Policy Review Policy Review - the CAP Mission Statement and its meaning

[zarator]

Approved by Darkie

If you are not an experienced member of the CAP community, it is strongly recommended that you do not post in this thread.

This thread is intended to contain intelligent discussion and commentary by experienced members of the CAP project regarding CAP policy, process, and rules. As such, the content of this thread will be moderated more strictly than other threads on the forum. The posting rules for Policy Review threads are contained here.

I'm sure most of the readers remember perfectly the CAP Mission Statement. Let's read it again:

"The Create-A-Pokémon project is a community dedicated to exploring and understanding the competitive Pokémon metagame by designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokémon concepts."
​

Let's analyze it, shall we? This sentence says that we explore the metagame. And we do it by "designing, creating, and playtesting new Pokémon concepts". So, what should these concepts be about? The first interpretation of this expression, i.e. the most obvious and immediate one, probably is:

The concept should add a niche to the metagame, either specializing an already existent one, or creating a new role altogether.

Almost all concepts our CAPs (at least, our CAPs from Fidgit up to Colossoil) are based upon follow this interpretation. For example, Fidgit's concept is "Pure Utility Pokémon". Obviously there are already pokémon, in the standard OU environment, which are able to cover a utility role effectively, like Vaporeon, Forretress, and Jirachi, to name a few. However, there was no dedicated utility Pokémon available, and this is why we decided to create one. On the contrary, Colossoil's concept is "Stop the secondary". There aren't Pokémon, in standard OU, able to actually claim this role. Although a debatable assumption (and clearly not the point of my OP), we could say Colossoil created a new niche in the metagame.

However, we can see that not all the interesting concept fits this interpretation, and this became apparent recently. I'm quite positive most of you remember the runner-up concept for CAP9. If not, then read below:

Originally Posted by Fat billymills
Name: Two-sided attack

Description: Can play two incredibly different roles extremely well, but no middle ground. If this pokemon attempts to compromise its strengths, it will suck. Ideally, it will absolutely destroy one type of pokemon using one of its strengths, but will be completely countered if it chose the other specialty. Important: It has no true 100% counter.

Justification: Depending on how this works out, I could see this being a good stall breaker (50/50 shot at breaking one of your opponent's major walls, if this turns out to be a sweeper), or a strong wall of either defense. The important thing is that it makes prediction even more important, and should reduce any luck factor when facing this pokemon.

Questions to be answered:

• Is there anyway to prevent a pokemon from being moderate, and always extremely powerful in a direction using basic methods (i.e.: Would type change or change in formes be necessary)?

• Does such a pokemon actually encourage prediction, or is countering it completely based on luck?

• Is it possible to create a pokemon without true counters, even if it is not overpowering?

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't want to call out billymills (I actually voted for him at the time, lol), I chose him only because it is the most recent example for what I'm going to say. Now, can we say this concept adds something to the metagame? In my opinion, no. And not because there are already Two-sided attackers in OU, but because being a two-sided attacker (at least, in the meaning intended by Billymills) does not add anything to the metagame by itself. Gliscor, for example, does not add anything to the metagame simply because it can be both a physical attacker and a physical tank. It is his unique type combination, combined with an excellent and interesting movepool, which makes Gliscor a relevant addition to the metagame. If he had been just an unspectacular and not-so-unique physical attacker AND physical tank, it would not have been much of a contribution. While, even if he would not have been able to be a good physical attacker (if, for example, it lacked Swords Dance) it would still retain a niche as a peculiar physical wall thanks to the aforementioned features (namely, typing and movepool).

What is my point? If we go with a strict interpretation of the CAP Mission Statement, in my opinion the above concept should be unacceptable. But this would also mean that a lot of existing OU Pokémon, should they have been CAP concepts, would have been deemed "uninteresting", while they probably aren't (if not for the fact that they are OU, but I digress). You may agree or disagree with me upon the fact whether or not this type of concept is acceptable, or how to read the CAP Mission Statement, but I hope all of you will at least recognize that a problem of interpretation exist. I think this may be the right place to better define our mission statement, and above all, decide what kind of concept future CAPs should be about.

Thank you.

