• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

CAP 38 - Part 2 - Concept Submissions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Final Submission

Name: Redundant Reliability

Description: This Pokemon achieves one task extremely reliably by dedicating overlapping or redundant elements to it, at the cost of being unable to do much else.

Justification: This concept explores how redundancy can create specialists that excel at executing one task through many methods and in many situations. "Redundancy" here is used with the connotation of elements (typing, ability, moves, stats) that do similar things, double down, and act as failsafes for each other. Moltres is an instantiation of this concept: Flame Body, Will-O-Wisp, and Flamethrower/Scorching Sands (or Burning Jealousy) on one set give it different avenues toward spreading burn. Ribombee can use its Speed to quickly set up Sticky Web or paralyze foes with Stun Spore for its teammates. Zamazenta can act as an emergency check to physical setup mons with its high Defense boosted by +1 through its ability on first entry, its Speed tier, Iron Defense, or Roar if that does not work. As a cost for this reliability, devoting so many resources to one outcome can lead to one-dimensionality and an inability to make other forms of progress. Embracing these drawbacks rather than compensating for them would be a refreshing change of pace for the CAP process, which tends to produce more generally useful builds. Each stage can also be another opportunity to double down on the chosen task, rather than to patch weaknesses or broaden the range of applications, and it can make for an interesting process.

Questions to be answered:
  • What unique benefits can redundancy on a Pokemon provide that a more varied kit cannot?
  • How can reliability be designed? Is reliability in achieving an effect worth losing the ability to do much else?
  • What sort of tasks or roles benefit most from having a Pokemon that can reliably achieve it in a variety of ways? Are these primarily reactive roles, or can proactive elements like offense benefit from reliability in interesting ways?
  • How does “putting all eggs in one basket” into this Pokemon for a task affect teambuilding and gameplay? Is there a need for teammates to support and preserve it, or can its compression open up avenues for them instead?
  • What sort of archetypes can best use this Pokemon?
  • How do you ensure that the redundant set for the Pokemon is not overshadowed by more varied ones available to it? What about competition with other Pokemon for the same role?
  • Are there restrictions on the non-redundant element(s) of the Pokemon’s kit to guarantee its viability? Does it ultimately need to have another angle in its kit?
Explanation: This concept is inspired by redundant design in engineering, where critical elements, such as those in a bridge, have a backup in case they fail, or you overshoot your requirements so much that even in unexpected scenarios, your device does not fail. In teams, redundancy is often not preferred on a single Pokemon but achieved through multiple Pokemon occupying a niche. To deal with the threat of a Hemogoblin sweep, having both Moltres and Pecharunt ensures that one can pick up the slack if the other falls. Intra-Pokemon redundancy carries a much different cost: every additional element devoted to the same task takes up the space of coverage, utility, or another means of making progress. So it could be cool to explore how (if at all) this can be worth it and how these drawbacks can be navigated with a CAP process.

Though making concrete suggestions is not the point of this submission, there could be cool ones like speed control, pivot, anti-status, etc, and full implementation of stuff that has already existed in shades like the following list.

Examples:

:Arghonaut: Task: anti-setup. The combination of Unaware + Circle Throw is very effective, as well as Tera Dark to deal with Stored Power for setup sweepers (such as Chuggalong) that can damage their way past it. Foul Play sees usage to punish physical setup. If you want to deal with Substitute users or Ghost-type setup Pokémon, Roar works as well. There is another dimension to it with its setting of hazards, which is a bit out of the scope of this concept but an interesting consideration of what might be required for such a kit's viability.

Prev gen :Gliscor:/NU :Vileplume: Task: annoying levels of longevity. For Gliscor, it was Roost + Poison Heal; for Vileplume (this was before it got Strength Sap), double 50% recovery as well as Giga Drain. Notably, Snaelstrom still has this option but never uses it.

:Glimmora: Task: hazard setting. It can set hazards with either its moves or its ability Toxic Debris.

Looser examples:

:Darkrai: :samurott-hisui: :Kyogre::Ursaluna Bloodmoon: Task: exploit one type's attacking options. For the former two, the Black Glasses sets that have Knock Off, Sucker Punch and Dark Pulse/Ceaseless Edge. For Kyogre, Rain, Water Spout, and Origin Pulse when its health has been lowered enough. Ursaluna-BM with Blood Moon and Hyper Voice, as well Mind's Eye. to recieve Ice-types have used this method sometimes as well.

:Dragapult: Task: status + Hex. Specifically the double-status set with Thunder Wave and Will-O-Wisp.

A lot of credit to viol and bass, piptochi, traceysketchit and the folks in Discord for helping hash this out.
 
Last edited:
Alright I figure it's worth giving some thoughts and feedback. This may be a bit verbose (or as someone on Discord put it, "not laconic") so I separated into sections for easy navigation.
I just want to lay out some of the things I am considering when looking at a particular concept.
One of the most important aspects of a concept is that it provides direction to the process. I was linked this post by Darek describing the pitfall of a concept with insufficient direction. Ideally, we want to be guided throughout the process by multiple questions, ideally constraining us in different ways; "How do we make this Pokemon viable in the CAP metagame (but not broken)?" and "How do we fulfill the concept (hopefully in an interesting way)?". There is the additional constraint that is my responsibility as TL to keep the creation cohesive, but we will cross that bridge when we get to it...

On the other hand, we want to avoid an overly constraining concept. Many of the rules attempt to limit concepts that railroad us in certain ways that decrease the number of meaningful decisions we make during a process. The obvious example is deciding a typing or ability in the concept stage. It is interesting to note that overly constraining and overly open are not necessarily mutually exclusive, in that a concept can railroad one portion of the process while providing no guidance for another. Thus, I will be evaluating how the concept engages with each stage of the process. Finding the perfect balance between a concept that gives direction, while giving room for exploration, is difficult but I will do my best in this respect.

Another aspect of a concept that is important to consider is how novel it is. On one hand, it is good to have examples of a concept succeeding (proof-of-concept). On the other hand, if a concept has many examples, there may not be much room for exploration or learning.

The final topic I'd like to mention is the idea of "meta-concepts" that was brought up in Discord conversations. This refers to concepts that encompass a family of concepts, and require Concept Assessment to decide the specific path to take. One example is New CAP, Same Concept, where the first step in Concept Assessment involves picking an old concept to rehash. There was some negative sentiment towards these types of concepts, in that they kick the can down the road in terms of direction, and can draw in votes from people who want subconcept A but instead get subconcept B. In a sense, every non-railroaded concept must have multiple paths to fulfillment, but the paths for meta-concepts are generally more disparate. I won't outright disallow these concepts, but I will likely favor slating more concepts that give immediate direction.

Without further ado, concept feedback. These will just be ordered chronologically; I'll try to give a tierlist later in the week.
I originally wrote like 400 word analyses for a few of the concepts, but that was too impractical so it'll just be a few lines. Sorry.

My main worry with this concept is that there are so many examples that the process won't be that interesting or informative. Protect-type moves are primarily used for residual healing, which pushes us down some pretty clear lines with respect to typing and stats. Likewise, the Pokemon needs to be sufficient with 3 moveslots. There's some interesting bells and whistles that we can add (Spectral Thief?), but its hard for me to imagine there's too much to explore here.

The wording on this concept is a bit confusing to me. I spent a long time thinking about what it actually means to be useless in the earlygame, and concluded that it is basically only one-time sweepers (I think only volatile styles like HO can support playing 5v6 for some portion of the game). That being said, genius user Pipotchi interpreted the concept as "its main gameplan comes online in the endgame", which opens up a lot more interesting avenues for this.

I am having difficulty deciphering what you mean by "one role" or "multiple distinct sets (that can't mix or share elements)". For the question of role, we can consider SD Scale Shot vs. DD Baxcalibur; both are setup sweepers, but one is more geared towards breaking fat while the other is a more generalized sweeper wincon. Do these count as separate roles, or the same? On the other hand, we have HDB 4A Zama vs. IDef BP Zama. Both are fundamentally anti-offense, though one is a setup sweeper while the other is not. The confusion regarding "multiple distinct sets" arises from the inclusion of Clefable and Ceruledge, which use Moonblast and Bitter Blade on every set respectively. I'm not sure what exactly this limitation is supposed to entail in practice.

