Before you vote, it's important that you read through each concept carefully, as well as look at our TL
dex's final post in the concept submissions thread with their justification for each that made the slate, since 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:
Collector's Edition
Name - Collector's edition
Description - This Pokémon is built to be able to use an item/s not typically seen in competitive Pokémon.
Justification - Items have been an extremely key aspect of battling for the past 2 decades of competitive Pokémon, with the item highly determining the set and role that a Pokémon performs in a team. In these past gens (especially in SWSH) items like Heavy Duty Boots, Leftovers and the Choiced items are seen present in nearly every team, largely drowning out other options for items with the exception of rare cases such a Power Herb Stratagem or Loaded Dice Baxcalibur. This concept aims to explore an item more rare than the above examples and create a Pokémon that uses it to its fullest extent.
Questions To Be Answered -
- What are the most common items in the current metagame? What led to these items becoming so common?
- How can a Pokémon justify running an item that isn't common, which items can make it worth it? What makes it so good?
- Are there any examples of said items being used sucessfully in the past on viable sets?
- What traits about a pokémon led to it using these items? How does it justify running these items instead of more common options?
- What role can this pokémon employ that leads to it being able to use a rarely seen item?
- Should we focus on only using one particular item, or would it be better to explore a whole group of them?
- Should we look to only explore more the items themselves or should we look to explore any unique interactions they might have (Fling, Trick, etc...)?
Mix and Match
Name - Mix and Match
Description - This CAP excels at being a mixed attacker.
Justification - Mixed attackers are an extremely rare offensive archetype that benefit usually by being able to circumvent walls that may usually check them. This can make them hard to check since most walls are dedicated to taking on physical or special attackers but not both. Mixed attackers are particularly on the rise this generation with Pokemon such as Iron Valiant and Hoopa-Unbound thanks to their ability to continue a sweep or break down walls, respectively, which can help themselves or teammates to forge a path to winning. While it all seems amazing being a mixed attacker, the reality is that because of the inherent nature of using physical and special attacks, they're often forced to potentially spread themselves too thin with regards to their EV investment and may have to use a nature that could cut into their bulk.
Questions to be Answered -
- Why do Pokemon want to go mixed? Is it because of the metagame trends/changes that occur as time goes on? Or could it be something as simple as missing the "right" move?
- What tools do we need to give this CAP in order for it to excel as a mixed attacker? More importantly, what tools should we omit?
- How do we address what nature to run since we ideally don't wanna lower our Attack/Special Attack as well as our Speed potentially? How would we distribute the given EVs to maximize mixed attacking efficiency?
- How can we build this CAP to where it doesn't favor a strictly physical or special set?
- How has the generational shifts heightened or deterred the ability to go mixed?
- Why have mixed attackers died out since their "heydays" in the earlier gens?
Death Star
Name - Death Star
Description - This pokemon has one critically low defense stat, while being reliant on the other to fulfill its role.
Justification - I’m always fascinated by Pokemon with traits that are inherently contradictory in some way. Roles like tank, defensive pivot, and bulky setup sweeper require tanking hits, and in most cases the pokemon that fill these roles are at least moderately bulky on both sides of the spectrum. There are some exceptions, such as Assault Vest Hoopa-Unbound which functions as a tank despite a huge vulnerability to physical moves, and Kartana which would often tank physical hits switching in or to set up a Swords Dance but had horrid special bulk. Something like Great Tusk has a large imbalance in its defensive stats while tanking hits quite frequently to perform its role, so it’s a decent example to look to. Pokemon with well-defined strengths and weaknesses like this tend to be some of the most interesting to use, and make for really rich processes as well.
Questions To Be Answered -
- When in the process must we choose which defense stat has the gaping hole in it? Can this wait until stats or is it important to decide it earlier than that, maybe even in concept assessment?
- What team archetypes are more or less suited to covering our vulnerabilities? For instance, is VoltTurn required to get us in against the pokemon we’re more suited to facing?
- While having our dominant defensive stat be massive is a good way to counterbalance our weakness, can we succeed with a more subtle approach?
- What roles rely on frequently tanking hits, and which of these are suitable for a pokemon with such a massive vulnerability?
- How passive are we allowed to be while maintaining viability? Is a role like wall on the table? How would we succeed in such a role where pokemon like Avalugg and Pecharunt did not?
- Conversely, how offensive are we allowed to be without subverting the concept by avoiding hits almost entirely? What is the sweet spot?
- How can we avoid being too vulnerable to scouting, pivoting and double switching, when an entire side of the attacking spectrum can effectively take us down?
- When choosing a typing, do we need to focus more on our dominant defense stat (leaning into our strengths) or our weak defense stat (mitigating our weaknesses)?
- A lot of pokemon rely on weak, uninvested utility attacking moves like Knock Off and U-turn. Can we avoid being too vulnerable to such moves when trying to check pokemon like Dragapult or Clefable? Is a typing that resists or at least is not weak to such moves required?
A Rising Star
Name - A Rising Star
Description - This Pokémon uses a strategy/toolset that was not viable in OU in previous generations.
Justification - As with all generations new powerful pokemon, new items/moves for those pokemon, and changes to mechanics have resulted in what's viable/unviable shifting. However, with this generation, a combination of terrastalising, powerful new items, and the significant changes to moves and movepools have resulted in some huge shakeups. This concept seeks to explore the *new* and *unprecedented*, rather than keying off of already well understood concepts in a pokemon. A CAP based around making use of tools that have only recently become viable will encourage really thinking about what makes this generation special compared to the rest of the series, and result in a CAP that performs distinctly from many others - leaving it a unique but non-toe-stepping presence.
