CAP 30 - Part 1 - Concept Submissions

Not open for further replies.


CAP 1v1 me IRL
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
The Concept will be a guiding force throughout the ensuing project and will be the manner in which we can provide structure and focus to our framework and ensure that the final results will be two cohesive competitive Pokemon formes. Any discussions, suggestions, or submissions in later topics, that do not support the spirit of the Concept, will be moderated by the Topic Leader, Wulfanator. Concepts must be presented as high-level descriptions of a general idea. They cannot be detailed Pokemon designs. Since we have polls to determine each aspect of the Pokemon, we cannot allow any specific features of the Pokemon to be determined by the details of the Concept. We intentionally have many rules regarding Concept Submissions. If you are not prepared to read and understand all the rules, then don't bother making a submission. These rules are made to help narrow the field of concepts down to those that have been carefully designed. This is not meant to be easy for everyone -- a good, legal Concept requires a lot of thought and careful wording. The following rules must be followed when submitting a Concept:
  • Concepts must work with the mechanics laid out in Pokemon Sword/Shield. A concept that requires a custom ability, move, or other element that cannot be found on a Pokemon from Sword or Shield is not allowed. A concept must be feasible with the gameplay mechanics that are currently available. A concept MAY reference Pokemon unique to the CAP metagame, but the concept must be able to be fulfilled by a creation with access to only GameFreak created abilities, moves, etc. In short, "no customs." We are using GameFreak's toolbox.
  • One submission per person. You may change your concept any time before submissions close. If editing your concept, please edit the original post instead of posting a new revision. Do not bump your Concept after you have posted it. If people do not comment on it, so be it.
  • Do not duplicate or closely-resemble Concepts already posted by others. It is your responsibility to read through all previous submissions in this thread to ensure you are complying with this rule. If you choose to change your concept's fundamental premise, you forfeit your current claim to this concept, and it is still your responsibility that you are not duplicating someone else's concept. Ignorance or laziness is not an excuse.
  • Specific Pokemon types or type combos cannot be included or excluded in a Concept. Nor can other characteristics of the Concept specifically result in in the inclusion or exclusion of Types. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
    "This is a Dragon pokemon with..." "The pokemon should be immune to Ghost attacks..." "The pokemon should have at least 7 resistances..." "The pokemon should get STAB on Thunderbolt.."
  • Specific Abilities are not allowed. This applies to existing abilities and new abilities. Do not attempt to circumvent this rule by mentioning specific battle effects that can only be achieved by the implementation of an ability. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
    "This pokemon should have a defensive ability like Intimidate or Marvel Scale..." "This pokemon has an ability that steals the opponent's held item..." "When this pokemon is switched in, all weather conditions are nullified..."
  • Movepools or lists of moves are not allowed. A specific move can be mentioned if it is the basis for the entire concept. For example, the Concept "Rapid Spinner" would obviously mention the move Rapid Spin.
  • Specific stat bias, base stats, or base stat ratings are not allowed. It is acceptable to use descriptive phrases like "fast", "bulky", "strong attacker", etc -- since there are a variety of ways a pokemon can fit those descriptions without specifically requiring certain stats. But, do not use overly-specific descriptions that would narrowly constrain the pokemon's base stat spread.
  • Indications of Physical/Special bias are discouraged, but acceptable if it is essential to the Concept.
  • Do not refer to any part of the pokemon's artistic design. For example, the following phrases would be illegal:
    "This is a bright blue pokemon..." "The pokemon looks like a..." "The pokemon uses its long tail to..."
  • A Concept Submission must be submitted in the proper format. The format is described below. If the proper format is not used, the moderators will not evaluate the submission, regardless of content.
  • Concept Submissions will be open for 5 days or 120 Hours after this post, unless otherwise specified by the Topic Leader.
Concept Submission Format Use this format for all concept submissions: Here is the format with tags. Just copy/paste this into your post, and fill it out:
  • Name - Don't get too clever with the name. If the essence of the concept is not intuitively obvious in the name, then you are hurting your chances of people understanding it. If the essence of your concept cannot be expressed in a few words, then you need to seriously re-evaluate your concept.
  • Description - This is the official description of the concept, and must follow ALL the content rules listed above. Do not make this a long description. Long descriptions are invariably too specific or too convoluted. Keep it short. Any more than a sentence or two is TOO MUCH. Do NOT include your Explanation of the concept in the Description. See "Explanation" below.
  • Justification- Utilizing the CAP Concept Toolkit, craft a concept that can fit into at least one of the following categories: Actualization, Archetype, or Target. Please explicitly state the category names as applicable to your specific justification and explain.
    • Actualization: What is the feeling your Concept Pokemon INSPIRES when used properly in the metagame, do existing Pokemon come close to that, and why or why not?
    • Archetype: What does your Concept Pokemon DO - functionally - in the metagame, and why does the metagame need something with that role? Use Smogon's Pokemon Dictionary to assist with role definitions.
    • Target: What does your Concept Pokemon ADDRESS in the metagame, and why is addressing that target important?
  • If you cannot justify your concept utilizing one (or more) of the three tools above, then your concept is illegal for the CAP project. (More at the end of the OP)
  • Questions To Be Answered - The purpose of the CAP project is to learn new things about the metagame, and each concept submission is a proposed "experiment". Each tool has its own specific set of questions, but good concepts often can explain other facets of competitive Pokemon. Use this section to pose those additional questions. Note that this is different from Justification where you are answering tool-related questions, in this section you are proposing questions.
  • Explanation - This can contain just about anything. This is where you can explain your concept without restraint. You may make suggestions, even specific suggestions, regarding the possible implementation of the Concept. This explanation should help facilitate discussion of the Concept -- but the Explanation is NOT part of the Concept and will be omitted from the polls and any future use of the Concept. Since your explanation is non-binding, regarding future polls and threads, it will not be evaluated for purposes of determining if your concept is legal or illegal. Although it is tempting, refrain from making too long of an explanation; it will deter readers from fully considering your concept.
It is the submitter's responsibility to figure out how to make a legal submission within the rules listed above. Do not complain about the difficulty of making a submission in this thread. There are many, many legal concepts that can be presented within the rules. Here are few examples of good and bad Concepts from previous projects:

Good Concepts from Past Projects
"Pure Utility Pokemon"
"Anti-Ghost Rapid Spinner"
"True Garchomp Counter"
"Ultimate Weather Abuser"
"Status Counter"

Bad Concepts from Past Projects
"Ice-Resisting Dragon"
"Super Luck User"
"STAB Explosion Glass Cannon"
"Auto-Stealth Rock Remover"
"A Pokemon with Special Intimidate"
"Pyrokinetic Pokemon (Fire/Psychic)"
"Special Guts"
"Typing Means Nothing"

Note that all good concepts do not specifically dictate anything in later polls. Please try to remember that we are simply pointing the project in a general direction, we are not trying to decide anything right now. We have several weeks of polls ahead of us where EVERYTHING about this Pokemon will be dissected, discussed, voted, and decided. The concept is a very basic guide for the creation process. It is hard to provide solid concept descriptions without basically designing the entire Pokemon right off the bat. Submissions should be written and chosen very carefully to avoid these problems.

Past Projects and Concept Toolbox:
Stratagem (Break The Mold), Tomohawk (Momentum) and Kitsunoh (Ultimate Scout) were great examples of an Actualization concept. Most of the "teammate" concepts (Voodoom and Volkraken) also broadly fell under this, actualizing a core that would change the metagame. The lion's share of CAP Concepts in the past have been Actualization concepts.

Fidgit (Pure Utility Pokemon) and Naviathan (Use the Boost to Get Through!) are examples of successful Archetype projects. We didn't have concepts at the time of Revenankh, but "Ultimate Bulk Up Sweeper" fits the definition of an Archetype concept.

Arghonaut (Decentralizer) and Colossoil (Stop the Secondary) are the best examples of previous successful Target projects, Arghonaut's was literally based around re-centering the metagame, while Colossoil's purpose was to target the most common users of status and secondary effects. Malaconda's concept (Type Equalizer) was also at its base a Target project.

CAP 30 So Far
Last edited:


Clefable's wish came true!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributor
Hey all! With our framework selected and the remainder of the seats on the TLT filled, it is time to open concept submissions. I am looking forward to reading through the directions you think we can take the two forms permitted by our framework. Please remember that concept submissions must apply to both forms, similar to how the starters shared the same concept for CAP 25.