My hesitancy towards this concept is also in part because it seems so easy to go down the path of "Pokemon with 2 different setup moves" that is the case for many of your examples. I think the questions provided are reasonable

I think this concept is inviting disaster. Just looking at the examples of Garchomp, Lando-T, and Gholdengo, we can observe an incredible trend of Pokemon with strong, well-rounded stats, solid typing, and a wide movepool. While it would be an interesting exercise to start off by giving a Pokemon everything, and seeing what we can viably take away, this seems pretty volatile. I'm not inherently against versatility (in fact I will push for our CAP to not be one-note) but this one is a bit too directionless and open to people throwing on whatever.

By the way, Ferrothorn is not viably used as a TR sweeper. Labeling it as such is akin to labeling Skarmory as an SD sweeper; it's just pure cope. dex brought up in Discord Clefable as a counterexample of needing good stats, but Magic Guard makes up for a lot of stats

I need to think more about how much flexibility this concept gives us. Gamefreak releases some broken signatures (Gigaton, Ceaseless, Bitter Blade) on Pokemon that are built around them. Can we really create a Ceaseless mon that uses it better than Samu-H without instantly breaking the meta? Maybe some more examples would make this easier for me to understand.

This one genuinely made me ask mods about legality given how it narrows the ability process significantly. Ultimately, I think it barely qualifies as legal, but it is a bit worrying. I think something along the lines of using non-STAB moves with similar output to their STABs could be interesting? I do think this concept does give some direction (our Pokemon will generally use at least 3 attacks) while being a bit more open than it looks at first glance (Technician Triple Axel?) but some stages will definitely be awkward since we are effectively building a 3-type Pokemon (more than likely, Ability will end up as Typing 1.5).

This one got a bit of discussion on Discord questioning the legality. From my understanding, this concept does not force the Pokemon be Psychic-type, but does require the move(s) of choice to be attacks; no TR, for example. I think this is an interesting specific case of a concept like "Underused Attacking Type" or something similar that commits all in on Psychic, which is kinda cool. The only worry is that it's very easy to gravitate towards Psychic typing, but that's just a minor point against this concept. I also wonder if we can get away with not deciding the specific Psychic attack(s) until Defining Moves...

I think this concept is kinda funny because it allows us to draw inspiration from Monotype (which I don't play). It's interesting to note that some typespam builds (Dragon and Dark) that have seen use in OU are basically unviable in CAP (thanks Hemogoblin). It'll probably take a lot of hashing out in Concept Assessment to actually figure out a direction for this though.

Well this is the epitome of meta-concept. I don't have much to say about it; the process will probably be fine since we are picking from solid past concepts. That's it.

I think a Pokemon with all low-power moves is not actually that interesting. At that point, just boosting Attack or attaching a power-boosting ability kind of patches the issue. Obviously we are getting some additional utility from various secondary effects attached to low power moves, but I'm not sure how many of these are that relevant? I'd have to review the list of moves to confirm this though.

Maybe having a small number of high-power options supplemented by low-power moves (eg. Kartana, MMawile) could be interesting. This one overlaps a lot with "Oops! All Coverage" though.

I've lamented how limited modern CAP movepools feel, where the main moveset kinda covers everything, but there are not many options outside of it. Pokemon like Arghonaut pre-Gen7, Mega Mawile, and Mega Metagross are cool examples of Pokemon that can pick what they want to beat, but always feel the pressure of 4MSS. Modern examples like Great Tusk and Iron Valiant are a bit similar in this regard. I think this would definitely be a fun process to try to engineer a wide pool of coverage that is balanced (whether it be via strategically excluding certain types, or only offering lower-power options for certain coverage). This is definitely a movepool-focused process though, so we don't get much direction in other stages.

This is a cool concept because of the recent rise of Astrolotl as the poster child of stat-dropping attacks. While stat drops are often considered weaker than stat boosts because the opponent can switch to remove them, they also pressure the opponent to switch, which is pretty interesting. On the flip side, moves that drop Attack to deny setup sweepers is also a cool application. I think we get some solid direction here in that we need to be able to stay in for multiple turns for the stat drops to be worthwhile, while also providing a good breadth of options.

There's another CAP example in SD Snaelstrom, which uses Razor Shell to try to muscle past answers like Arghonaut. Even something like Crunch Zamazenta fishing for drops vs. Pecharunt kinda works, though maybe it's stretching it a bit.

I genuinely think the answer to your second question is "no", which lands this concept in the same spot as "Ace Custom". This concept runs into the same issues as that one in my eyes, which is lack of direction and pressure to give a ton of tools to fulfill concept.

Also, Lando-T no longer exists in CAP because Snael and Libra exist. Maybe Gliscor is a better example.

I have no clue how to evaluate this one. I'll get back to you on this... one day...

In the balance triangle of Bulk, Speed, and Power, the concept necessitates we index highly in Bulk and Power, so we necessarily have to sacrifice Speed (or we create Arceus). I'm not sure if there's much more to this concept... (just look at your examples; they're all TR abusers).

There's not much for this concept yet, so I won't comment much.

Helmet Cresc is a good example of this concept. I do not want to create another Flame Body / Static gamble mon.

This concept feels so directionless... I have no idea what you are going for. The example given is also cryptic, as I don't know any sweeper that actually uses TW... maybe you are thinking of Double-Dance mons (eg. Lando-T, GMoltres) that use 2 setup moves? I'd recommend asking for feedback on Discord or Concept Lab to refine this concept.

I feel like "obnoxious" and "unhealthy" are both so subjective here... maybe we will learn something about the psychology of CAP contributors / voters. I'm pretty ambivalent on this concept. It's just too hard to think about...

I like sacrificing my Pokemon for momentum or to ease prediction (Joeshh made fun of me for letting my Zama die 6 times in draft...) so this concept is cool to me.

I think the reality of this concept is that you will have to accept the double-dance set is not the primary set. I feel like forcing something like this is so restrictive during movepool and/or stats phase. Most Pokemon that have a set like this primarily use something else, and these sets are mostly volatile MU-fish sets for HO teams.

"I don't know if :iron-valiant: is :choice specs: or :choice band: or :choice scarf: or :life orb: or Swords Dance or Calm Mind or Destiny Bond until I watch inside the box"

This definitely has more direction than the other multipurpose concepts. I will say that there are not a lot of precedents for this type of Pokemon, so we are taking a bit of a stab in the dark. It is definitely an interesting design space to explore though. I will say that balancing stats seems like a bit of a nightmare here.

I think a concept like this is pretty funny after releasing 3 status-spreading CAPs in a row. Clerics are in an interesting position in CAP because the opportunity cost of using Heal Bell / Aromatherapy is the ability to run Snaelstrom / Gliscor, which are both really strong. That being said, cleric utility is something that is very uncommon in SV CAP / OU (I built Blissey + Oblit balance...) so I think it could be interesting to explore an old archetype in a new context, even though these moves were used to varying degrees in pastgens.

This concept also opens up the possibility of Misty Surge Pokemon, which is epic.

This concept is pretty cool to me because it breaks the trend of CAP tending towards balanced all-rounder stat spreads. In a sense, this is a self-nerf concept, but it also comes with an accompanying buff that can be fun to work with. The bias actually gives a good amount of direction in terms of typing / moves. I will note that it may be difficult to maintain viability by doubling down on a particular bias; it requires redundancy in teambuilding that may be hard to support. That's not to say it's impossible, however; BU Tusk, AV Slowking-G, Scald Slowbro, etc. have all seen success in the past.

I feel like fulfilling the concept ends up being pretty trivial for several of the options; eg. Heat Crash and Heavy Slam are pretty trivially solved by giving this Pokemon 999kg weight. There's some interesting things here like Counter-like moves (also Reversal and Flail? Can we make these work in prio-spam meta?), and also some truly unviable moves like Crush Grip... Maybe we can unban OHKO moves just for this concept...

The standard application of redundancy in Pokemon is including multiple answers to a single threat; eg. if my Moltres gets worn down by Kyurem, I still have a Pecharunt to answer Hemogoblin, etc. I still haven't wrapped my mind around the idea of redundancy on a single Pokemon, so I need to stare at this one for like another hour likely.
 
