1. New to the forums? Check out our Mentorship Program!
    Our mentors will answer your questions and help you become a part of the community!
  2. Welcome to Smogon Forums! Please take a minute to read the rules.

CAP 14 CAP 3 - Concept Assessment

Discussion in 'CAP Process Archive' started by capefeather, Apr 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. capefeather

    capefeather YOU CAN'T STOP THE FORDS
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,885
    The CAP tribe has spoken! The language that this project will be speaking henceforth is:

    I would make a bunch of references to Extreme Makeover or its spawn, but I don't really watch these shows...

    Although the concept has been chosen, we should take a hard look at what it is we've voted in, exactly. Just speaking the same language isn't going to get everyone on the same page. What are we going to do with this concept? As I understand it, the choosing of this concept was partly a war between the "abstract" - concepts that were similar to the past 2-3 CAPs that were about learning something super-deep about the metagame - and the "concrete" - "treasure hunt" style concepts that are more about building a Pokémon. I do think that the latter could still teach us something about the metagame, even if the direct focus is on the mechanics. We'll see where this goes.

    Theorymon has given us a few questions to think about, but it seems much of it is geared toward discussions after the typing stage. Deck Knight will have to figure out what to do with this himself.
  2. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight October Surprise
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,576
    Concept Assessment CAP 3

    Concept: Extreme Makeover: Typing Edition
    With the concept now selected, it is time to assess the direction we want to go with the concept. Immediately following the Concept Assessment will be Typing Assessment, then Threats Discussion, so CAP 3 is going to be very top heavy in terms of importance. I see three distinct, unique directions we can go for in pursuing the concept’s objectives:

    Use an existing defensive mono-type offensively (1 Defensive Typing Offensive - 1DTO):

    Dual STAB lends itself much better to offense, but often comes with a weakness list that is too long. This direction would emphasize offense while utilizing the Pokemon’s limited weaknesses and key resistances as its method for success. While we could also do this with a defensive dual-type, the additional coverage would make it less of a test for the concept and lend it more into generic “good Pokemon” territory. By definition a dual-type is more offensive because of the second STAB boost. Even a Normal/Poison Pokemon would prefer Normal because of the better STAB moves. Mono-types that might fit this are Ghost, Normal, Poison, Psychic, and Steel.

    Use an existing or new offensive dual-type with key resistances to balance bad weaknesses offensively (2 Mixed Typing Offensive - 2MTO):

    This is a riskier proposition than the above, but also allows for more learning from the concept. What we would need to identify is which resistances we think are valuable and what kind of bad weaknesses we should allow. The Pokemon would still be offense oriented and would use its Dual STAB to pressure opponents. There are many combinations that could fit this, but Rock seems to prominent as a combining type for its good offensive coverage, resistances to Fire, Flying, and Normal, and the exposure to Steel, Fighting, Water, Ground, and Grass, several of which can be mitigated by combining types or absorption Abilites. Bug and Psychic are also interesting for their Fighting Resistance combined with weaknesses to Stealth Rock and U-turn/Pursuit respectively.

    Use an existing or new dual type with offensive STABs that balance out defensive weaknesses in the type combination defensively (2 Covering Typing Defensive - 2CTD):

    Perhaps the most challenging at all, this direction would take a look at STAB Synergy and how a Pokemon covers its weaknesses while defending. An existing example would be Water / Ice Pokemon who use their Ice STAB to cover the Grass and Dragon Pokemon that resist Water attacks, while Water STAB covers the Fire types that resist Ice, or Torterra’s Grass/Ground STAB where Ground defeats Fire and Steel types that resist Grass, while Grass keeps most of the part-Water Ice types and Water Pokemon with Ice attacks away in general. 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. This contrasts to 2MTO in that the typing itself seeks to neutralize the weakness. 2CTD doesn’t neutralize weaknesses directly, but makes it more difficult for opponents to exploit weaknesses by threatening with a secondary super-effective STAB. Note here that “Defensively” does not mean “Slow,” it means that the Pokemon uses its resistances to switch in and it’s dual-STAB to ward off the threatening STABs of opponents. In the example of Fire / Water below, it would mean switching into a resisted Scizor’s U-turn and using the threat of Water STAB to keep away any Rock or Ground types the opponent might be using (ex. Gliscor)

    These types will be more exotic by nature, an example being Fire / Water, where Water STAB keeps Rock and Ground Pokemon away, while Fire takes care of bulky Grass types that usually threaten Bulky Waters. The Pokemon is still weak to Rock and Ground, but Water keeps those types at bay. In general the Pokemon takes advantage of its neutral coverage and uses Hidden Power (or some other means) to deal with the Pokemon that resist it (other Waters and Dragon types). Having STAB on both Scald and Lava Plume would also deter physical attacks in general.

    Note that this topic is not about deciding what *TYPE* we should use for the concept. This stage is for determining which of these three *DIRECTIONS* would be the best. I’ve given them acronyms above for ease of argument, here they are again below:

    1DTO – 1 Defensive Typing used Offensively.
    2MTO – 2 Mixed Typings used Offensively.
    2CTD – 2 Covering Typings used Defensively.

    You might ask, “Why not just Offensive or Defensive?” In this particular concept the point is to take a “Bad” Typing and make it the Pokemon’s strong point. This means that our typing will need to have strong points to emphasize. Making a decision about whether CAP3 should be “Bulky Offense” or “Stall-oriented” would not really help, since those descriptions permeate through the whole CAP. The Typing of the CAP comes directly after Concept Assessment, meaning we need a very clear direction for what our CAP will be doing with its typing at the outset.

    All three of these directions are legitimate takes on the concept, but if we go into the typing stage without figuring out which of these is our goal, we will have a muddle of all three. The purpose of this Concept Assessment will be to use these ideas as a platform, and discuss which of them would make the best use of the CAP Process to learn about maximizing the strong points of a typing. Back in Generation 4, X-Act made a listing of the Type Defense of Pokemon that was very instructive. Although it would need to be rebalanced for Gen 5, its insights are still valuable since the type chart did not change all that much, though Special Flying and Physical Electric would be increased due to Hurricane and Wild Charge, respectively. If you believe there is a fourth or fifth way to explore the concept that I have not thought of, please share it and I will add it to this post along with any insights.

    I should note I have generally excluded using an offensive mono-type Defensively, since there is little fertile ground there. Regirock, Regice, and Torkoal have been takes on this sort of concept, and they run into the problem that their type defense just isn’t good enough, and with only one STAB they have limited offensive potential. Many other mono-types are much more balanced, which is why there are many Bulky Water, Bulky Grass, Bulky Ground, and Bulky Steel Pokemon. Ferrothorn aped a lot of these Pokemon in Gen V, and Registeel is an example of a Bulky Steel that isn’t offensive enough. While some of these directions are legitimate, I don’t think we would learn as much about them, or have already learned about them through other CAPs, Kitsunoh being the prime example of a defensive dual typing used offensively, and Cyclohm exemplifying an offensive dual typing used defensively.

    Have at thee, Concept Assessment!

    [​IMG]
  3. Treadshot A1

    Treadshot A1

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,253
    Um, so we're supposed to put forth arguments for one, right?

    In that case, i say we go for 2MTO.

    I scratched the 2CTD choice off my list of possibilities because i thought it would lead to a pokemon that was too difficult to take down. While i know CAP would seek to make a pokemon balanced, i do think that with the possibility of any dual-type, it could be made too good. In fact,i fear a Shendinja scenario, where the typing is good (somewhat) to the point where it has to be balanced by a HP stat or something else. Short of that, the dual-typings that lead to decent but not absurd defensive qualities have already been used. Normal Flying mitigates its fighting weakness, Ghost Poison stops Psychics from running rampant and Water Ice leaves Fighting and Electric as its main weaknesses. Within those, we have heavily offensive pokemon, like Fearow and Gengar, while defensive pokemon like Walrein fill out the spectrum quite nicely, which leaves CAP with fewer options.

    As for using just one type, i don't feel that would lead to as many learning opportunities as a dual-typed choice. Also, the pokemon would likely lean towards either item usage or coverage to allow it to succeed, which might take focus away from the typing itself. That, and some pokemon, like Eelektross have already explored the single typing and how to remove it's weaknesses. Obviously, Eelektross' stats aren't anything to boast about, but i think that pokemon really showed what single defensive typing would lead to. It's got an ability to aid it's typing, coverage moves to let it hit like an Electivire and stats to make sure it isn't broken. That's pretty much all we could do in that regard.

    With two types offensively, even though it might not be the newest of ideas (see: Forretress, Scizor, any Dragon/Flying pokemon), it would provide an opportunity to see how the two abilities, with their combined weaknesses, could be mitigated. This could be due to a strong coverage move that's SE on threats, or an ability that allows it to leave one weakness essentially covered, or a stat spread that allows it to pose enough of a threat to severely cripple it's main counter, essentially making it's worst case scenario a one for one trade.
  4. I am heavily in favor of 1DTO. Besides that three of the most compelling concepts that I've heard for this CAP so far follow that model, it seems to be the model that, I feel, will give us the best opportunity to adhere to the concept, for two reasons:

    A) At least from what I've seen concerning 2MTO and 2CTD, there's too much temptation to cover one "bad" type with a second "good" type, which I think defeats the purpose of the concept. If we want to make an offensive Poison-type, then making it Poison/Dragon or Poison/Fighting is kind of cheating the concept, which would dictate that we make the Poison typing the offensive asset. Likewise, if we want to make a defensive Ice-type, then making it Ice/Steel is kind of cheating the concept, which would dictate that we make the Ice typing the defensive asset (Yes, I realize that's not really that great, but it's just an example, you know exactly what I mean, work with me here).
    EDIT: If I can use one of Deck's examples, I'm afraid we'll end up with something like Ice/Water for 2CTD. Yeah, Ice is bad defensively, but Water is good defensively, so that's sort of cheating. The defensive focus there isn't on the Ice typing but on the Water typing.