Given that one of our creations will be item-locked, I would also like concept submissions to include a recommendation in their explanation as to when we ought to have a discussion covering our item. While not mandatory, it will help the TLT and mod team determine an appropriate time to hold that conversation. We will be looking at covering the effects of our item before the stats stage. Whether we hold it with concept assessment, postpone it until after ability, or have it somewhere in between is still up in the air. Please refrain from suggesting specific effects. I am solely interested as to when we should discuss our item.

As a bit of housekeeping, it would probably be best to establish a naming convention for both forms to mitigate confusion. For the sake of clarity, lets refer to the base form as 30 and the other form as 30i (30-item).

Lastly, I wanted to clearly state that I will be leaning on the TLT to help me in the creation of the concept slate. I will have final say over what appears on the slate, but I respect the opinions of my team and will be using that to better refine the options selected. With that out of the way, hit me with your best ideas!
Last edited:
(Re)submitting Pipotchi's concept from CAP25, with permission and some revisions.

Name - First Come, First Served

Description - Each form will explore a different method of speed control, or allowing you and/or your team to move first.

Justification - This is mostly an Archetype concept, although the category exists in a more lateral way than most - the role of "speed control" can manifest in many different ways and can be anything from fully supportive to fully defensive to maximum offense.

Questions To Be Answered -
  • What are the most viable forms of speed control? Why do they stand out in the metagame?
  • What are the underused forms of speed control? What are their unique merits? If they have fallen off in usage compared to the recent past, why is this?
  • How do opposing forms of speed control interact? Is there a pyramid or cyclic nature as to how different methods of speed beat each other?
  • What is the importance of speed? What value does moving first give for different team compositions?
  • Because both forms must share their typing and movepools, what measures need to be taken to help differentiate the two forms? If priority moves (attacking or status) are selected, how do we prevent one form from pushing out the other?
Explanation -
Moving first has always been an important part of Pokemon and has changed every generation. This generation has lead to an interesting upheaval, as not only have a number of very fast Mega Evolutions disappeared, the number of Choice Scarf users has notably fallen off, with only a few opting to run the item. One of the best Pokemon, if not the best Pokemon, in the tier is Dragapult, which, among other excellent traits, boasts a blistering 142 speed that is heads and shoulders above anything else in the metagame. Zeraora is right above it, at base 143 speed, and also sits at a very high place in the metagame. Rillaboom has brought a powerful new brand of priority in Grassy Terrain-boosted Grassy Glide. Meanwhile, other priority users like Mega Medicham and Mega Lopunny have disappeared, and Pokemon like Tapu Lele and Prankster Tomohawk, while still good, have fallen off compared to the past.
I think this sets the stage well to explore the complex relationship between the various methods of moving first, and this generation is certainly an interesting environment to do it in. The wide variety of speed control methods pairs well with the chosen framework, since it allows us to explore two different methods of speed control, and there is plenty of room within the restrictions to distinguish the two forms. In doing so, we could engage with some of the largest threats in the metagame, or we could look at roads that are not so prominent at the moment, like Prankster, Psychic Terrain, certain forms of priority moves, or even niche options like Sticky Web and Trick Room.
Last edited:
  • Name - Weather/Terrain Power
  • Description - This cap would prefer/set a certain weather condition or terrain in each form.
  • Justification - This concept would be Actualization as it tries to answer what makes a weather or terrain play-style good and what the overlap is. Heliolisk is a Pokémon that tries to fit this role and fails. Additionally there are very few Pokémon that fully take advantage of terrain like most weather based Pokémon take advantage of weather.
  • Questions To Be Answered -
    • What typing would lend itself to two different weather/terrain play-styles?
    • What moves are crucial for a weather/terrain based Pokémon without overloading the move pool?
    • Are moves such as Weather Ball and Terrain Pulse crucial for a Pokemon like this?
    • Is it better to set up your own weather like Tyranitar or to have a more offensive ability but need a weather setter like Excadrill?
    • What moves or abilities are crucial for a weather or terrain play-style to work properly?
    • Is the terrain based play-style inferior to the weather based one, or are there just fewer abusers of terrains?
  • Explanation - I love the idea of a viable Pokémon that can make use of two weather conditions or terrains wile sharing a typing and move pool. Some terrains and weathers have obvious synergy such as Grassy Terrain and Sun, or Electric Terrain and Rain.
    • Pokémon like Alolan Sandslash and Aurorus have a typing that lends itself to two weathers, but not much else. If a ice/rock type could set up hail or sand for itself it could be very impressive. And as this mon gets a signature item, the item could give it 50% defense in hail. It now can decide between special bulk on a sand team, or physical bulk on a hail team.
    • Pokémon like Heliolisk offer a unique set of abilities, but fall short. Heliolisk has abilities for all weather except hail. It can technically work in any of the three weathers, but it’s horrid in all three. One reason for this is it’s typing. Stab thunder is nice in Rain, but that’s all it has going for it. An electric/grass type that can switch between chlorophyll/solar beam and swift swim/thunder would be interesting. Cool abilities mean little when the typing and moves don’t compliment them.
    • Moves such as Surge Surfer and Grassy Pelt have seen very little use. Trying to make this abilities more used would be fun. Adding terrain to the idea also means there could be fun interactions like a Steel type that can work in Sand, or set up terrain just to destroy it with a strong stab Steel Roller.
Last edited:


CAP 1v1 me IRL
is a Community Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Resubmitting my CAP 27 concept with some revisions to account for the multiple formes

Name: Role Compress to Impress

Description: Both forms embody the term 'role compression' by fulfilling a range of roles that teams commonly require.

Justification: This concept is an Actualization concept because it aims to create two Pokemon that can viably fulfil certain roles that teams require. While there are already some Pokemon that successfully compress roles, this concept will allow for further exploration into what roles are vital to teams, and how they can be best condensed together through typing, ability and moveset choices. There is also an element of being a Target concept as the roles that CAP 30 will be compressing will be specific to the demands of the metagame. In addition, as far as being part of a framework with multiple Pokemon formes, this concept can also aim at compressing different roles together at once in order to help both be viable in the metagame.

Questions to be answered:

What are some of the major roles that Pokemon teams in the CAP meta rely on in the current meta?
What roles in the CAP meta are currently lacking viable users and are subsequently unviable? Would these roles be important to teams if there were viable picks in either of CAP30's formes?
What are some roles that would suit CAP 30's (Item) forme considering it will be unable to be Knocked Off, how much more utility is needed here?
Are there certain roles that will only be viable when combined with others?
Are there certain roles that by their nature cannot be condensed together within one Pokemon?
How many roles can one Pokemon viably fulfil? Is there a point when the Pokemon becomes a jack-of-all-trades but master of none?
Does an offensive or defensive leaning Pokemon best compress roles more than the other?
Which teams and partners will benefit from having a pokemon that compresses a range of roles together? Which Pokemon may see less usage?
Should both formes try to compress different roles in order to avoid direct competition? Is this possible considering that they will share a typing?
Considering that both Pokemon will share a moveset, what can be done to meaningfully differentiate the role compression that they offer?
Will having two new Pokemon that compress certain roles lead to more or less diversity in rosters?

Explanation: Over the duration of the Pokemon Sword and Shield metagame we have seen a variety of major changes to the competitive roster of Pokemon in OU, and subsequently the metagame with it, with the loss of some major moves and Pokemon until their gradual reinclusion in the Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra metagames. Throughout the metagames a range of successful Pokemon have thrived as a result of the role compression they offered for teams, with various examples such as Seismitoad and Mollux being previously unviable Pokemon that rose up the ranks of CAP SS in the pre-DLC meta and then dropping once again with the return of better role-compressers in Tangrowth, Slowbro, Slowking and Heatran to name a few. Currently we can also see Pokemon such as Buzzwole, Scizor and Dragonite who have been previously unviable as a result of competition in other metagames being able to return to CAP as effective tanky picks as a result of offering some premium resists, good bulk, priority, hazard removal, recovery and in the case of Dragonite, clerical moves. By compressing roles in this way, these Pokemon have effectively opened up room for more varied teambuilding choices, as less slots in the team need to be dedicated to fitting certain roles.

