• Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!

CAP 35 - Part 2 - Concept Assessment

Status
Not open for further replies.
quziel said:
I agree with Brambane's suggestion above. We should be as specific as is reasonable to be in this stage. If the intent is to do e.g. "Wall that has a movepool drawback" and immediately go into CA2 to vote on a more specific drawback, there's no reason we can't just do that now, and submit "Wall that has no reliable recovery".
Click to expand...
Brambane said:
Example, Wall + Unconventional Movepool is not informative enough to me to form a good opinion for a voting stage. I would vote for a "Wall Without Reliable Recovery" since that is an interesting project, I wouldn't vote for a "Wall Without Status Afflictions" or "Wall Without Hazard Removal." While plenty of walls use moves like Thunder Wave, Rapid Spin, or Defog, I don't think those are asking any interesting questions for the process.

Tank + Typing is another. What about the typing specifically would, as the concept literally says, "typically hold its role back?" You should be more specific here, this is the point of the concept assessment.
Click to expand...
The issue I have with this approach is that it only applies well to movepool contradictions. Specifying more heavily what type of contradiction a “Tank + Typing” would entail quickly devolves to poll jumping. The same goes for ability and even stats to some degree. “Wall with bad defenses”, for example, can only be done so many ways in stats. "Wallbreaker with a hurtful ability" is just... Chromera's concept, which I do not think this aims to be. Considering that the concept is written so poorly and contradictorily, I think the part that should actually be focused on is the “contradiction” part, not the “flaw” part. That seems to be more the spirit of the concept than a Chromera 2.0 but for any stage. The concept should target "counterintuitive" or even "unexpected" aspects rather than "flawed".

Therefore, the solution is simple. All submissions should be written in this form: "Specific Role + Contradiction Stage". Because the concept is decidedly focused on role, it would be good to define what we are trying to "contradict" early. The contradiction itself should be focused on a singular stage (those being Typing, Ability, Stats, and Movepool for newcomers) where it can be fully discussed. There will be no need for an extra concept assessment; the defining of the contradiction can take place in its designated stage, which seems to me a much cleaner and seamless scenario than trying to figure every detail out about it now.

Here are some example submissions:
  • Wall + Ability Contradiction
  • Wallbreaker + Movepool Contradiction
  • Defensive Pivot + Typing Contradiction
  • Sweeper + Stats Contradiction
And so on. The TLT can slate whichever pairings they think are best argued for, but this seems like the most straightforward path. Reminder that this solution calls for the contradiction to be defined in its respective stage, so process order may get a bit funky out of necessity. I would expect that we would move directly into the contradiction's stage. People may decry this for things like movepool and stats, but they will not be submission stages! Only discussion.

Edit: I'd like to call for a hold on submitting until we have word from the TL on the preferred syntax for submissions.
 
Last edited:
I'd argue that it makes sense to treat the various CAP stages differently here. I don't really see a great way to move Moves any earlier than maybe second stage in the process, even for defining moves, and it seems hard there. In that way I think it makes sense for us to allow more specificity in the restrictions placed for the "typically later" parts of the process.

Wall + Traditionally Wallbreaker Stats
Wall + No Recovery Moves
Wall + Offensive Ability
Wall + Typing Contradiction

Are all combos that make sense for me, placing more specificity here for the stages that generally are placed later in the process. We could allow for a Movepool contradiction stage right after CA, but I'd argue that's functionally a CA2. Let folks be more specific in their contradictions as those contradictions are applied to stages that generally happen later.
 
Something I'm very interested in exploring is Weather/Terrain Setter + Typing Contradiction.

This is a fairly unique role that isn't really filled in current OU. The closest example I can think of off the top of my head is :walking-wake:, a Water/Dragon type who thrives in sun. Of course, Walking Wake doesn't set sun, but if they did, they would be the perfect poster child for this contradiction. What exactly constitutes a contradiction in this case is up for debate- is it enough to simply be off-type or should the typing actively be nerfed by the weather/terrain? I find the latter much more interesting, personally, with options such as a Rain-setting Fire-type or a Misty-Terrain-setting Dragon-type.

