spoo
CAP Co-Leader
If a simple interpretation of our concept is "these Pokemon's abilities are central elements to their playstyle or viability," then I think we succeeded in our concept 110% for Venom-E and like 60-70% for base Venom. I guess I would frame it as: if you replaced Tinted Lens with Run Away on Venomicon-E, it would make far more of a difference than if we replaced Stamina with Run Away on base Venom. That's not to say it isn't valuable in interactions against many Pokemon such as Weavile and non-Encore Astrolotl, but it doesn't 100% feel like a core element –– more so a sweet perk that helps it do what it already does a little bit better, but is still inconsequential (or at least mildly underwhelming) more often than not.
Speaking as someone who was on the TLT and actively posting throughout most stages of the process, I didn't feel the workload was particularly daunting. For context, I had objectively the easiest stage out of the TLT, took steps back when I needed to, and in general I probably have a higher tolerance for some of the more burdensome parts of CAP participation than a lot of people do. Still, I was also simultaneously active in other parts of the community, had IRL priorities in university, and TLTed CAP29 right before, so I don't know how much sympathy I have for people besides my other TLT members who felt very burnt out. Admittedly, I do agree this process ran for longer than was desirable, but I don't think that was the end of the world either. Here are some interesting stats about process length, courtesy of Tadasuke:
The question about roles is sort of a messy one. From the start, they were meant to be helpful guides and not I think we collectively interpreted them a little too strictly at points, and it was frustrating when any suggestion that diverged from "tank" or "utility wallbreaker" felt immediate resistance. Many users also had very different ideas of what a "tank/utility wallbreaker" even meant –– like, are we working towards a utility wallbreaker a la Spikes Greninja, WispHex Pult, Melmetal, Scizor, etc... everyone seemed to have their own biases and personal ideas. This phenomenon is doubly weird when we realize that the roles didn't even end up sticking that much. The most "utility" Venomicon-E has to offer is Knock Off, which it uses quite selfishly (there's the very occasional SR set but w/e), and while base Venomicon certainly has moments where it functions as a tank would, it seems more in line with other bulky setup sweepers like SD Scizor or CM Clefable than a traditional "tank" (though this also is my bias showing for what a traditional "tank" should look like).
Speaking as someone who was on the TLT and actively posting throughout most stages of the process, I didn't feel the workload was particularly daunting. For context, I had objectively the easiest stage out of the TLT, took steps back when I needed to, and in general I probably have a higher tolerance for some of the more burdensome parts of CAP participation than a lot of people do. Still, I was also simultaneously active in other parts of the community, had IRL priorities in university, and TLTed CAP29 right before, so I don't know how much sympathy I have for people besides my other TLT members who felt very burnt out. Admittedly, I do agree this process ran for longer than was desirable, but I don't think that was the end of the world either. Here are some interesting stats about process length, courtesy of Tadasuke:
30: Playtest Signups: 12/5/2021; TL Apps: 7/10/2021 | 4 months 25 days
29: Playtest Signups: 4/18/2021; TL Apps: 1/7/2021 | 3 months 11 days
28: Playtest Signups: 10/26/2020; TL Apps: 7/6/2020 | 3 months 20 days
27: Playtest Signups: 6/12/2020; TL Apps: 2/1/2020 | 4 months 11 days
26: Playtest Signups: 6/21/2019; TL Apps: 2/10/2019 | 4 months 11 days
CAP30 was surprisingly close in length to 26 & 27, but compared to the last two processes we can see the difference. It's likely that CAP30 didn't have to be quite as long as it was, and for future framework projects I would absolutely support enforcing heavier timeboxing on stages and mapping timelines out from the start (neither of which were really done for CAP30). That said, I still don't believe it was a major problem besides for the delay that manifested itself in the 2021/22 tournament circuit, which was quite inconvenient. For however long that frameworks continue to exist in CAP, I am okay to keep doing multi-mon projects –– the end product(s) from CAP30 feel worth whatever extra time and effort went into creating them. Perhaps we can look at increasing the restrictions on them (ie "must share typing" and similar stuff), but I honestly think it went fine. The mons obviously ended up overturned as well, but it's not like we can chalk that up to it being a framework, either, when these are far from the first CAPs to be overpowered on release.The question about roles is sort of a messy one. From the start, they were meant to be helpful guides and not I think we collectively interpreted them a little too strictly at points, and it was frustrating when any suggestion that diverged from "tank" or "utility wallbreaker" felt immediate resistance. Many users also had very different ideas of what a "tank/utility wallbreaker" even meant –– like, are we working towards a utility wallbreaker a la Spikes Greninja, WispHex Pult, Melmetal, Scizor, etc... everyone seemed to have their own biases and personal ideas. This phenomenon is doubly weird when we realize that the roles didn't even end up sticking that much. The most "utility" Venomicon-E has to offer is Knock Off, which it uses quite selfishly (there's the very occasional SR set but w/e), and while base Venomicon certainly has moments where it functions as a tank would, it seems more in line with other bulky setup sweepers like SD Scizor or CM Clefable than a traditional "tank" (though this also is my bias showing for what a traditional "tank" should look like).
With this thread closing soon I wanted to expand a little on my last post and propose some options for the nerf. My biggest issues with these mons basically boil down to them being both overpowered and not adding much to the tier.