Another factor that makes this an interesting concept to explore is the fact that both of CAP 30's formes will share the same typing and moveset means that there is a lot to be answered in regards to the matter of attempting to compress different roles with the same toolkit. Furthermore the fact that CAP 30 (Item) will be unable to lose its item and therefore be almost completely unique as a Knock Off absorber naturally provides some premium utility and team compression. Giratina and Giratina Origin, of whom inspired the concept, already demonstrate some of the interesting aspects and considerations for this concept in Ubers, with both compressing the utility options of Will-O-Wisp, Defog and the immunities afforded by their Ghost typings to great success. Nevertheless, there is still significant differentiation between them, with Giratina Origin's Levitate ability allowing it to see use as a dedicated check to Groudon and its more offensive stat bias allowing for strong priority in Shadow Sneak, in comparison to Giratina Altered's additional bulk encouraging the use of Rest, Toxic and Roar for additional utility over the course of the game. There is an inherent amount of flexibility to this project, and it will likely require as part of the concept assessment, an overarching guide of what archetypes both of CAP 30's formes will be compressing so as to inform the subsequent typing, moveset and ability stages. The roles that the two Pokemon will be able to achieve will naturally evolve with the project during these stages, but having a few specific ones at the forefront will guide discussion immensely, and will be instrumental in helping to decide what type of Item that CAP 30 (Item) should be carrying.
Last edited:


skill issue
is a Site Content Manageris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Community Leaderis a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
GP Co-Leader
Name: Get It How You Want It

Description: Both formes can provide the same utility effectively, but each forme differs in the methods that they can provide the utility and what Pokemon it may affect.

Justification: This would be considered an Actualization concept. Teambuilding with CAP30 would be unique compared to other Pokemon because while the utility provided by CAP30 and CAP30i may be desired for a team, either forme can be chosen based on which one would be better fit for the team as a whole.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • What type of utility should both CAP30 and CAP30i be able to utilize effectively in general?
  • How would the aspects of CAP30 and CAP30i (stats, abilities, etc.) that change between each forme differ in a way that would allow them to provide their utility in different manners?
  • How would the aspects of CAP30 and CAP30i that stay the same between each forme be crafted in a way so that both formes would be desirable fairly equally?
  • How would the roles differ between CAP30 and CAP30i (i.e. act as a defensive Defogger or offensive Defogger, etc.)?
  • How would the differences between CAP30 and CAP30i be crafted in a way that their utility would be able to affect different Pokemon? Should both formes share a relatively similar pool of Pokemon they can affect, or should the pool of Pokemon be vastly different between them?
  • How would CAP30i's requirement to hold a specific item affect its differences from CAP30?
  • How should we define the term "utility" in context of this concept?
Explanation: When you're building a team and need a certain type of utility, the decision to choose one out of two Pokemon that can provide the same utility effectively would most likely be based on the method in which it provides it. For example, let's say your team requires a Defogger, and you've narrowed it down to two Pokemon that can provide that utility. However, one performs it in an offensive style, while the other performs it in an defensive style. If your team is already fairly covered defensive but lack strong offensive presence, you may be inclined to pick the offensive Defogger; if your team is already pretty offensive but doesn't have much defensive backbone, you may choose the defensive Defogger instead. Funnily enough, Giratina and Giratina-O are able to run Defog in SM Ubers effectively, but thanks to their differences, they provide that utility differently. Giratina provides Defog support effectively thanks to its great bulk, while Giratina-O approaches its way of entry hazard removal in a more offensive way, threatening out certain Pokemon with its powerful attacks to grant it a free turn to use Defog. In other words, Giratina and Giratina-O can provide teams with the same utility in Defog but have different pathway in which they can provide it, and one may be chosen between the two thanks to its more desirable attributes (stats, abilities, etc.); this is what this concept plans to achieve for CAP30 and CAP30i.
Last edited:


Master Procraster
is a CAP Contributor
Name: Not All Dragons Are Dragon-type

Description: A Pokémon that emulates the attributes and archetypes of a certain typing without being said typing.

Justification: This fits squarely into both Actualization and Archetype. This concept focuses on inspiring discussion into typings and also the options and patterns of the mons with said typings that are effective, and asks how we can seek to mimic these elements without being said typing completely. The role of the CAP would be extremely dependent on what type is actually chosen to mimic, but regardless it creates a mon with a unique role since it is not necessarily bound to the same pitfalls of the chosen typing and can function on its own.

Questions To Be Answered:
  • How large of a role does typing play in forging a Pokemon's viability in the current metagame in comparison to other elements like ability, stats, and movepool?
  • Do certain typings naturally fall into specific roles and archetypes? If so, why is this the case?
  • How do moves affect a type's archetype? Are there moves commonly distributed among certain types that effect the role that these Pokemon provide?
  • Which would be easier for a different type to emulate: a type's defensive capabilities, or a type's offensive coverage?
  • How much of a typing's natural attributes should be emulated by this CAP? Should they seek to emulate the weaknesses of the typing or is it more important for this process to emulate just the strengths?
  • While still focused on emulating a typing, how much should the actual typing of the CAP be able to stand apart from the chosen typing to emulate?
  • Is it more viable as a process for CAP30 and CAP30i to emulate completely different types, or for them to instead emulate one typing in two seperate ways?


This mostly spurred from a joke line in Pokemon Masters referring to Lance, where when asked about why his team isn't actually a mono-dragon team, he boldly proclaims "Not All Dragons Are Dragon-type!" It was meant as a joke, but it led to the thought on how would you actually make a Pokemon function like a Dragon-type without actually being like a Dragon-type, and later into this concept proper.

CAP is of course no stranger to doing weird stuff with typings, dating as far back as Stratagem by turning the natural archetype of Rock-types on its head, then Mollux through its use of a poor typing, and finally Crucibelle by using an undervalued one effectively (and being a Mega at the time). Where I think this concept differs is a specific focus on trying to make on typing work similarly to a different typing, as it spurs discussion into what makes certain Pokemon and types fall certain ways in terms of their role in the metagame. What I mean by "archetypes" is a bit dubious in how they are cetagorized, so a few examples are in order.
  • Fast Electric-type, usually utilizing some form of pivoting move such as Volt Switch (Zeraora, Tapu Koko, Krilowatt)
  • Bulky Water-type, usually offering a form of utility and very commonly using Scald (Slowking, Toxapex, Arghonaut)
  • Flying-types, utilizing their Ground-type immunity and pivoting moves to act as pivots, and usually have access to Defog for addition usage (Zapdos, Tornadus-T, Landorus-T, Corviknight)
Generally I think it offers a somewhat challenging concept to look at, as it looks at what makes a type good in some areas, and sees how other typing could attempt to achieve similar success in those areas by directly emulating them.
Last edited:
Name: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Description: This Pokémon's forms will use the same defining moves in different ways depending on what ability they have.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept. The goal of this concept is to make a pokemon that can utilize the same defining moves with 2 different abilities that interact directly with said defining moves. In the case of this framework, the ability pair will be split between the pokemons two forms.

Questions to be asked:
  • Since this pokemon is expected to have two sets, how can we make both viable without making them too unpredictable?
  • What pokemon in this or prior metas used multiple abilities and sets successfully?
  • How do we prevent one ability from being exclusively used over the other?
  • How do abilities change the way certain mechanics and moves are utilized? Which of these interactions is most interesting and rewarding to highlight?
  • How is set variety seen in the current meta? At what point does a pokemon's unpredictability become too much? Have there been examples of this limit before?
  • How does a pokemon's ability change what team archetypes it's used in? What are some examples of pokemon whose ability changes what their team is like?
  • What implications does this concept have on the order of the CAP process? Have we learned anything from previous processes that might help us with this one?
  • How do different forms affect the way this CAP can interact with its abilities? how does a required item on one form both limit us and allow for more creativity ability-wise?

Explanation: Many pokemon, CAP’s especially, can utilize two abilities competitively. This is oftentimes helped by having a wide movepool and using different moves and items between the two abilities. However,this concept aims to instead create a CAP that uses the same moves between two different abilities by using abilities that utilize the same mechanics. Specifically, the defining moves interact with the ability, rather than simply being good moves. Some Examples of these ability pairs include Sheer Force/Serene Grace and Tough Claws/Long Reach.
Last edited:


En Aften Ved Svanefossen
is an official Team Rateris a Top Social Media Contributoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Top Contributor
Name: Booster Beware

Description: This Pokemon uses Spectral Thief to check setup sweepers and/or begin its own sweep.

Justification: This is an Archetype concept. Spectral Thief is, unquestionably, an incredibly strong move. It has the capability to be a huge momentum swing, nullifying the sweep of the opponent. Additionally, Spectral Thief can act as a strong win condition.

  • In CAP, we normally build up, saving our power budget for particular stages. This concept would require us to use "subtractive building" due to Spectral Thief's inherent strength.
  • How does Spectral Thief alter the playstyle of stat-boosting sweepers over the course of a game?
  • What can be learned from the only other user of Spectral Thief: Marshadow?
  • Would a CAP that performed a similar, offensive role to Marshadow be balanced in the metagame?
  • What other roles could a Spectral Thief user perform on a team other than sweeper?