 

[Plus]

I believe one of the main problems with concepts like these is that it's not really bad, but Pokemon in general has a lot of what it already needs, and our pool of decent concepts to choose from are rather low IMO. And you can really tell from the ginormous concept threads that people are just throwing concepts left and right like piles of shit until it works. However, when the mission statement refers to "concepts", it's not the actual concept that we're creating, but the pokemon as the concept itself. Note the mission statement was made before the idea of concepts in the first place, and it's been pretty interchangeable due to their similar definitions. A concept can be a "bulky fighting type" or a "explosion immune lead". The fact that we are creating a viable pokemon that is different from the rest type wise and stat wise is already enough to say that we've created a new concept, as this pokemon can fit into teams where others cannot. I believe the problem lies not in selecting these concepts but rather the interpretation of the mission statement.

So, what have you learned through CAP? If I were to ask this to a CAP regular right off the bat then I'd think they would need some time to answer this question, as would I. Everything that we learned could be classified as easy theorymon, such as "duh a decentralizer doesn't decentralize", or "of course scouting isn't a primary role". To be honest I think a better interpretation of the mission statement would be "to validate theorymon into factual evidence". Obviously if you're making a concept you have an idea of what the end product will turn out to be, but you don't know for sure. The reason that some concepts are more interesting than others (apart from mindless bandwagoning) is because you are less sure of what will happen to the metagame, and what you will see from it. tl;dr, I think we should rework the mission statement a bit.

Concepts like the one above really aren't that bad, but a "two sided attacker" could have different stats moves and typing that could differentiate it from a Jirachi for example. The mission statement never referred to the concepts we have now, but the niches in the OU metagame that have never seen the light. These niches are nowhere as broad as the concepts we have today, which is probably why we're so assed to make good concepts that follow this statement. A more out of the box concept is generally preferred but I think concepts like the one above can turn into a decent CAP should we make it stand out and give it a niche that was never explicitly outlined in the concept.

Just my two cents.

 

[wickdaggler]

CAP has a very interesting role in the society of competitive Pokemon. This community's role is to throw somthing new into the pokemon competitive gameplay.

Now, for this to be intereseting, or have any real purpose, this system cannot and will not create another Sweeper, or Tank, or Wall. Why? Because it will not add anything interesting to gameplay. Sure, mabey there is a new check to Tyranatar, but honestly, is that any fun?

By adding a brand new niche, we can see a ripple effect of what will happen. It validates theremon, and gives the gut feelings that we as Pokemon players feel. And this, frankly is awsome.

But I digress:
While we could easily put another uninteresting OU sweeper out there, it would really have no meaning, no reason for being there, and while it may have an effect, said effect is predictable and thus not needed. Going back to Plus' point, the overall reason that this is in place is to validate theremon, and see the effect of niches in pokemon. CAP does not need to put in place what is already there for it. CAP's mission statement does not need changing, and while there are a couple different ways to interpret it, the overall effect is the same: Competitive Pokemon fun.

 

[tennisace]

Now, for this to be intereseting, or have any real purpose, this system cannot and will not create another Sweeper, or Tank, or Wall. Why? Because it will not add anything interesting to gameplay. Sure, mabey there is a new check to Tyranatar, but honestly, is that any fun?

So what the hell are you going to create if you don't make something that fits into sweeper, tank, or wall, at least generally? Spinda? Name any Pokemon that's used in OU and it at least somewhat fits into one of those categories, since they're so broad. CAP takes the broad categories and narrows them down. A niche isn't a singular space, it's a subcategory.

By adding a brand new niche, we can see a ripple effect of what will happen. It validates theremon, and gives the gut feelings that we as Pokemon players feel. And this, frankly is awsome.

Yeah, and? I don't see where you're going with this at all.

 

[Plus]

But I digress:
While we could easily put another uninteresting OU sweeper out there, it would really have no meaning, no reason for being there, and while it may have an effect, said effect is predictable and thus not needed. Going back to Plus' point, the overall reason that this is in place is to validate theremon, and see the effect of niches in pokemon. CAP does not need to put in place what is already there for it. CAP's mission statement does not need changing, and while there are a couple different ways to interpret it, the overall effect is the same: Competitive Pokemon fun.

Uh, if you don't want this to be a sweeper, would you like a wall instead? Better yet, what about a tank? You seem to be under the misconception that sweepers walls and tanks are overrated and boring. So tell me a pokemon in OU that doesn't fall under this category, or even a subset of one. There are none. Don't confuse a concept with the three main types of pokemon -- if you don't like these styles it's best you don't like competitive pokemon at all, because this is what it's all about.