Of course, there are some interesting off-type contradictions as well. A non-Fire-neutral Grass-type in Sun could also work, for instance, trading off certain benefits for strengthening its weakness.

Overall, I just think this is a fun option that takes the concept in a relatively unexplored direction and would love to see it actualized!
 
Defensive Tank with a Typing Contradiction (specifically, a 4x weakness to any commonly spammed attacking Move)

Defensive Tanks such as Arghonaut, Dondozo, and Ting-Lu are expected to be able to switch in to common moves such as Knock or U-Turn without much issue. What happens when CAP 35 can't do the same? Forcing them to space very carefully around otherwise less than dangerous moves makes for a big contradiction in role, yet also allows for some unique typings we wouldn't see before as well.

What do I mean by commonly spammed attacking Moves? That would probably be expanded on in typing discussions, but I could see one of the following working:
  • Knock Off (often clicked when the opponent is unsure of what you'll switch in as removing item is always a decent idea)
  • Earthquake (one of the most common coverage moves in the game)
  • U-Turn (do I have to even say)
  • Close Combat (one of the most common neutral coverage options for wallbreakers)
  • Shadow Sneak (the most common form of priority I believe)
The closest example of something I can think to this would be Wo-Chien (who's got a stellar defensive statline, amazing ability, and solid movepool, but whos 4x weakness to U-Turn heavily limits its' potential.), Heatran (who's stellar defensive typing is marred by a 4x weakness to Earthquake, one of the most common moves in the meta, to the point where Air Balloon is unironically a very common option item-wise to attempt to mitigate said flaw), and Lunala in Ubers (who despite having Multiscale and a supremely powerful special defense + HP stat, often dies to Shadow Sneak and Knock Off)

If we persue this approach, we ought to make sure we don't nullify said weakness with an ability (e.g, don't give Heatran Levitate)
 
I am a fan of Tank + Typing Contradiction, to be more specific I am thinking of tanks with many/oppressive weaknesses. Defensive Tyrannitar in previous generations and Aggron in lower tiers come to mind. I prefer this to just a tank that doesn't resist many types as tanks with weaknesses to common types such as Water, Fighting, and Ground require more deliberate use, as opposed to Normal or Fairy-type walls that blanket check large groups of whatever side of attacking their stats lean toward. Successful tanks with oppressive weaknesses usually have many interesting upsides to them, for example they may have resistances or sheer bulk that allow them to check specific threats.

For example, Tyranitar uses both an viably check Volcarona in gen 5 OU, with it's rock typing resisting flamethrower and its massive stats and Sandstorm boost allowing it to tank at least one Bug Buzz before retaliating.

Other Pokemon that fall under this archetype use offensive Stab options, utility, ability and specific resistances to become successful and fun Pokemon to use.
 
Last edited:
quziel said:
The thing is that without specifying the specific (movepool) drawback, you'll get folks voting for it with wildly different intent. Specifying it now leads to a cleaner CA, and ensures folks know what they're voting for. I think we should be treating each of the individual counterintuitive elements a bit differently, as much as that's a bit annoying to think about, just because of their different order in the process.
Click to expand...
I would like to think that specific drawbacks in a particular area aren't as wildly different to cause someone to vote for something they would hate if it wasn't what they had in mind for that drawback. (Says the person who's examples for sweeper + movepool were: Only STAB attacks but threatens a variety of things and Low BP moves but still able to get decisive KOs)

I feel like if you want to vote for a generic drawback type then you should know what you're getting into and the only expectation you should have is that it will relate to that type of drawback somehow.

The TL has spoken, I have no real issues or concerns. I'll make two submissions based on my previous post in a future post.
 
Last edited:
**TL POST INCOMING**

Okay so I am here to admit that I may have been a bit confusing upon my initial post of allowing combo options that would be polled for where we want the direction of CAP 35 to go.

With that being said, I wanna clarify that what I said on Discord and earlier is not entirely what I wanted to say. While I do want a more general option when it comes to these combos to avoid any attempts at poll jumping, I do understand the complications of elongating not just this step, but complicating potentially future stages by leaving the winning combo being too vague when we get to the respective stage.
quziel said:
I'd argue that it makes sense to treat the various CAP stages differently here. I don't really see a great way to move Moves any earlier than maybe second stage in the process, even for defining moves, and it seems hard there. In that way I think it makes sense for us to allow more specificity in the restrictions placed for the "typically later" parts of the process.