Spectral Thief is an incredibly unique move. It essentially combines a passable physical attack with Heart Swap. The only user of the move, Marshadow, has been locked away in Ubers since its release, so we have little way to know how a move like Spectral Thief would play out on a competent user in the CAP metagame. Additionally, due to only Marshadow having access to the move, Spectral Thief is unexplored as a tool on mons that do not mimic Marshadow's offensive sweeping/breaking roles. It is entirely possible, and probable, that Spectral Thief could work on a number of roles. Additionally, I don't think typing is necessarily locked in as part Ghost. There is significant, unexplored utility with Spectral Thief that I think would lead to a unique and informative process.
Last edited:
Name: Don’t judge me by the color of my Type

This Pokémons defensive and/or offensive function are not largely defined by its typing.
One, some or all of its other competitive traits (ability, stats, moves) minimize the influence of its typing on the way it can be used in battle

Justification: This is an Actualization concept, where we try to identify, why typing is so important to a Pokémon and challenge the idea, that the typing is the most defining aspect of a Pokémons competitive prowess, to create a Pokémon, that doesn’t rely as much on its type, as it does on its other competitive traits, like Blissey, Mew or Butterfree do.
As this is a Framework, that sees to make two competitive Pokémon, we can pursue different avenues to reach this goal.

Questions to be answered:

  • How integral is a Pokémons typing to its function on a team and to its success?
  • How important is the choice of typing, if you want to create a Pokémon, whose typing is not defining for its playstyle?
  • Can a Pokémon be successful, mostly because of other traits than its type?
  • How are Pokémon build, whose other characteristics surpass the importance of their type?
  • Is it even possible to seperate a Pokémons typing from its competitive role?
  • What traits especially lend themselves to outshine the impact of a Pokémons type on its competitiveness?
  • Is it possible to remove the typing entirely from the factors, that make a Pokémon viable?
  • Are there types or typings, that are less impactful to a Pokémons role in their own right?
    • Are these usually neutral or specialized types?
  • Are there types or typings, that will always outshine a Pokémons other competitive traits?
    • Are these usually “excellent”, “neutral” or “bad typings”?

Explanation: Historically CAP has identified Typing as the most defining competitive aspect of (most) Pokémon, as can be seen in the various CAP processes, where the typing was chosen first, to give the Pokémon an „Identity“.
However, there have always been Pokémon, that have traits, which reduce the impact of their typing on their Role in a Game.
Stat Behemoths such as Blissey and Avalugg rely much more on their immense defenses, than on their defensive typing, to check a host of different threats in their respective metas.
Arghonaut, while definitely impacted by Its typing, is able to wall the most threatening sweepers in the tier through a combination of stats and it’s ability unaware, despite of some of those sweepers having super effective STAB moves against it.
Mew has been able to flex into a load of different roles throughout the years - be it defensive, utility or offensive - because of its incredible movepool and good alround stats.
Offensive Pokémon such as Cinderace, Butterfree or Exploud are able to circumvent the shortcomings of their offensive types through powerful abilities and moves.

I want to note here, that this concept isn’t meant to lead to a Pokémon, that works entirely in spite of its typing.
Actually I do believe, that that would be exactly opposite to what I propose, as a bad typing certainly will have an exaggerated role in a Pokémons viability.
But I don’t think I should have the last say in that, which is why this is a question, that should be answered through community discussion.

Also since this framework gives us the opportunity to create two Pokémon, we have the opportunity to try different routes into this concept and/or to make this task a bit easier.
Typing is always essential to any Pokémon so being able to split this into I.e. a mon that performs a defensive role through its ability, stats and moves and one offensive mon that isn’t defined by its STABS, takes a burden off the design process.

Lastly, I think, that the question of what item 30I is supposed to hold, should be answered or at least discussed as early as possible, so that we have time to assess its impact on the competitiveness of the Item changed Form.
Last edited:


protect the wetlands
is a Contributor Alumnus
Name: Duck Fragapult

Description: Each form of this Pokemon is designed to reliably counter or otherwise immensely pressure Dragapult

Justification: This is a Target concept. The target is Dragapult, a top metagame threat and immense source of pressure during teambuilding. We are going to create two forms of Pokemon that can both answer Dragapult.

Questions to be answered:
  • What makes Dragapult so effective in the CAP metagame? Is it more or less effective in CAP than in OU?
  • What is the best aspect to focus on when designing a counter to Dragapult? Typing, stats, abilities, etc?
  • How can both forms counter or otherwise pressure Dragapult, while ideally remaining distinct from each other?
  • What other roles would this Pokemon need to fill to make it usable outside of simply countering Dragapult?
  • Is Dragapult strong enough that players would still build teams with it and find ways to target CAP30, or will they simply stop using Dragapult and find an alternative?
  • Does focusing on a single Pokemon itself have similar metagame impact compared to more broad Target concepts of the past?
  • What impact would the removal of a top, high Speed threat have on the CAP metagame?
  • Why are ghosts so spooky?
Explanation: Dragapult is a high Speed offensive threat and frankly I am done bending over backwards in the teambuilder just to have it drop my Special Defense with Shadow Ball anyways. Target concepts are typically very broad in CAP: Arghonaut, Colossoil, and Malaconda were not focused on specific Pokemon, but rather aspects of the metagame and groups of Pokemon/moves. This concept isn't designed to be as broad, because it doesn't have to be. Dragapult is one of the, if not THE, defining Pokemon of the CAP metagame. We would be making Pokemon that are designed to take advantage of Dragapult's presence, and deny it from making progress in a game.

The nature of this framework allows us more flexibility than usual. There's more than one way to skin a undead Diplocaulus. I think it would be fitting for the framework to make the two forms distinct in how they play and the kinds of teams they fit on. CAP30 should open up new teambuilding options by expanding the roster of Dragapult answers by two. What exactly these roles should be, the kind of team they slot into (HO/balance/etc), and what degree of viability these Pokemon would have outside of addressing a major metagame threat are all topics to be discussed in the concept assessment stage.
Last edited:


put on your headphones and burn my city
is a Top Artistis a Forum Moderatoris a Tiering Contributor

Young God

Description: Take a lower-tier Pokemon that has an interesting CAP niche but generally has no hope in any serious CAP tournament setting, and come up with two ways to "fix it", retaining its niche and general "intent" while also making it CAP-viable.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept; we're actualizing a reinvention of a lower-tier Pokemon that would make it viable in the CAP metagame.

Questions to be asked:
  • How would we identify a niche with genuine potential on an unviable Pokemon vs. an inconsistent gimmick; what specific factors separate those two concepts?
  • If we were to look at a few generally "gimmicky"/unviable-ish Pokemon that have had scattered success in high-level games, are there any common traits that make them unviable?
  • Following up on the above, does the issue with these gimmicky Pokemon generally lie in their lack of versatility, or do they not have the appropriate tools to support their niche? Is it a combination of the above factors? Are there examples of either situation?
  • How do we evaluate the sustainability of a niche; that is, its dependency on meta trends and surprise factors to be effective. (RingTargetTrick+ Regieleki vs Future Sight+Breaker cores are an example of either possibility (albeit an extreme one); both were niche and seen as gimmicky at some point, but one was a shortlived gimmick while the other has a huge impact on the current metagame)
  • How do you "fix" a lower tier mon in 2 decently distinctly different ways when abilities and stat distribution are the only aspects that can differ between them?
Explanation: I'm a self-proclaimed connoisseur of using lower-tier Pokemon in CAP battles (although how Spitfire managed to beat me 3 times in a row with Charjabug will always defeat me). Lots of lower-tier Pokemon do things that no CAP/OU Pokemon can feasibly achieve; however, the fact that theyre usually severely outclassed in all of their other aspects hold them back from serious CAP tournament usage. Mons like Zydog, Persian-Alola, Jellicent, Raikou, Comfey, and Lycan-Dusk are super interesting in the specific thing that they do but are so severely flawed everywhere else that you have to build your entire team around their utility to make any use out of them.

This concept would address these forgotten Pokemon, finding 2 ways to fix one of them and bring it to CAP viability. Through this concept, we'd learn more about the line between unviable and viable, the very concept of niches, and how we can differentiate the utility/gameplan/team merits of 2 pokemon that share the same typing, movepool, and base stat total.
Last edited:

- Dominant Type Swap

Description - This Pokemon's two forms have their primary and secondary typing swapped. Each form's play-style focuses on and takes advantage of the benefits of their dominant type.
Justification - This is an actualization concept, focusing on what strengths each typing can bring, and exploring how a Pokemon makes use of one or both of its types.
Questions to be answered -
  • What roles have different types held throughout the history of the meta-game?
  • What types define a Pokemon's role more than others?
  • How can stats and abilities be used to enhance the strengths of one type over another?
Explaination - Throughout the history of Pokemon, every two-typed Pokemon has their types in a set order. This is often seemingly arbitrary.
Many Pokemon have a duel typing, but seemingly gain little from it other than perhaps a slightly better defensive type. Pokemon like Metagross (Steel), Venusaur (Grass), and Gyarados (Water) are good examples of Pokemon that heavily focus on the traits of their primary type, only occasionally even using their secondary type for coverage. This concept would involve creating similarly primary type focused Pokemon, creating two forms that each heavily focus on one of their two shared types.

Archiving for use in a CAP without an Item limitation
Name - Hidden Potential

Description - These Pokemon are designed to make use of Multi-Attack or Techno Blast, exploring how a Hidden Power-esque move interacts with the modern meta.
Justification - This is an actualization concept, focusing on the use of a niche move. Users of Hidden Power filled a similar niche, but are not present in the SS metagame. This concept explores the strengths and weaknesses of this item based move.
Questions to be answered -
  • What gaps in coverage was Hidden Power used to fill? Are those gaps still relevant in today's meta?
  • What roles work well for a Pokemon with variable coverage? What abilities can help it in those roles?
  • Does such a Pokemon need to match the attack's leaning, or can they work as mixed coverage?
  • How does this Pokemon function with or without a type item? Should the move still be useful after getting its item Knocked Off?
  • Are multiple types viable and/or healthy? Is there a balance between raw power and predictability that needs to be reached?
  • How do different types affect team building? How obvious should the type be from team preview?
  • What is the best way for the alternate form to use it? Should it be locked into a single type based on the chosen hold item, or should it use it as neutral normal coverage akin to Boomburst?
Explanation - Hidden Power has been a staple in the metagame ever since its introduction in Gen 2. Gen 8 is the first gen without this near universal move. This concept is about creating a Pokemon capable of using a similar move.
Multi-Attack is a powerful coverage move, but Silvally is only able to use it with stab. What kind of uses could a Pokemon with a fixed type find for this move? Should this Pokemon ever want stab on Multi-Attack? Should Multi-Attack's usage vary before and after having its memory knocked off?
When originally submitted for CAP 29, I focused entirely on Multi-Attack, but Techno Blast is available again thanks to Crown Tundra, doubling the options. Techno Blast notably has a smaller pool of typings, which potentially makes it less unpredictable.
This concept will naturally have to work differently on the two forms, with one form being able to switch up its items, and one with a fixed item. One of the big ideas for this concept was to see if the Pokemon could function with or without the typing item, and this allows us to explore both modes at once.
Looking at previous users of Hidden Power and how they fared then and now could be a good start. Plasmanta is a good example of a Pokemon that regularly used two different Hidden Powers to shore up its coverage in different ways.
Last edited:
Resubmitting my CAP 29 concept with some updates.

Name: Leading the Charge

Description: A Pokemon designed to generate as much momentum at the start of the match as possible but loses strength the longer the game progresses.

Justification: This concept falls into the Archetype category. The intent is to create a Pokemon that maximizes your chances of victory as early as possible, and that means designing around the idea of a "lead" option. In older generations when your team was anonymous and your starting Pokemon was locked in, the concept of a lead was essential. Team Preview allowed us to rearrange our early game priorities by trying to get an edge based on what we expect the opponent to start with. This concept is about creating a Pokemon that only has significant team value as a reliable and powerful early choice. Both 30/30i can explore different methods of generating early game momentum, whether through establishing utility, strong damage options, setting up a strong switch-in, or other options.

Questions to be Answered:
- Is it possible to create an ideal lead when the opponent has visibility into the strategy up front?
- If a counter prevents CAP 30/30i from fulfilling its function from the start of the battle, is it a wasted team slot?
- What moves have the most value early on in the game?
- What options make a Pokemon lose their ability to contribute later on in a battle?
- Is a dedicated lead only possible if it can run multiple sets to prevent it from being hard countered?
- What is the most effective way to get early kills or deal high damage if the opponent expects you to start with CAP 30?

This concept has it's difficulties that will allow for interesting dialogue and key decision points, particularly around counters and threats, and if the concept of a "lead" can even exist in the current meta. I played competitively more in Gen 4 and Gen 5, and I have strong memories of building teams around the idea of Lead Azelf. At that time, when a lead was anonymous and locked in, how you started the battle was massively important. Not only did it initiate your first set of moves, but it told your opponent a hint about what you were hiding behind the curtain. A concept that reintroduces the idea of core leads to teams and is designed around gaining as much early momentum as possible would be an interesting experiment in our current climate where team anonymity isn't a factor.

I believe it is important for this concept to focus on a Pokemon that struggles to contribute later in the game but has huge value early. The meta currently focuses on Pokemon that can pivot and heal, Miasmaw tried to tackle this, but there are no shortages of Pokemon that bring value in solid defenses, Slack Off/Roost/Softboiled, pivoting moves, Regenerator, etc. The concept would not be to try to prevent these Pokemon from existing, but really creating a viable option that works as a polar opposite. This is an opportunity to develop a Pokemon who is not designed to last, but is designed to have as much of an impact as possible in an immediate burst. There are a number of ways to ensure a Pokemon can't have lasting power, 30i in particular can't take items that will help it survive like Leftovers, Heavy Duty Boots, berries, etc. as well as incentivizing powerful offensive options that carry risks like recoil.

The 30/30i forme split adds a lot to this concept as there are two main ways to generate early game momentum - the use of utility moves like Knock Off, hazards, statuses, etc. that weaken the enemy before they have a chance to take off, and simply starting the game by trying to beat down the opponent through immediate powerful options. I can see each forme focusing on one option for early game momentum generation. I believe the discussion on the 30i item would be best used after the Ability stage and before stats, as we will have used ability to help differentiate our two lead options and the item will compliment there.
Last edited:
WIP (may need a legality check here too)

Name: Gen 4 Remakes

Description: Through an additional step in the CAP Process we vote for one of the concepts chosen for a Gen 4 CAP and reuse that concept for CAP 30.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept as the intent is to inspire a feeling of a modernized CAP for an outdated concept. Of course depending on the concept chosen, this could fit into any 3 of our justification categories as we get more specific.

Questions to be Asked:
  • How does our form change framework help us better execute on an older concept?
  • What are the key learnings from the Gen 4 process that will help us facilitate CAP 30s success in the role?
  • Which Gen 4 concepts are the most relevant in the current CAP metagame?
  • We have updated a lot of the Gen 4 CAP Pokemon, how can we ensure CAP 30 still differentiates from these older concepts?
  • How can we effectively determine which Gen 4 concept to use? Do they need to be polished prior to voting?
Explanation: CAP 30 is already about pushing boundaries and celebrating Pokemon, exploring an older Concept from Gen 4 seems like a perfect way to celebrate the upcoming Gen 4 remakes. The first CAP with a formal concept I could find was Fidgit, so our options really start there. Here's a quick review of older concepts in brief:
  • Fidgit - Pure Utility Pokemon.
  • Stratagem - Break the Mold: An OU viable pokemon that goes completely against the stereotypes of its typing.
  • Arghonaut - Decentralizer: A Pokemon can check a majority of the current top 5 Pokemon.
  • Kitsunoh - Ultimate Scout: A Pokemon that is very capable of forcing the opponent to reveal vital information about their team members and their moves using various techniques.
  • Cyclohm - Neglected Ability: This Pokemon will have an ability [or two] that is currently undervalued (but possibly very helpful) in the metagame but isn't used because the other Pokemon with this ability don't have the stats or movepool to make it work.
  • Colossoil - Stop the Secondary: A Pokémon that through means of ability, moves, and typing, can stop a variety of the non damaging affect of moves and moves of non damaging origin.
  • Krilowatt - Utility Counter: This Pokemon is capable of being customized to counter virtually any specific Pokemon, but is incapable of countering a large number of Pokemon at the same time.
  • Voodoom - Perfect Mate: Pick a good-but-not-great OU pokemon, and design the perfect teammate for it, similar to the way Celebi & Heatran, or Blissey & Skarmory complement each other so well on competitive teams.
They really cranked them out back in Gen 4! Now I certainly think there are some of these that have more potential to work, and to work well with a form-switching framework. We have an opportunity to really tap into CAP history with this framework by exploring an idea that CAP did for a different metagame, with a different community and different process. I think CAP 30 is the perfect time to celebrate CAPs legacy projects by showing how effectively we can execute some 20-25 projects later. Plus a few of these concepts have some fantastic new options from the past generations that will allow us to execute in new and unique ways.

