1. Welcome to Smogon! Check out the Smogon Starters Hangout for everything you need to know about starting out in the community. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the Introduction and Hangout Thread, too!
  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. Okay, now I'm thinking maybe I'm the one that's confused, because I'm seeing a lot of example that I can't help but think are entirely against the concept. A Fire/Flying offensive Pokemon? A Water/Electric Defensive Pokemon? Water or Electric showing up in any suggestions at all, even? I think we need some clarification on what exactly is is that we're trying to do here. Here are the different ways that people are interpreting this, as I understand them:

    1DTO
    We pretty much seem to agree on this, but there's still at least some confusion:
    * This is an offensive Pokemon with typing that may not normally be considered good offensively. The topic explanation includes Steel Arceus and Mewtwo as examples of this. I think anybody that says something like "Oh, we're just going to give them high stats and a wide move-pool, so what's the point?" is being very unimaginative, but that's beside the point. Deck and I seem to agree on this interpretation.
    * The only things I've seen that have confused me were that people were discussing Strategem (pure-Rock) and somebody said something about pure-Ground, neither of which make any sense because I'm pretty sure those types are normally considered good offensively. Where is this coming from?

    2MTO
    This is where we're definitely getting our wires crossed:
    * One interpretation is that we're creating a Pokemon neither of whose types are normally considered good offensively. The topic's explanation does not seem to name any examples to this effect. An example of this could be a Poison/Normal Pokemon. This is my own interpretation.
    * Another interpretation is that the typing selected might include one or two good offensive types. This seems to be Deck's interpretation. The topic's explanation arguably includes Volcarona as an example, though it definitely includes a theoretical Rock/Fire Pokemon. I interpret this as counter to the selected concept. Suggestions like Fire/Poison or Fire/Flying fit here.

    2CTD
    Our wires are also getting crossed here:
    * One interpretation is that we're creating a Pokemon neither of whose types are normally considered good defensively. An example could be a Rock/Psychic Pokemon, and examples in the topic's explanation are Celebi and Tyranitar. This is my own interpretation.
    * Another interpretation is that the typing selected might include one or two good defensive types. This seems to be Deck's interpretation. The topic's explanation does not seem to name any examples to this effect. I interpret this as counter to the selected concept. Suggestion like Water/Ice or Water/Electric fit here.

    The problem seems to be that the examples used in the topic are inconsistent and that the mono-type/dual-type conversation still sounds like a red herring to me. What is the consistency between 2MTO using typing good for its intended role but 1DTO and 2CTD using typing bad for their intended roles? If we're not always using typing bad for their intended role, then what's the point of the concept? If this concept can include (a) offensive Pokemon with poor offensive type, like Steel Arceus, (b) offensive Pokemon with good offensive type, like Volcarona, (c) defensive Pokemon with poor defensive type, like Celebi, and (d) defensive Pokemon with good defensive type, like Krillowatt, then... doesn't cover everything? The way I see it, the point of this concept is to go with either A or C, but apparently a lot of people disagree.
  2. Birkal

    Birkal We have the technology.
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Super Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnus
    CAP Head Mod

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    3,818
    I'll make my post brief, but I think that this could potentially be categorized a bit more simplistically. In my opinion, there are two "main" factions:

    a) Create a Pokemon with a poor defensive typing that performs defensively.

    b) Create a Pokemon with a poor offensive typing that performs offensively.

    I believe that the amount of types isn't as crucial to this stage in the process. Rather, I think that we should orient ourselves in a direction and let Typing Discussion flow naturally out from there. The amount of "good" typings and to what degree they are considered "good" can happen later. That can happen once we decide between a) and b). We first need to decide on an offensive or defensive path; then we can decide how many types to allot and to what degree they fulfill the process.

    For the record, I prefer Option B. There are lots of situations where this happens in OU, and I believe we could learn much from discussing the movepool arsenal of a poor offensive type. A good example is Bullet Punch. While Steel is generally considered a less-than-desirable offensive type, Scizor uses it as its primary STAB; this has gotten it all the way to the top of OU! The prospect that we could create such a Pokemon highly intrigues me. Whether or not we choose to add multiple poor offensive types is up for future debate. Option B gives us a lot of creativity in our movepool and stat selection, in my opinion!

    I s'pose if I am to use Deck's nomenclature, then I support 1DTO and 2MTO.