Wall + Traditionally Wallbreaker Stats
Wall + No Recovery Moves
Wall + Offensive Ability
Wall + Typing Contradiction

Are all combos that make sense for me, placing more specificity here for the stages that generally are placed later in the process. We could allow for a Movepool contradiction stage right after CA, but I'd argue that's functionally a CA2. Let folks be more specific in their contradictions as those contradictions are applied to stages that generally happen later.
Click to expand...
Quziel here said it best and honestly took the words right outta my mouth lol.

But yeah I think being more specific depending on where the stage is in the process (for example being vague with typing which comes next is just as fine as being specific with movepool contradictions as moves generally happen at the end).

Therefore, after discussing it with TLT and seeing posts such as quz's, I have decided to expand the potential suggestions within this concept and allow contradictions that are more specific dependent on when the stage occurs in the process. So for those that have combos stating "Wall + No Recovery" are just as valid as "Wall + Typing Contradiction". As quz said, the 4 combos he gave as examples are all valid options to be slated.

Hopefully this clears everything up and for anyone that has posted, feel free to take into account the stage you want to focus on for the contradiction and adjust your combo suggestions accordingly.
 
sun_dew said:
Something I'm very interested in exploring is Weather/Terrain Setter + Typing Contradiction.

This is a fairly unique role that isn't really filled in current OU. The closest example I can think of off the top of my head is :walking-wake:, a Water/Dragon type who thrives in sun. Of course, Walking Wake doesn't set sun, but if they did, they would be the perfect poster child for this contradiction. What exactly constitutes a contradiction in this case is up for debate- is it enough to simply be off-type or should the typing actively be nerfed by the weather/terrain? I find the latter much more interesting, personally, with options such as a Rain-setting Fire-type or a Misty-Terrain-setting Dragon-type.

Of course, there are some interesting off-type contradictions as well. A non-Fire-neutral Grass-type in Sun could also work, for instance, trading off certain benefits for strengthening its weakness.

Overall, I just think this is a fun option that takes the concept in a relatively unexplored direction and would love to see it actualized!
Click to expand...
In what way is this not SV Malaconda? I’m not sure what more we have to learn in this space beyond what Malaconda shows (pivoting moves on weather-setters are so good it makes up for an awful typing). You even exactly mention Malaconda’s typing as an example!

To avoid this being a one-liner, I’ll also make a submission now the the rules have been cleared up. Wallbreaker + Low Attacking Stat interests me a lot. There’s tons of ways to boost your attacking stats, but they all require some modicum of investment that could be going elsewhere on the mon (item, ability, even move selection). I think this combo plays with the power budget in an interesting way and would make for a fruitful process. In terms of examples, Nidoking, Deoxys-S, and Serperior are all examples of different directions this combination could go in.
 
This seems like an interesting route to try:

Pivot + High Speed + Low Attacking Stats

Slow pivots are good because they let teammates switch in for free. Fast, offensive pivots are good because they hit hard and then switch to a check in the same turn - they make good, cautious leads as a result. But what if we ended up with a fast pivot that can't hit hard at all?

There's some exploration of this in Balanced Hackmons with Parting Shot on Prankster mons, but there, offensive stats on even passive (for BH) mons tend to be higher.
 
I really like Weather-Setter/User with Typing Contradiction, especially if it's a little used weather. Sun's especially fun for this since stuff like Harvest might make for a very weird wall, especially if it's on a non-grass type. To counter dex's assertion, there's way more you can do with an off-type weather setter than it just being a pivot.

Another thing I've been thinking about is Inverse Cawmadore, aka Wall Movepool but offensive everything else. I have no idea if that idea would work but I think it might be interesting to see how such a tank would approach things.

Wall Without Direct Recovery Moves is a fun concept, but i think it's especially funny with draining moves being the only form of recovery. I wanna see a wall that can only recover through say Drain Punch.
 
Last edited:
dex said:
In what way is this not SV Malaconda? I’m not sure what more we have to learn in this space beyond what Malaconda shows (pivoting moves on weather-setters are so good it makes up for an awful typing). You even exactly mention Malaconda’s typing as an example!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I may have forgotten Mal and Jumbao existed while making this post. I stand by the idea that a contradictory type/weather setting combo is something that is interesting to pursue, especially if it takes the route of a 'mon that sets terrain/weather that nerfs its STABS (but still has a presence outside of just setting and pivoting out). I'm sure there's still room to explore mons that thrive in weather that strengthens the types they're weak to, but particularly in the grass-type sun-setter field that may be a bit over explored.
 
Given Kenn's new guidelines, I'm going to propose something more specific. Offensive pivot + Negative-Priority Move. Bringing back Ama's concept, kind of.

The idea being that offensive pivots generally try to come in on a free / double switch, maybe kill something, and leave without taking damage (think about what a slippery motherfucker Dragapult is). They're often fast and frail. Negative-priority moves force you to often tank hits, which feels like a pretty solid role contradiction. This move must be a necessary part of the mon's kit, otherwise the move doesn't get run and the contradiction doesn't really exist. I envision the negative priority move being for example the mon's only good STAB option which is necessary for hitting a good chunk of the meta. Alternatively it could be absolutely essential coverage, or even an important status-category move (although I'm iffier on those).
 
Last edited:
Revision time

Tank + Poor Defensive Typing

I already mentioned how tanks tended to sacrifice speed in order to tank big hits and dish them back out, so I'll instead take this time to expand on the contradiction better. In order to determine what constitutes as a "poor defensive typing", we need to ask ourselves 3 questions. How many weaknesses does that typing have? Where are they? And are any of them x4 weaknesses? As mark6870 mentioned, we should be looking at type combinations that have multiple and/or oppressive weaknesses, and thus require more deliberate play.

Once again, let's look at Rhydon's Rock/Ground typing; this time in more detail. It has not only one, but two x4 weaknesses in Water and Grass. Of those, Water is easily the more oppressive of the two, as it was never bad when it was first released and would only get better with the addition of Rain and a reliable setter. And if that wasn't enough, you have additional weaknesses in Ice, Fighting and, ironically, its own Ground-typing. (Steel doesn't count since it wasn't around at the time of Rhydon's big debut.) Yet despite all that, it saw competitive play back in RBY since it had just the right resistances to keep Zapdos at bay, and could therefore use it as a switch-in to unleash Rock/Ground's true selling point; it's offensive prowess.
 
Because I wanted to kinda rearrange this idea a bit in lieu of the new guidelines and because I sorta liked the intention of it when I saw it originally, I want to throw in Wallbreaker + Coverage-reliant or Wallbreaker + Wall-oriented typing.

This contradiction was originally worded as being "bad STABs" and while I do think that's an intrinsic component of this angle, I think the main issue I have with this wording is that it makes the CAP in question appear more focused around the STAB combination itself when I think contradictory wallbreakers should instead focus more on the defensive applications of the typing. Phrasing it as being more coverage-reliant helps create a bit more of a defensive focus on the typing as opposed to being us trying to just find a STAB combination that's bad specifically, which would make for a more intuitive process in the typing stage and the process in general while also creating a bit more of a dynamic dialogue about the role defense plays in offense.

That being said, I think this concept has a propensity to be far more interesting with more defensively oriented contradictions, such as those centered around walling, and so while I do support those moreso, I think for the sake of having a slate that has a bit more variety, throwing in something like this would be worth the salt.
 
