CAP 3 - Concept Assessment

[No Luck Involved]

I love the example of Celebi that was mentioned, it captures the spirit of the concept really well in having what appears on paper a huge number of undesirable weaknesses and not a very good STAB combination but it has unique strengths in the right areas to allow it to function effectively. I'd also agree in not falling back on a powerful ability to help cancel out weaknesses or try to make it overpowering to compensate for its shortcomings. What I most want to see is a type or typing combination that is rarely or never seen in OU being given the right tools to use its strengths, but I don't think it's necessary or even a good idea to try to cover up its obvious weaknesses via huge stats or ability.

[Solstice]

I agree with bugmaniacbob in full, but I'll throw some of my own opinions in here too.

I don't feel like we will learn anything substantial from 1DTO. I know that there are few monotypes in OU but the fact that there is a devicit does not mean we should try to fill the space. I feel like this will end up just being a poor offensive typing with the stats and movepool to break through its weaknesses, and what do we learn from this? That a sweeper with good stats and movepool can sweep? Making a Poison type that can beat Steels isn't going to teach us anything about the metagame. Typing is the absolute most important part of this particular concept, and I feel like picking a monotype won't teach us anything about type synergy which is paramount. I feel like 2CTD should be our focus.

2CTD adds a completely different dynamic to the process by forcing us to use weaknesses as strengths, rather than just overcoming those weaknesses with force like 1DTO would do. If it Fire-Flying we'll have to explore how we can get around the terrible SR weak and promote the resistances. This should be the direction simply because it teaches us so much more about how types work together and how weaknesses and resistances can make or break a defensive Pokemon on a greater scale.

[Screw-On Head]

Here, here! I'm rooting for 1DTO. In addition to all that has been stated, I believe it will create something entirely unrepresented in OU and CAP. Really there hasn't been anything in OU fitting the 1DTO option since RuSa or earlier. There is a ocean of unexplored territory here and I think the design process will be a fun and rewarding.

[Mono789]

I'd really like to see us do 2CTD. CAP has been extremely focused on offensive Pokemon up to this point, so trying to utilize CAP3 in a defensive role would be a breath of fresh air. At the very least, I hope we don't use 1DTO, quite simply because it would be kind of boring. We've seen what each type can do alone already and this category is too restrictive on what types are available to choose, while using dual typing gives us many more options to explore, whether we plan to make this Pokemon offensively or defensively oriented. Overall, though, I think 2CTD would be more interesting for us to work because it gives us more usable potential type combinations to work with than the other options.

(I hope that made sense. I reworded this post at least a couple dozen times. >_>)

[Fisdunction]

Going with 2CTD since part of the fun of the project is seeing what crazy type combinations can be thrown together. Designing a defensive 'mon with an unorthodox typing sounds like a good challenge and would give much more creative room than just making another sweeper. After all, it's rather easy to take something with a quad weakness and give it enough speed to outpace threats or just give it a silly ability to nullify the weakness entirely.

I'm really hoping we don't get stuck with a mono typed CAP this round. Where's the fun in that?

[Nauris]

I'd like to see 1DTO that has nothing to do with weather by its abilities (if 2 or more) being successful in OU. I'm fine with the 2CTD and 2MTO, but as I said I want to see mono-type being successful in OU without need of weather.

[lugiaisbeast]

I'd like to see a 2TCD, there are a number of types that I think are underrepresented in the OU tier because they are "bad types", fire and poison are good examples of this, it would be an interesting experiment to see if we can create a pokemon that can overcome, say a crippling stealth rock weakness, because it provides invaluable support or walling abilities.

[ZhengTann]

I'm leaning towards 2TCD here, as Deck_Knight as highlighted below:

Originally Posted by Fat Deck Knight

Perhaps the most challenging at all, this direction would take a look at STAB Synergy and how a Pokemon covers its weaknesses while defending...
The key distinction here is that the typing retains the weaknesses of the primary typing, but the secondary typing hits that weakness for super-effective damage to compensate...
2CTD doesn’t neutralize weaknesses directly, but makes it more difficult for opponents to exploit weaknesses by threatening with a secondary super-effective STAB.

Dual-typing is pretty much the norm in the current metagame, yet the possible typings have yet to all be covered. The direction proposed by D_K would, in theory, create a viable pokemon that, aside from movepool / ability / stats, relies upon its typing combination to gain the edge. While there are concerns that this might go the generic "Good Pokemon" way, I feel that it could be easily remedied via altering the statspread / movepool, since the main point of Theorymon's concept is, imho, the typing of the CAP 3.