    Edit: We're having some excellent discussion in #cap right now. I think what needs to happen here is we need to "wreck" a Pokemon by mismatching the playstyle of CAP3 and its typing. We need users passing by to say, "They are creating an Defensive Ice-type? lol!" The goal is to make a Pokemon that, at first glance, doesn't mesh its typing and its playstyle well. Then, through movepool, stats, and abilities, we can redeem the CAP and fulfill the concept. Just something to think about!
  3. No Luck Involved

    No Luck Involved

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,812
    I completely agree with what Birkal has said in trying to define a general direction and focus for what we want to learn from this CAP rather than deciding studying 1 or 2 types at this stage. I also agree that the CAP should have at least somewhat of an offensive lean in order to gauge what a well made competitive species of that Type or Typing (previously rarely seen because of 'bad' or 'un-useful' species) changes the metagame, how a previously rarely seen type impacts people's team building attitudes and strategies and whether despite its perceived weaknesses it could find a niche to play to its natural strengths. 'Destroying' a type or putting it in a role it is not usually seen in is another interpretation of the concept of course!

    I've compiled a list of the chances of seeing a type in OU based on the top 50: (I am nowhere near learned in maths so pick the bones out of it)

    Type % Chance

    Steel / 118.662
    Water / 90.271
    Flying / 84.177
    Psychic / 77.258
    Dragon / 63.735
    Fighting / 59.005
    Ground / 49.127
    Fire / 43.384
    Grass / 42.958
    Bug / 42.247
    Rock / 35.001
    Electric / 34.681
    Dark / 28.987
    Poison / 28.108
    Ghost / 16.803
    Ice / 9.915
    Normal / 8.968

    I basically added the usage stats of every Pokemon of a certain type in the top 50 of OU, so Bug's percentage of 42.247% was gotten by adding the usage percentage of Scizor, Volcarona and Forretress. So you are 42.247% likely to see at least one of them on the opposing team. Steel's higher than 100% rating is down to being likely to see more than one Steel type on the opposing team. Someone better at maths please confirm or rubbish :)

    I may have jumped the gun a bit with that but it's interesting to see which types are rare in OU and which dominate (some of the numbers may be surprising such as Psychic being so high thanks to the sheer number of species of them in OU so you are more likely to see one).
  4. Argorine

    Argorine

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    7
    I would like to chime in and say I like the discussion so far. Currently, don't see too much of an argument for 1TDO and wouldn't go for that as the CAP objective.

    Rather, I think 2CTD or 2MTO is a good choice for cap. BUT, this is leaning towards pokemon with lackluster typing to fill either role, much like what Birkal stated and what the concept is trying to have CAP accomplish.

    There are a number of typing combinations that we don't see due to bad defensiveness. Heck, Gamefreak barely made certain combos past the first generation. Rock/Ground as a Pokemon type is not seen anywhere in OU, and barely in UU with Rhyperior. But Rock and Ground moves are used nearly exclusively on Pokemon with STAB in one or who are physical.

    I would also like to see something we haven't seen before because of these reasons. Many have been suggested or previous CAP Pokemon already fulfilled. But, Poison/Steel is a typing that is terrible because of a 4x weakness to ground and is very weak offensively.

    I don't see why we can't create a pokemon to fit both roles, as such combos exist. Fire/Ground is a great offensive typing, and, except for Ground and Water (4x!) is a good defensive typing.

    In all situations abilities and stats need to be created to offer either typing potential. I am leaning towards 2CTD.
  5. Pwnemon

    Pwnemon is a valuable midseason pickup
    is a Tutoris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Smogon Media Contributor
    Doubles Co-Lead

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Messages:
    4,081
    The issue I think I have with what you're saying here is not so much that I don't like the idea of defining what direction we would like to take the concept - I still do think it would be best to let all typings hang out with no preconceived notion of how we should make it over, but that's not my main point. My issue is that you seem to be misinterpreting the concept in total. Bug/dark is a terrible example for this CAP - it's not stellar by any means but it's totally usable. You seem to be seeing this as either a "succeed despite its typing" deal where we make the other parts good enough that it doesn't matter, or a break the mold 2 (comments such as "It's not a Makeover to make an excellent Defensive Type Defensive" seem to imply this strongly). The point behind this is to take a completely unusable typing which has potential but is hindered by certain factors, and to eliminate those factors through tailormade stats and ability designed specifically for the purpose to let the potential shine through. Celebi is a terrible example, but a Celebi with base 102 spe, Filter and Fire Blast would be good.

    EDIT: this is not aimed specifically at Deck; too many people seem to be treating this as Break The Mold
  6. Solstice

    Solstice

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,269
    I would like to note that no type is "unusable". Under the right circumstances any type combination can succeed, there isn't one that is absolutely impossible to use.

