, Spiky Shield protect the user from damage while inflicting some effect on the opponent if they use a contact move. Unfortunately, because of switching and how priority/speed can affect turn order it's hard to achieve a satisfying true parry unless you use taunt before the opponent tries to use a status move. Based on the definition you provided, it doesn't feel like there are enough viable game mechanics that allow you to prevent the opponent from attacking or setting up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top