[Mari]

I heavily tend to 1DTO, because I think this is the best way to learn much more about the typing mechanics, as we would learn from a dual typing. However I would not like to see a type like Posion or Ground. Posion has the side effect to remove Toxic Spikes and Ground has the side effect to block Thunder Wave and Volt Switch. The only possible defensive types are IMO: Dragon, Ghost, Normal, Psycho and Steel. But I think we have too much
Steel Pokémon (which, btw, are immune to Sandstorm and Toxic (Spikes) as well) and we don't need another Dragon Pokémon like Druddigon.

[capefeather]

Hey guys, if you're going to post, please give it some kind of substance. If you're making a claim, explain it. This isn't a voting thread. Also keep in mind, this isn't actually the typing discussion. Flavour is also not really part of this discussion, either. I mean, we made Volt Absorb Voodoom...

[Rediamond]

I am personally heavily in favor of 2MTO, as I view it as the approach that stays truest to the concept.

1DTO is my personal least favorite. Put quite simply, it all seems like another "break the mold," and doesn't seem to work for a variety of reasons. The first is that we are taking a typing that most people would acknowledge is "good" and trying to use it in a role most people wouldn't consider it "good" at. I thought the point of the concept was to take a "bad" typing and show how it could be used in such a way that it would become good? While finding alternative uses for a typing could be fun, I just don't see it fitting the concept very closely. That, and I could see it becoming "design a sweeper with a typing that allows it to set up on things." Read: "design a Pokemon similar to about half of the OU metagame." Isn't being able to set up on things due to typing or defensive stats the definition of bulky offense, which is possibly the dominant style in OU? I feel as if we already have a considerable number of examples of Pokemon relying on the defensive characteristics of a good or average defensive typing to set up, and the only thing that would make this different is it would "break the mold" associated with a typing.

The reason I don't like 2CTD is also on a concept basis. If the point of this approach is to create a type combination that covers its own weaknesses... isn't it a good type combination? I feel as if a Pokemon of this approach wouldn't need an "extreme type makeover" to succeed... just decent offensive stats. I honestly don't feel as if we could learn much about the shortcomings of a type that was chosen because it can succeed with just its STAB moves.

Now, I like 2MTO as I feel it is closest to the concept. This is a Pokemon with bad weaknesses that must find a way to capitalize upon the defenses it does have to find a niche in the metagame. I feel as if this best meets the examples often thrown around (Heatran, Tyranitar, Celebi), as it is forced to rely upon aspects of a "bad typing" to succeed in the metagame, and use the typing in the way best suited to it.

[bugmaniacbob]

Originally Posted by Fat Rediamond

The reason I don't like 2CTD is also on a concept basis. If the point of this approach is to create a type combination that covers its own weaknesses... isn't it a good type combination? I feel as if a Pokemon of this approach wouldn't need an "extreme type makeover" to succeed... just decent offensive stats. I honestly don't feel as if we could learn much about the shortcomings of a type that was chosen because it can succeed with just its STAB moves.

Not necessarily. The bad typing doesn't have to cover its own weaknesses - Celebi has seven, and is still a pretty good counter to rain teams, Volt-turn, and some other stuff that I forget, without having to account for those weaknesses to a large extent, as a result of key Water/Ground/Fighting/Electric resistances. Also I understood 2MTO to mean that it would have a bad offensive typing but a good defensive typing, rather than the other way around, so I don't see how you can say that it stays truer to the concept than the other options... Somebody please correct me if such is not the case.

Personally I very much doubt that any of these options apply less to the concept than the others, as when it comes down to it they are just directions; it'll be what we do with them that ultimately determines whether we succeed in our intentions or not. That said, I do think that some of them have more merit than others, and the riskier we go, the more likely we are to get something meaningful out... or at least to have a good debate in the process. That's why I'd say that taking the most ambitious path is probably the most advantageous, rather than taking a more generic path, especially when this concept affords us so much opportunity for doing things we haven't tried before - it seems a shame to waste it on what already exists, and what we already know to be the case.

[srk1214]

I'd like to follow up a bit on my post.