    I agree with Birkal on moving forward with the idea of "offensive" or "defensive" more than the various acronyms. Although I feel like Defensive would be superior to offensive. I feel like we can explore more with a wall than a sweeper, simply because if you pile a good enough movepool and stats on to ANY typing it will succeed as a sweeper. Defensively we will need to consider much more on how it can use the benefits of the typing and not be hindered by the weaknesses.
  7. capefeather

    capefeather no shit
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,884
    The disagreement I have with this post is pretty much my problem with the distinctions as they are defined right now. The reasoning is still based on individual types. In particular, I don't think it's that fruitful to identify individual types as "offensive" or "defensive". I kind of regret referring to Fire and Flying as "offensive types" myself, especially since both the individual types and the combination have definite merits both offensively and defensively.

    What I want to get at with this concept is to make the direction relatively simple, like what Birkal posted:

    This focuses on the whole typing rather than its individual parts, and it creates a clear distinction between the roles that this CAP could attempt to take, which I think is very important to decide in this stage.
  8. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight DK! DK! Donkey Kong is here!
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,617

    This is a bit too simplistic, and it's why I started out the thread with three different directions because I'm trying to grasp what typing actually does, then moving into a direction where we can debate which typings best fulfill that need.

    For example, if you look at the type chart you can clearly see that weaknesses are resistances aren't remotely equal. In point of fact, most types actually resist more types than their attacks deal super-effective damage to, save Rock and Ground, and others that break even.

    So what can we derive from this chart? Well, objectively speaking, all types being equal, Poison is the worst offensive type, followed immediately by Normal and Grass, then Electric and Bug. Of course we all know that not all types are created equal, because not all Pokemon are created equal. It's important to resist Dragon, but it's also important to resist Fighting and Ground. Skarmory pulls off the feat by resisting the first, taking neutral damage and beating the second with Super-Effective STAB, and being completely immune to the third, except when Roosting.

    Which brings us to the questions I want the Concept Assessment to answer:

    How do we define a bad offensive type?

    How do we define a bad defensive type?

    And here's the kicker:

    Knowing that most types are a mixed bag, how do we then proceed with a makeover?

    It's much simpler to make over a mono-type, but existing and novel dual types also have potential despite their looks on paper. I don't want the CAP process to be about mindless contrarianism, you can make almost anything good with the right combination of stats, movepool, and ability. Rather I want to make a Pokemon that reasonably fits into OU without looking exaggerated or like we papered over an obvious flaw, like Mountaineer with Syclant.

    That's what I'm trying to get at, and I was using the 3 models in the OP to look at different tacks on typing. Some typings have good type defense and would be suitable for offense given the right support. Many other typings have mixed advantages and disadvantages, and the goal of the makeover would be to bring out their best. You know, chest puffed out, arms at the side, shirt tucked in, etc. Finally, the least explored due to general rarity is types that synergize with each other offensively by keeping threats at bay. The rules on them were very specific in that one type had to cover the other type's exposed weakness in some way. The whole point of that exercise is to contrast typings that do that and choose which one best fits, then test out the theory that such a STAB combination would work if calibrated through CAP.

    So I was trying to avoid confusion with specific definitions, though I guess that got a bit off track. Simple and Simplistic are two different things. Birkal's binary distinction trends too far towards simplistic without actually knowing what each statement means.
  9. srk1214

    srk1214 Epke Motherf**in Zonderland
    is a CAP Contributoris a Tiering Contributor

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,488
    I think this has been a very important discussion so far and I think Deck's last post sums up the direction we should be continuing in. I think we finally know what we're actually trying to do, something I thought would be quite hard with such an open-ended concept.

    Basically, good on everyone here and #cap who have figured this out! Yay!

    Personally, I've been leaning towards the monotype quite heavily. But I'd really like to clarify what type of monotype I've been looking for. The distinction between many cases of OU/UU Pokemon who have the same typing: stats/movepool are usually the deciding factor in which ends up UU. Whichever is outclassed in at least one of those areas.

    For example, Azelf is UU while Alakazam is OU. This is because Alakazam has higher base Special Attack and Speed. The only Azelf you will ever see in OU are functioning as either a Physical attacker or a Stealth Rocker in order to fill roles not outclassed by a similar Pokemon that sees OU usage. But this is not always so clear cut.

    For example, Vaporeon is OU and Milotic is UU. This is not quite so obvious why. Vaporeon and Milotic are both plenty bulky. Both have comparable (good) special attack so they don't just sit there and do nothing while walling. Both have recovery options. Et cetera et cetera.

    What differentiates them is their team roles. Vaporeon's 130/60/95 bulk is not necessarily BETTER than Milotic's 95/79/125. They're just a bit different. Milotic's Marvel Scale is a better ability for a wall than Vaporeon's Water Absorb sets. But Water Absorb sets give Wish support to a team, while Milotic cannot provide the same team support. Vaporeon also can run a Hydration Rest set that outclasses Milotic's Rest-Talk sets. Basically, it's small differences between the two that make Vaporeon just a little better.

