Before you vote, it's important that you read through each concept carefully, as well as look at our TL's,
SHSP, final post in the concept submissions thread with their justification for each that made the slate because this concept will guide the discussion for the rest of the CAP Process.
This is linked here.
This will be a Ranked Pairs vote (RP) (a form of voting where each candidate is ranked according to head to head matchups with each of its competitors in a directed acyclic graph), the details of which were discussed
here.
This is a ranked vote: order does matter! You can upvote your favorites and downvote your least favorites. You may choose to rank as many or as few options as you like, but we encourage you to rank as many options as possible to ensure your preferences are taken into account fully.
Bold your votes and nothing else!
A typical vote might look like the following:
Most Preferred
Second Most Preferred
Third Most Preferred
Any comments that the voter has would go below the votes in non-bold text. Bold text is used to determine what the user's votes are, so none of the supplementary text should be in bold.
CAP uses automated scripts to count votes. For this reason, it is very important for all ballots to be submitted correctly.
If you do not compose a legal ballot, your post will be subject to moderation.
- The scripts count bold words in ballots, so do NOT bold anything in your ballot other than the options you are voting for.
- Do NOT put any formatting other than bold in your post.
- Only one option per line.
- The spelling of options must be EXACTLY correct and must match the spelling listed below.
- Capitalization and spaces are ignored by the vote counting scripts, but you probably should not depend on it.
Composing a proper ballot is easy. Enter BBCode Edit Mode (the A in the upper right corner). Copy/paste the options directly from the OP to your ballot as plain unbolded text. Delete and/or rearrange the options to suit your preference and the poll type. Bold your vote text using bold tags or re-enter rich text mode, highlight your vote and click B. Spelling or formatting errors may spoil your ballot, so be careful!
Please post only your votes in this thread. You are allowed to say whatever you like in relation to your vote at the bottom of your post, but please do not look to begin a discussion. Keep those comments to the PS! CAP chatroom or the CAP Discord channel.
Asking for votes for your submission or for the submissions of others is not allowed. Anyone found to have done so risks punishment at the moderation team's discretion. If you find that someone has broken this rule, please contact the CAP moderation team with your evidence and no one else. Mini-moderation of this rule is also considered a serious offense and can be punished.
IMPORTANT: When voting,
use only the exact name of the concept submissions as listed below! The concept submissions are quoted below in order of submission:
Bulletproof Glass
Name: Bulletproof Glass
Description: A Pokémon that, despite lacking good defensive stats / bulk, poses a considerable defensive threat in the metagame.
Justification: This is an Archetype concept, as we would be creating a Pokemon within a defensive archetype whose effectiveness should be dependent on factors other than its raw bulk. This approach would allow us to add a defensive Pokemon with a unique playstyle, explore what constitutes various archetypes and roles within the game, and further learn about the current metagame and specifically the requirements it holds on defensive Pokémon.
Questions:
- How do we decide which Pokemon this CAP should pose a defensive threat to?
- What is the full spectrum of defensive roles in Pokemon (wall, tank, etc), and which one(s) should we aim for?
- What defines "low" or "mediocre" defenses? How low can the bulk of a defensive Pokemon reasonably be, and are there certain abilities, resistances, or moves that would let us push our bulk lower than others? Conversely, how high can our bulk be before we no longer fulfill the concept? And which approach –– lowest possible vs highest possible defenses –– should we aim for?
- Should stat-boosting abilities like Ice Scales, Marvel Scale, Fur Coat, etc. be considered concept-relevant or “getting around” the central restriction?
- Is there a relationship between a Pokemon’s speed and its defensive capabilities? If so, what kind of speed benchmarks will this Pokemon want to hit? What's the difference between a defensive Pokemon that merely benefits from high speed, and one that's dependent on its speed to check threats?
- Can offensive strength be a contributor to a Pokemon’s defensive capabilities? In other words, is it ever true that the best defense is a good offense? How much offensive pressure should we exert to compensate for our low bulk?
- Pokemon such as Heatran, Landorus-T, Tornadus-T, Zapdos, and even Weavile often fulfill roles that are simultaneously offensive and defensive in nature. What is the ideal ratio of “checking offensive threats / applying offensive pressure” we should strive for? In other words, how “offensive” are we allowed to be before our defensive value is overshadowed?
- Because this concept is so open, there are a few risks that naturally come with it. “Checking some offensive threats” is our only goal, with the added restrictions of A) doing so without “good” bulk, and B) being unambiguously “defensive” in nature. One scenario is that we zero-in on the top offensive threat(s) in the metagame, soon finding ourselves attempting to “fix the meta.” Another scenario is that, due to the number of possible directions, the community may disagree about which Pokemon we want to check or what role we want to occupy. We have seen both of these things happen in our processes this generation. So, finally: If this concept is chosen, how can we –– as a community –– avoid such mentalities? What are the specific risks with a concept like this, and how might we avoid them?