In terms of when to address the 30/30i item discussion, unfortunately hard to gauge in this concept until the Gen 4 option would be chosen, I believe it would have to be determined in Concept Assessment as a key question.
I think this is really, really cool, but my worry is this sounds more like a framework to me than it does a concept. It puts a lot of strain/extra twists and turns from what is typical of a CAP concept, such as an extra poll to determine the route of the project (on top of a CAP with 2 forms, one being item-locked). This strikes me as something similar to Quziel’s framework or the Runner-Up CAP one.
  • Name - Optimized Ability
  • Description - This CAP would seek to utilize one or more Abilities which are, at face value, competitively viable, but which are only found on unviable or excessively niche Pokémon, or are paired with objectively better Abilities. The goal is to explore how these Abilities could impact the metagame if they were properly utilized.
  • Justification- Archetype: This CAP seeks to explore one or more underutilized Abilities which could have a meaningful impact on the metagame, but are rarely or never seen because of the Pokémon they are found on, or the other Abilities they have to compete with. With two Forms we can explore the same Ability from two differant angles, or explore two differant Abilities, providing us with greater insight into how these traditionally neglected Abilities could function.
  • Questions To Be Answered-
    • Why are some Abilities seen as better or more viable than others? Is it strictly a function of the Ability itself, or are other factors involved? What are those factors?
    • What new strategies become available with optimized Abilities? Are these strategies competitively viable, or just gimmicks?
    • Are there Abilities that may have been overlooked or disregarded because of poor utilization? Are some worth a second look, even if they lack immediate competitive merit?
  • Explanation -This is, at it's core, a pretty simple Concept. There are various Abilities which, at least to me, seem to sit somewhere between being considered competitively viable and not being competitive at all. Abilities like Steam Engine, Merciless, Heavy/Light Metal, etc., all have a strong competitive impact at face value, but never seem to make it into our discussion during the Ability Stage. While there are probably many factors involved, I think at least some of the issue may simply be a matter of false equivalence; the idea that, since X Ability sucks on Y Pokmon, it must be bad in general. It's understandable. Why would you pick Merciless for Toxapex when it has access to Regenerator, which is an objectively better Ability for a Tank/Wall? At the same time, I think it's important to understand what the real value of some of these Abilities may be, and how they can effect the metagame if they were used "correctly". If given everything they need to succeed, could these Abilities prove to be viable, or are they truly flawed? That is the crux of this Concept.
EDIT: I feel like we need to figure out this Item as soon as possible so we understand what, if any, effects it might have beyond form-changing CAP 30, and how those effects might alter future Stages.
Last edited:
Name: Color Theory (color theory)

Description: A pokemon that can safely use, and benefits greatly from moves that change the type of the enemy , with each form focusing on a different move with that mechanic

Justification: This is an Actualization concept sinces it focuses on the usage of a gimmick that barely anyone ever uses on a competitive setting and tries to find them a useful niche in the meta.

Questions to be Asked:

  • Has there been viable users of these moves in any tier and how were these used?
  • What roles can make good use of these moves and how do they define the gameplan of the mon?
  • How does the typing of CAP 30 affects how we use these moves?
  • How can we make each form preffer a different move despite both sharing movepool and typing?
  • Can the custom item of CAP 30-b benefit the ussage of one of these moves?
  • What other tools should CAP 30 have to maintain a useful role in situations where its main gimmick becomes less useful?

Explanation: There is currently 4 moves that change the typing of the enemy, in the form of Soak, Forest's Curse, Trick-or-Treat, and Magic Powder, with two of them adding their respective typing to the one of the enemy (effectivelly making a three typing pokemon) and two of them replacing the typing of the mon. Despite their almost non-existant usage, these moves can become very powerful, and can be very useful tools both in offensive and defensive pokemon, the fact that soak and Magic Powder delete the stab of the enemy (until they switch) will give this pokemon a very unique niche as a defensive mon and while Forest's Curse and Trick-or-Treat lack that distintive quality, they can be very good tools to force switches on specific defensive pokemon that dont want to deal with a new 4x weakness (maybe even a 6x weakness).
Either way this concept will for sure make for a very unique pokemon and potentially a very fun project for us to tackle.
Last edited:
Name: The Knight Reborn

Description: In this process, we choose a UUBL Pokemon and create a CAP that fits the general traits of that UUBL Pokemon while fixing up any weaknesses it may have.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept, as we are trying to change up the metagame by making a more viable version of an unviable Pokemon.

Explanation: UUBL Pokemon have always been in an odd spot in the metagame compared to other Pokemon. They're basically OU Pokemon by technicality, but many of them sit very low on the OU viability rankings. In addition, many UUBL Pokemon are former OU (or even Ubers) staples that have fallen to power creep, especially in the DLC tidal waves of the Generation 8 metagame. This concept would explore why exactly these UUBL mons have fallen out of favor and see if we can do better with CAP 30.

Questions to be Answered:
  • What causes a Pokemon to fall out of viability? Is there a way for us to reverse this?
  • What about a Pokemon causes it to fall victim to power creep? Is it its typing, stats, or movepool?
  • How can we prevent CAP 30 from also falling victim to power creep in the future?
Last edited:
Name - Category Subversion

Description - One forme of this CAP takes a role typically reserved for physically-based Pokemon and makes it special– and the other does the opposite.

Justification- This is an Actualization concept, because it centers around using moves moves fulfilling roles in uncommon ways. Each potential route we could pursue has at least a few examples of existing Pokemon, but they largely are not particularly common in the metagame.

Questions To Be Answered
  • Are these category-subversive roles underutilized because of poor move distribution, or are there other factors inhibiting their effectiveness?
  • Are we held back by the limited selection of category-subversive moves?
  • Is physical status-spreading inherently weaker than moves like Scald?
  • Is special priority meaningfully different from physical priority?
  • Is special self-status worse than physical self-status due to a lack of Facade?
Explanation - Here are a few example routes we could take to fulfill this category subversion:

  • Special priority user– Distribution of both conventional and non-conventional (ability-based) special priority are extremely poor. Priority in the metagame is physically-dominated, so we have lots of room to explore, with a rich set of ability-moves interactions with moves like Water Shuriken as well as a host of unexplored possibilities with strong terrain-based unconventional priority or priority draining moves. We can make use of multi-hit or contact moves, both of which are typically physical but could be used specially in the form of priority here.
  • Physical secondary effect-based status spreader– There are plenty of users of moves like Scald, Discharge, and Sludge Bomb, but physically-based status spreading is much less common. There are a number of physical moves we could use to this effect, as well as some unexplored ability interactions.
  • Special self-status abuser– Self-status is currently limited entirely to Guts users, but special self-status is an intriguing and unexplored possibility, with Pokemon life Drifblim having access to it but being irrelevant in the metagame. Obviously this would be confined to CAP30 and not the item-locked 30i.
These are just some examples, but there are other routes we could take (special Sand or Hail abuser, a physically-based special wall... there are many options here).
Last edited:
Name - Utility Specialist Siblings

Description - Despite having the same movepool, each form specializes in a different type of utility support

Justification - This is an Actualization concept, as we will be designing two forms that diverge in their support functions and the characteristics that enable them, even though they will share the same typing and movepool.

Questions to Be Answered -
  • What are the different ways in which a Pokemon can serve as a utility specialist?
  • What traits are needed to effectively make use of different types of support moves (i.e. disruption, phazing, status, hazard removal, field conditions)?
  • How do stats, ability, and items affect a Pokemon's ability to utilize different types of support moves?
  • Which typings can enable multiple avenues for utility support?
  • Why do many Pokemon with broad support movepools frequently utilize specific moves over others, and what would it take for them to make good use of the overlooked options?
Explanation - With this concept and the selected framework, we will explore the forces that drive a Pokemon to select one type of utility move over another, and what conditions are needed to excel when using that selection. While Pokemon with multiple forms often vary in terms of playstyle (i.e. one is more offensive and the other is more supportive or defensive), this process provides us with the opportunity to explore two different avenues within a single playstyle (supportive). We could choose to explore, for instance, what makes a good Taunt user, or what makes a good Roar user. We could ask why many Pokemon who learn Haze not make use of it, and explore what tweaks would be needed for that to change. Or we could test our theories on what enables a Pokemon to excel at a specialized function (such as setting field conditions) over a more general form of support (such as hazard setting or removal).
Last edited:


Clefable's wish came true!
is a Forum Moderatoris a Top CAP Contributor
Quick update for you all. I am on vacation until tomorrow 7/28 @ 10pm GMT-6, so i will aim to provide some feedback on thursday 7/29. Apologies to those who wanted more immediate feedback.

For those who want feedback now and haven't joined the CAP discord, use the link to run your ideas by other users.
Name: Pacing

Description: The CAP's two forms will, respectively, aim to speed up and slow down the rate at which a match comes to an end.

Justification: This is an Actualization concept, closely related to "momentum" but with one critical difference: "pacing" describes the match as a whole, rather than an advantage one side has over the other. "Fast-paced" games are volatile; who has the upper hand is obvious and changes on a dime, and a single misplay can cost you the game. "Slow-paced" games are more methodical; you erode your foe's team with status and/or chip, and the winner is whoever's more sustainable long-term. Neither is necessarily better than the other, but the two are mutually exclusive, so having a framework requiring two similar forms is the perfect opportunity to explore what, exactly, goes into each.

Questions to be Asked:
  • What factors contribute to how quickly a match ends? How much influence can a single mon have over this?
  • What makes a mon (or its team) "sustainable" (slow-paced) vs "unsustainable" (fast-paced)? What are the benefits one can get from being "unsustainable"?
  • How can a mon influence the playstyle of its teammates (or its opponents)?
  • How different can two mons with the same typing an moveset functionally be? What typing best facilitates two radically different playstyles?
  • How can stats and ability influence the moves a mon chooses to run? Which utilities would both want access to? Which utilities should only one have access to, and how do we discourage the other from using it?

I imagine the first thing most people will think of when I talk about "pacing" is.
  • "Fast-paced" = hyper offense, 6-0s with setup sweepers.
  • "Slow-paced" = stall, defense, support.
This is usually right, and a good starting point. Having one form be Kartana and the other Ferrothorn would certainly fulfill the concept. However, even within archetypes, there is variation in "pacing".
  • SubRoostDD Kyurem vs SubSD Hawlucha; both are "setup sweepers", but Kyurem uses Pressure to PP stall as it slowly builds up Dragon Dances, while Hawlucha gambles everything on its single-use Unburden. This makes Kyurem “slower-paced” than Hawlucha.
  • Astrolotl vs Miasmaw; both are "offensive", but with their differences in bulk, recovery, and attacking power, as well as their polar opposite matchups vs defensive Waters, I'd argue Astrolotl is "slower-paced" while Miasmaw is "faster-paced".
  • Toxapex vs Tapu Fini; both are not only defensive walls, but also status immune Water-types. However, Pex relies on heal spam and indirect damage, while Fini leans more on its offensive typing/movepool. Pex is "slower-paced" than Fini.
If we wanted, we could opt to focus on pacing within an archetype, rather than just in general. Having the two forms be Pex/Fini as Slow/Fast would fulfill the concept. Having Slow/Fast be Kyurem/Fini would, too.

(I expand on these points more here:
Last edited:
  • Name - Multifaceted Wildcards
  • Description - The CAP has access to six competitively viable abilities, 3 exclusive to each forme, and each with varied uses for several different roles unique to (or performed well almost solely by) CAP30 and CAP30i. A great example of a unique role would be how Miasmaw uses Neutralizing Gas effectively to hinder Regenerator users, or Bisharp's use of Defiant, Stealth Rock and Sucker Punch to punish Defog and Sticky Webs. This concept is not meant to be a Jack-of-all-trades, ace-of-none. It is meant to provide several niches that are unheard of outside of OMs and the depths of the community's imagination, but have considerable competitive value.

  • Justification- This concept attempts to make the most out of CAP30's framework by utilising the maximum amount of abilities that Pokemon normally have, compensating for the lack of item choice on CAP30i. Losing an item typically hampers a Pokemon's viability. Giratina-O got around that owing to the boosts associated with its item and the acquisition of a Ground immunity.

    • Actualization: Plenty of Pokemon have a variety of viable sets, often lending uncertainty in an opponent's decision making. This concept takes that dynamic in competitive play to a purposefully absurd length by having access to several abilities that make CAP30 and CAP30i viable for several roles. This is attempting to actualize several unique roles that are unheard of or otherwise unseen in OU/CAP play.
    • Archetype: Several Pokemon are viable in their metagames simply by virtue of the dynamic range of options available to their movesets. These Pokemon thrive in metagames of the past and present owing to their flexibility and capability of fulfilling unique roles. Arceus. Tyranitar. Dragapult. Kommo-O. These Pokemon thrive on having access to a wide variety of moves, and often abilities that give them unique competitive properties.

      (Potentially) Target: It is likely that at least some of those roles would involve targeting certain aspects of the metagame. However, this categorisation is not inherent to the concept, whereas the other two are.
  • Questions To Be Answered -

    How do set flexibility and uncertainty change the dynamics of counterplay?

    How does a diverse range of Abilities affect a Pokemon's viability?

    What role do Abilities play in defining a Pokemon's role in teambuilding?

    Is role flexibility a factor for high usage statistics?

    How long can we keep a project in development out of sheer convolution before the userbase catches on to the fact that I want Miasmaw to be more viable?

  • Explanation -

    Forme change items cannot be removed or switched by either player. This mechanic has two important implications for this project: i) CAP30i will potentially be a good candidate as a Knock Off absorber if it does not have a Dark weakness. ii) CAP30i will be predictable in its item choice, significantly hindering its set options. Zamazenta-C and Giratina-O suffer from this drawback immensely, whereas other Pokemon (Arceus, Primal Reversion Formes) have abilities that make up for this weakness. The open-endedness of this concept also allows us to potentially incorporate other concept ideas (ie field/weather control, target concepts, special priority).

    This is an opposite to the role compression concept, making the Pokemon's applications contingent on its ability, and augmented by a (somewhat) diverse movepool.
Concept Submission Withdrawn
I am withdrawing my concept from the concept submissions. I do not have the time that I'd like to keep up with the CAP creation process. I was only able to hop into the CAP discord like once to get feedback on my concept, but I haven't been able to keep up with the conversations there or the newer submissions here. I don't think it's fair to the rest of the community if my submission gets picked but I can't find time to be part of the rest of the process. I'll keep the original text of the submission up for posterity though.

Name: Screens for Me but Not for Thee

Description: This CAP provides screens support for its team while also mitigating the opponent's screens.

Justification: This concept falls under the Archetype and Target categories. This mon's intended gameplan would involve setting and stopping screens, which is a strategy that has gotten attention for being overbearing in SWSH lower tiers. While not overbearing in the CAP metagame, screens does have a place on HO teams, often using Cawmodore, and CAP 30 could have a niche both on such teams as well as against them.
Since this CAP has two forms, this provides an opportunity to directly compare the effectiveness of different strategies for setting and (especially) working around screens.

Questions to be Answered:

  • When are screens-based strategies most effective? Do offense, balance, or stall teams benefit more from screens?
  • What circumstances in battle make it easier to set/remove screens? How does setting/removing screens affect momentum?
  • Which anti-screens strategies are more universally effective, and which have more targetted uses? In general, is it most effective to remove them, use moves/effects that bypass them, or wait them out? How much does your strategy against screens depend on matchup?
  • To what extent are the tools used against screens useful against other team archetypes?
  • How much does preparing for one strategy (in this case, screens) impact your preparedness against the rest of the metagame?
  • Which pokemon benefit the most from screens setting? Which pokemon benefit the most from screens removal? What synergies does screens have with other strategies, such as Hazard Stacking, Sticky Webs, or Status Spreading?
  • How would other team archetypes be affected by a rise or drop in screens-based teams?
  • How much does matchup impact the success of screens-based strategies? How easily can a screens-based strategy be identified and planned against at Team Preview?
  • How much do held items impact the effectiveness of a given strategy? What factors would encourage CAP 30i to use its custom item over stock items, such as Heavy Duty Boots or Light Clay? What is the opportunity cost of forgoing other items?
Explanation: The fact that CAP 30 has multiple forms allows us to directly compare how different approaches towards the same strategy fare against each other. We have an opportunity like no other to take one element of the metagame and dissect it, drawing specific conclusions about this element and how it works. We just need a good element of the metagame to focus on. So why screens?

Two reasons:

First, screens strategies have gained notoriety across multiple metagames recently. I already linked the PR post about screens in SWSH lower tiers, but there was also some discussion earlier this year about screens in ORAS OU and a some of the discussion on Cawmodore's effectiveness in Crown Tundra touched on how it's particularly effective on screens teams. I'll concede that the latter two discussions are a few months old, certainly not reflective of the current CAP metagame, but nonetheless, screens are a hot topic that is begging to analyzed.

Secondly, and more importantly, focusing on screens gives CAP 30 a specific direction for what it wants to be while still being flexible enough to allow for involved discussions. There are multiple effects which impact how a pokemon can set screens; abilites such as Prankster (or Snow Warning) directly affect a pokemons ability to set screens in general (and Aurora Veil more specifically), while secondary factors such as type resistances and immunities affect the opportunities a pokemon could have to set them up in the first place.
And there are even more effects that impact a pokemon's ability to work around screens! Options to remove screens include the moves Brick Break and Psychic Fangs which can't be Taunted, Defog which removes screens along with hazards, and the ability Screen Cleaner which removes screens on switch-in. Infiltrator also bypasses screens entirely, as well as Critical Hits. I personally find Critical Hits as an option for screens-control to be particularly fascinating, since there's many abilities and moves that enable a Crit-focused approach.

Additionally, the last of my Questions to be Answered is particularly relevant to both this concept and CAP 30 in general. Since CAP 30i must forgo Light Clay or another useful item, this adds an additional dynamic to examine along with an examination of a specific metagame element. (Personally, I think the discussion about the item's effects should take place during or just after the Ability stage. The synergy between CAP 30i's item and it's ability would significantly affect CAP 30i's preferred strategies for setting/dealing with screens.)
Last edited:
This is a tough one to concept for, and I am short on ideas, so I'll just go over my thoughts on each of these:

First Come, First Served: A fine concept, but it does make me wonder: Do we stand to have anything to gain from multiple forms for such a concept? This seems to work in spite of our framework, rather than with it.

Weather/Terrain Power: This is a concept that fulfills the task of working with the framework, but I kinda think it feels a little too generic and boring. "Weather 'mon" would be an incredibly bland concept for 1 pokemon, and while trying to make 2 weathers work with 1 move stage is interesting, I feel like it will just produce 2 pokemon merged together, with very little overlap.

Role Compress to Impress: This is interesting and could definitely work with the framework. I do feel like it is a little vague so far. Role Compression can mean a lot of different things. It would require a big concept analysis phase to narrow this down a lot.

Get It How You Want It: I am not only underwhelmed by slightly bothered by this concept. We already have the same typing and the same movepool, and now you want essentially the same role? It feels like this skirts a very dangerous line between working with the concept and actively working against it, and I feel like without some major change like a stats-first stage you would probably end up on the wrong side of that line or at least poll jumping massively.

Not All Dragons Are Dragon-type: I love the concept. But I don't think this is the CAP for it. This really doesn't benefit from our framework too much. While we could emulate two different typings, as you mention, that's kinda just working alongside the framework; neither the concept nor the framework would benefit from eachother. But it would be a bit interesting to explore due to the framework's restrictions.

Two Sides of the Same Coin: I feel like this has the same problem as Get It How You Want It, in that you are making a process that already shares almost every stage share even more. We have the same moves, same typing, and same concept, and now you want the same defining moves? While it could be interesting to work around this, again, it would more or less require polljumping or moving the move poll up to fit immediately after typing.

Booster Beware: A fun concept, but another that doesn't really work with our framework. It barely even mentions it at all.

Don’t judge me by the color of my Type: The formatting makes this a bit of a pain to read (line breaks, man!), but I actually very much like this for how it works with our framework. Typing is one of our shared stages, so focusing on ways to NOT make it matter allows a lot of freedom to explore the concept.

Duck Fragapult: I kinda hate this. I've never loved scalpel CAP concepts, where they directly try to counter the meta, especially the top threats of the meta. Half the time the scalpeled target gets banned to Ubers later on, leaving your scalpel without a surgery to perform. Most of the rest of the time, two generations go by and the scalpeled target falls out of favor or gets a new boost that renders the CAP useless at its prior role. On top of all that, we'd be wasting a framework CAP on something that doesn't even care about the framework existing and kinda just treats it as an afterthought. I get wanting to balance out the meta. I don't feel like scalpeling the biggest threat is the way to do this.

Young God: I don't really feel like this is a concept, so much as a concept for concepts. Assuming you don't literally mean to buff a weaker pokemon, but rather create a new pokemon in their role (cause it is a bit weirdly worded), surely it would be a better concept to look at any specific ones and say "A pokemon that tries to fill X roles, similar to how Pokemon Y did, but successfully brought up to a competitive standard".

Hidden Potential: This is a messy concept for our framework. Both of these moves lock us into specific items! Our framework already locks us into a specific item, so locking its base form into one is not only more restrictive, but takes away part of what makes the unique form special. Not to mention they are already super difficult moves to work around. While you could make our extra form to demonstrate the potential of 120 power normal STAB, I feel like that isn't a particularly interesting way to work with our framework, and almost works against it.

Gen 4 Remakes: Like Young God, this isn't a concept; this is a concept for a concept. I would instead just skip the first step and just say "Perfect Mate: A pokemon that aims to fill the same concept as Voodoom, but for the current generation" or whatever your choice is.

Optimized Ability: As you say, I feel like this is a very simple concept. Works well enough with our framework, too. I do feel like it is a bit broad as far as concepts go, however, and it is another thing where we'd kinda need to polljump or move abilities up.

Color Theory: I don't think this is a good fit for the framework. Trying to create a pokemon with two forms of the same type and same movepool that not only benefits from this, but benefits from it in two different ways depending on our form seems a nearly impossible task. This is a cool concept, but I feel like our framework detracts from this, rather than adds to it.

The Knight's Guard: I don't like this concept, to be blunt. We already did "Perfect Mate" for Voodoom, and saw how that ended up failing in the long run as the meta changed and 'mon we were meant to pair with fell from favor. You are suggesting to do that concept all over again, except with an even weaker pokemon that's already out of meta usage. I can't see this turning out any better than Voodoom did, but I can absolutely see it turning out worse. Not to mention this is another 'mon that really doesn't work with our framework but rather inspite of it.

Special Priority Users: I don't feel like this is a particularly interesting use of our forms, and like many of the other things I've critiqued, I feel like you'd need to jump polls or move them up to make a cohesive product. It does make me think of an interesting idea though of a 'mon where one form wants to use priority moves and the other doesn't. But as is, I'm not enamored with this idea.

Utility Specialist Siblings: Like some of the other ones I've critiqued, this feels like you'd just be making two different pokemon rather than one with two forms. They'd have different moves they used, different roles, different abilties, and different stats. The framework needs to ride the fine line between "too much in common" and "too much different", and this feels like it falls firmly on ths side of "too much different".

Pacing: I feel like the name should get an extra word, like maybe "Varied Pacing" or something. That said, this is one of my favorite submissions... if it was slightly changed. You say "setup sweepers" as fast-paced, and while they are aggressive, I think they would be better fit to the slow-paced category, as one of their main goals is to buy turns to setup; they prefer slower paced opponents. If you put setup (of any sort) on the slow side, it could be very interesting to see how it plays out; a mon where one form is aggressive, and the other is trying to buy turns here or there to setup properly, be it for later sweeping, laying out hazards, etc. This would also play well with the shared movepool stage, as much of the difference between a setup mon and one that doesn't is in one or two moves, so it wouldn't necessarily drastically change what moves we have on each set, riding that fine line between "shared" and "different". If you don't want to adjust to include that, would you be okay giving me permission to post that as my concept?

Multifaceted Wildcards: I don't think the name is supposed to be bolded, and I believe you are supposed to use colons, not dashes. That aside... what a monster of a concept. While this is a direct use of the form change, and effective... my god. This is a god dang monster of a concept. We'd absolutely need to move the ability stage to the front, and we'd absolutely need to hold some sort of wacky weird multi-ability poll where more than one ability is voted on at the same time. It's hard enough getting 3 abilities where 1 of them doesn't overshadow the rest, but SIX!? I... ooh boy. I don't know what to say. I'm kinda blown away by the ambition here. I feel like you might want to narrow the scope to 4 at most; two per form. Six is pretty bonkers.

Screens for Me but Not for Thee: I don't feel like this is a concept that works with our framework, really. Aside from that, it feels a bit niche of a target. As you say, this isn't something that is a major concern in CAP meta at the current, so half the concept feels unnecessary. The worst case scenario in my opinion is that this CAP succeeds too much, and ends up bringing screens up to the level of power where the other half of the concept starts to matter, and it ends up being the best counter to itself, making screens oppressive at the same time as being the sole viable solution to them.
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)