    That's NOT what I want to do. I do NOT want to make another Bulky Water that works in OU. we have those. What I want to do is explore a monotype that exists in UU, but, for whatever reason, does not have a comparable OU option. This will help us explore what exactly is necessary to make it in OU. What is that one little detail that has kept certain Pokemon UU despite their many advantages.

    The two perfect examples I see for this are Monograss and Monofire. UU has Shaymin (and Tangrowth in RU) as well as Darmanitan and Arcanine. There is not a single OU Monofire or Monograss keeping them down. Instead they are being kept down by dual-types.

    With Darmanitan and Arcanine, it's clear that they're being kept down by more versatile fire types like Heatran, Volcarona, and Infernape. These three already cover a wide spectrum of what kind of sets they can run. (Although none can run a set like the Physically Bulky Intimidate Arcanine of UU.) Why is that? What is keeping Arcanine from working as a Physically Bulky Pokemon in OU? Likely Stealth Rocks plays a factor among other things. That would certainly be an option. As was mentioned before. How would a Torkoal with levitate/magic guard/reliable recovery (any or all) work in OU? Would it have an impact enough to diminish the roles of other Physical Walls of the tier?

    On to the grass-types. Shaymin is being kept in UU because of the presence of Celebi, pretty clearly. This one has confused me for quite some time. Both have the same stats. Both have the same ability. Celebi arguably has the worse-typing as far as I'm concerned. Monograss is not inferior to Grass/Psychic in any noticeable way. Furthermore, Shaymin has Seed Flare to play with. This is a perfect opportunity to explore what makes Celebi OU and Shaymin UU. Logic would say it's the access to Recover and Nasty Plot, but is that really all?

    These are just two examples off the top of my head. I'm definitely leaning towards a Physically Bulky Fire type, personally, but there are many, many more options.
  10. lugiaisbeast

    lugiaisbeast

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    I am currently leaning towards 2MTO, though I have swung back and forth on this topic. I would like to suggest rock/steel as an option. Rock/steel is overall an abhorrently bad typing, with 4x weaknesses to the most common attack in the game, earthquake, and to one of the most common attacking types, fighting. Pile onto that, a mostly uncoverable weakness to water, a rock/steel with grass or electric attacks doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and you have a pretty bleak outlook starting off. Rock/steel, does have a defensive selling point however, resistances, lots of resistances. An offensive Rock/Steel pokemon would have to switch in and out constantly in order to avoid its 4x weaknesses, but would have plenty of switch in opportunities granted by its resistances. Rock/steel has little going for it coverage wise, and this is what makes it fit the concept even better.

    My interpretation of this concept is *take a type/type combination that is normally considered bad and/or has been pidgeonholed into a specific role on a team and give it an entirely novel niche which takes advantage of underutilized assets afforded by its typing* Rock/steel has no niche in the OU metagame, at least in part because its flaws are so easily exploited, but this is what makes it a perfect candidate for this project. if we can find a way to mitigate these weaknesses (hopefully without just slapping levitate on it) I believe we can bring its high number of resistances to the forefront.
  11. Powergrid

    Powergrid

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    6
    I agree with Argorine, that we need for this concept more of a type uniqueness, in order to provide a change-uP in the OU tier. Poison/Stee is a cool concept, and another would be Electric/Poison, or perhaps maybe Rock/Ghost... Abilities would be a crucial factor in deciding this concept, so as to negate the 4x weakness that would otherwise cripple this concept. 2CTD and 2MTO are best for this concept, in my opinion, again agreeing with Argorine here!
  12. Ray Jay

    Ray Jay "The sky's the limit, okey-dokey!"
    is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,693
    I've been pondering this myself, and although I typically only lurk in CAP I thought I might just post some quick thoughts

    I think that a bad offensive type needs to be distinguished from a type who's offensive stat distribution is low. What do I mean by that? Well, if you take a look at say, the Poison-type (which has been brought into question a lot so far in this discussion), you'll find that there are only 6 or 7 fully evolved Pokemon with base SpA stats of 100 or greater and fewer with similar Attack stats. We should expect that if the pool of Pokemon with a truly "good" attack stat is remarkably small, then it is not surprising that it is considered a "poor" offensive type since little things use it for STAB.

    The other factors that come to mind besides base stats are move distribution and coverage of said moves. First, is an offensive typing poor because it lacks moves that are strong enough / strong moves are not distributed enough? I saw some people discussing Seed Bomb the other day, which is a pretty good example; very few 5th gen mons got it, but it is a solid coverage move despite Grass's bad rep as "poor" offensive typing among some of the community. Going back to the example of offensive Steel-types, the move Bullet Punch is the most widely seen (although things can make use of the strong Meteor Mash, if things is defined as Metagross) and Steel-types frankly lack stronger moves (highest base powers are Doom Desire at 140, and then Meteor Mash and Iron Tail at 100). The only way to reconcile this is either massive Attack stats (such as Metagross) or creating a new move (I know most people seem to be against this).