Last edited:
Final Submission

Name:
Snake (Draft)s and Ladders

Description:
This Pokémon explores the difference in the Ladder Metagame (Including Ladder Tournaments) and the Single-Knockout Tournament Metagame by having distinct roles (or play-styles or even just standard EV Spreads etc.) in each of these same-but-different metagames.

Justification:
What, saving CAP Ladder doesn't count?

For those of you old enough that your Smogon account is old enough to drink (17 counts for social drinking!), this is an old fashioned Target concept - I want to address the differences between two metagames that should functionally follow the same rules, and I think that is more than sufficient as the basis for discussion. Understanding the constraints of 'time vs tries' (lovely alliterative phrase I'm stealing from spammer ta) should help players introduce themselves to the metagame, and should result in an end product that is usable in a range of situations. Being an end-of-Gen CAP means I think there is a higher importance on 'learning' compared to usual - I'd like for the concept to reflect that, and looking at the metagame is kind of the Cool Thing to do!

Questions to be Answered:
  • What are the fundamental differences between the Ladder Metagame and the Tournament Metagame, noting that these follow near enough identical rulesets.
    • What factors drive these differences - is it just a matter of different levels of ability, or do matters like effort, enjoyment, and practicalities shape how these metagames function?
  • What common threats on the ladder necessitate different teambuilding calls? Likewise, what tournament threats require attention?
  • Is there a tendency - within either ladder or knockout play - to prefer plays with low variance or high variance? Put another way - is there a difference in the Risk vs Reward calculation, and how does that impact playstyles?

Explanation:
A Dogfish concept, that wants to explore something beyond an actualisation, and likely outside of his own immediate skillset? Groundbreaking. Next you'll be suggesting florals for spring. Madness.

There's a common conception that Tournament play tends to feature... let's call it more defensive lineups. And you can see it when looking at ladder stats - CAP 1760 usage has Ramnarok in 2nd, but overall for CAPLL XII he's down in 19th. Likewise, CAPLL XII has Snaelstrom in 4th - but on the ladder, 29th. This difference also is quite notable outside of a CAP setting, so there is universal utility to be derived from this.

I would love to have us explore what is actually driving these differences! Like, that would be pretty helpful as a discussion to help players make that leap from ladder to tournament play. It would also hopefully help those of us with... lesser skillsets!... feel a bit stronger in their understanding of the current ladder metagame.

And... perhaps unlike Skill Issue and other concepts that prioritise 'learning', it is kind of well known that we have viable outcomes (in so much as an outcome can be a usable Pokémon and not the learning). To wit, and I will shamelessly steal here from Shock3600 over a Discord chat, in Generation 3 ladder prior to the 2025 SpeedPass ban, Ladder teams had to be very aware of how they would work around Ninjask teams - this usually meant mons running Roar or Whirlwind, which they would not do in Tournament play. Understanding what drives different settings to result in different choices in the builder is inherently interesting - especially when those settings are 'the same' in theory.

Oh, and this is the only concept that basically mandates a Ladder Tournament *and* a Knockout Tournament. Just throwing that out there. Twice the CAP38 competitive events!
 
Last edited:
Explosion Badger said:
WIP

Name: Schrödinger's CAP

Description: Changing this Pokémon's ability swaps it between an offensive role and a defensive one.

Justification: The typical CAP Process isn't really designed to explore how multiple competitive abilities affect a Pokémon's toolkit. We heavily focus our stats and movepool around a specific ability, and adding a second is usually done as a "failsafe", giving the Pokémon some flexibility if it doesn't end up as strong as originally expected. While this can work, it means that 2nd abilities often end up being unneccesary, sometimes to the point of being removed. At best, the second ability lets Pokémon play the same role with slightly different utility.

This concept, then, aims to actualize the strength of having multiple abilities. By having an offensive ability and a defensive one, the goal is to show how the combination of both can offer a Pokémon far more variety in the roles it can play on a team. An Offensive/Defensive ability pair also challenges us to design with less extremity in mind, giving us a chance to take a path far different than the usual CAP Process.

Questions to be asked:
  • What kind of versatility do we unlock with a O/D ability pair? Is this versatility different from the kind we'd gain from other parts of our toolkit?
  • While we don't exactly need a 50/50 split, how do we ensure that both abilities see use?
  • How "lopsided" can our abilities be? For example, could our defensive ability be a lot stronger if our other tools focus more on offense?
  • How can we limit the pressure placed on the opponent to guess the right ability?
  • How does an O/D ability pair's versatility compare to a pair of abilities that are both offensive or defensive (Cresceidon/Equilibra)? What are the advantages/disadvantages of either route?
  • What can we apply from this concept to future CAP Processes? Is it possible that we can improve how we conduct ability stages, or is the current format the best for most situations?
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect your description is impossible to meet, even with a CAPmon with said offensive and defensive ability. Existing Pokemon with both offensive and defensive abilities have tended to stick to only offensive or defensive roles and ditched one of the abilities at worst, or ended up in roles in varying parts of the offensive-defensive spectrum with both abilities at best:
  • Skarmory has both Sturdy (defensive) and Weak Armor (offensive); it sticks to defensive roles and basically never uses Weak Armor
  • Ceruledge has both Flash Fire (mainly defensive) and Weak Armor (offensive); it has Weak Armor Swords Dance sweeper sets and Flash Fire Bulk Up bulkier sweeper sets, you can argue Bulk Up sets fit better on BO or even Balance than Weak Armor sets, but the mon remains mainly offensive throughout
  • Ogerpon, across all forms (same stat spread on all), has Water Absorb (defensive), Defiant (offensive), Mold Breaker (mainly offensive), and Sturdy (defensive); all forms are capable of both more defensive Spikes/Follow Me/etc. sets as well as more offensive Swords Dance sets, the mon leans towards offence throughout but the Doubles Follow Me sets have to lean more on bulk
 
Lectrys said:
I strongly suspect your description is impossible to meet, even with a CAPmon with said offensive and defensive ability. Existing Pokemon with both offensive and defensive abilities have tended to stick to only offensive or defensive roles and ditched one of the abilities at worst, or ended up in roles in varying parts of the offensive-defensive spectrum with both abilities at best:
  • Skarmory has both Sturdy (defensive) and Weak Armor (offensive); it sticks to defensive roles and basically never uses Weak Armor
  • Ceruledge has both Flash Fire (mainly defensive) and Weak Armor (offensive); it has Weak Armor Swords Dance sweeper sets and Flash Fire Bulk Up bulkier sweeper sets, you can argue Bulk Up sets fit better on BO or even Balance than Weak Armor sets, but the mon remains mainly offensive throughout
  • Ogerpon, across all forms (same stat spread on all), has Water Absorb (defensive), Defiant (offensive), Mold Breaker (mainly offensive), and Sturdy (defensive); all forms are capable of both more defensive Spikes/Follow Me/etc. sets as well as more offensive Swords Dance sets, the mon leans towards offence throughout but the Doubles Follow Me sets have to lean more on bulk
Click to expand...
I kind of agree? At the same time, just look at the pokemon you're using as examples. Skarm is missing so many tools that normal physical breakers have, like knock off, u-turn, earthquake, and an attack stat. Ceruledge is a terrible wall because it has no reliable recovery, rocks weakness, extremely limited status, and mediocre bulk. Ogerpon actually has good defensive tools (other than follow me tho, idk why you would mention it in singles), but running bulk ev's on it's support movepool means you're missing out on crucial ivy cudgel damage because it's statline and signature move are still always pointed at breaking.
If CAP is making a 'mon with a concept involving having a viable defensive and offensive form, we're actually gonna give both routes the tools they need to do their job. A better example of concept fulfillment would be SS salamence, who runs a defensive intimidate set where it's a defog user and an offensive moxie set where it sweeps with dragon dance. Salamence has all the tools it needs for both modes. It is a pretty hard needle to thread. Each mode pulls the statline in a different direction, and there is the concern that instead of becoming a breaker or wall, we get too much of both end end up just running tank slop. But this is definitely a possible concept to fulfill.
 