Fun is quite arbitrary and I don't really see what you're trying to say here. "Fun" is not the same for every person, and that is a really vague way to go about it. Quite philosophical, yes, but I don't exactly see how what I said ties into anything to what you said at all, or anything new that was brought to the table.

 

[wickdaggler]

So what the hell are you going to create if you don't make something that fits into sweeper, tank, or wall, at least generally? Spinda? Name any Pokemon that's used in OU and it at least somewhat fits into one of those categories, since they're so broad. CAP takes the broad categories and narrows them down. A niche isn't a singular space, it's a subcategory.
Yeah, and? I don't see where you're going with this at all.

I was concuring with Plus. And what I had ment to say was, that there is no point of creating another pokemon with the same niche that has been overused, or done already. CAP should make somthing new, fresh and exciting.
Sorry for my misuse of terms.

 

[zarator]

What Darkanine said has little to do with the topic at hand - which is, trying to rethink our idea of "concept" in a more precise and definite way - so, I will try to get this thread on its trails and spark some discussion.

I think it is apparent to all people - at least, to the CAP experts whom this topic is intended for - that most recent CAP Concept Submission threads are showing a crescent lack of legal AND interesting concepts if we go with the first interpretation I gave in the OP. In other words, the (few) concepts which actually tried to create a new niche in the metagame weren't so exciting, whereas some of the most intriguing ones were clearly in disagreement with the aforementioned interpretation of the CAP Mission Statement. You may argue about how deep or slight this lack has been, but I think it is nigh undeniable that such a trend has shown apparently, at least from CAP7 on.

Now, it is obvious that, if we want to change the current situation, we have to change the rules which define the legality of concepts. The fact that, as of now, we cannot suggest neither a stat bias, nor a type, and not even an ability, means that there are very few traits available to define a Pokémon - pretty much one or two moves, and a role. I mean, should I have to try my hand at a concept which should result in a Skarmory, or a Gliscor, or an Hippowdon, I would go with the same one: "Sturdy physical wall". Now, they are oviously very different from each other, but the traits that above all define their differences - types, abilities and stats - cannot be expressed within the concept. What's worse, if I actually had to submit a "sturdy physical wall" concept - and, for example, Gliscor never existed - you would probably comment "How boring! We already have physical walls!". And what if we actually produced Gliscor, following the example above? We would have a Pokémon able to wall physical attacks in a very peculiar way thanks to its typing (neither Skarmory nor Hippowdon can wall Fighting Pokémon like Gliscor can, for example). Is Gliscor able to cover a new niche, or at least embody an existing role (physical wall) in an original way? Yes.

What am I suggesting? Well, in my opinion there are two possible ways to go about this - although I do not deny you could devise other ones. The first way is leaving the standard rules as they are, but not refusing concepts like Wallbreaker, Physical Wall, or Special Sweeper because they already exist. Of course they already exist, but it's only natural that the CAP Project would explore them in an original way. Just look at Stratagem and you'll see a simple Special Attacker, yet different from any other in the game. Why? Because of its typing, its stats, and its combination of ability and movepool. I have no doubt that, if CAP10 concept were to be "Special Sweeper", we would be able to create another, completely new and original Pokémon like we did with Stratagem (I know Stratagem's concept was "Break the Mold", so don't try to attack me here). The second way is keep refusing already made concepts like "Special Sweeper", but accept more accurate ones like "Fast Special Flying Sweeper". In other words, the second way is rid of the rule which forbid the mention of types, stats and/or ability in the concept, or at least making it more broad so that "90/65/80/120/86/104 Flying/Fighting Sweeper with access to Aura Sphere" can still be an illegal concept.

Now, I realize both ways have their pros and cons. The first way keep most of the existing process intact, but allows for already done concept to undergo another CAP Project (in other words, if we did "Physical Wall" for CAP10, we could still do it again for, say, CAP14 if the TL and the voters wish so). The second way keep the originality of the concept as a base, but enforces a major change in the rules. Neither of the two avenues satisfy me completely, which is why I exposed them and ask you for an opinion. And also, I exposed them since, so far, there have been no one who posted a true attempt to make a complete proposal, and I hope my suggestions, although rough and hardly condivisible, can get you readers to post concrete proposals too.

 

[Scoopapa]

The second way is keep refusing already made concepts like "Special Sweeper", but accept more accurate ones like "Fast Special Flying Sweeper". In other words, the second way is rid of the rule which forbid the mention of types, stats and/or ability in the concept, or at least making it more broad so that "90/65/80/120/86/104 Flying/Fighting Sweeper with access to Aura Sphere" can still be an illegal concept.