Stick Together!
Name: Stick Together!
Description: This Pokemon fulfills a "glue" role, working well alongside a multitude of cores while justifying its usage through a myriad of utility options and defensive qualities.
Justification: This is an Archetype concept because it aims to perform a role that is commonly found on many team structures in the current metagame. Every generation, there have been certain Pokemon that "glue" teams together. These glue mons typically offer incredible role compression. Tornadus-T in ORAS is a great example of this, providing teams with invaluable Knock Off and pivoting support while offering unique defensive qualities through its typing, stats, and ability. Landorus-T performs similarly in the current generation, as it is a "do everything" type of mon that runs entry hazard removal, Stealth Rock, Toxic, U-turn, and Knock Off support. A lot rides on glue mons in teambuilding, so it would be interesting to see how we deal with the immense role compression that comes with these mons. Examples of glue mons in current SS CAP: Landorus-T, Tornadus-T, Tapu Fini, Toxapex, Ferrothorn, Zapdos, and Astrolotl
Questions To Be Answered:
Being a glue mon has more often been an indirect result of a process rather than a goal. How can we achieve making a glue mon directly?
What utility options are the most valuable on a support Pokemon?
What roles can a glue mon inhabit?
Are there certain roles and needs that simply cannot be condensed on one Pokemon?
How does typing play into role compression?
Is the ability to output offensive pressure a necessary component of a glue mon? If so, to what level?
What Pokemon have such a need to be checked that they justify the usage of a glue mon when a less-than consistent check is used?
How can Pokemon like Tornadus-T overcome being a "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" to be a metagame force?
Bang Average
Name: Bang Average
Description: This pokemon will attempt to circumvent average or below average stats to become viable.
Justification: This is an actualisation concept, actualising a type of mon that sees pretty sparse representation in current gen ou.
Questions:
(I know this isn't the typical format for questions but I'm not redoing this shit, think of it as a revolutionary new method of talking too much)
- What actually counts as average stats? This will likely be up for some debate, as this is somewhat relative. 85 speed is a perfectly good speed stat on fini, but if zera had 85 speed it'd probably be in ru. As for bst, the lowest bst of ou ranked mons is Pelipper at 440, with Clefable in 2nd with 483. Both of these are undeniably average but 3rd lowest is Ferrothorn at 489, whose statline could definitely be seen as above average. It'd be pretty hard to deny that Toxapex has a better statline than Alolatales, despite the 10 point bst difference being in the fox's favour. Particular attention will have to be paid to how the stats synergise, rather than a flat interest in BST
- How much stat efficiency is permissable? To return to the above example part of what gives Ferro and Pex above average stats is the efficiency with which their bst is divided, with speed and various attacking stats being dropped in favour of juicing up defenses. Conversely, to use a lower tier example, Cobalion has a bst 91 points higher than ferro, but that bst is inefficiently distributed giving Cob mediocre attacking stats and good bulk on only one side. Despite it's high bst, Coba has pretty average stats. Obviously some degree of efficiency will be necessary but to what extent. Breloom has a frankly awful statline with the exception of it's attack, finding use through it's unique combination of other strong attributes. Is one stat pushing 130 fundamentally antithetical to the concept or is it permissable if all other stats take hits? Where do we draw that line?
- Do we actually do stats first? This is obviously a very stat centric concept, but there's good reasons that stats are usually done so late in the process. It'd certainly be a shake up to the process but you could probably still achieve a similar result with a more standard process order.
- How does this affect our power budget? The Chromera process afforded a large power budget to other aspects of the process to account for it's bad ability. To what extent, if any, do we allow that here? Remember that the goal here is using stats that are average or below average, not explicitly bad. The sort of affordances allowed in chroms process are almost certainly over the line, and honestly we could potentially make a perfectly reasonable end product without dipping into anything explicitly overpowered.
- What types suit average stats, if any? For example, dragon might be more suitable for it's access to strong stabs like Draco and Outrage that mitigate ower attacking stats. Psychic on the other hand may suit less well due to its reliance on weaker stabs. Are there typings that can work around mediocre bulk by leveraging unique or valuable defensive profiles?
One Trick Pony
Name: One Trick Pony
Description: This Pokemon excels at using a singular move offensively or defensively. When given the opportunity, the best play this Pokemon will make is to spam this move. It should be on every viable moveset of this Pokemon. It will not be a unique/custom move.
Justification: This would be an
Actualization concept. Many Pokemon that are defined by one move are either banned from CAP (Dracovish, Urshifu-S), unviable in CAP (Exploud, Dracozolt), or are viable but are defined more by a combination of aspects than a single move (Slowbro, Melmetal).
Questions To Be Answered:
- If an offensive route is taken with this CAP, how can we create a balanced AND viable Pokemon without making it banworthy? Can we effectively make one without turning it into a matchup fishy option?
- If a defensive route is taken with this CAP, what would our role be? What defensive moves will a viable CAP with this concept want to spam, and how can we fit the concept without making the move droppable?
- In either case, how would we optimize this CAP's ability to spam its desired move? What would be an optimal move to chose? How can we properly incentivize this Pokemon to spam its desired move?
Anger Management
Name: Anger Management
Description: This Pokemon is able to greatly punish fast aggressive plays that can occur in a single turn immediately or almost immediately.
Justification: This would definitely be considered an
Actualization concept. There are plenty methods of punishing your opponent that you can do within the same turn of them making an aggressive play (i.e. switching in Ferrothorn against Urshifu-S's Surging Strikes to rack up Iron Barbs contact damage), some of which haven't really seen the light in the current metagame, so partaking in this concept could help us explore the variety of such methods. I also would say that this can be considered a
Target concept, targeting the CAP metagame's huge bias towards offense and wanting as much damage as possible as fast as possible.
Questions to be Answered:
- In the context of the CAP metagame, what would be the current best methods of punishing fast aggressive plays?
- How can a Pokemon punish its foe on the same turn their foe made the play to be punished? The following turn?
- How much should this Pokemon be able to limit the opponent's ability to make fast aggressive plays?
Forbidden Fruit
Name: Forbidden Fruit
Description: This Pokémon is permitted access to a singular move from the prohibited moves list.
Justification: In most projects, we are barred from including these mechanics because they are considered some of the strongest options available in-game. Even with the addition of the clause allowing TL and Movepool SL to approve these moves, it is unlikely to ever be implemented given how late into the project this decision is made. This
target concept aims to expand the project toolbox and explore how an immediate power spike in the project impacts subsequent design choices.
Questions:
- While the prohibited moves list is dominated by many high base power moves, are there any lower base power or status moves worth considering over them?
- How important should STAB be if we select a damaging move?
- Should we aim to build a Pokémon that maximizes the potential of our move within the context of the CAP meta or that simply uses it as an additional tool in its kit?
- What type of roles are enabled best by the inclusion of these moves compared to our basic toolbox?
- Will selecting a powerful move early negatively impact the selection of stat limits or does it allow us to reprioritize the way we build stats?
- Given the general distaste for the oversaturation of offensive threats in the meta, how will this external factor influence our decisions when faced with a move from the prohibited move list
- Should this concept be expanded to all signature moves and not just the legend exclusive moves since they are often considered taboo to include?
- How important should distinguishing our Pokémon from the original user be?
Unusual Gains
Name: Unusual Gains
Description: A Pokémon which has a method (or methods) of setup that isn't usually seen in the OU/CAP metagame.
Justification: With this concept we'll be
actualizing the use of underutilized and sometimes underexplored methods of setup, and exploring why these methods are underutilized in the first place and the utility they might bring over more traditional setup methods. The concept also falls firmly under the
Archetype category because ultimately we'll end up with a Pokémon that uses some form of setup.
Questions To Be Answered:
- What kinds of underutilized setup options are there and why do they rarely, if ever, see play in higher tiers?
- On the contrary, why is it that certain ways of setting up are used so much more in these tiers?
- Is it worth using these setup methods over more established methods for the Pokémon we're creating? Why wouldn't we just give it a more common setup method?
- What are the most defining factors of how successful certain setup methods are on a given Pokémon?
- Is there any utility tied to some methods of setup that currently don't see much play in the OU/CAP metagame?
- By extension, how can we make sure these utilities can be used to great effect in order to define the Pokémon we're creating?
- Can we combine the use of underused setup methods with other available mechanics to further solidify the role(s) our created Pokémon fulfills?
Mini-Uber
Name - Mini-Uber
Description - A Pokemon that replicates a strategy used by an Uber Pokemon
Justification- This is an
Actualization concept - we want to preserve the excitement of using an Uber while simultaneously having it be fair and competitive for the current CAP metagame.
Questions To Be Answered:
- What makes an Uber pokemon interesting beyond just the power level? What makes a pokemon "fun" to use?
- 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?
- Will a pokemon still be useful even when taken out of its native context (ie without the specific metagame threats it checks)?
- Is there room to explore certain Uber's unique defensive and utility potential in addition to their offenses?
- Can this pokemon still stand out even with the high volume of threats that we currently have?
Once again, your options are:
Bulletproof Glass
Stick Together!
Bang Average
One Trick Pony
Anger Management
Forbidden Fruit
Unusual Gains
Mini-Uber
Please ensure your ballot uses the concept names listed above in bold and
not the usernames of the submitters. This vote will end in
24 hours, so please do not feel rushed, and instead ensure you make an informed decision!
This poll will be open for
24 hours.