Lectrys said:
I strongly suspect your description is impossible to meet, even with a CAPmon with said offensive and defensive ability. Existing Pokemon with both offensive and defensive abilities have tended to stick to only offensive or defensive roles and ditched one of the abilities at worst, or ended up in roles in varying parts of the offensive-defensive spectrum with both abilities at best:
  • Skarmory has both Sturdy (defensive) and Weak Armor (offensive); it sticks to defensive roles and basically never uses Weak Armor
  • Ceruledge has both Flash Fire (mainly defensive) and Weak Armor (offensive); it has Weak Armor Swords Dance sweeper sets and Flash Fire Bulk Up bulkier sweeper sets, you can argue Bulk Up sets fit better on BO or even Balance than Weak Armor sets, but the mon remains mainly offensive throughout
  • Ogerpon, across all forms (same stat spread on all), has Water Absorb (defensive), Defiant (offensive), Mold Breaker (mainly offensive), and Sturdy (defensive); all forms are capable of both more defensive Spikes/Follow Me/etc. sets as well as more offensive Swords Dance sets, the mon leans towards offence throughout but the Doubles Follow Me sets have to lean more on bulk
Click to expand...
Personally I don't completely agree with this take. Whilst I agree that those examples have a clear bias towards a particular set in the current meta, I believe there are other factors which could be worked around during the process which could attempt to prevent this issue. The main thing in common those examples have that cause the Pokémon itself to favour one way are within the stats that push it a certain direction.

Whilst the slate may force the stats to take a more balanced and limited approach, it still feels a possibility to achieve what the slate is going for. One main example to back this point up and is more dependent on the format itself is :Salamence: which has seen both usage of Moxie on DD sweeping sets but has used Intimidate when built as a tanky specially offensive role.
 
Final Submission

Name: Mini-Uber

Description: This Pokemon replicates or is inspired by a strategy, play pattern or niche used by an Uber Pokemon.

Justification: Many of the Pokemon that reside in Ubers- be it this gen or in past gens- have playstyles and niches that are totally foreign to most other Pokemon and tiers. This concept seeks to explore both the design space of those roles and niches, as well as how balance and strength work in Pokemon, to create something that draws from the unique elements of the chosen Uber without being worthy of the tier itself.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What makes an Uber Pokemon interesting beyond just the power level?
  • What roles or niches, or playstyles are unique to or common among Uber Pokemon?
  • On average Ubers have better stats, abilities, and movepools than OU Pokémon - out of those 3, which are safe to take away without removing a Pokemon's identity? What of these traits define what Ubers?
  • Will a Pokemon still be useful even when taken out of its native context (i.e. without the specific metagame threats it checks)?
  • Is there room to explore certain Ubers' unique defensive and utility potential in addition to their offenses?
  • How can Pokemon already deemed too strong for OU be replicated in a more balanced fashion?
Explanation: I’m back, re-subbing one of (if not my single) favorite concepts of all time. Gen 9 has a LOT of Ubers, from top-tier box legend threats (Koraidon, Zacian, etc) to the variety of stuff that started in OU, lasting either mere moments (Flutter Mane, Iron Bundle) or overstaying their welcome (Gouging Fire, Volcarona, etc). There’s been even more unqique attention on Ubers overall through this gen: retests on stuff like Palafin and Zama-C, and the dropping of base Zamazenta and Darkrai into OU. Ubers UU also came into existence, giving us a look at how Pokemon banned from OU, but too week for Ubers proper play and what roles they fill.

In general, Ubers existing outside of the format we are most familiar with creates cool opportunities to build around. Combinations of the metagame pressures and overwhelmingly strong kits found in Ubers create very unique Pokemon. There’s very little that falls into similar classes to Ubers like Lunala (how does this psy/ghost type have meaningful defensive utility) or Caly-I (a slow, bulky Ice type actually using all of that to its advantage). Many of these play patterns, roles and niches are just not observed in OU metagames, where the users of them either have no real reason to or are far too strong for the tier. Enter Mini-Uber, a chance to take some of these very unique Pokemon and challenge ourselves to create something inspired by them that rests on an equal playing field as OU's rank and file.

At its core, this concept challenges us in a number of very unique ways. Firstly, and most clearly, it involves us taking a deeper dive into a meta that is generally less explored by most of us, as we'd be looking at Ubers themselves and how they play in Ubers. Translating the Uber to our metagame would make us take a deeper look into what makes these Pokemon tick: how they function, why they function that way, and why they are too strong for OU. The concept still gives us strong direction through directly looking at and being inspired by the role and traits of the Uber we focus on. It has the potential to keep us engaged with all stages of the project and produce a really fascinating end product.
 
Last edited:
WIP

Name: Ace in the Hole

Description: This Pokemon has three moves that are practically required on viable sets but has many options for the fourth move.

Justification: It is common for a Pokemon to have many viable sets, but so far no winning CAP concept has focused on designing a Pokemon specifically to have multiple viable sets. This concept focuses on a specific way of differentiating viable sets, namely by the choice of the fourth move in the moveset.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • TBD
Explanation: There are several existing Pokemon that fit this concept well. A few examples:
Cinderace usually runs Pyro Ball, U-turn, and Court Change but can fit Sucker Punch, High Jump Kick, Gunk Shot, or Will-O-Wisp in the last slot.
Zapdos usually runs Hurricane, Volt Switch, and Roost; it can fit Discharge, Thunder Wave, or Heat Wave in the last slot.
Great Tusk usually runs Headlong Rush, Ice Spinner, and Rapid Spin; it can fit Close Combat, Stealth Rock, Knock Off, Taunt, Bulk Up, or Head Smash in the last slot.
Samurott-Hisui usually runs Ceaseless Edge, Razor Shell/Aqua Cutter, and Knock Off; it can fit Sucker Punch, Aqua Jet, Flip Turn, Sacred Sword, Taunt, Encore, or Swords Dance in the last slot.

While these may not be perfect examples (e.g. Zapdos sometimes runs U-turn instead of Volt Switch), they illustrate the idea of the concept: a Pokemon that can change what Pokemon can check/counter it and/or what utility it can provide through the selection of a single moveslot on an otherwise mostly fixed set.
 
Redundant Reliability has some really cool routes, but runs a mild risk of being more narrow that it may appear atm. A hypothetical burn-maxxer is cool, as is a hypothetical hazard spreader, but there's a lot of effects that just are a bit too narrow to really pursue. Eg Hazard Removal is CAP's favorite mechanic to ever exist, but are you ever gonna run a mon that runs Spin+Defog.

Mini Uber is a concept that I think I'd have liked a bit more in earlier gens just because modern ubers tend to have slightly less restrictive movesets. I think there's also a bit of a question; how would we go about Chi-Yu, what's the defining feature, is Clawitzer a valid outcome to a Chi-Yu process, is regular Latios? How wide is the design space actually. Still, its a good one, I just sorta get stuck with this kinda concept on what elements we're gonna be distilling, how similar we have to be, etc.

Rigid Versatility is cool. There's a lot of mons that have a single extremely stupidly strong move, and that allows them to be extremely flexible with the rest of their set. Thinking of something like BW Latios where having 140 BP draco in a pre-fairy gen let it do literally anything with the rest of its slots, or any number of sleep users in prior gens. I think the trap here is thinking that we gotta dedicate most of our budget to cranking up the main move, rather than just limiting the "raw power" of the rest of hte moves. Again, see BW Latios where it has no offensive steroid, it just had BW Draco. I'd encourage the writer to focus less on optimizing the move, and more on the contrast between the move and the rest of its set, as that opens up the number of prior examples we can cite, and means we have a lot more freedom specifically in the ability stage of the process.

Dastardly Foe is actually really cool, specifically because CAP typically shies away from creating mons that are "too annoying". There's a lot of design space we've generally ignored, and I think it could teach us a lot about mon creation.

I don't love Old Concept just because I feel like its not committing to anything at all.
 
A very long (and probably too pessimistic) feedback post. The goal was to point out the flaws (and occasionally poke a little fun) at the submitted concepts. Some are easier than others, but I wanted to approach them all on as equal footing as possible. If it seems like I'm nitpicking your concept, it's because I am. I believe I've hit every one. Because of this, most are pretty short blurbs. Please feel reach out in the Discord or here if you have any questions.

Like, Spammer before me, it's been organized for your ease of viewing. Best of luck!