I totally agree with this. I've always thought that a weakness of the CAP process was the inability to base a concept on a concrete attribute of the pokemon. There are so many great, unique concepts that could be based on say, typing, that would just never happen in the current system. I do, however, understand that this would cause the process to be different whenever a concept had predetermined something that usually has a thread and poll associated with it; so a change to something like this would probably require a lot of support to be worth it. Also, as Zarator pointed out with the "90/65/80/120/86/104 Flying/Fighting Sweeper with access to Aura Sphere" example, there would need to be limits. The thing is, if a concept is too strict, people wont want to vote for it, so I don't really see how this could mess anything up, unless there is just a huge influx of noobs with overly strict concepts.

 

[Korski]

I don't think that changing the mission statement or further clarifying what a "legal" concept is will help the clusterfuck that is the concept submission thread. The post-Cyclohm CAP revamp has given the TL enough power to make sure only workable concepts get to a vote. I'm not even sure "legality" is an issue, as the only illegal aspect of a concept atm is the mandating of a specific result of a future community vote (ability, typing, stats, etc.) in order to fulfill the concept and has nothing to do with the CAP mission statement at all. In any case, the "concept" of each CAP project (that's had one) has been more of a guide to the process than a description of the pokemon, while the end result has most often been that the CAPmon fits into the broad categories you mentioned (which just about all pokemon do).

That being said, it wouldn't make any sense to allow concepts like "special sweeper" or "mixed wall" to be considered, because they wouldn't guide the process at all; they would just give us an end result that can be better achieved in much more focused ways. Take Strategem, for example. Stratagem probably would never have happened if its concept were "special sweeper," because the community would have voted for a more interesting concept, Tennisace would have thrown that concept out with the trash, and/or the community would (most likely) have voted on a much more obvious typing or ability. Wording the concept as "Break the Mold" allowed the community to achieve the same result, but through a defined niche that got people excited to move forward and fit with the CAP mission statement. So, while Stratagem is indeed a special sweeper, the concept that guided its creation still added something to the metagame (i.e. "Special Sweeper" is not a new concept, but "Break the Mold" is). Assuming that CAP can turn shit into gold (which it can) is no reason to let it get lazy when going about how to create a pokemon.

I also disagree with the notion that "Two-Sided Attacker" is illegal on the grounds that it isn't a new "concept," however you analyze the mission statement, since I don't equate "concept" and "niche" (whereas concept = guide and niche = role). Gliscor fits the description, sure, but you can't say for sure that anything like Gliscor (or any other existing poke) would result from the creation process using "Two-Sided Attacker" as a concept. Like you said, Gliscor's typing/stats/ability/movepool make it a useful addition to the metagame, not its role. Typing, stats, ability, and movepool are things that have nothing to do with the concepts the community votes on at the time it is voting (esle the concept would be illegal), so more than likely a pokemon would come about that did offer something new to the metagame, regardless of what role it played or what niche it filled. On that same vein, I would support revisiting old concepts, especially down the line when the limited amount of open-ended concepts we have now dries up. "Break the Mold," to use it again as an example, could be used over and over and over with an enormous breadth of results.

So I say we stick with a liberal interpretation of the mission statement and consider the CAP process as a whole to be a fail-safe against redundant or uneducational pokemon. The only change I would really want to think about regarding the concept submission process would be to possibly remove one or some of the current restrictions on submissions (wherein "Multitype Pokemon" could be considered a legal submission, but not "Psychic/Flying pokemon" or whatever). However, I can see that leading to an even greater influx of terrible concept submissions in the thread, as it would require literally no thought to throw out the first ability or what have you that comes to mind. I prefer the open-ended concepts, personally, and I wish that more runners up from previous CAPs would get resubmitted (e.g. "Pivot Point").

 

[Ezekiel]

Overall, I think I agree with Admiral_Kiorski's points, though I do feel sympathy for Zarator's. Unfortunately, I also think that there is very little that can be done about the 'inadmissible concept spam' problem.