I think we're all familiar with the overbearing strength and pressure these mons often exert in-game and (arguably more importantly) in the teambuilder; teams are forced to prepare for two incredibly strong Flying-type setup sweepers with literally 0 overlapping counterplay, and with the myriad of other threats that teams need to account for in this tier, it really becomes a headache inducing task. Moreover, these CAPs provide very little back to the metagame. Compare them to options like Tornadus-T or Weavile that offer huge role compression and help keep in check some of the tier's biggest threats. Like, maybe if Venomicon-E wanted to run Stealth Rock sets more often, it would be a unique fast & offensive rocker in a tier that has no good ones. Instead you just miss the value of running SD and breaking teams open. Sure, both formes check stuff like Ground-types, some Fairies, and offensive Grasses, but... it's not like the meta or teambuilder was asking for more checks to those mons to begin with. In essence, these CAPs limit options and team structures overwhelmingly more than they enable new ones.
It's for these two reasons that I don't trust a minor re-tuning of each forme would be sufficient. Instead, I strongly believe we should refocus the niche of one forme by removing setup options entirely, and slightly re-tune the problematic elements of the other forme. Basically, larger nerf + restructure purpose of one forme, smaller nerf of other forme. Through this, I would hope to 1) add more checks to both CAPs, thus easing teambuilder struggles and 2) make at least one forme less selfish and add more to the tier. This is the broad framework I'm approaching this PPL with, but it also makes picking a concrete nerf option somewhat of a dilemma.
I guess the best way I can put it is:
-Setup is easier to remove from Venomicon-E because it's less central to its identity; it has more than enough tools to be fine without setup, but by that same token, setup isn't necessarily the root of the problem as much as its raw 2HKO power and Speed
-Therefore, it would make sense to pursue a more targeted stat nerf on Venomicon-E and remove setup from Venomicon instead, as NP is a huge part of why its checks are so limited and why it can easily force trades against faster wallbreakers; however, its identity is so reliant on setup that removing it leaves Venomicon in a much more awkward and stranded place
It's a weird struggle and I'm not confident what the best approach is, but here are a couple ways you could probably go:
Venomicon-E:
-8 Atk (236+ Defensive Zapdos now avoids the 2HKO)
-10 Spe (Still outspeeds Kart / Alolatales, but Astro now threatens with Wisp)
OR
-2 Atk (Tapu Koko can always switch into Brave Bird on a hard read, + minor damage nerf overall)
-16 Spe (Krilowatt, Kart / Alolatales, Blace, base 110s, and Astro now outspeed)
Venomicon:-NP (I believe some extra compensation is necessary if we do this)
+Fire Blast, Flamethrower
+Stats
Very hard to say what the right amount would be: +3 SpA = 252+ EP always 2HKOs physdef Pex, +8 SpA +4 Spe = outspeed and 2HKO Corviknight with 0 SpA Fire Blast (either w/o Leftovers or w/ Stealth Rock), +12 SpA = 0 SpA Fire Blast always OHKOs 0 SpD Ferrothorn, +14 Def = +2 LO Kartana's Smart Strike never OHKOs with 0 Def investment & you can EV to live +2 Weavile Triple Axel & Body Press does more damage across the board, there may also be other benchmarks I'm missing but these were the most notable to me
*Could argue for +Defog, as we match up well against common hazard setters
Venomicon-E:
-SD & Coil (Cannot break through Slowbro / Pex / Corv / sorta Ferrothorn as easily; also worth noting is that this is not as big of a nerf as many people believe it is, because our speed allows us to simply click BB twice in most interactions and effectively replicate SD -> BB)
-2 Atk (Same reasoning as before)
*Could argue for -10 Speed as well, though I suspect this is an overnerf
*Could argue for either -U-turn or -Knock Off to remove guessing games about what coverage moves a 3Atk set is running and lower its efficacy overall, as BB / Knock / U-turn still sounds very strong on paper
Venomicon:-Earth Power & Scorching Sands (Very clean nerf that allows Electric-types and Heatran to be more consistent into it while slightly improving matchup against Slowking-G and certain Steel-types)
OR
-Bulk
Frankly no clue what the right numbers are here, but it preserves arguably our most unique element (Flying + Ground coverage) while making it harder to find easy setup opportunities and trade with revenge killers / strong wallbreakers. The flipside is that our bulk enables us to switch into Pokemon like Dragapult and situationally other wallbreakers like Revenankh, Dragonite, and Kartana, which I think is one of the more valuable things that these Pokemon add to the tier
IMO route #1 is ideal for Venomicon-E while #2 would be ideal for the base forme. In theory you could do -stats for Epilogue and -coverage for base forme, but I think both mons being setup-based win-conditions is polarizing enough that we should attempt to address it; admittedly, I could end up being totally wrong, but that's still what my stance is right now. I also appreciate that setup-less base forme would likely end up being much more of a "tank" or a cool blanket check to physical mons that can force things out with great offensive coverage, while setup-less Epilogue forme is now incentivized to run a more utility-based fourth move as dex pointed out above. This post was very long, probably too long, but I had a lot to say on this topic and wanted to get it all out before the thread closes.
Last edited: