As many who have been active in CAP for multiple generations know, we as a community tend to be overly generous with the competitive moves we give out. Pajantom, the first CAP I ever contributed to, was given access to Edgequake, Brave Bird (this was my fault lol), Laser Focus, Anchor Shot, Ice Punch, Psychic Fangs, Toxic Spikes, and Fairy Lock. Of those moves, only Brave Bird and Psychic Fangs ever really saw use in its home generation! However, as time went on, it was clear that this was not an outlier. At its worst, this movepool bloat ended up forcing us to double back to nerf CAPs with extraneous moves. Equilibra initially released with Whirlwind; Astrolotl originally had Trick, Knock Off, Wish, and Explosion; Venomicon originally had Earth Power and Mystical Fire; Hemogoblin initially could use Bitter Blade and Fire Lash; and most recently, Chuggalong had access to Draining Kiss. Even when the extra moves given in competitive stages aren’t competitively viable though, as shown with Pajantom, these moves can lead to a lot of bloat that only serves to confuse players unfamiliar to CAP as to what is actually viable on our mons. Given the frequency at which these large competitive movepools have occurred under various leadership teams, my proposal is an overhaul of the current Moveset Discussion stage, beginning with CAP36. Below is how I envision a reworked Moveset Discussion stage operating, broken into three simple steps.
1. The thread begins with a discussion on what kind of set(s) the CAP should be running. While a CAP’s role is usually determined by this point, this is the time to more specifically discuss what this Pokémon shall be doing while on the field. What does the team gain from our presence? How should the CAP take advantage of the tools it has been given to this point, and is there more than one path to do so while remaining on-concept? These are the kinds of questions to be asked. Discussing specific moves not outlined in the winning stat spread’s defining moves is banned at this step. Depending on the activity of the discussion, this can last 2 days at minimum and 4 days at most.
To use CAP35 as an example, we agree that it is a wall, but we may more specifically say here that CAP35 should utilize its broadly neutral typing and large stats to create opportunities to cripple the opposing team. The conclusions drawn from this step are to be determined by the Move Leader based on community consensus, much like similar discussion steps in Type and Ability stages.
2. Once the contours of what the CAP will do in battle have been established, this is the time to discuss what competitive moves should be given to the CAP. This likely begins with a discussion on if the defining moves of the winning stat spread need reevaluation, but would quickly shift to what kinds of moves outside of them would be beneficial to the CAP. This step is more freeform than the first and what will be most familiar to regular CAP contributors; however, I would like to state that this would still be less of a free for all than the current moveset process and the Move Leader is allowed at any point to ask specific questions about specific types of moves to gauge the community’s thoughts or receive further clarification about a move’s merits. Like the current process, specific moves can also be prohibited from further discussion. While contributors arguing for a move are encouraged to use specific movesets to explain how a move would function on the Pokémon, formal moveset submissions are not present. This is the meat of this stage and would likely last about a week, maybe a bit more or less depending on the specific CAP.
Again using CAP35 as an example, after discussing Glare, Knock Off, and Ice Beam, SHSP would open up the floor for discussing other moves and/or ask specific questions about moves mentioned in the Defining Moves stage that were ultimately not added to the list/not in Amamama’s spread (for example, bringing up hazard removal and Volt Switch). Maybe someone suggests Haze at some point and SHSP wants more explanation for it, so he eventually asks a question inquiring about how Haze would help us. On and on it goes.
3. When discussion has drawn to a close, the Move Leader shall draw upon community consensus and consultation with the other TLT members to create the 1.0 movepool for the CAP and no more than three movesets utilizing the approved competitive moves. If a move is particularly divisive, it can be taken to a poll to determine whether or not it is given for 1.0. Otherwise, the TL approves (or uses an +1/-1 if they desire) the list and the stage draws to a close.
Unlike the current process, moves not outlined in the stat spread’s Defining Moves must obtain significant community support to be added to the CAP. In other words, if a move has not been properly justified or given enough vocal support to back it up, it doesn’t get added to the 1.0 movepool, even if its inclusion may seem “harmless”. People being neutral on a move isn’t enough to get it added. This is specifically meant to reduce the instances of moves with large competitive implications from sneaking into CAPs without proper discussion on if said consequences are acceptable.
Ultimately, I believe implementing the above steps as a revamped Moveset Discussion stage would allow for more meaningful discussions on the moves we give to CAPs and the impacts of doing so while also reducing the movepool bloat which has become so frequent as of late. While the loss of formal user-submitted moveset submissions may seem like a reduction in community involvement, this is not the case; people are more than encouraged to craft hypothetical movesets to show the benefits (or risks!) of a move being added to the CAP, and clear support is crucial to getting a move being given to the CAP. The changes simply make the community involvement in the process more focused and more active compared to simply throwing on a potentially game-changing move as a third slash and it slipping by without much notice. While an “official” moveset from the Move Leader might resemble one a regular user brought up, much like typing and ability, the sets will no longer be attributed to an actual submitter. In short, this proposal aims to streamline the Moveset process and place new guardrails against both movepool bloat and powerful moves being added absentmindedly.