If I understand correctly, you could better delineate the difference between passive progress (i.e. Poison Heal Gliscor) and active progress (i.e. Tera Fire Revenankh). Those seem wildly different in kind, to the point that the concept seems volatile.

This appears similar to Ram's concept at face value, but more difficult to actualize, short of something like Supreme Overlord. The opponent's checks to any Pokémon may diminish as the match goes on, but that's hardly unique.

Interesting concept. May be difficult to actualize in the process itself dependent on how much the two roles diverge. The examples provided don't appear as distinct as the concept would suggest it wants them to be, more variations of the same role.

Seems like a more open-ended alternative to the above concept, for better and worse.

Hard to say how successful this would be. Both examples given are signature moves, which tend to be stronger than their more commonly distributed alternatives.

I've submitted a similar concept in the past. This is even more restricting on a already restrictive concept.

Beyond that, Tera has given every Pokémon the possibility of double STAB and few take advantage. It's similar enough to previous multiplier stacking concepts that I wonder why you have not gone there?

Fun idea! As typing leader, I am bit concerned about how much the concept will actually be explored. CAP tends towards the path of least resistance and that's to make a Psychic type here.

Similar to the above concept, I do have some concerns about how much the concept will actually be explored. Could easily fall into the pitfall of a generically good or complimentary Pokémon that happens to share a type with another because that type itself is good, not out of any synergy.

I mean, yeah, it worked before...it'll work again. I do appreciate that you narrowed the scope here.

You specify low base power, so I'll assume you are referring to strictly damaging moves. And I'll exclude multi-hit moves which I also assume are outside the bounds of the concept. In which case, we know the answer: Technician and/or strong secondary effects. Not sure what else we could do with the concept.

Similar to above, we have examples of this in the meta. Several Pokémon from early gens would fall into this category. But 4MSS is a real thing and metagames converge. Coverage is less about hitting super effective as it is being able to hit as much as possible for neutral.

Neat idea. Notably for the Shaymin example, the stat drop is two stages. Few moves are so potent or so consistent.

Would love further delineation between pressuring the opponent and keeping the opponent in check with repeated stat drops.

Very similar to two above concepts, and, yet, still, somehow, more open-ended, for better and worse.

As you say yourself, there are plenty of examples of Pokémon that have access to these tools and don't use them, outside of defensive Tera, to which every Pokémon has access. Mathematically, it's hard to justify spending two turns and two moves slots to hit for super effective when a neutral hit does the same damage over that time.

This is a tank. I love tanks. But probably needs a bit more as a concept though.

Neat idea. Need a bit more to comment. My main worry is that there are examples of this concept, and the disincentive is rarely enough on its own.

Another mutli-role concept. Where are you all coming from?! All kidding aside, I'm not sure this concept has broad appeal. This project already attracts a competitively minded crowd that has little need for a "tutorial."

No notes

This concepts necessarily implies a kind of HP preservation. In a hazard heavy meta, that can be a hard sell.

At the same time, if I understand the concept correctly, I'm not sure exactly how wide the scope is. Suicide Leads don't exactly fit my reading of it.

Two stat boosting moves over two turns is a luxury few Pokemon can afford today. It's no surprise most of the recent example you provide all feature a damage + boosting move. While those moves have wide distributions, there aren't that many of them.

Ok...seriously...is this a prank? Another multi-role concept?! This one is perhaps the most restrictive in limiting it to solely ability as the differentiator, for better and worse.

This is a cleric. I like clerics. I don't know if status management is enough of an identity on its own nowadays. And I worry about it being overshadowed by other aspects.

Fun idea. There's some concern with what exactly constitutes "lopsided" and how that can be distinguished from "minmaxed."

Most variable power moves are just kind of bad? You'd have to apply a very liberal definition of variable power and it starts to have some weird consequences. But with a broad enough definition, there are some very potent moves worthy of the exploration.

There's some concern about how many ways you can meaningfully distinguish the redundant elements and how many of them there are to begin with. But neat idea, if a bit limiting in practice. The looser examples are more interesting to me, but they also stray further from the concept. Not sure what that says about it.

Another multi-role concept?! You know what...I just accept it at this point. I'm proposing we slate them all and only them. Let democracy reign!

On the concept itself, this is the most meta application, and, for that reason, is vastly less appealing.

Ubers mons by necessity are kind of one-offs. Stat monsters, unique abilities, signature moves, and all of the above. We obviously can't replicate all of that. Is the intention a jack of all trades approach where we do each halfway? Or a master of one, where a single aspect is replicated?

If we combine this with Rigid Versatility, we'd create the most versatile Pokémon imaginable!

That said, I'm not sure this is enough of a concept on its own. Many, many Pokémon embody this as a natural consequence of their movepool.
 
Final Submission

Name: Tortoise in the Warren

Description: This pokemon is designed primarily for, and fits well on, a specific team archetype with which it has a pacing mismatch.

Justification: Different types of teams win in different ways. A team's archetype largely dictates the pacing of the mons that are run on that style of team, meaning the length of time the mon is sticking around and how long it takes to do its job. On stall teams, the pokemon are built to last for ages while wearing things down very slowly. Recovery moves and significant bulk are almost mandatory, and often when one or two go down, the entire team begins to crumble. On hyper offense teams, the mons are built to go down quickly but not gently, often without switching out. You get a free switch if your mon dies, which enables an otherwise vulnerable teammate to come in and set up. For weather teams, weather is on a timer, getting your setter back in may not always be easy, and your primary abusers are often frail but may be granted a massive boost to their moves, all of which contribute to a high pacing. Different styles of offense exhibit this quick pace to different degrees. Pacing can also affect how quickly you expend resources; as an example, more offensive teams are more likely to run consumable items since they have a large effect relative to a mon's (short) existence in a given game, and relative to the length of the game itself.

This CAP is effective on a team style that is high-pace while being a low-pace mon, or vice versa. Some examples are Toxicroak or Mollux on rain teams, Scream Tail on sun teams, Weavile fat, Chansey offense, and balance teams with one fast, offensive speed control mon along with slow pivoting to get it in. Zamazenta can act as a bulky check to a lot of scary threats even on more offensive team styles, and Cresceidon can find a place on offensive teams with Rocky Helmet Rough Skin and Healing Wish. These examples are valid for the concept (Zama is maybe borderline), but it happens rarely enough that it's pretty easy for us to break new ground. If all goes well it finds new types of team synergies while exploring the boundaries of team archetypes.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • Do Pokemon always benefit from coexisting with similar-paced pokemon? Are there cases where a mix is better (one example might be a slow bulky pivot bringing in a fast frail mon for free)?
  • How can a mon be specifically tailored toward a team style it has a natural pacing mismatch with? What makes this mon desirable on such a team?
  • Is there value in making a team more well-rounded by including disparate elements? Can this even make a team more cohesive?
  • We're probably not bringing weather stall back, but can the pacing of this mon impact the overall pace of its team archetype?
  • The most obvious approaches use an ability that primarily benefits from something like weather to kind of brute force it (examples being Dry Skin on Toxicroak/Mollux or Protosynthesis on Scream Tail). Is there depth in this approach? What other approaches are safe?
  • How can a slow-paced pokemon that needs space to do its job down be supported by fast-paced teammates that might not stand the test of time?
  • If an offensive pokemon is surrounded by slow-paced pokemon, what roles is it suited for beyond speed control? Can it for example break despite the lack of an offensive breaking core?
Explanation: I've been messing around with a defensive non-Hisuian Goodra on rain in OU (please make wiser choices than me). Hydration Rest is such a powerful tool that lets you heal status and return to full health in one turn, and it gets moves like Toxic, Knock Off, and Scald, and it's fairly hard to break. This mon has so many rain-related synergies, even down to its typing which resists Electric and Grass, both difficult types for standard Rain mons to handle. A mon like this which sits on the field healing repeatedly and requires many turns to wear things down doesn't fit naturally into the fast-paced playstyle of rain. The rain dries up quickly (beware of using Rest on the last turn of rain), and a standard rain team has trouble supporting it properly, but it's not that far off and there's something interesting there. That was part of what got me thinking about this concept.