Gonna give the good, the bad, and my submission.
Iron Crusher said:
Wall + Traditional Offensive Wallbreaker Stats
Click to expand...
I find this to essentially be our most fruitful path if we wanted to go for stats as a contradiction. Past generations and lower tiers have given examples of this, from Specially Defensive Scizor to Poison Heal Breloom. Exploring how a wall can work with comparatively low bulk, potentially paired with an offensive stat that makes a singular offensive move hard to stomach, would be such a fascinating process and a very fun final product. I imagine such a mon would want to capitalize on resists to get in but would be seriously compromised when taking a strong neutral hit. How we would navigate that would be interesting to see.
ausma said:
Wallbreaker + Coverage-reliant or Wallbreaker + Wall-oriented typing
Click to expand...
My favorite offensive combinations of those submitted to this point. I imagine this would not be something which doesn’t run STABs, but that its STABs would have specific holes in its coverage that non-STAB moves would seek to fill. I also appreciate how this comes with the side effect of putting a slightly more defensive focus on typing, even when not the typing-based process. We’ve had coverage monsters before, but usually they result in sweepers with insanely wide movepools best I can tell (Magearna says hello). This also could actually be a good opportunity for a monotype Pokémon, which CAP has not done in quite some time. Pretty fun.
sun_dew said:
Weather/Terrain Setter + Typing Contradiction.
Click to expand...
I’m really not into this one. Rain and especially Sun have worthwhile setters in this meta, whereas only Misty and Grassy Terrain feel like they have merit. Also doesn’t help that this does not really give any direction as to how the Pokémon will play; once the field is set, then what? Just feels like not enough options to go forward without making the process much more linear than it should be, sorry.

As for my own submission, while I do largely prefer making CAP35 a Wall, I think the path of Wallbreaker + Low Base Power Moves could prove an interesting task. To be clear, I’m defining “low” as less than or equal to an effective 80 base power. While Pokémon exist which rely on moves of this strength, most notably Dragapult’s Specs Shadow Ball, a lot of low power moves have interesting effects which could make a Wallbreaker that utilizes them quite unique, from using Freeze Dry for breaking open bulky Waters who otherwise would be safe from Ice-type moves to using Poison Fang to fish for Toxic to using Leech Life to deal damage while keeping the user healthy. There are also more ways to compensate for low power than simply absurd stats; a strong STAB combination, immense coverage, and an ability that boosts certain moves in the Pokémon’s kit are all tools available to us in crafting a Wallbreaker that is stronger than the sum of its parts.
 
Setup Sweeper + Setdown Moves

This is a fairly simple one, and one that has seen significant use across the generations almost entirely due to a pair of dragons. The goal of this archetype is to use setup moves to boost your power enough that an incredibly strong move that lowers (special) attack can get a KO, switch out, and then sweep with your proper counter dead. Latios and Latias both have ran CM/Draco/Psyshock or Surf/Recover across basically every single gen they're legal in. With that said, examples that aren't either of the two are relatively rare. Is this a function of their specific typing, and how Dragon lacks high BP attacks without drawbacks? Is it just because of their uniquely insane statlines? How can we extend this to mons that are dissimilar to the twins. Does this make sense to do on a physical mon, even if the only option is Superpower?

Cleaner + No Coverage

This is one I've been thinking about before. Most cleaners we've seen as of late are either reliant on STABs with very broad coverage by themselves, see Dragapult's ability to hit every pokemon for at least neutral with its STABs barring Kingambit and Tera-Fairy Garg, Deoxys-Speed with its absurd coverage, Iron Valiant doing much the same, or Weavile with STABS that hit basically everything barring 3 mons neutrally. What if we made a Cleaner that fundamentally cannot hit neutrally a significant number of mons. Does this increase the power level we're allowed to hit given that we're likely a fairly fast mon? What tools would we have to deny? What examples do we have already of this?
 
Last edited:
Hi, my suggestion for you all to consider is Utility + Poor Defensive Typing .

When I say Utility, I'm thinking of something like what the "SV OU Role Compendium" has: https://www.smogon.com/forums/threads/sv-ou-role-compendium.3713852/
Something like a hazard remover, or a cleric, or another sub-role.

One reason behind this, is because the recent CAPs seem be oriented around Offensive mindsets. And my suggestion could be different than that.
Hemogoblin and Chuggalong are both big Offensive threats to account for in builder, with some Wallbreaking tools, as well as tools to help against opposing Offense (wallbreaking STABs, Stored Power, speed control / PixelSpeed & Armor Tail).
And Cresceidon, in my view, has primarily a walling role to help deal with opposing Offensive mons, especially Hyper Offense I think.

So instead, I think it could be interesting to design a mon that primarily supports its team via utility, to help win against teams that focus more on Defensive strategies (such as hazard stacking or status spreading).

///

Regarding the poor defensive typing:
The existing mons in CAP that are good at providing utility, have either immunities or few weaknesses.
How can poor defensive typing be " targeting "counterintuitive" or even "unexpected" aspects rather than "flawed" " ?

Well, the typing with lack of immunities, lack of resistances, and many weaknesses tend to have an upside to them - their STABs are super effective versus the typing with immunities / good defensive profiles.
Also, moves belonging to these poor defensive typings tend to have extra effects that can overwhelm a defensive strategy, or keep momentum at the least.

Possibly combining a STAB with few resistances and a coverage attack, this mon can just have enough to minimize the longevity of opposing Defense to keep coming in to reset their strategies.

///

As suggested by others previously, I would also caution against using ability to drastically improve the typing ... it would seem anti-concept to me.
There very well could be things I'm not considering with this, so any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!
 
I have been thinking about roles in other tiers and thought about Iron Bundle:iron bundle:, so I present you

Wallbreaker + Only STABs and few reliable moves

Forgetting about its usage (usually Flutter Mane takes the spot of special wallbreaker), Iron Bundle has a combination of good offensive stats, amazing speed but has only STABs as their most reliable moves, and would be even worse if Freeze Dry wasn't there. As such, it sometimes uses the Speed not for offense, but for support, like really fast Taunts or Icy Wind.

A Pokémon that depends on STABs or low attacking moves would be interesting to explore as CAPs tend to have a lot of options to choose from, restricting this could be a very interesting exploration in OU.
 
Last edited:
Wall + Self-Harming Ability

As I said in a previous post, Walls commonly have abilities that either fit their playstyle perfectly, or at the very least, don't intrude on that playstyle in any way. So what if, instead of helping with the mon's longevity, their ability limited how long they could stay on the field? How could said mon have the efficiency needed to make up for its inability to stay as long as other walls? Basically, this idea includes any abilities that either cut into the user's HP, lower their defenses in some way, make them weaker to enemy attacks, or in some way make it so that staying on the field for than a couple of turns is difficult. This idea interests me because it asks us to make a wall that can't waste the opponent's time like other walls can, and instead has to resort to more assertive ways of stopping the opposition's offense.
 
Last edited:
I would say the two that I would love to see is a Wall + No Recovery, or a Cleaner + No STABs.

For a Wall + No Recovery, this may end up looking a lot like Ting-Lu or Dondozo, which we may want to steer away of. However, making a wall that relies on a wish-passer seems really fun, if a bit impractical. I think it could be nice for the meta to have a wall without recovery that doesn't work in the hazardstack/stall gameplans that Ting-Lu and Dondozo fall into, but instead works on something closer to Balance or Bulky Offense.


I think the more interesting of these by far is a Cleaner + No STABs. I've seen a lot of people suggesting a cleaner with only STABs, but that reminds me too much of Pokemon such as Weavile (yes, it gets fighting moves, but no, it doesn't deal any damage with them) or Venomicon-Epilogue. However, I don't think there's a single Pokemon that doesn't really use at least one of its STABs to deal damage in the current OU metagame- besides maybe Blissey, but that's about as far from a traditional cleaner as you can get.

The main problem with this design is that it could very easily just turn into a stat stick with no real identity; sort of like how Chromera is now. I don't think that it and Chromera will be too similar, but it is good to keep in mind the mistakes in the Chromera process when building this one.

I think this also allows for a lot of creativity. For example, would we give it a defensive type to compensate for its supposed lack of offenses? Or would we stick to something that typically would be offensive, but give it defensive types' coverage (e.g. poison and steel coverage on a fire and ground type)? What ability would work for it? I think this idea could be very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Hey guys! After a very tumultuous discussion on what exactly a contradiction entails, and a confusing start to the combo submissions, followed by a healthy bounce back, the TLT have talked it over and come to a consensus on what to slate, so here it is!

Wall + Offensive Stats
Wall + No Reliable Recovery
Wall + Typing Contradiction
Cleaner + No Coverage
Wallbreaker + Dedicated Defensive Typing
Setup Sweeper + Setdown Moves

The 6 that have been slated are fairly straightforward, so no need to dive into an explanation, but each one has been explicitly supported not only here, but in Discord as well. I am happy with this and excited to see what direction y'all wanna go. So with that...

EEiSM4.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top