Beyond general thoughts on this proposal, the one aspect that I was unsure on was the idea of specifically limiting a CAP to three sample movesets at most. I felt that allowing *some* variation in sets/moves was important, and certain Pokémon like Kyurem have had more than two sets. However, I do not know if this limit is too generous or even needed at all; perhaps simply the extra support required to get a move added is a sufficient protection against movepool bloat? Sets may not even be the clearest way to communciate this ceiling; maybe saying “no more than X competitive moves” would be better? If the limit does remain at three sets, I imagine that you’d only see three sets in special cases; most CAPs I feel would just have one or two sample sets.
This is my first PRC thread, so if there are any specific topics you want me to clarify, hit me up in the CAP Discord (I’m SunshineFuture)!
1. The thread begins with a discussion on what kind of set(s) the CAP should be running. While a CAP’s role is usually determined by this point, this is the time to more specifically discuss what this Pokémon shall be doing while on the field. What does the team gain from our presence? How should the CAP take advantage of the tools it has been given to this point, and is there more than one path to do so while remaining on-concept? These are the kinds of questions to be asked. Discussing specific moves not outlined in the winning stat spread’s defining moves is banned at this step. Depending on the activity of the discussion, this can last 2 days at minimum and 4 days at most.
To use CAP35 as an example, we agree that it is a wall, but we may more specifically say here that CAP35 should utilize its broadly neutral typing and large stats to create opportunities to cripple the opposing team. The conclusions drawn from this step are to be determined by the Move Leader based on community consensus, much like similar discussion steps in Type and Ability stages.
2. Once the contours of what the CAP will do in battle have been established, this is the time to discuss what competitive moves should be given to the CAP. This likely begins with a discussion on if the defining moves of the winning stat spread need reevaluation, but would quickly shift to what kinds of moves outside of them would be beneficial to the CAP. This step is more freeform than the first and what will be most familiar to regular CAP contributors; however, I would like to state that this would still be less of a free for all than the current moveset process and the Move Leader is allowed at any point to ask specific questions about specific types of moves to gauge the community’s thoughts or receive further clarification about a move’s merits. Like the current process, specific moves can also be prohibited from further discussion. While contributors arguing for a move are encouraged to use specific movesets to explain how a move would function on the Pokémon, formal moveset submissions are not present. This is the meat of this stage and would likely last about a week, maybe a bit more or less depending on the specific CAP.
Again using CAP35 as an example, after discussing Glare, Knock Off, and Ice Beam, SHSP would open up the floor for discussing other moves and/or ask specific questions about moves mentioned in the Defining Moves stage that were ultimately not added to the list/not in Amamama’s spread (for example, bringing up hazard removal and Volt Switch). Maybe someone suggests Haze at some point and SHSP wants more explanation for it, so he eventually asks a question inquiring about how Haze would help us. On and on it goes.
3. When discussion has drawn to a close, the Move Leader shall draw upon community consensus and consultation with the other TLT members to create the 1.0 movepool for the CAP and no more than three movesets utilizing the approved competitive moves. If a move is particularly divisive, it can be taken to a poll to determine whether or not it is given for 1.0. Otherwise, the TL approves (or uses an +1/-1 if they desire) the list and the stage draws to a close.
Unlike the current process, moves not outlined in the stat spread’s Defining Moves must obtain significant community support to be added to the CAP. In other words, if a move has not been properly justified or given enough vocal support to back it up, it doesn’t get added to the 1.0 movepool, even if its inclusion may seem “harmless”. People being neutral on a move isn’t enough to get it added. This is specifically meant to reduce the instances of moves with large competitive implications from sneaking into CAPs without proper discussion on if said consequences are acceptable.
Ultimately, I believe implementing the above steps as a revamped Moveset Discussion stage would allow for more meaningful discussions on the moves we give to CAPs and the impacts of doing so while also reducing the movepool bloat which has become so frequent as of late. While the loss of formal user-submitted moveset submissions may seem like a reduction in community involvement, this is not the case; people are more than encouraged to craft hypothetical movesets to show the benefits (or risks!) of a move being added to the CAP, and clear support is crucial to getting a move being given to the CAP. The changes simply make the community involvement in the process more focused and more active compared to simply throwing on a potentially game-changing move as a third slash and it slipping by without much notice. While an “official” moveset from the Move Leader might resemble one a regular user brought up, much like typing and ability, the sets will no longer be attributed to an actual submitter. In short, this proposal aims to streamline the Moveset process and place new guardrails against both movepool bloat and powerful moves being added absentmindedly.
Beyond general thoughts on this proposal, the one aspect that I was unsure on was the idea of specifically limiting a CAP to three sample movesets at most. I felt that allowing *some* variation in sets/moves was important, and certain Pokémon like Kyurem have had more than two sets. However, I do not know if this limit is too generous or even needed at all; perhaps simply the extra support required to get a move added is a sufficient protection against movepool bloat? Sets may not even be the clearest way to communciate this ceiling; maybe saying “no more than X competitive moves” would be better? If the limit does remain at three sets, I imagine that you’d only see three sets in special cases; most CAPs I feel would just have one or two sample sets.
This is my first PRC thread, so if there are any specific topics you want me to clarify, hit me up in the CAP Discord (I’m SunshineFuture)!