Offensive pokemon on fatter team styles are probably some of the most solid examples of this concept in action (Weavile fat for example). There are obvious advantages in having for example a defensive pivot bring you on the field safely, and even fatter teams can enjoy the speed control and the pressure a mon like this can exert. How you tailor an offensive pokemon more toward fat than offense is a complicated question but I think potentially answerable.

There are a number of elements that are powerful but self-contradictory in terms of the pacing they lend themselves to. Rain Dish or Ice Body is at home on a mon that can sit on the field for long stretches of time, but the weather itself, as well as the pace of weather teams in general, is the limiting factor. Compare these abilities to Solar Power, which is a high-paced ability on a high-paced team style. There's much less friction making an ability like this work. Because we're creating a mon with that friction already assumed, elements with contradictions like this might be worth looking at.

Initially it might be tempting to just make a field effect setter or hazard setter or fat dual screener. I'm not sure this works though; even if they're bulky, these mons often aren't made to stick around long term, and sometimes they even prefer to die to bring something in safely. If it's built to last, that's a different story.

There are easier approaches here and there are harder ones. Weather has probably seen better days in general but the "tailoring" part is simple: you can potentially slap a weather-related ability on a pokemon with a slower-paced build and crank it up enough to be viable. Some HO variants are next to impossible; Blissey on Screens isn't doing much. Trick Room is not much easier. Team styles like balance and more generic offense are fairly interesting to me, because they're doable but tailoring the mon to that style requires more thought. Team styles like bulky offense are sort of in the middle, and the mismatch becomes hard to define. I think choosing a playstyle like this is best avoided.
 
Last edited:
This is the 48h warning for concept submissions. Make sure to Final Sub

Going to drop one more feedback post to give an idea of what I'm likely to slate, and why. If I missed anything, or you just want to change my mind, feel free to ping on Discord or reply here.

Link
Psychic is one of those mysterious underused / unconventional offensive types that randomly feels broken vs. some structures, and there are a lot of cool Psychic-type moves on Pokemon that are terrible or can't use them well. I'm interested in seeing where this goes if it wins (Lumina Crash?).
Link
Not a lot to add from last time, just a solid concept and design space to explore.
Link
Simple and straightforward, but has good amount of room to explore. Really digs into ideas of momentum / tempo, which is cool.
Link
A bit underexplored as far as CAP goes (we have Mias / Pajantom but in general the defenses are pretty balanced) so it will be interesting to work with. Even though it's explicitly a stats-based concept, I think it should affect other stages (typing and movepool esp.) in an engaging way.

Link
I wonder a bit how viable typespam actually is in CAP right now, but it's worth a shot.
Link
Despite the very misleading name, I think this idea is interesting. I'd have to review the meta to see how many non-attacking moves are actually used (there are some answers to status moves, eg. Gholdengo / Garganacl, that are quite potent) but its a tried and tested concept.
Link
This one was on par with Oops All Coverage for me, but I worry a bit that it will lead CAP to tunnel on Technician route, so I demoted it a bit.
Link
I think I've cooled off on this one a bit, got too excited over Lumina Crash... It's still solid though.
Link
I wonder how relevant something like this will end up. There was a discussion on Discord about how irrelevant Heal Bell Dragonite is in SS, even though that tier is Toxic spam...
Link
What if we just make Solgaleo. There was some discussion about this in Discord that was interesting. I wonder how many unique paths we really have here (I noted it's very likely we go down a Selfish Support path, either for TR or for weather).

Link
This concept was changed a bit to encompass some unexpected mons like Balloon Heatran. I feel like picking a lane between immune turns (Shadow Force) and immunities (Wonder Guard) would be nice here, though my concerns with immune turns concept stand (I would rate that one in Possible Slate).
Link
I don't think this has been updated since last feedback post? Same questions stand.
Link
Same issues as last time, including the odd flipping between multiplier-stacking and pseudo-3-STAB. Need to polish the writeup to make the intent more clear.
Link
quziel pointed out to me on Discord that every Pokemon has an option to flip MU by changing their typing.
Considering that changing opponent's typing is likely unviable, I fear this concept might be doomed.
Link
Well, it should be clear why this is here.
Link
I feel like the criteria is too subjective? Also if this is successful, it will get nuked in PPL.
Link
A bit hard to envision with so few examples (and Glimm is unconvincing to me) but can change my mind.
Link
I haven't really thought about it enough. Maybe it'll make more sense to me with time.

Link
Ultimate TR abuser...
I like TR so the end product would probably be fine for me, but feels like it would be a boring process.
Link
I don't feel like making a one-note Screens abuser, sorry.
Link
This one seems a bit too narrow / gimmicky to me.
Link
This is just Obliteryx... Doesn't really give much direction at all.

Finally, we get to the list of "Multi-role" concepts. I think I've made it clear how I find these concepts directionless, but I also think the philosophy behind them is a bit flawed. I think ideally, set variety should arise naturally as a product of player experimentation, rather than something that is engineered. That being said, I assume there is some demand for something along these lines, so I will add one of these to the slate.

This is the only category that is ranked.
Link
This one is touching on the versatility idea, but has more direction since it's building around a high-power move. This concept would definitely win the Multirole Battle Royale if I decided to let it fight there. EDIT: Looks like it's winning.

Link
Actually has a direction, even though I think it hinges too much on ability stage.

Link
Not exactly a multi-role concept, but similar idea. I'm just really not convinced on this one, and the criteria of "distinct sets" and "same role" feel quite vague (esp. looking at some of the examples).

Link
Why are there so many of these...

Link
I fear CAP Ladder is too dead for this...

Link
The epitome of directionless. Nothing to add from my comments last time, though some more highly questionable examples were added.

Link
Combination of multi-role concept with skill-based concept, complete with confusing example... what a nightmare.

EDIT: Promoted The Perfect Antidote to Possible Slate. The idea feels a lot more clear than the others in , even though I'm not sure if I want another status-resistant guy in the meta.
"Demoted" Rigid Versatility to Multirole Battle Royale. I think it fulfills the desire to have a flexible Pokemon, and I really didn't like any of the other options in that category.
 
Last edited:
Spammernoob said:
This is the 48h warning for concept submissions. Make sure to Final Sub

Going to drop one more feedback post to give an idea of what I'm likely to slate, and why. If I missed anything, or you just want to change my mind, feel free to ping on Discord or reply here.

Psychic is one of those mysterious underused / unconventional offensive types that randomly feels broken vs. some structures, and there are a lot of cool Psychic-type moves on Pokemon that are terrible or can't use them well. I'm interested in seeing where this goes if it wins (Lumina Crash?).
Not a lot to add from last time, just a solid concept and design space to explore.
Simple and straightforward, but has good amount of room to explore. Really digs into ideas of momentum / tempo, which is cool.
A bit underexplored as far as CAP goes (we have Mias / Pajantom but in general the defenses are pretty balanced) so it will be interesting to work with. Even though it's explicitly a stats-based concept, I think it should affect other stages (typing and movepool esp.) in an engaging way.

I wonder a bit how viable typespam actually is in CAP right now, but it's worth a shot.
Despite the very misleading name, I think this idea is interesting. I'd have to review the meta to see how many non-attacking moves are actually used (there are some answers to status moves, eg. Gholdengo / Garganacl, that are quite potent) but its a tried and tested concept.
This one was on par with Oops All Coverage for me, but I worry a bit that it will lead CAP to tunnel on Technician route, so I demoted it a bit.
I think I've cooled off on this one a bit, got too excited over Lumina Crash... It's still solid though.
I wonder how relevant something like this will end up. There was a discussion on Discord about how irrelevant Heal Bell Dragonite is in SS, even though that tier is Toxic spam...
What if we just make Solgaleo. There was some discussion about this in Discord that was interesting. I wonder how many unique paths we really have here (I noted it's very likely we go down a Selfish Support path, either for TR or for weather).

This concept was changed a bit to encompass some unexpected mons like Balloon Heatran. I feel like picking a lane between immune turns (Shadow Force) and immunities (Wonder Guard) would be nice here, though my concerns with immune turns concept stand (I would rate that one in Possible Slate).
I don't think this has been updated since last feedback post? Same questions stand.
Same issues as last time, including the odd flipping between multiplier-stacking and pseudo-3-STAB. Need to polish the writeup to make the intent more clear.
quziel pointed out to me on Discord that every Pokemon has an option to flip MU by changing their typing.
Well, it should be clear why this is here.
I feel like the criteria is too subjective? Also if this is successful, it will get nuked in PPL.
A bit hard to envision with so few examples (and Glimm is unconvincing to me) but can change my mind.
I haven't really thought about it enough. Maybe it'll make more sense to me with time.

Ultimate TR abuser...
I don't feel like making a one-note Screens abuser, sorry.
This one seems a bit too narrow / gimmicky to me.
This is just Obliteryx... Doesn't really give much direction at all.

Finally, we get to the list of "Multi-role" concepts. I think I've made it clear how I find these concepts directionless, but I also think the philosophy behind them is a bit flawed. I think ideally, set variety should arise naturally as a product of player experimentation, rather than something that is engineered. That being said, I assume there is some demand for something along these lines, so I will add one of these to the slate.

This is the only category that is ranked.
This one is touching on the versatility idea, but has more direction since it's building around a high-power move. This concept would definitely win the Multirole Battle Royale if I decided to let it fight there. EDIT: Looks like it's winning.

Actually has a direction, even though I think it hinges too much on ability stage.

Not exactly a multi-role concept, but similar idea. I'm just really not convinced on this one, and the criteria of "distinct sets" and "same role" feel quite vague (esp. looking at some of the examples).

Why are there so many of these...

I fear CAP Ladder is too dead for this...

The epitome of directionless. Nothing to add from my comments last time, though some more highly questionable examples were added.

Combination of multi-role concept with skill-based concept, complete with confusing example... what a nightmare.

EDIT: Promoted The Perfect Antidote to Possible Slate. The idea feels a lot more clear than the others in , even though I'm not sure if I want another status-resistant guy in the meta.
"Demoted" Rigid Versatility to Multirole Battle Royale. I think it fulfills the desire to have a flexible Pokemon, and I really didn't like any of the other options in that category.
Click to expand...
Very unbiased slates. Gonna suggest a few movements but overall I'm extremely happy with this tierlist.

Oops! All coverage vs Every Little Counts:
Imo every little counts a lot more compelling of a design space. Technician is tempting but so far a lot of the complaints with the concept have been how obvious technician is which to me indicates that it's not an issue. If we already see it as a problem we can avoid it before it becomes anything real. Every little counts lets us make use of more interesting, less seen moves with flashier special effects. Basically it's new toy syndrome in moderation and I'm very happy with that.

Dripping Water Wears Through Rocks/Mini-Uber:
Both of these concepts are very grounded and realistic. I don't think these will be particularly challenging processes, but there's still enough flexibility to allow for real decisions.

Rigid Versatility:
You wanted to kill the battle royale that badly, huh... :(
This really isn't all that comparable with the others down there. At the same time, it's a good concept, so idc.
 
Spammernoob said:
8h warning for concept submissions. Make sure to Final Sub

Going to drop one more feedback post to give an idea of what I'm likely to slate, and why. If I missed anything, or you just want to change my mind, feel free to ping on Discord or reply here.

Finally, we get to the list of "Multi-role" concepts. I think I've made it clear how I find these concepts directionless, but I also think the philosophy behind them is a bit flawed. I think ideally, set variety should arise naturally as a product of player experimentation, rather than something that is engineered. That being said, I assume there is some demand for something along these lines, so I will add one of these to the slate.

This is the only category that is ranked.
Link
This one is touching on the versatility idea, but has more direction since it's building around a high-power move. This concept would definitely win the Multirole Battle Royale if I decided to let it fight there. EDIT: Looks like it's winning.

Link
Actually has a direction, even though I think it hinges too much on ability stage.

Link
Not exactly a multi-role concept, but similar idea. I'm just really not convinced on this one, and the criteria of "distinct sets" and "same role" feel quite vague (esp. looking at some of the examples).

Link
Why are there so many of these...

Link
I fear CAP Ladder is too dead for this...

Link
The epitome of directionless. Nothing to add from my comments last time, though some more highly questionable examples were added.

Link
Combination of multi-role concept with skill-based concept, complete with confusing example... what a nightmare.
Click to expand...
Commenting on the battle royale. Ignoring rigid because it doesnt make any sense, please do not justify trying to cut a category of concepts by throwing another random one in there. if you dont think they're good concepts just say that so people can argue it.

I think considering the recent discussion about the place of secondary ability's in the proccess, Schrödinger's CAP is a really valuable concept to explore and a good time to do so. Two Sides, One Coin is exploring versatility in a really interesting way- I don't think its something we explore very naturally with CAP, and it's really impressive how some Pokemon can use such drastically different elements (Alo is a big one) while still maintaing their identity. Wild Card and Ace Card I think are outclassed by the more specific varieants here- more direction is good! Snake Ladder is unfortunately just not doable- ladder dead :(. And Tutorial Set I kind of think all skill based concepts are kinda nonsense.
 
Name: Universally Assumed Viability

Description: This pokemon has every (damaging) universally assumed move for every typing.

Justification: Mew, when its in a low power enough format to actually go offensively, is a fantastically interesting mon because it can customize its coverage to deal with any threat, by virtue of having a STAB move of functionally every typing. This Pokemon aims to go beyond functionally every typing to every typing itself.

Questions To Be Answered:

  • There's pokemon with excellent coverage that tend to run compressed 4 move sets without a ton of variation. Is that just due to optimization, does having a strong option for every typing lead to truly flexible movesets, or do we regress to an optimal selection of moves.
  • Are universally assumed moves, in the list we defined, "enough". Do we need to go beyond that, eg if we went with a Dark type are we fine with having Crunch as our STAB, do we want to go further and give the mon Knock. If our main STAB wants Dark coverage is Crunch good enough, do we want to give Knock?
  • "Coverage monsters" are often fast, frail, and not too strong. Is that a mold we want to follow? Is Melmetal, a slow, bulky, extremely strong mon that nonetheless has excellent moveslot versatility a better example?
  • Does having a move of every typing bias us towards specific abilities?
  • Are we the mytical Tera Stellar runner?
  • There are some very explicit ability synergies, and also again, the guarantee of every single offensive typing. Do we want to ability first as a result?
Explanation: I apologize for sorta stepping into the same realm as Oops! All Coverage, but felt that a stronger statement of the description was a bit more interesting to me, as giving us every single typing as STAB could lead to some really wacky sets. I think there's also a lot of really unique design decisions that can be made when we have the guarantee that we're going to have a high BP move of literally every typing in our movepool. How does that affect our utility options, is setup fine when we know we're going to be potentially unwallable? Do we even want setup when its forcing us to give up that one last move to hit Tera-Fairy Garg? How does this affect our ability choice as well, we are sorta the perfect Neuroforce user (despite it being illegal)?
 
WIP

Name: Anatomy of a Slot

Description: This CAP is built for a chosen “slot” on balance teams.