    B) Trying to work with one bad type rather than two bad types gives us more focus. Let's say, for the sake of example, that we have an offensive Normal/Steel Pokemon. Well, which type are we making over? Do we give it something like Scrappy to make the Normal typing the offensive focus? Or do we give it Gryo Ball or Heavy Slam to make Steel typing the offensive focus? Or do we try to make over both types at once? I think that this is going to lead to too much confusion and could end up backfiring, such as how pretty much useless that Normal typing would be if we ended up going with making the Steel type the offensive focus. We simply won't run into questions like this with a mono-type Pokemon; once we pick our type, we know exactly what we're focusing on and how, especially because it'll only have one STAB.
  5. MCBarrett

    MCBarrett i love it when you call me big hoppa

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    551
    I actually feel that the 1DTO direction would be a greater challenge, and could possibly be more interesting, than the other two due to the fact that it will not be able to rely on another typing for added stabs or resistances. Rather it would rely more upon its stats, ability, and move pool to be a force offensively. Essentially it would force us to look at other aspects of that typing that have not been looked at in an offensive manner.
  6. Destiny Warrior

    Destiny Warrior also known as Darkwing_Duck
    is a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,171
    I think the first and third options(1DTO and 2CTD) are the options we should aim for. They, I feel, challenge us to think more creatively than we would need to for 2MTO. 1DTO in particular I think makes for a good overall concept, as monotypes in general are relatively disadvantaged.

    Considering that almost every CAP we've made has ended up as an offensive threat with very good dual type STABs(notable exceptions: Fidgit(who in the first place was a supporter), Stratagem(who is our only monotype CAP), Kitsunoh(who doesn't rely on STAB Steel moves because it gets Fighting moves). Both 1DTO and 2CTD provide a change from this. While 1DTO forces us to think innovatively to make a monotype Pokemon work, 2CTD does not directly cut out weaknesses, but instead focuses on "scare tactics", which are relatively uncommon in the Generation 5 metagame. 2CTD allows us to pick a typing freely, without concerns about whether it has major weaknesses. Instead, we can focus on new type combinations, or those which are present only on terrible Pokemon.

    1DTO on the other hand lets us study how important STAB is to a Pokemon. A lack of effective STAB, but key resistances make for an interesting mix, and it remains to be seen what could come out of it. It also forces us to think outside of the box rather than going with cookie cutter types like Fighting.

    So to conclude, I think both 1DTO and 2CTD are good directions to take.
  7. srk1214

    srk1214 You spin my head right round
    is a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributor
    Mentor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,275
    I know this isn't solid logic for anything... but I really am leaning toward 1DTO for one reason only.

    CAP has a bit of a history of trying to create new typing combinations (because, hey, who doesn't want to see them? I love 'em.) I think it's time we give ourselves a challenge of making a realistic Pokemon that satisfies the challenge. I'm not saying Water/Fire is implausible, but to be fair GF hasn't made one in 5 generations.

    I'd be much more behind a return to a more realistic project in line with what GF has done in the past after last rounds slightly fanciful, albeit successful and fun, project of Sketch Artist.

    Only 15 of the 50 Pokemon in OU at the moment are monotyped. And most of them are somewhat niche. Politoed ranks the highest, coming in at #6 in OU for obvious reasons. After that the next in line is Ninetales at #21! Really?! The top two monotype Pokemon in OU are weather starters? Clearly there is a problem with most monotypes in Pokemon if no monotype without a serious, serious benefit in weather-starting can crack the top 20.

    Therefore...

    Let's make a successful OU Pokemon that is monotype. Why not?
  8. Yllnath

    Yllnath

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    304
    This is perhaps more of a question towards DK, but something to think about anyway.

    From DK's OP:

    From Theorymon's concept description:

    These two statements oppose each other enough for me, that I'd like more clarification. I'm not just debating semantics here, so please bear with me.

    If it's really our goal to make a bad typing our pokemon's strong point, then any 1 typing approach is off the table.
    Looking at the concept, TM is basically mentioning:
    "1. Take a bad type
    2. Add good stats, ability, movepool, etc.
    3. ?
    4. Profit!" (to use a popular internet format)

    This is not the same as making a bad typing it's strong point. In this example, this is just a pokemon with a good ability/stats, whatever, that just happens to have a bad typing.

    The only way to effectively make a pokemon, that has one or even two typings that are considered bad typings when isolated, is to find a certain level of synergy between the two typings, where having the bad typing on board actually become's the blessing of the total of the two typings. Only in this way, can we fulfill the literal sense of DK underlined statement, where we try to take a bad typing, and to make that bad typing it's actual strong point. Where you can look back at the pokemon and say, 'Yeah, it has good stats and ability and all, but the dual typing, is really where the pokemon derives it's greatness from.'


    So my question is, are we following an approach of just fixing a bad type in later stages, or are we following an approach to make one or more bad types a good typing combo?


    From my point of view, just making a good functioning pokemon, that we build specifically to function well, regardless of it's bad typing, through using good options in all stages following the typing stage, is far less exciting than trying to find a typing that (like in DK's 2CTD example) works well because of the synergy, and we don't have to 'fix' the pokemon in later stages.

    I hope I was able to get my point across, I actually logged in and typed this at work, because I felt it was important to pose the question early on, since it sort of effectively eliminates the 1DTO typing from DK's post.
  9. I don't understand this leap in logic. Theorymon even used some single-type Pokemon as examples: Blissey, Mewtwo, and Steel Arceus. It is possible for a bad type to prove an asset by having synergy with something other than a second type. Blissey succeeds because its high defensive stats are great on a type that has only one weakness, Mewtwo succeeds because it has access to a powerful STAB attack with valuable unique properties (Psy-Strike), and Steel Arceus succeeds because its resistances provide it with valuable opportunities to set up and because no Pokemon is immune to its most powerful STAB attack.
  10. Yllnath

    Yllnath

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    304
    I'm arguing mostly about DK's underlined statement, and how that conflicts with what TM is saying.

    Don't get me wrong, I don't mind doing a mono-type pokemon, the fact that there are barely any mono-type pokemon in OU is reason enough to explore this. However, it's up to the discretion of the TL in any project, to follow a path that he or she thinks is best, and up to us, the community to just help make up his mind.

    When DK made a statement to make a bad typing in and of itself the pokemon's strong point, then that directly conflicts with a project where you fix a bad typing by just giving it good etc.

    Basically, there is a lot to explore and learn by making a mono-type that's effective. Yet there is also a lot to explore about typing synergy and type effectiveness. The fact he linked X-Act's type defense post and the fact that the typing stage is right next after this (and saying this particular project is top heavy) leads me to believe he wants to put some emphasis on learning specifically about the typing mechanics of pokemon, which I feel is viable to still learn and discuss about.

    And in that sense, it is possible to make a statement to take any bad typing, and try to make that bad typing the strong point of the pokemon.

    After all, it's up to DK to decide what approach to go with. I'm not saying that I don't like the 1DTO set-up, I'd be fine either way. However, there is a mismatch between what DK said (and even underlined to put emphasis on), and what the concept is saying and what he proposes in 1DTO.

    That's why I basically mentioned that the post was more or less aimed at DK, as in the end, it's up to him on what he does with this. I only decided not to PM to him, because it might affect if all 3 options will remain up for discussion and it might be good if everyone is aware of this, before this turns into a 4 page discussion, before DK even got around to seeing his PM. I hope that made sense.
  11. thornchild

    thornchild Guest

    My vote goes to 2MTO.

    I agree with asylum that the temptation to "fix" a bad offensive typing with a good one is there, I feel that as long as enough people are aware and raise the concern we could potentially avoid that problem when the typing discussion gets under way.
  12. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight October Surprise
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,576
    There's no mismatch or logical inconsistency.

    Why do you think "Bad" was in quotes?

    No typing is "Bad." The point of the concept is to maximize a typing's Strengths, such that they overcome its weaknesses and define the CAP.

    Even Bug/Flying and Grass/Ice are "Good" typings if you can emphasize their strengths. The point of 1DTO is to utilize a defensive mono-type with one or two key resistances to switch in, then pummel the opponent with overwhelming force. How much we'll need will depend on the offensive qualities of the type selected, but suffice it to say, Poison would need a lot more to buff it than Steel.
  13. No Luck Involved

    No Luck Involved

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,789
    It would be useful to compile a list of the frequency that types appear in OU since the idea of the concept could be interpreted as to introduce a lesser seen type as a 'new force' in the metagame.

    Personally I am leaning more towards 1DTO because I think a good new offensive force will throw up more challenges to counter/revenge/synergise with it and allow more variety in how it is dealt with rather than a good defensive force which tend to stagnate the metagame if it counters too many things too well (or only has a few real weaknesses). I'd be more interested in developing a rarely seen type rather than a commonly seen type that is just bad at offence (eg Bug rather than Steel etc) because to have a Pokemon "built to fit" for that specific type to highlight its strengths would be much more interesting to see how this new STAB affects the synergy of teams and the metagame. Game Freak has certainly left us plenty of options to choose from!
  14. erisia

    erisia (macho) brace yourselves
    is a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    882
    When I first saw this concept, I was leaning towards 1DTO because I thought it would allow use to pursue the concept in its purest form. Making an offensive Steel- or Poison-type would be pretty interesting in helping us to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these typings offensively that may have just been brushed off in the past as "useless" or "STAB only" Playing almost exclusively in NU, I know that Poison is a good offensive typing despite its lack of weaknesses and multiple resistances because moves like Sludge Bomb and Gunk Shot have excellent power, and for the most part, good neutral coverage. Obviously the case would be different in OU with Steel-types being much more common, but we can design the Pokemon to have an appropriate response to Steel types so that its Poison STAB isn't overshadowed or overlooked. Likewise, while the Steel-typing has a lot of resistances, we could go as far as giving the Pokemon Tinted Lens, Flash Cannon, and not many other coverage moves, and seeing if it'd be able to muscle through opponents.

    On the other hand, I've become more intrigued by the 2MTO category, just because it would be fun to come up with a Bug / Flying that can wreck opponents with its resistances and offensive coverage, or a Ground / Psychic that can make use of its good STAB options through great offensive stats. It gives us the opportunity to explore how to emphasise the typing of a Pokemon within the OU metagame, and it would certainly be an interesting process to do so.
  15. Yllnath

    Yllnath

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    304
    Allright, thanks for clearing that up Deck Knight. Basically a misinterpretation of your post then, from my point of view.

    I like the option 2CTD best, followed closely by 1DTO.

    I think 2CTD will give us a lot of discussion on how to implement a combination of typing that, even though used as a defensive pokemon, can have a typing that is not seen as ideal defensively, by giving it another typing to help alleviate weaknesses, or act as a deterrent versus pokemon that would like to make use of the said weaknesses in the first typing. (For example) It would be fun to see what we come up with as a good defensively used pokemon, that does not rely on types like say Steel, just to net a bunch of resistances and immunities.

    1DTO is fun because good mono-type pokemon are rare, and often have something extraordinary to make them viable, like (weather starting) abilities, or absurd HP stats... An offensive mono-type pokemon, that has to rely on non-STAB attacks brings about a whole different way of thinking to explore while making this CAP. My only concern is that this has somewhat been done by Stratagem.
  16. bugmaniacbob

    bugmaniacbob Floats like a Butterfree, stings like a Metapod
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,298
    Wait this is really confusing

    Is "2MTO" supposed to be offensive or defensive?
    Is "2CTD" supposed to be offensive or defensive?

    Why do we have these acronyms as opposed to options 1, 2, 3?

    Anyway... I do not understand the appeal of (the first option) at all. As far as I can tell we would be taking a mono-type... and making a new defensive Pokemon. I really don't see what the point of this is since, as Deck Knight said, mono-types often make far better defensive Pokemon than dual-types simply because of the fewer exploitable weaknesses, with good defensive stats taken for granted, of course. And of course because having double STAB doesn't matter so much. Ghost, Poison, Normal, Psychic, and Steel? Do Dusknoir, Weezing, Blissey, Uxie, and Registeel suddenly not exist? Four out of those five are unused simply for lack of reliable recovery (and lack of any offensive presence whatsoever, granted) - but I genuinely cannot see what we can learn from a concept where we are doing essentially nothing out of the ordinary. More to the point, none of these are "bad" defensive typings or even negatives - if you had something like Fire or Ice, then yes, maybe you could make a point. But if we're going to be using incredibly generic typings, I can't see any positives to going this route at all.

    Deck Knight goes on to say... "The point of 1DTO is to utilize a defensive mono-type with one or two key resistances to switch in, then pummel the opponent with overwhelming force". So I take it that it is meant to be offensive in some capacity. So instead of Blissey, we're making Snorlax? I can't see how this is any better than just going purely defensive. At the end of the day, to make the Pokemon usable we have to solely make use of stats and movepool. Or the Deoxys-S approach. I am adamant that I want this CAP to make use of its typing in some important respect - not just a passive respect, like using its Poison-typing to switch into Conkeldurr or whatever. The biggest difficulty I have is that if we choose to go this route, its typing ceases to be of much relevance offensively, since it is more or less just trundling over everything in its way. I am certain that if we make this thing Poison-type, it will have moves to counter Steel/Ground/Rock/Poison/Ghost types, and all will be jolly nice. I guess the biggest gripe I have with this, on a personal level, is that it's not very... imaginative. It seems to put the project on more-or-less autopilot until the end, as we all know how it will very probably turn out. So, I'd prefer a typing that... challenged us a bit more. I've seen some people saying that we won't run into too many questions if we go mono-type. We won't really run into any questions if we go mono-type because we know exactly what is needed before we begin. I don't see that as fulfilling the concept.

    So, I would much prefer either the second or third options. I still don't know which is supposed to be defensive and which is supposed to be offensive, so I'll talk about it in those terms. If we go the defensive route - that is to say, our eventual Pokemon ends up being defensive - we are placed with a very great challenge indeed. I genuinely would absolutely love to see a proper defensive Fire/Flying or Ice/Flying, or even Bug/Flying, such that the legendary birds failed to be. Fire/Flying has so many lovely resistances, and we all know how anti-metagame Moltres was in DPP OU - it's only hindered by Stealth Rock. Articuno and Regice could be marvellous - Ice gives a big defensive advantage in being able to hit key Pokemon for super effective damage - but aren't for one reason or another. I'd even like to see a proper defensive Bug/Flying - it still has a decent set of resistances, though far too many weaknesses to count. As far as offensive stuff goes, that doesn't seem like much of a challenge at all - to go back to Bug/Flying, with strong enough STAB moves it could probably muscle through most of the metagame, regardless of its individual defensive failings, much like DPP Weavile or Aerodactyl, or even BW Virizion. I don't see this as quite so much of a challenge.

    So, I'd have to go with the defensive option, the second option, 2MTO. As far as assessing how we go about this, I am in firm agreement with those who have stated that trying to balance a bad type with a more conventionally good type is counterproductive. I'd prefer to subscribe to the Celebi school of logic - two pretty bad typings that don't synergise much and leave it with seven-odd weaknesses to common attacking types, yet still give it a huge niche and the ability to partner extraordinarily well with Heatran. So I'd say some pretty big points to consider are as follows:

    a) Find some threats that our chosen typing can counter, regardless of its other failings, to give it some sort of suitable niche. Claydol has a terrible defensive typing with seven weaknesses, all to common attacking types, but on the other hand has the resistances to be able to block Terrakion and Landorus, if not the offensive presence or defensive stats or the reliable recovery to be able to counter them outright. Similarly, were we to have a hypothetical Fire/Ground with Dry Skin, we'd have a pretty good counter to Volt-turn in theory, despite the poor defensive typing (I'm not suggesting this by the way, as Ground is far too good a typing in all situations for me, much like Electric or Water)

    b) Find some sort of a way for it to be able to cover up its weaknesses through its teammates. Claydol synergises pretty well with most Steel-types, such as Heatran. Even a defensive Bug/Flying synergises relatively well with Ferrothorn... barring that irritating Fire-type. Heck, most of the "bad typings" I can come up with synergise pretty well with Steel-types. Huh.

    My thoughts for now.

    ...and if I've totally misunderstood what exactly you are proposing, Deck Knight, do feel free to correct me.
  17. Meganium Sulfate

    Meganium Sulfate

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2012
    Messages:
    84
    Looking past CAP projects, I'm starting to think that most of these options have already been done. The 1DTO idea is present in Stratagem, with its defensive mono-typing in a very offensive-oriented pokemon. In addition, Revenankh embodies the 2MTO concept, with its Fighting STAB to counter Dark, and its Ghost STAB to counter Psychic. It also has a great defensive typing (X-Act's chart is more than enough evidence of that) used on an offensive pokemon.

    As Deck Knight said using the examples of Kitsunoh and Cyclohm, we gain little from redoing the work of previous CAP projects. Thus, the clearest direction to take is 2CTD, a direction that we have not fully explored (Krillowatt may be our best example of this, with its Water type offensively supporting its Ground weakness. However, due to the popularity of non-STAB ground moves, this has not worked to its full potential). 2CTD has the added bonus of generating some exciting new type combinations, like Fire/Water. With a new typing and a new idea, we would be creating a completely unique CAP.
  18. verbatim

    verbatim Red like Roses
    is a Battle Server Administratoris a Smogon IRC AOPis a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,449
    I'm currently heavily in favor of 1DTO because of faults with the other two options, mainly,

    2MTO runs into issues with which stab is used. With any combination of stabs, either your going to run into an issue were one is far superior (Fire/Poison) or you'll end up crafting a pokemon that in fact has dual excellent stats and deviates from the concept (Fighting/Ghost, Dragon/Fire, etc).

    2CTD looked cool at first, but upon further reflection it clashes with Theorymon's General Description,

    If we give something seemingly poor defensive typing, then we will be hard pressed to make it work because of its typing and not because of the BST we give it. People may argue that this applies to offensive stabs but I that they can be made the center of the project much more easily. If you want to go the route of making the STAB matter to the pokemon you can go about it a number of ways, from restricting movepool to a strong STAB in that type (something we may or may not have to make ourselves) to type specific abilities (think Adaptability).
  19. Rock is not considered a bad offensive type, so I don't see how that's true.

    The first is offensive, and the second is defensive. They say so in their titles. 2 Mixed Typing Offensive, 2 Covering Typing Defensive.

    You're listing defensive Pokemon. There is no mono-type defensive option for this CAP. The first option is for a mono-type offensive with typing that is not normally considered to be good offensively but that might be good defensively.

    I'm not sure where this Stratagem thing is coming from. Stratagem was not an offensive Pokemon with defensive typing. It was an offensive Pokemon with offensive typing. Rock is bad defensively, good offensively.
    EDIT: In general I'm not understanding your post. Revenankh can't be 2MTO, because Fighting it good offensive typing. Krillowatt has great defensive typing, so it can't be 2CTD, and neither can Cyclohm. If we did go with 2CTD, we couldn't go with Fire/Water because Water is good defensive typing, so that would be counter to the concept. Only Kitsunoh actually seems to cover 2MTO.
  20. bubbly

    bubbly

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    883
    I'd prefer 2MTO. Just to show where I'm coming from, something like Ice / Fighting would be fantastic. The issue that verbatim mentione with this approach simply shouldn't come up so long as the two typings complement each other well enough.
  21. bobinchese

    bobinchese

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    12
    This right here is why I believe that 1DTO would be the best choice for this CAP. Looking at my current team, I see that all of my pokemon are dual typed and in the two matches I've fought since reading these posts my opponents have also not had any monotypes. Also, I feel this is a chance to see some types that are almost never used e.g. poison and I feel that if we make the pokemon dual typed then the not very good type will get overshadowed by the better one.
  22. jas61292

    jas61292 used substitute
    is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,962
    Ok, so I want to start by saying that I thing all three of these approaches (if I am understanding them correctly) could work out decently. Of those three though I think 2 Covering Typing Defensive would be the most interesting and the most challenging of the three.

    Now, when I said that all three would work though, I do not mean that I think all 3 are good ideas. To be honest my opinion on 1 Defensive Type Used Offensively is pretty much exactly what Bugmaniacbob said in the quote:
    While doing one of the dual typed options would premote discussion on how to make such a typing viable, you really won't find that with a single typed offensive Pokemon. Either we give it the coverage it needs, and risk having it use that rather than STAB, causing the concept to fail, or we go the incredibly predictable route of limited coverage, but Tinted Lens or Adaptability. And I'm not even sure that that would help fulfill the concept either. Sure it would use its STAB, but would it be using it because it is good? No it would be using it because it is the best it has.

    Because of these reasons I definitely think that the two dual typed options are superior. However, I'm not sure I am really understanding the 2 Mixed Types Used Offensively. What are we supposed to be doing? Taking two types that work well together offensive despite not being good individually? I'm not really sure what it is saying, and the little I am getting out of it I have a hard time fitting in with the concept. So for now, I really can't say I am incredibly supportive of it either. I do think that a dual typed offensive Pokemon could work, but the way this is worded really confuses me.

    The third option, however, is what I really think would be the best way to go about things. Making a Pokemon with a typing that might seem defensively underwhelming work because it has the moves and abilities to make life hard for that which threatens it would be interesting and fun. If the things that beat you are scared of you, then it allows the other benefits of your type to shine, which is what this concept is really about.

    Finally, I would just like to briefly comment on this, from Deck's Post:
    I wouldn't write this option off so quickly. Sure none of these have worked in the past, but the reasons for this are not inherent to the typing. I mean, sure you can point out Torkoal and say defensive fire doesn't work, but that is not really a fair analysis. For example, lets compare Torkoal to fellow 140 defense Pokemon Skarmory. Why is Skarmory OU and Torkoal NU? Sure typing may have plenty to do with it, but there is also the fact that Skarm has reliable recovery, hazards, phazing and a respectable ability. Torkoal has a few support options, but otherwise is outclassed there. Now, imagine if Torkoal had Recover and Levitate. Suddenly it is not so outclassed. A few other fixes here and there and Torkoal is not a bad defensive Pokemon at all.

    While I still think that a 2 type approach would be better, I certainly believe that an approach such as this is viable, and the previous failings of such Pokemon are not a facet of typing alone.
  23. willking77

    willking77

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    31
    I am strongly in favor of 1DTO for the the simple reason that the OU metagame has become dominated by three types: Water,Steel, and Dragon. Any sweeper worth his salt has to be able to deal with Water and Steel in order to be effective. Any defensive Pokemon has to be able to handle dragons.
    As a contrast, there are only three OU poison Pokemon, and all of them are for valued for their other typing. (Tentacruel for Water, Gengar for Ghost, Toxicroak for Fighting.) A Monoghost, or Monopoison type sweeper would attempt to give balance back to the typings, something I don't a duel typed defensive Pokemon would do nearly as well.
  24. capefeather

    capefeather YOU CAN'T STOP THE FORDS
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,885
    I think that the categorization of #XXX, and consequently most of the posts in the thread, are going about this the wrong way. Mainly, I'm not sure everyone completely understands the distinction between the two dual-type options, and I'm not sure why we're even deciding on monotype vs dual type in this stage.

    I honestly think we should dispense with this one type vs two types business. This concept simply shouldn't be about individual types, which exist only in a vacuum. It should be about the typing combination (which, yes, could also be a single type) that we eventually decide on. Take Fire / Flying, for example. Individually, Fire and Flying are pretty excellent offensive types, each with an annoying, but tolerable, weakness to Stealth Rock. Together, however, they have a critical weakness to Stealth Rock, which severely hampers the combination's viability. I think that something like this is exactly in the spirit of the concept. We shouldn't be thinking about good type vs bad type. We should be thinking about good typing vs perceived bad typing. I think that separating monotype from dual type goes against this, and it is better left for the actual typing discussion.

    What I think we should get out of this project is a Pokémon with a typing that has serious potential, but is significantly crippled for whatever reason. I agree largely with bugmaniacbob in this regard, especially his Celebi example and the Moltres example I kind of described above. I suppose 2MTO and 1DTO fit this the best (I think???), though again, the distinction between them should be left for the typing discussion proper.

    I would like to add that we should seriously look at how the typing we choose will impact the future of the process. What I'm mainly worried about is the ability stage. Abilities are extremely powerful and I feel that relying on some magical type-resistant ability to "patch up" specific typing weaknesses would be a cop-out (e.g. Water Absorb, Flash Fire; though stuff like Filter and Regenerator might still be on the table). At the same time, I'm not sure I want stuff to be patched up with massive stats or movepool, either. If we could pick the typing in such a way that all of these stages share the limelight, it could lead to maximum utilization of the process to fulfill the concept.
  25. bugmaniacbob

    bugmaniacbob Floats like a Butterfree, stings like a Metapod
    is a Smogon Media Contributoris an Artist Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    2,298
    That seems a little clearer then. Though I do have to wonder why exactly the three options are all essentially variants of "good defensive typing but bad offensive typing" or vice versa. I just don't really see how this helps us to learn very much. Yes, some types are good defensively but poor offensively, like Poison or Steel. Yes, some types are good offensively but poor defensively, like Ice and Bug. It seems to me to be a bit of a waste of the concept if we start trying to make the Pokemon "good" based on a "bad" typing if all we are doing is playing to its plus points. 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. An offensive Poison-type is just something with a strong STAB Poison attack and a couple of necessary coverage moves. I don't see how we can make it anything more than that, besides the inevitable shenanigans with Acid Spray at the movepool stage.

    I really think that what we are trying to gain from this concept needs to be restated or fleshed out, as opposed to "well we just give it a non-corroborative typing and stat combination, and then balance it out with big stats and things later". I really would like to see this project develop into something a bit more than that, as there is so much potential knocking about. This is why I personally favour the defensive option - because it is the riskiest, and thus is the one we have the greatest potential to learn from. Even the worst offensive typings can be made good with high offensive stats, or whatever it might be; defensive shortcomings are far harder to cover up. More to the point, I don't want to see anything so dull as to try to cover up defensive shortcomings with a powerful offensive typing. I'm far more interested in trying to carve a niche - like I said in my previous post, I would be inclined to support a typing like Fire/Flying not because it is a powerful or cohesive offensive typing, but because it enables us to take on Pokemon like Scizor, Lucario, Heatran, Ferrothorn, and what not; this could be further widened by giving it an ability like Dry Skin. Thus a poor defensive typing is made a convincing defensive threat, in the same way as Celebi (or Claydol if it were any good at all).

    I am fairly certain that the option I am supporting is the third one. Albeit only fairly certain. It's still not really perfectly clear.

    Also before I forget:

    Not necessarily. You have to remember that most fully-evolved Pokemon are dual-typed, so naturally there will be a lower proportion of them in all tiers compared to OU. Furthermore, most mono-types are either weak early Pokemon, starters, or legendaries, so there are even fewer of them with the capacity to compete in OU. Those mono-types that do have a viable niche, such as Blissey, are used and are useful. I'm not sure what difference this argument makes.

    Also, referring to the part before the above, I'm not entirely sure that CAP has ever made a "realistic" Pokemon, if by realistic you mean a typing that has already been used, and no liberties taken with flavour (closest thing was probably Krilowatt and even that had Magic Guard and Draco Meteor). CAP has always been about experimenting and trying new things to see what happens, and taking risks, not about trying to emulate Game Freak.

    EDIT: Also I agree largely with capefeather except in the two he suggested would lead to the most successful CAP.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)