To say that the reason OU is dominated by dual-types is because most fully-evolved Pokemon are dual-typed is an equal cop-out to my pseudo-logic in my earlier post. Just look at UU and RU. Full of fully-evolved monotypes. Yet they just don't seem to cut it in OU outside of the 2 weather starters or others with some specific MASSIVE benefit (usually in base stats.) Chansey/Blissey, Haxorus, Jolteon, Alakazam, and Tornadus. Or by ability, like Dugtrio or Espeon, Reuniclus.

I'd argue that the only "normal" (whatever that means) OU monotypes are Conkeldurr, Donphan, Mienshao, and Vaporeon. And even these 4 push the limits of being a standard Pokemon as they all got serious toys to play with along with good base stats. But none received 255 base HP or 147 base Atk or Magic Guard/Arena Trap/Magic Bounce, etc etc.

Lower Jolteon's Sp Atk or Speed by 20 points and it wouldn't be used. Period. Take away Arena Trap from Dugtrio and it's not even RU.

True, you could do this with a lot of other OU Pokemon. Like taking away Technician (or Bullet Punch) from Scizor among many other slight modifications. But why can't we make a BALANCED OU MONOTYPE? One that can truly succeed in a power-packed OU metagame despite NOT having any one of those ginormous benefits.

Even Mew hasn't made OU and Mew has solid base stats and the best movepool you could ask for. So clearly the Psychic-typing and lack of an overall strength is its downfall. But what if we made a monotype with better single-typing and some nuancing to its base stats to better suit the OU metagame?

I see no reason that this can't work.

The point of the concept is to take a bad typing and make it work. Clearly, just by looking at OU usage stats monotypes ARE bad types in almost all cases.

[Rediamond]

The basis of it is that it has a typing that has defensive problems, with another typing added on that hits the Pokemon who have STAB on those moves for Super Effective. My main problem with it is that it seems to be creating what amounts to a "good" type combination that doesn't need to be fixed by something else, as the secondary typing fixes the first typing. I viewed the concept as abilities, stats, etc. patching up a "bad" type combination to make it "good," more than part of the type combination fixing another part.

[MCBarrett]

Originally Posted by Fat Rediamond

My main problem with it is that it seems to be creating what amounts to a "good" type combination that doesn't need to be fixed by something else, as the secondary typing fixes the first typing. I viewed the concept as abilities, stats, etc. patching up a "bad" type combination to make it "good," more than part of the type combination fixing another part.

I 100% agree with what rediamond has to say. Going a direction where 2 typings are used would give us an easy solution to the problem.

We aren't actually "using" the typing, per se - hence why I think that Poison and Normal and Steel are all terrible choices, because every avenue they could possibly go down is either obvious or has been explored.

I also disagree with what bugmaniacbob says about this being a direction that has already been looked into especially with poison types etc. If this has already been looked at then why are there no dominant monotype poison pokemon, especially offensively? Also just the fact that muk is the strongest monotyped poison pokemon ever in terms of total base stat totally nullifies that statement

[phoopes]

I'd definitely love to see the 2CTD used in this CAP. I think that something with awful defensive typing that could be used well as a defensive Pokemon would really teach us a lot more about the metagame than 1DTO and 2MTO to an extent. For example, 1DTO would almost certainly end in a cop-out, because offensive weaknesses are easier to cover than defensive weaknesses. For example, an offensive mono-Poison would either have to have monster stats or a wide movepool to be useful, or else it would end up unuseful like many other Poison types. 2MTO is sort of in the same boat. Sure, if we give it one or two glaring defensive weaknesses but still make its offensive stats great, it will just become another generic sweeper. However 2CTD wouldn't be like that, because as stated before, lacking defensively is harder to make up for. There's only so much you can do with a defensive Pokemon with a bad typing before becomes too broken for normal OU. That's why 2CTD seems the best to me- it's the most challenging and can teach us the most about the metagame.

A type that hasn't been mentioned here (unless I've skipped over it, sorry!) is the Psychic/Rock typing. Like Celebi and Abomasnow, this typing has seven weaknesses. While these weaknesses aren't all great offensive types (Weak to Water, Grass, Ground, Bug, Ghost, Dark, and Steel) it would still present a challenge to make useable defensively because of its only four resists (Normal, Fire, Poison, and Flying). Lunatone and Solrock are the only two Pokemon with this typing, and they are both NU, even with their immunity to Ground. While this typing doesn't have a critical weakness to Stealth Rock like earlier typings mentioned, it's still a bad defensive typing, and I think it could be pulled off well if it's done right.

Just throwing that typing thought out there...

[bugmaniacbob]

Originally Posted by Fat srk1214

To say that the reason OU is dominated by dual-types is because most fully-evolved Pokemon are dual-typed is an equal cop-out to my pseudo-logic in my earlier post. Just look at UU and RU. Full of fully-evolved monotypes. Yet they just don't seem to cut it in OU outside of the 2 weather starters or others with some specific MASSIVE benefit (usually in base stats.) Chansey/Blissey, Haxorus, Jolteon, Alakazam, and Tornadus. Or by ability, like Dugtrio or Espeon, Reuniclus.

Is there even a single Pokemon in OU that doesn't have a specific, massive benefit?

But why can't we make a BALANCED OU MONOTYPE? One that can truly succeed in a power-packed OU metagame despite NOT having any one of those ginormous benefits.

Because if something doesn't have a recognisable niche or something that gives it an advantage then it won't ever be used. This is true whether the Pokemon is mono-type, dual-type, or Multitype. Competitive exclusion principle.

Even Mew hasn't made OU and Mew has solid base stats and the best movepool you could ask for. So clearly the Psychic-typing and lack of an overall strength is its downfall. But what if we made a monotype with better single-typing and some nuancing to its base stats to better suit the OU metagame?

I see no reason that this can't work.

The point of the concept is to take a bad typing and make it work. Clearly, just by looking at OU usage stats monotypes ARE bad types in almost all cases.

Popularity is by no means a definition of power. Deoxys-D is arguably one of the most threatening Pokemon in OU, but isn't even in the tier. With regard to Mew, base 100 across the board is definitely not a good stat spread for a Pokemon of that nature. Having access to every TM in the game is not precisely the same as having a good movepool - in particular, Mew lacks all sorts of characteristics that would make it a good wall, sweeper, or whatever it might be.

Mono-types are not bad inherently. In fact I'd say that they're significantly better than some dual-types, since you can't have 4x weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Fat Rediamond

The basis of it is that it has a typing that has defensive problems, with another typing added on that hits the Pokemon who have STAB on those moves for Super Effective. My main problem with it is that it seems to be creating what amounts to a "good" type combination that doesn't need to be fixed by something else, as the secondary typing fixes the first typing. I viewed the concept as abilities, stats, etc. patching up a "bad" type combination to make it "good," more than part of the type combination fixing another part.

I was under the impression that both types would contribute to the negative and the positive, in the same way that Celebi does. Neither Grass nor Psychic is a very good type by itself, and together they provide seven weaknesses, but the resistances they provide are sufficient to make Celebi not merely usable, but good, with the addition of reliable recovery and natural cure being added bonuses.

Originally Posted by Fat MCBarrett

I also disagree with what bugmaniacbob says about this being a direction that has already been looked into especially with poison types etc. If this has already been looked at then why are there no dominant monotype poison pokemon, especially offensively? Also just the fact that muk is the strongest monotyped poison pokemon ever in terms of total base stat totally nullifies that statement

Mainly because, well, there are only so many ways you can take a mono-type Poison attacker, and it's not like we'd be challenging ourselves that much. We'd have to make the poison-type advantageous, so naturally we have our high-powered STAB Gunk Shot plus whatever coverage moves might happen to take our fancy, and the product is just another generic sort of Pokemon. I feel that when there are so many ways this thing can go, it's a shame to do what we already know how to do.

[The Offspring]

I feel that 1DTO really wouldn't accomplish anything. We all know where an offensive Poison or Steel type would lead; a Pokemon with a massive movepool or stat total.

While both 2CTD and 2MTO are better, I feel that 2MTO is the best option. All we would learn from 2CTD is that coverage is good...If we try to balance out a bad defensive typing with a typing that threatens it's weakness, we'd no longer have a Pokemon highlighting its "bad" typing. We'd have a Pokemon with one good and one bad typing that would probably be outshined by it's better typing.

This is why I feel that 2MTO is the superior option because we could learn more from it, mostly because it isn't as obvious as having a good movepool, stat total, or other typing to compensate for the typing's downfalls. 2MTO is the best for fitting a niche and learning about the metagame, as opposed to having an interesting cop-out like the other options.

[No Luck Involved]

Originally Posted by Fat bugmaniacbob

Mainly because, well, there are only so many ways you can take a mono-type Poison attacker, and it's not like we'd be challenging ourselves that much. We'd have to make the poison-type advantageous, so naturally we have our high-powered STAB Gunk Shot plus whatever coverage moves might happen to take our fancy, and the product is just another generic sort of Pokemon. I feel that when there are so many ways this thing can go, it's a shame to do what we already know how to do.

Is that really a bad thing? If we went down that route we could still make our best efforts to careful mould it into a useful and well balanced threat with the right movepool, stats and ability to compliment that type's strengths. The key word is carefully because it would be important to give it a useful niche but not to make it obscenely powerful or hard to wall. If it is carefully considered we could just as well end up with a unique and interesting threat of a type that we don't normally see in OU, and isn't that what the goal of the concept is - to see the effect a traditionally 'bad' (and hence lesser seen) type has on the meta-game when it has been well considered and built and given just the right tools (which arguably Game Freak has failed with some types so far). That in itself would be interesting and a success imo.

The key for me isn't whether this Pokemon has one or two types, personally I don't mind at all, but to give some lesser seen types the right treatment to make it 'useful' on an OU team. I can see merit in both mono or dual type. I would urge this threat to have some sort of offensive presence though because that's what shapes the landscape, if it wasn't a threat to things then people won't change their team synergies to account for it - we might as well be making another Blissey to sit there and sponge more things if we went purely defensive.

[Deck Knight]

Let me give a little more feedback on some of the distinctions between the options.


1DTO vs. Break the Mold.

The thing about Break the Mold as it was initially conceived was to take a typing whose Pokemon shared general characteristics and give the typing different characteristics. Since Rock types are generally Physical and Slow, Stratagem was made Special and Fast. It should be noted that fast Rock Pokemon (Aerodactyl) and Special Attacking Rock Pokemon (Omastar) already existed, but never in that combination. In Gen 4, the next highest Special Attack after Omastar's 115 was Tyranitar/Lunatone at 95, and the next highest Speed after Aerodactyl's 130 was Kabutops' 80.

1DTO is different in that we're not trying to make a Pokemon's type do the opposite of what it's aggregate members do, rather we're trying to make a Pokemon that uses Type Defense as its primary form of bulk and further making its STAB sufficiently threatening that it defines the Pokemon. A mono-Poison CAP for example would have moves to address Steel types, however in order to keep the STAB relevant there'd be restrictions on any moves that hit Grass-types super-effectively, since it would negate Poison's single offensive advantage. There are already examples of Offensive Poison Types (Nidoking, Venusaur in Sun) and Defensive Poison types (Muk, Weezing, Tentacruel), so it wouldn't be "Break the Mold" anyway.

2MTO vs. 2CTD:

2MTO is the most diverse of all directions. The point of the Typing Discussion if 2MTO is selected would be to argue which types have the most relevant key resistances and offensive STAB combination. You intend to use both STABs primarily to deal damage to foes, so while Fire/Poison probably isn't the best for 2MTO since Fire is always better than Poison offensively, it would still qualify because immunity to both Burn and Toxic, as well as the key Fighting and 4x Bug and Grass resistance. It would be weighed against the Psychic, Ground (4x), Water, and Rock weaknesses. Ideally the Pokemon would use both STABs, however if one STAB is clearly superior (as in Fire/Poison), the Pokemon should have enough defenses to utilize the defensive combination.

2CTD is much more restrictive because one type must cover the other type's weaknesses offensively while retaining that weakness. Thus the Water / Ice example where the Pokemon is still weak to Grass and its main STAB is still resisted by Dragon, but Ice keeps both away. Water / Electric would be an example since Water hits Ground Pokemon that are immune to Electric attacks for super-effective damage, while Electric hits Water Pokemon that resist Water. The Pokemon should be using both STABs and a coverage move for anything they might not cover between them. As stated in the OP, this is the most exotic and unique, but it's also the most challenging to build. The reason it's listed as a concept that works "defensively" is you're not using the two STABs to stallbreak like you could potentially be doing in 2MTO, instead the Pokemon synergizes both types and removes many threats that either of the single typings would not otherwise be able to address.

[reachzero]

The way I see it, the usefulness of this concept lies in the way that it forces us to consider the benefits of types and type combinations that we normally think of as disadvantageous. I feel that Deck Knight left out a possible direction we could take this in. We could also build a Pokemon that has ideal offensive typing, with relatively marginal defensive typing. "Defense" means more than immunities and resistances--it includes how much entry hazard damage the Pokemon takes, whether it takes Sandstorm damage. Moltres had good defensive typing--when Stealth Rock isn't up. Defensive Fire in general is bad not because it lacks good resistances, but because it takes double damage from Stealth Rock and is not immune to any other hazards. On the other side, offensive types can be good for reasons other what they hit super-effective or even their neutral coverage. The abilities that boost specific types have to be taken into account, as do the attacking moves that Pokemon have access to. Shaymin-s was banned from a Dragons-and-Steels dominated metagame because Seed Flare and Serene Grace is ridiculous even if lots of Pokemon resist it. So why couldn't we build a Pokemon that really likes being at low HP, for instance? A typing weak to Stealth Rock, or even 4x weak, gets to low HP much faster, and thus would be better at doing its job. Keep in mind there is lots of support for the "low HP" approach--pinch berries, pinch attack boosting abilities, attacks like Flail and Reversal. I suspect terrible defense, really good offense is actually a viable option for this concept.

[Pwnemon]

Frankly, I'm not a fan of any of these options.

Wait wait wait hear me out!

I agree with Cape's post and I don't think any of those options work for it. The idea of Tmon's concept is not "well it's got a pretty meh typing but it's still good." The idea is "We give it a typing with great potential but a crippling flaw or two, which we manage to cover with a combination of stats, ability, and/or movepool. A great example was Cape when he said Fire/Flying - amazing offensive coverage which has trouble with only Rock Types. We could give it Magic Guard and Aura Sphere to deal with these problems (or go physical or something [Note: i'm not polljumping, just showing the potential behind this idea]) 2CTP especially strikes me as "well my typing is OK but my stats can make up for it!" while i believe the idea is "my typing is fucking terrible wait just kidding"

Celebi has been bandied about more than a little and this discussion and I would like to point out this is NOT where we want to go with this concept. Celebi may be good but it is not, i repeat not as a virtue of its typing. Celebi is good because it has base 100s across the board, Nasty plot, Natural cure and a number of other factors which do nothing to improve its still terrible typing.

I think if we want to proceed in this we would do best by not ruling out any typing combination or goal. It should be fairly clear when a typing is suggested what path it would intend to take, but pigeonholing ourselves so badly so early is not imo excusable as "defining a clear path." Choosing a typing should somewhat outline what path we take (for example fire/fly is inexcusably bad defensively but good offensively) but deciding here before we even fully examine the typing options which could best fulfill this goal what role we want our mon to fill is just a bad idea.

[bugmaniacbob]

Originally Posted by Fat No Luck Involved

Is that really a bad thing? If we went down that route we could still make our best efforts to careful mould it into a useful and well balanced threat with the right movepool, stats and ability to compliment that type's strengths. The key word is carefully because it would be important to give it a useful niche but not to make it obscenely powerful or hard to wall. If it is carefully considered we could just as well end up with a unique and interesting threat of a type that we don't normally see in OU, and isn't that what the goal of the concept is - to see the effect a traditionally 'bad' (and hence lesser seen) type has on the meta-game when it has been well considered and built and given just the right tools (which arguably Game Freak has failed with some types so far). That in itself would be interesting and a success imo.

Very few mono-types are inherently bad as a result of typing alone. Reposting from #cap:

<bugmaniacbob> most monotypes don't really have a conceivable disadvantage
<bugmaniacbob> other than being limited offensively
<bugmaniacbob> whereas with two types we can propagate the weakness of the typing
<bugmaniacbob> the way I see it, if you put typings on a spectrum
<bugmaniacbob> the best dual-types are up at one end, and the worst are up at the other end
<bugmaniacbob> and most mono-types are sort of in the middle somewhere
<bugmaniacbob> thing is that limited coverage is easy to solve
<bugmaniacbob> just add... well, more coverage, or bulk up or something
<bugmaniacbob> a proper typing disadvantage is much much harder
<capefeather> like a 4x disadvantage?
<capefeather> or many disadvantages?
<bugmaniacbob> either or
<bugmaniacbob> you have your water/dragon, and you have your rock/ice

We could quite easily construct a well-balanced threat given a mono-type, but that's just it - it would be pretty easy. I'd rather that this CAP gave us a bit more of a challenge, and most dual-types have so much potential and so much wrong with them that I feel it is so much more worthwhile to try to make their typings something positive, rather than mono-types, because the thing with mono-types is, we already know what their advantages are, it's not going to tell us anything we don't know, and, well, we already know how it will work in practice, more or less. It'll be another strong, fast Pokemon with some way of working in practice, and something that makes it usable.

@Deck Knight:

I should probably post here for clarification. As far as I can see, the three options that are presented to us are as follows:

1. Mono-type that hits things and has some sort of strong defensive typing but weak offensive typing
2. Dual-type that hits things and has some sort of strong defensive typing but weak offensive typing
3. Dual-type that hits things and has some sort of strong offensive typing but weak defensive typing

I'm having trouble seeing how any of these actually helps to fulfil the concept. Just about every single mono-type is on average better defensively than it is offensively (unless it's something like, say... Ice), and I don't see why we have to make our typing advantageous outside of the area it is supposed to be operating in - why, indeed, we have to make something like Poison or Steel a powerful offensive threat, or give a defensive Ice-type a second typing to nullify its weakness, as opposed to concentrating on its plus points, like being able to wall dragons or whatever it might be.

I'm supporting whatever allows us to propagate both weaknesses and strengths, rather than cover them up, to create a Pokemon with a viable niche in the metagame that allows it to counter specific threats and to provide a role on a team, rather than just being another generically strong Pokemon. In essence, what Celebi is, or Claydol could have been. I am fairly certain that this is the second option, but I am honestly not sure any longer.

[MCBarrett]

To me it seems like we're moving away from one of the concept's most important and basic ideas and that is to create a Pokemon whos typing while normally considered poor, becomes a selling point of the Pokemon itself.

The key word being normally, which would suggest that this typing, whether mono or dual, already exists.

Therefore we shouldn't open the possibilities of new combinations, rather improve or change previous ones(including monotypes)

[Deck Knight]

The problem with arguing against setting us on a path so early is literally that our path is set as soon as the next Discussion and Poll are done. After Typing Discussion and Poll are done, we have Threats, and the purpose of this concept assessment is to go over which kind of typing we'd like to explore.

What I'm trying to do is provide more direction and clarity, so perhaps I'm using the terms wrong. Basically what I'm saying with Offensive is that it doesn't preclude either "Hyper Offensive" or "Bulky Offensive," but it would preclude Stall. For a direction like 1DTO, making for example a Defensive Poison Type or a Defensive Steel type isn't really a "makeover." Utilizing Poison's somewhat decent neutral coverage and the fact nothing is immune to Steel would be examples that still use the Pokemon's strengths (it could still be a bulky stat booster), but also emphasize the qualities that are easily forgotten. This brings the typing into focus rather than just being a Pokemon that resists Fighting, Bug, and is Immune to Toxic and also happens to have good non-specific coverage.

2MTO is trickier, in that it allows both offensive and defensive typings. Something like Rock / Fire lends itself more to Hyper Offense, since the only thing it might be able to come in on is Hurricane or U-turn, and from there it can nuke Tornadus or Scizor or whatever. Or you use it in Sandstorm since it gets a special defense buff and can come in on say special grass attacks. It's also a very easy typing to patch up with Ability, as Storm Drain makes its STAB Fire Blast monstrously powerful.

Where 2MTO and 2CTD converge is something like Bug / Dark, a type combination that takes Fighting / Ghost / Psychic / Dark attacks neutrally at worst, with Dark hitting Ghost types that resist Bug and Bug hitting Dark types that resist Dark. In this case it could go either bulky offense or more defense oriented, but the point in either case would be to draw out the specific strengths of the typing. It would be SR weak, but Pursuit resistant, and potentially a foolproof switchin to Reuniclus.

If it seems like I'm being a little too picky on the directions, it's that each of these directions has its own subset of concepts and I would rather our Typing Discussion be about what best fits that subset rather than having a jumble of all 3 directions competing for a singular victor's place. I want the Typing Discussion to be a debate over either which monotype we'd learn the most from making over, which Dual type would provide a key resistance that enables a strong offensive push. Or which Dual Type combination allows the CAP to continue your strategy without having to switch against Threats that would ordinarily force a Pokemon of a single typing out.

In any case "Bulky Offense" is very much an option for all 3, whereas "Stall" is more limited to 2CTD. It's not a Makeover to make an excellent Defensive Type Defensive, and history has show trying to use a Pokemon with poor Type Defense as a mono-typed offensive Pokemon is ineffective.

As far as using new types, we can all theorize Ice/Rock is a deplorable defensive typing, even if no Pokemon has it. Just like we don't judge Normal based on Smeargle, Blissey, or Snorlax individually. The point is to make a Pokemon strong enough to compete in OU.