Questions To Be Answered -
- What strategies have existed in previous generations, but were relegated to gimmicks or considered too risky for general play?
- Did these strategies fail because of the state of the metagame? a lack of viable users? genuinely being a bad concept?
- Which new items and moves benefit previously unviable strategies?
- Which changes to moves and distribution benefit previous unviable strategies? Is this by helping them, or hurting strategies that counter them?
- In the current meta, are there any playstyles with counter-strategies that lack a prominent user?
That's a Skill Issue
Name - That's a Skill Issue
Description - This concept builds a Pokémon which has a high skill ceiling.
Justification - From competitive games, we are very familiar with the idea of a "skill ceiling" - the idea that even God's gift to playing the game can only make a certain Pokémon go so far. You can't magically become more skilled and make your sweeper that one step faster, or make it do more damage - your name is not Michael Larson, you are not able to control the RNG through pure skill.
But... if there was no skill at all in Pokémon, then we wouldn't have good players and weaker players. It's fairly obvious that good players
can get more use out of their Pokémon - they're probably hitting the game's skill ceilings. What we can explore through this concept is fundamentally "What is Skill in competitive Pokémon?", followed shortly by "How do you create a Pokémon where the best players get more use out of it?". What traits make a Pokémon easier or harder to use - and what sort of Pokémon can really shine in the hands of a skilled pilot? I think these are questions we've never really tackled before - but from concepts like Momentum, questions we've never tackled are the most fun!
Questions to be Answered:
- What, objectively, is skill in Pokémon?
- As a player/pilot, what factors make someone skilled? Is it metagame knowldge, the ability to read someone, or some other factor?
- As a teambuilder, what makes someone skilled? Is it being able to create a team to a solid archetype, testing and refining the team, or being ready for a specific opponent?
- What traits of a Pokémon make it easier or harder for an individual player to get usage out of?
- What traits of a Pokémon allow a skilled player to get substatially *more* out of it than a less skilled player?
- How do we avoid making a Pokémon which is "mindless", implicitly requiring very little skill to use?
- What team archetypes have a massive skill ceiling? What team archetypes have a much lower ceiling? Should we aim to be most useful in one of these archetypes, or be more generic?
Greedy Gadgets
Name - Greedy Gadgets
Description - This Pokemon uses moves that have utility-centered effects to directly make itself more threatening.
Justification - The idea of this concept is to flip the script on the standard application of utility effects, which are generally used as options to support the team. Utility is fundamentally rooted in creating progress and/or enabling allies, but who's to say a Pokemon can't use its own utility as a dedicated tool to make
itself more threatening? The idea of self-centered offensive utility is one not directly explored in CAP, in part due to its abstract and unconventional nature when used on offensive Pokemon. Because there are a lot of ways we can define and explore the boundaries of self-centered offensive utility, especially in the department of balancing defense and offense, there are a lot of really fascinating avenues we can take with this concept to really bring it to life and bring a unique offensive presence that uses unique combinations of tools to the SV CAP metagame. As such, this is an
Actualization concept.
Questions To Be Answered -
- How can a dedicated user of utility moves best extract value from said moves for itself as opposed to its teammates when utility moves often have intrinsically supportive qualities?
- What effects might a self-centered utility user value the most? What makes them valuable to this Pokémon’s game plan?
- Can dedicated stat boosting options be considered pro-concept? Why or why not?
- How do we incentivize usage of utility moves to support our damage output over higher power damage-dealing options?
- How do we find the balance of defensive resilience to enable our usage of utility, but still maintain an overall focus on boosting its threat factor throughout the game?
- How much of a role would progress need to play for a selfish utility-oriented offensive Pokemon to become threatening? Conversely, what kind of attributes have threatening qualities without the need of progress? Are these attributes desirable for this concept? Why or why not?
- What lessons can we take from in-canon examples of selfish utility users/strategies? How can we make CAP 34 unique from them/use them uniquely?
Hail to the (Sea)King
Name - Hail to the (Sea)King
Description - This Pokemon replicates the role of Seaking in BDSP OU, using a unique combination of typing, ability, and a usually useless move to counter significant metagame threats.
Justification - Since the early days of the franchise, when it was devilishly coded into a functioning game by exchanging one's soul in the eastern waters of Cinnabar Island, no single Pokemon has been is definingly forgettable as the King of Sea. Competitively, the iconic goldfish has failed to make a splash despite climbing up waterfalls. In the offshoot metagame of BDSP OU, Seaking's water résistance, access to Lightning Rod, and desperate recovery of AQUA RING allows it to cheese the shit out of Rotom-Wash. This CAP would channel the spirit of Seaking, RBY Tackle Porygon, GSC Growl Miltank, and all other "quirky" picks used to generate YouTube content, get saucy wins in prestigious team tournaments while the rest of your team loses you the week, and flood the ladder. We would create a Pokemon that puts a rubbish or suboptimal move to work.
Questions To Be Answered -
- What situations create opportunities to use a usually useless move?
- What traits make a usually useless move viable in the highest level of competitive play?
- How much utility is derived from typing and/or ability compared to movepool for these niche Pokemon?
- Viability of Seaking-style Pokemon is usually low or niche by design. Is there a way to increase viability beyond just raw stat power?
- What odd tech moves have been used effectively in tournaments or on the high ladder on high viability Pokemon in recent formats?
- What food should we feed Seaking to achieve optimal horn length?
- Is overall viability more important than focusing on securely answering specific threats? Could that carry over to achieve high viability?
Once again, your options are:
Collector's Edition
Mix and Match
Death Star
A Rising Star
That's a Skill Issue
Greedy Gadgets
Hail to the (Sea)King
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.