Firstly, the concept poll is, in many ways, the single most important poll of any CAP; that's why (or part of why) it's done first. If each CAP product were like a marble statue, then the concept poll is the first tap of the chisel. Furthermore, there is some prestige, albeit limited, for the person who submits the winning concept; the winner's name is branded on every competitive poll from start to finish (possibly the art polls as well? I can't remember). Like it or not, this is going to attract a huge amount of interest from everybody, new and old, and so lots of people will participate. Unfortunately, I can't think of any way that we can forestall the wave of inadmissible/inappropriate concepts without also removing much of the creative freedom already there (and there isn't much room regardless). Hopefully someone else can do more on that than I can.

I think broadening the interpretation of the mission statement is too much; though I don't personally like the word, I'm pretty sure this is an example of 'poll-jumping.' The concept should always be a guide and not a straitjacket, or more metaphorically, a compass heading instead of a latitude/longitude number. Things that specify the final product--even in such general terms as "Special Sweeper" or "Strong Physical Wall"--don't work simply because they do half the work in advance. A Special Sweeper must have good Special Attack, plain and simple. A Physical Wall needs to be able to sponge damage, which isn't much broader. Both of these "role" concepts (to use A_K's terms) rig the votes for stat balance and physical/special balance, and they even pre-load other things like type polls. For example, "Physical Wall" would predispose people to vote for Steel or Ground or whatever, which isn't quite the same as the stats issue but is far too similar for my liking. Even "Multitype" is risky, because you're deciding that that CAP cannot have 'No Secondary Type.' An alternate way to view "Multitype" as inadmissible: invert it. Nobody would approve a "Monotype" concept because it cuts out the possibility of multiple types; regardless of whether the CAP ends up with one type or two, the type(s) decision needs to be in the hands of the TL and the community, not the concept submitter.

Now, to move on from my rehashing of other peoples' points...I must disagree with the OP on the alleged inadmissibility of the "Two-Sided Attacker." My reasoning is mainly that it can add to our understanding of the metagame even if it doesn't make something completely brand-spankin' new. Being so stringent about 'adding new stuff' to the metagame is dangerously similar to the logic that CAPs should always have type combinations that do not currently exist in the standard game, or that we shouldn't re-use a type because it's already been selected for a previous CAP. We can learn just as much by making our own version of something and then comparing it to current pokémon as we can from blazing a new trail; it's just different kinds of learning.

In the end, I think that what CAP has is fine, both for the mission statement interpretation and the rules regarding concept submissions. The real problem seems to be one of having generated enough interest that the project now has lots of eager, inexperienced posters wanting to make their mark, proverbially leaping before they look.

Edit:
I would also like to second Admiral_Kiorski's suggestion about allowing re-submission of old ideas, but I think we should also consider putting some kind of limit on it. We don't want to see the same exact options coming up every single time, but for really good concepts, it's unfair and (in my opinion, at least) hurtful to the project to block them forevermore. My general idea was to make a "waiting period" before a concept can be re-used, hopefully to encourage the best of both worlds (continued creativity, but also not disqualifying quality ideas that simply lost a vote).

There would need to be several rules made about this sort of thing, no doubt. For example, the 'waiting period' could be two complete CAP projects; that is, a previously submitted concept cannot be re-submitted until the then-current CAP and two additional CAPs have been 'published.' (More specific example: We are now on CAP10; this means that only concepts submitted for CAP7 or earlier would be re-admissible.) There would also need to be some rules about re-submitting ideas previously introduced by someone else, though I'm not sure how that should be handled. Credit where credit is due is important...but it's also possible that two people can independently come up with the same concept at separate times.

 

[zarator]

@Admiral Korski: First of all, yes, the TL can weed out the bad concept. However, the TL cannot do anything against the general lack of quality in the recent CAP Concept Submission threads. I'm sure Plus would be the first to admit that CAP9 started with quite a little amount of interesting concepts, compared to previous ones. The problem here is trying to rise the general quality of concepts. And when even people who submitted good concepts in the past fail to come up with interesting concepts, I suspect that, within the current limits of a legal concept, we are starting to scratch the proverbial "bottom of the barrel".

Now, I realize that "Special Sweeper" or "Mixed Wall" do not give a concrete direction to the project, if they are simple as those. However, if, whether through the name or the description of the concept, I communicated the idea, for example, of a "Special Sweeper which abuses an underused STAB", now we would have an acceptable amount of direction, at least compared to other concepts we did in the past. The point is, as you said for "Two-Sided Attacker": we cannot any longer refuse a concept simply because a Pokémon already embodies it to some extent, like in Gliscor's case. If Nintendo did such a thing, we would probably have only 1 Physical Sweeper, 1 Special Sweeper, 1 Cleric, 1 Wallbreaker, 1 Bulky Water... you get the idea.