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I kinda agree when people say we shouldn't focus on specific typings / type combos yet, we should figure out exactly what "makes a bad offensive / defensive typing" and how we want to fix that.
  13. Scorekeeper

    Scorekeeper

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    Messages:
    15
    I'm in favor of 2CTD. Something that has a 4x weakness to Rock (I'm thinking Ice/Fire) with Magic Guard would be interesting.
  14. I'm going to disagree. It's certainly more simplistic than what you've done, but look at the confusion and lack of coherent conversation that resulted from this needlessly complexity. Right now, we have people proposing things like Rock typing on offensive Pokemon, which is clearly counter to the selected concept as I understand it because Rock is good offensive typing. I think that, first of all, we need to take a step back and clarify the concept itself. Until we're on the same page about what this concept actually is, we're not ready to talk about offense versus defense, let along mono- versus dual-typing.

    This is far more akin to what I think we need to be discussing on a basic level before we can really move forward. The question I think that we can ask is "Does the metagame value type X on a Pokemon more for defensive properties that it provides (resistances and/or immunities) or for the offensive properties that it provides (STAB on attacks that are good and/or provide coverage), and to what degree?"

    I think that the metagame values types like Poison and Steel for what they offer defensively, not what they offer offensively. It values types like Ice and Rock for what they offer offensively, not what they offer defensively. It values types like Water and Dragon for offering both, and it does not value Normal or Psychic because they offer neither.

    Bad defense types would be things like Rock, Ice, and Fire. If we make a defensive Pokemon with Steel, Dragon, or Water typing, then there's no need to make over the typing, because the typing is already good in that role. This view conforms to the concept's explanation's example of Blissey, Celebi, and Tyranitar.

    Bad offensive types would be things like Normal, Poison, and Steel. If we make an offensive Pokemon with Fire, Ice, or Rock typing, then there's no need to make over the typing, because the typing is already good in that role. This view, while conforming to the concept's explanation's example of Mewtwo and Steel Arceus, does not conform to the examples of Volcarona or a theoretical Fire/Rock Pokemon. We're running into confusion because the examples conflict completely.

    I think there are some types that we can go ahead and throw out for this concept in general, types that the metagame values for both their offensive and defensive properties: Water, Dragon, Fighting, Ground. Using any of these types, either alone or as a compliment to another typing, even dramatically worse, would be in violation of the concept as I understand it.

    But doesn't the way you've divided this do the exact same thing, only even more specifically? You've divided it into "offensive mono-type with bad offensive typing", "offensive dual-type with bad offensive typing", and "defensive dual-type with bad defensive typing". If Birkal's separation doesn't know what "bad defensive typing" or "bad offensive typing" are, then neither does your separation. Your separation just complicates the matter further by introducing mono- versus dual-typing as an additional factor, no?
  15. Dragontongue195040

    Dragontongue195040

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    Messages:
    112
    I'd say that the most interesting and potentive one on the list would be 1MTO.
    here's why 1MTO would work the best:
    First off, I have to say, though you might not admit it but many battlers are biased towards singular typings. When we see 'ice' type, no matter what tier you play, most of you automatically think 'semi fast frail sweepers'. And, to the most extent, that is true. Ice types don't do very well defensively. In fact, this is proved by the very fact that many of you are posting your opinions based off of what the game has showed you- specially defensive normal types, frail psychic types, and augmented bug types. I say we turn those ideas upside down. Let's have fast, frail normal types. Let's have slow, defensive dragon types. I'll even go as far to say that frail steel types would even be interesting (Lucario, etc. Etc.) It would be much more interesting to see a pokemon that is waay out of it's comfort zone typing wise than to see another pink, normal type blob that everyone has to bitch about. The reason why mono typing does this better than dual typing is because in dual typing the types affiliate with each other. Let's say that you get an ice/steel type, and it works great. But we'd never know whether it was because the steel type made the fast frail ice type more defensive, or whether it was because the Ice type made the steel type more offensive.
    I hope I'm not losing you guys, so here are my ideas in a easier to read format:
    1MTO
    ~single typing easier to work with
    ~the conclusion will be nice and clear- no mix ups between effectiveness of types
    ~can TOTALLY bend the stereotypes that are packaged with many types (imagine blissey with thick arms)
    ~we can focus all of our attention to one type
    ~we can possibly even popularize certain typings such as poison or normal

    as you can see, the possibilities are endless. Sure, options B and C work, but not as well as A.
  16. RotationalBasis

    RotationalBasis

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    72
    According to my interpretation, the simplest possible incarnation of this project would be to pick the single worst type in the game and create an OU Pokemon of that type where its typing is, in fact, it's main selling point. We would have to decide whether it takes stats, abilities, move-pool or a combination of the above to elevate this 'worst' type to a usable OU pokemon.

    To that end I would like to ask, what do people think is the single worst type in the OU metagame, and what is their justification?
  17. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight DK! DK! Donkey Kong is here!
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,617
    I can't help it if people don't read my OP before they post. I specifically addressed things like Defensive Rock types in the last paragraph and why I thought they were a bad direction based on Pokemon that already existed. People brought it up anyway. I'm not omnipotent and I can't stop people from confusing anyone else by discussing things I specifically shot down.

    No, I provided fairly concrete definitions for each of the three options. People aren't even quoting them verbatim when I provided acronyms for them:

    1 Defensive Typing used Offensively (With explanation of types I thought qualified). This was the most straightforward one and people seemed to grasp it.

    2 Mixed Typings used Offensively. - People have decided this means "bad typing" when I specifically explained it meant you picked a key resistance balanced by offensively usable dual STABs. Why people decided "Mixed" means "Bad" is beyond me.

    2 Covering Typings used Defensively - I was even more specific here in explaining what the second type should and shouldn't do for the first typing, namely the second typing shouldn't attempt to remove weaknesses but should be super-effective against a weakness created by the first typing.

    In general there's a problem where people interpret the concept to mean "take the worst typing you can think of and make it good!" This is a stupid approach. It is not at all difficult to create something viable if you're going to give it Godzilla Stats, Magic Guard (to cover a 4x Rock Weakness), and the most powerful STABS and coverage moves you can think of. The concept is not "take the worst typing in the game and cover its ass." The concept is "take a Typing considered poor at something and emphasize its strengths, such that it becomes good for what it's known for and good at things it is not expected to be good at, having no Pokemon that can currently do what it does."

    Which is a long-winded and complicated explanation, but it is the direction I want to go in, and I gave the three directions because they were a) novel and b) not represented among OU by and large.
  18. GRs Cousin

    GRs Cousin

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2011
    Messages:
    302
    Offensively, I think it's not much of a stretch to call Poison and Steel the worst offensive types. I would also say Flying and Psychic, but with all the Fighting-types running around, your mileage might vary on that one. None of the above types hit more than 2 types super effectively, and even then, they're not exactly luxurious in coverage like Fighting, Ground, Ice, Fire, and Rock give. It doesn't help that they're all completely stopped dead by Steel.

    Defensively, Ice is definitely the worst. Its weaknesses are all extremely common to the point of where I don't think there's been an Ice-type used in OU outside of Abomasnow, Mamoswine, and Kyurem, all of which have arguably been placed in lower tiers because of their Ice typing.

    So with that, I think it's clear of what we have to work with here. Poison, Steel, Flying, and Psychic are the main candidates for offense; Ice is the main candidate for defense.
  19. I don't think that's the problem, at least not all of it. I think that the problem is that people are coming away from reading the selected concept submission with entirely different ideas or visions about what it could actually mean, so when they then read your OP, they're reading through the lens of their own interpretation of the concept, which may not be the same as your interpretation of the concept or your preferred interpretation of the concept. I think that's part of what's leading to the confusion.

    Was that a response to my comment about Rock? Because my comment had nothing to do with defensive Rock. It had to do with offensive Rock.

    The problem, though, if people come away from reading the concept with a different interpretation than yours, is that your descriptions could look confusing and unnecessarily narrow or specific, prematurely disallowing for other perceived perfectly legitimately desirable visions of the concept's execution.

    I don't think that that's the only interpretation of the concept that is different from yours. My interpretation of the concept, for instance, appears to be different from yours, but that's not my interpretation of the concept, to take a typing that's simply "bad" (as you yourself said, most types are a mixed bag, not simply "bad"). My preferred interpretation of the concept is making a Pokemon of a type normally considered undesirable for its intended role, like a mono-Steel offensive Pokemon (where Steel is considered offensively undesirable, example Steel Arceus) or a Grass/Psychic defensive Pokemon (where Grass and Psychic are considered defensively undesirable, example Celebi).

    This is counter to something like a Fire/Bug offensive Pokemon (where Fire and Bug are considered offensively desirable, example Volcarona), because while that typing may be considered undesirable defensively, we're not actually attempting to use it in a defensive role, so no "Extreme Typing Makeover" is actually required. The game reacts normally to Volcarona because it's typing is very typically good offensively (it's expected to be good in that role and is) and very typically bad defensively (it's expected to be bad in that role and is). Like the concept creator said, and I think this describes the concept and its draw very well, we're trying to turn a "bad" typing around from a hindrance to an asset. But, we can't do that and ignore roles. Again, using Volcarona, as an offensive Pokemon, Fire/Bug is not an offensive hindrance, so Volcarona would not be a good example of this concept. If Volcarona were a successful defensive Pokemon, in that case Fire/Bug normally being a hindrance but somehow being turned around into an asset defensively, then it would be an example of the concept.

    EDIT: As others have said on #cap, though, it's getting pretty close to "agree-to-disagree" time. You are the TL, and if you should put your foot down, then I'll try to contribute in a way that fits both your vision and mine (which I think is possible). I just want to get this out there to see if we can resolve the confusion or better understand the disagreement.
  20. papainfernape95

    papainfernape95

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    56
    I think you just hit the nail on the head. This stays true to the concept, and really if you think about it is only a slight variation on Deck's categories of 2MTO and 2CTD. However, I think it's better if we decide based on the underlined interpretation of the concept Asylum gave us, because it gives us more freedom and is easier for most people to interpret.

    And I'd like to elaborate a bit on why I like this interpretation so much. First of all, it doesn't restrict us to going the offensive or defensive route. We could even go the support road and examine how the typing is an asset to the CAP's ability to support its team.

    Second of all, typings of this sort are sparse in OU. One of the closest things to an "example" is Lucario. It's an offensive Pokemon. Its typing is Fighting/Steel. While normally the Steel type would be a hindrance to an offensive Pokemon (notice that it almost never uses its Steel STAB), the plethora of resistances it provides allows Lucario many more safe switch-ins, thereby leading to safer setups and the ability to sweep successfully more often. (It should be noted also that it also gives handy resistances to common priority like Extremespeed and Bullet Punch, though this is less significant.) Based on this, one could argue that Lucario's Steel-typing is turned from an hindrance to an asset.

    Now, this is important: the difference is that with this CAP we don't want it to be so much of a stretch; we want it to be the focus of how it is built. We'd want to be very careful to take the typing (which of course influences movepool) and give it one that would normally be ill-conducive to a certain playstyle, and engineer it to pull said style off with aplomb.
  21. 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:
    2,305
    Oh look, I go to sleep and something interesting happens

    I don't seem to be getting anywhere by repeatedly going against the trend, but I absolutely want to make this clear: I don't think that we are going to get anywhere, or fulfil the concept, purely by trying to make the typing compensated for by its usefulness, or otherwise, in an area outside its own. Let's say we have any Pokemon with a type combination that makes it offensively incompetent or leaves a little to be desired, but has a heavy offensive build, so we can't immediately fall back on the classic "bulky thing so it's good" approach. Something like, say, Durant. Bug/Steel is a poor offensive combination, but it has high Attack, Speed, and Hustle. So, it's a pretty decent offensive thingamajig. If it had a wee bit higher stats and Earthquake, then yes, it might just be OU. But that isn't really saying anything. Similarly, we ourselves could create our very own Poison/Steel rampaging behemoth, but... would it really be worth it? What have we done other than make another powerful offensive Pokemon? What have we learned?

    We've already had this story with Necturna. While it was undoubtedly a nice learning experience, what it came down to in the end was a balancing exercise with a pre-determined condition. What I wanted to see here was a typing that was indeed "a mixed bag" - there is no such thing as a typing that is inherently bad in all respects - such that it was usable for its positives regardless of its negatives. In the options we have at present, we appear to be making a typing whose sole benefit to its use comes from being good generally but not for the purposes of the CAP itself. So two paths result. Either the movepool, ability and stats pick up the slack entirely, or we make another generic bulky attacker. Again.

    Personally I don't see what there is to be said that hasn't been said already. We appear to have three choices before us; each of them focuses the concept into something that will allow for us to all be on the same page with regard for what we are trying to accomplish, though at the same time limiting us. I don't see what else productive can come of this thread.
  22. kingtrace

    kingtrace

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2009
    Messages:
    68
    I did a little lurking around on this forum, and I agree primarily with Earthworm in terms of direction. Picking a type that has poor offensive coverage and compensating by giving it great stats and movepool doesn't teach us anything or give us anything creative to work with. While necturna was a fantastic CAP, it did seem to be a standard bulky attacker that happened to be able to use sketch and was balenced as not to be broken. I'm not really sure that fit the concept very well, as Necturna doesn't rely on her sketch flexibility so much as her shear statitisical bulk. Anything, and I mean almost anything, could be OU if we added enough to its movepool and stats. What we should be focusing on accomplishing here is a pokemon who's typing isn't extremely well suited to the task at hand, but doesn't have to rely on a standard bulky attacking spread with a fantastic movepool to compensate. The typing, in my opinion, shouldn't be the worst type we can find, but rather the one that makes the most interesting pokemon.

    Finally, I'd like to pose a question: Which type/type combination is most unlikely to be seen as defensive/offensive, and how can we make it work without a heavy reliance on an overcharged stat and move pool?

    It may seem stupid, but I'd like to see a pokemon whose type, while strange, is good enough that it can stand with a fair movepool and reasonable stats.
  23. Mari

    Mari

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Messages:
    193
    I made a table to rate whether a type is good or it is bad. I did not consider the usage of the types. I only compared the types to each other like in the case that all types would have the same usage.

    First I calculated the STAB Rating. I simply added the active type effectiveness of every type and divided the result by 2 because I think the offensiveness of the STAB accounts one third of the whole type rating.

    Then I calculated the Defensive Rating. I added the passive type effectiveness of every type and substracted the result from 34 (34 = 17 [types] * 2).

    At last I added some bonuses to the Defensive Rating and summed it with the STAB rating.

    You can take a look here.
    [​IMG]

    Does anyone have a better idea?

    In my table I discover that the following types are the worst ones: Grass, Ice, Bug (Oh! We already have Syclant) and Psychic.

    Does anyone has some remarks?
  24. Pokethan

    Pokethan

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    529
    I am in favor of trying the second option, 2MTO. What I believe it should be like is two types that aren't that good offensively but also can cover each others vital weaknesses to a degree. A good example would be Psychic/Normal since Normal gets rid of Psychics Ghost weakness and Psychic gets rid of the Fighting weakness. This is just an example but I think one of our best bets would be to try this. Even if this couldn't work out I think that the mono type makeover would be the next best thing.
  25. Deck Knight

    Deck Knight DK! DK! Donkey Kong is here!
    is a Forum Moderatoris a CAP Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    Messages:
    7,617
    There's still a few more points to go over I think, but I've been mulling the options over, and have decided on the direction I want to go with Mono vs. Dual types.

    1DTO - I might expand this to include ANY reasonable mono-type after skr's post. The Monofire and MonoGrass examples stuck out to me, and it would be the best way to really examine a flawed mono-type.

    I'll define reasonable as anything weak to Bug, Fire, Fighting, Ground, Rock, or Water. Basically if something in the Double STAB Weather Wars kicks your ass, or is named Terrakion or Scizor, you have a questionable type. So basically, the only mono-types excluded are Dragon, Fighting, Ghost, and Water. I think we can all agree those types either a) already have an OU representative anyway or b) are solid enough generally to be a "good type" because of their general balance.

    2CTD
    - This is the dual-typed option where we get a little bit less flexibility, but it serves a purpose. Obviously types super-effective against themselves are excluded if that's all they do. Here's a list of several types that would fit under this, using a form:

    Type: <Type Combination>
    Super-Effective Coverage: <All SE Coverage>
    Weakness Covering SE: <Weakness warded off by secondary STAB>

    Example List (open)
    Type: Rock / Flying
    Super-Effective Coverage: Bug, Fire, Flying, Ice, Grass, Fighting
    Weakness Covering SE: Ice (covered by Rock)

    Type: Fire / Water
    Super-Effective Coverage: Bug, Grass, Ice, Steel, Fire, Ground, Rock
    Weakness Covering SE: Ground, Rock (both covered by Water)

    Type: Fire / Electric
    Super-Effective Coverage: Bug, Grass, Ice, Steel, Flying, Water
    Weakness Covering SE: Water (covered by Electric)

    Type: Bug / Psychic
    Super-Effective Coverage: Dark, Grass, Psychic, Fighting, Poison
    Weakness Covering SE: Dark (covered by Bug)

    Type: Ground / Electric
    Super-Effective Coverage: Electric, Fire, Rock, Steel, Flying, Water
    Weakness Covering SE: Water (covered by Electric)

    Type: Steel / Ice
    Super-Effective Coverage: Rock, Ice, Dragon, Flying, Grass, Ground
    Weakness Covering SE: Ground (covered by Ice) [Steel/Water also does this, but you'd have difficulty selling it as a "bad" type.]

    Type: Grass / Rock
    Super-Effective Coverage: Ground, Rock, Water, Bug, Fire, Flying, Ice,
    Weakness Covering SE: Bug, Ice (covered by Rock)

    Type: Dragon / Rock
    Super-Effective Coverage: Dragon, Bug, Fire, Flying, Ice
    Weakness Covering SE: Ice (covered by Rock) [This would be an interesting case study in whether anything part Dragon can be "bad" typing, and while Dragon/Fighting does this, good luck convincing anyone that's "bad" in any way lol.]


    The list is not exhaustive, but it does give the direction I want dual-type to go in. These types are usually mismatched and have a lot of weaknesses, but their secondary STAB does help them out.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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