Justification: You have six slots on a team. What do you need out of each of them? Inevitably, many teams need the same things. Teambuilding often gets discussed in terms of these “slots”; a bulky ground slot, a water resist slot, a wincon slot, a status absorber slot, a speed control slot, a “last/filler/flex” slot, and so on. In CAP, we often talk around teambuilding (e.g. “we need to give this CAP a reason to be picked”) without addressing it head-on, only superficially addressing how a new CAP may fit into existing cores or team compositions. This failure to adequately understand how CAPs will exist in the teambuilder can be directly traced to past errors where our expectations during a process did not end up aligning with the CAP's real use post-release. Rarely, if ever, has our project’s focus been moved off the field and into the builder in this way. This concept puts current teambuilding processes and practices under the knife by identifying a teamslot with open design space on balance and exploring how such a slot could be filled in our metagame. In this sense, the concept is just as much about accomplishing its stated goal as it is the unique perspective we will take during the process to get there.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What are the most important slots that balance teams typically gravitate toward - or, what are the most important things for a given slot to have? What are teams actually looking for?
  • Which slots have open space for competition, and which slots are "solved" or "closed"?
  • How far can we stretch the definition of what our slot is, while still fulfilling its primary purpose? (E.g. is Mollux a bulky Water? Is Tera Water Garganacl a Water resist? Is Zeraora a Volt blocker? Is Zamazenta a physical wall? Is Ramnarok speed control?) Which slots have the most potential for flexibility/stretching in this way?
  • How does Terastallization interact with slots that are traditionally type- or resistance-based?
  • Which common slots have the most potential for overlap (e.g. teams that double up on bulky grounds)? Are balance structures looking for more options for inter-slot redundancy like this, or instead slots that accomplish unique and currently unavailable functions?
  • What balance should we strike between conforming to the similarities between 'mons in a given slot - essentially, what's known to work - and carving out a different path from the rest? Where does the most possiblity lie for breaking long-held building conventions?
  • How do we go about building a CAP to fit into a specific metagame & team structure, when the meta and structure in question will inevitably change once CAP 38 is introduced? What does concept success look like when we shake up the very structure we've been analyzing and creating hypotheses around? Is there anything to gain from deep analysis of a metagame that will immediately be rendered outdated?
Explanation: They say that SV is a builder's meta, and this is a builder’s concept through and through. A couple things first, though: terminology is difficult, and a "slot" is a sort of nebulous thing. A “role” is close to what I’m talking about, but also not quite it; for example, “offensive pivot” isn’t really a slot that you’re looking to fill when building a team, nor is “Ground immune” a role, exactly. I don’t want to be tied down to the slot terminology, but it was the best word I could find; a slot could be just a role, or a typing, or both, or neither. When you compare teams within the same or similar archetype next to each other, patterns and similarities emerge. Those overlapping groups are what I’d call slots. Second thing: the choice to explore only balance teams may seem arbitrary, but I believe this concept needed some bounds. I don't think it's worth getting hung up over exactly what is or isn't a balance team versus bulky offense or fat (this seems a bit pedantic to me), but others may find that question worth exploring in this process too.

What interests me about this concept isn't anything inherent about teamslots, but rather the specific approach this concept forces us to take during the process. We would be training our aperature over Pokemon design in a very new way. Concept success would not just be tested by meta viability alone, but by how well this Pokemon fits into the cores and styles that we hypothesized. Our approach could be as simple as "build a bulky Ground" (though, I'd argue this is actually more complicated than it seems), to as abstract as "build a flex slot." This arguably verges on meta-concept territory, reading as initially directionless and kicking the can down the road to choose a path. However, I don't believe that this concern holds weight; the driving question, to me, is "What are teams actually looking for?" I think this will do more than enough to inform concept direction and specificity, and deciding which slot to pursue will result in an engaging and informative conversation due to the level of thorough metagame analysis first required.

This concept forces us to think about our creations not just in isolation, as we often do, but also in relation to what CAP 38 must provide to the rest of our team. Teambuilding is a synergistic practice. I also believe that this is a perfect concept for an end-of-generation process. As Dogfish said in his concept submission, now is the right time to choose a concept that reflects on the state of the metagame.

A handful of balances in my teambuilder from CAPPL XII:

Screenshot 2026-08-29 at 2.26.28 PM.png


Example configuration:
1. Speed
2. Wincon / Primary Breaker
3. Secondary Wincon / Primary or Secondary Breaker / Defensive Filler (flex slot)
4. Bulky Ground
5. Bulky Water
6. Bulky Poison / Defensive Filler (flex slot)

This is not the only way to organize a team of six Pokemon, and choosing a different organization would produce six different slots. It is really just about how you interpret and visualize a team's many needs.
 
Final submission

Name - signature forger.
Description - This pokemon steals BOTH a signature ability and a signature move from different pokemon to create a unique combination never seen before.
Justification-
  • What new territory will your Concept Pokemon explore, why do you believe it’s interesting, and how would it interact with the metagame?
This concept will, obviously, create a new combination of moves, abilities and typing completely unique. That is by definition, new territory.
I believe this concept is interesting because it'd create a pokemon with that utilizes moves and abilities only 1 pokemon utilize each and combine them in a unique way
this pokemon would interact with the metagame in a very unique way, that way being a mystery, but undeniably it would be a unique way.
  • How does your concept motivate in-depth discussion at each stage of the process, and why do you believe the CAP Project community should discuss these topics?
I believe this topic will lead to interesting discussion for what move and ability do we steal, and I believe we should discuss this topic to see what we can do with the awesome toolbox we have
Questions To Be Answered -
  1. What signature move do we steal?
  2. What signature ability do we steal?
  3. Do we match the type of one of the pokemon were stealing from?
  4. Do we steal from viable pokemon or unviable pokemon?
  5. Can we even steal from legendries?
Explanation - this is a concept I had for a long time and would love for it to be the basis for a capmon! no reason to add justification here so just tell me if there's anything wrong, don't veto for no reason (do veto if it's problematic in some way), and please don't use the laughing reaction.
 
Last edited:
Final Submission

Name: Living Life on the Edge

Description: This CAP seeks to take advantage of lowering its HP.

Justification:

  • What new territory will your Concept Pokemon explore, why do you believe it’s interesting, and how would it interact with the metagame?
HP manipulation has always gotten glances, but a chance to really explore one of the longest-standing move/item mechanics can bring a lot of creativity into the mix. Depending on how powerful it is, it might even dissuade the usage certain long-standing staples, like hazards since this CAP could potentially take advantage of them.

  • How does your concept motivate in-depth discussion at each stage of the process, and why do you believe the CAP Project community should discuss these topics?
Having a Pokemon be made to be low on HP can push our discussions in the various steps to directions that many would likely never have thought about before. I want us to deal with this because of the great amount of underutilized moves/abilities/and items that work with lower HP thresholds and the challenges that can come with trying to make this concept into a good CAP.


Questions To Be Answered:
  • What should CAP's method of lowering its own HP be?
  • What threshold of HP should CAP be aiming for?
  • At what stage of the game should CAP be considering to go off?
  • How do we deal with some of the common answers to low HP Pokemon?
  • How does this CAP thrive with low HP when most Pokemon either want to keep themselves healthy or get in and get out?
Explanation:
Taking advantage of HP has been a thing that Pokemon has been toying with for a long time, and while this has seen success occasionally (such examples being Gen 4 Agility Sub-Petaya Empoleon, Custap berry leads, or Custap in 1v1 in general), nothing has truly hit the limelight. With the various items, moves, and abilities for this concept that have been drip-fed into the game, the pieces seem to be there, but can we complete the puzzle?
 
Alright, here's the slate. I ended up typing out ~half a page worth of stuff for each concept to try to narrow it down, but I'm too indecisive so we still have 10 concepts. It's enough to only run 2 polls though, so good enough.

Mind over Meta
Sacrifice
Pick a Side
Oops! All Coverage
Anatomy of a Slot
Stop the Secondary
My Band
Dripping Water Wears Through Rocks
Mini Uber
Rigid Versatility

Some additional thoughts if anyone is interested:

I like Universally Assumed Viability, but it overlaps with several other concepts. I expand more on this below.
I like Anatomy of a Slot because I enjoy teambuilding, and I think it raises some interesting questions re: the CAP metagame.
I think Signature Forger is going for a bit too much novelty? This feels very difficult to make cohesive I think.
I feel like given the current meta (a lot of priority) in the CAP metagame, Living Life on the Edge has very narrow design space; part of this design space was taken by Chuggalong 3 CAPs ago, so I'm not sure now is the best time for it.

There was some disagreement with my decision here, but the way I interpreted this concept fits this category. For transparency, if this wins, Concept Assessment will first decide the move (via discussion + poll), and then discuss avenues for flexibility (potential roles?). Hopefully this is a satisfactory result for proponents of multi-role concepts.

Stop the Secondary I think largely encompasses the design space for The Perfect Antidote. I think the status absorbing role has quite some options in CAP, so I didn't want to pigeonhole us here. If we decide that we want to tackle status as our focus, I think Stop the Secondary gives us that option.

The concepts Universally Assumed Viability, Every Little Counts, and Oops! All Coverage are all concepts that aim for a wide attacking movepool. I opted for Oops! All Coverage because it allows us to adjust base power of certain coverage, or forgo coverage of certain types, to push the CAP to actually use more of its coverage movepool rather than converging to an optimal 3-move combo.

Anyways, feel free to yell at me on Discord if you disagree with anything here. Poll will be up soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top