Also, I'm all for recycling old runner-up concepts (not necessarily "Pivot Point", but whatever). Previous CAP Concept Submission threads are filled with a variety of interesting concepts which never got a chance to shine simply because they were overshadowed by others. Although it would be more of a temporary solution than anything, it would help raise the quality of submitted concepts a bit, maybe.

@Ezekiel: The reason why you oppose "Special Wall" or "Physical Sweeper" -like concepts is quite flawed. Doesn't all good concepts make some types and/or stats more preferable to others? For example, when we did CAP6, the very nature of the concept made Fighting and a slightly-defensive stat spread the front runner choice almost automatically, much like how a "Physical Wall" concept would make Steel/Ground/Water/Fighting (to name a few) and good HP/Def natural choices. There is no harm in this. Also, what you said for "Twin-Sided Attacker" applies more or less equally to the aforementioned concepts.

However, I disagree with what you define the "real problem". As I said before in the post, the people who made good concepts in the past are always here. Yet, I am the first who struggles to find a good concepts, nowadays, without resorting to something I, or others, have already submitted in the past.

Now, I must admit that I'm quite interested in Admiral Korski's suggestion, i.e. removing the rule which forbids mention the ability in the concept. Sure, it may open the way to quite a lot of noob concepts (like "Drizzle Pokémon" or "Stall Pokémon"), however I'm quite positive that some interesting abilities which can define alone the entire Pokémon(like Multitype, Magic Guard and Wonder Guard to name a few) could make good concepts. And don't forget there is a TL to weed out the "Stall Pokémon" shit.

 

[Plus]

@Admiral Korski: First of all, yes, the TL can weed out the bad concept. However, the TL cannot do anything against the general lack of quality in the recent CAP Concept Submission threads. I'm sure Plus would be the first to admit that CAP9 started with quite a little amount of interesting concepts, compared to previous ones. The problem here is trying to rise the general quality of concepts. And when even people who submitted good concepts in the past fail to come up with interesting concepts, I suspect that, within the current limits of a legal concept, we are starting to scratch the proverbial "bottom of the barrel".

Nope, from what I've seen CAP has been lacking in interesting concepts from day 1. Don't take this the wrong way, I think CAP has had a few good concepts. I've found a lot of shit in CAPS 4-9, and let me remind you that it is allowed to recycle concepts, but the reason I did not let them through was because I was not interested in them. My decision is not the community's rule, it was my decision so we could make CAP 9 the way it currently is. The concept thread has never seen the light of a clear and organized thread -- there's always a bunch of shit flying around all over the place. But this is fine, because the concept thread doesn't account for much with the TL taking initiative. The TL also can make his own decisions, he's definitely more of a driving force in the project than the concept will ever be. The TL has the power to interpret the concept anyway he wants, even go so far as to make a Special sweeper a physical sweeper instead, just to give an example.

Perhaps something we should be doing is to have faith in the TL moreso than the concept itself. I know that CAP 9 would be a totally different pokemon if I did not have the powers to affect the outcomes of polls myself. The concept thread's 50-60+ concepts can be reduced to 2 by the first poll if the TL chooses to do so -- no matter how good or bad the concept is. Again, don't be under the assumption that you can't recycle abilities, lol. Notice how Deck Knight's and X-Act's concepts were kept in the CAP 9 concept thread? They were never illegal but I found them just god damn stale. Personally, I found all the reused concepts stale as well but future TLs might choose to have a different opinion. If they think those concepts are good, I'd trust the TL.

So yeah. I think the solution to the bad concepts is a good TL, really. A good TL would be able to weed out all the shit concepts and just leave a select few of the good ones. Still I'd love to change the mission statement to clarify as I don't see how that would hurt one bit, but I don't think you would need to remove restrictions concept submissions. As Admk pointed out, it would cause a lot of clutter in the thread and would make it harder for the TL to sift through shit. If you think about it, if the TL picks a concept that specifies an ability, I think it wouldn't matter if we took that concept minus the ability. Most likely the end pokemon will still have the same ability. TL preference plays a dominant role in how the pokemon turns out to be. Of course, if you think the TL's a fucking pussy (which they won't be) then you might as well get a bucket of paint and create a path for the TL to take to get to the end product.