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. 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
    Just posting to give a quick friendly reminder that this is NOT a voting thread. If you want to help our TL make his selection, then please post reasoning, not a vote.

    Regardless, we've been having some excellent talk on Pokemon Showdown! tonight about our current concept. I really value what Doug has said about "let's have a free-for-all brawl on what the worst typing is and then decide how bad of a typing we want." We could get a lot of meaningful conversation about what it truly means to be a poor typing and to what degree do we define poor. I think there is a lot of flexibility in picking a genuinely bad typing and then redeeming it. I believe that there are plenty of singular types that could fit that idea, so I support 1DTO. Similarly, I think there are dual types that are quite awful both defensively and offensively, so I support 2MTO as well. Can't wait to move forward with this =)
  2. fourkings8414

    fourkings8414

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Messages:
    27
    Even if the process may seem tedious, we have to persevere. After all, one reason we move in steps is to make the project easier on ourselves. I have faith in Deck to make things smooth for us.

    I really like what is being said here. I agree in totality that no typing is bad in of itself as said before, and I would also like to add that there are some pairings that do bring detrimental aspects to the pokemon, as jelli also referred to.

    But, wouldn't having two types bring greater potential? I understand the logic for mono-typing and the restrictions that also come with it. However, having two typings will allow us to learn more about type synergy. I think the community will learn a great much from being able to mix and match typings to see both their weaknesses and strengths. In this, we also inspect the individual typings themselves, not just the combination.
  3. Venator

    Venator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2010
    Messages:
    58
    The reasoning behind 1DTO has already been explained far more eloquently than I could ever say.

    Not saying Deck Knight won't help smooth out the process but... having one type prevents all the typing confusion I expect if we go with the other two.

    In my opinion, it helps us fulfill the concept without struggling to find the "perfect" typing.
  4. CyzirVisheen

    CyzirVisheen Am I poplar yet?
    is an Artist Alumnusis a Forum Moderator Alumnus

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    691
    Honestly I have to support Doug's proposal. It's risky as all hell but it would also be the most interesting, at least imo. Plus, the thought of debating which dual typings are the worst amuses me to no end.
  5. Pokethan

    Pokethan

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    529
    As I stated before I wasn't trying to make this a voting thread. I was trying to make it easier for deciding which of the three proposals we should use moving on so that we could streamline the process.

    I am in favor of either because I have ideas of what types we can use for most of the ideas so I am just waiting on the rest of the community to decide what we should do for the next step of the process.
  6. Okuu

    Okuu Applications Support, Pettan Co.
    is a Battle Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    Okay, I'll be a complete moron and dive right into this. Feel free to let me know if I'm doing something wrong / bypassing typical protocol / heralding the beginning of the end / etc.

    First of all, again, the obligatory quotes that I'll be referring back to at times (or refer to once and then ignore, in lieu of my own numerous tangents):

    DeckKnight: "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."

    Theorymon: "General Description: The idea here is to create a Pokemon who's typing, while normally considered poor defensively and/or offensively, becomes a strong selling point of the Pokemon itself via help from an ability, stats, and/or movepool."

    I've seen where people can draw different conclusions from the two separate quotes, but one idea stands firm. The idea that we need to keep this typing as something inherently 'bad'. As in, we can grab something from near the bottom of the list(s) here, and attempt to combat the defensive weakness of that typing, or we could choose something with poor offensive typing, and attempt to combat that. The third option, that I won't explore, is choosing typings that, while generally poor by themselves, are able to redeem themselves simply by virtue of being together. In that case, you couldn't necessarily call those 'bad typings'. So, simply, I don't like 2CTD. If we're going for poor typings, we should choose poor typings, not just weird ones. And, for completeness's sake, the last option is to choose a good typing, which is completely against the CAP topic, so I won't explore that either.

    First, I'll seriously explore the potential of selecting an offensively poor typing, and altering it somehow to make it viable. Right away, I am reminded that a pokemon's typing changes little about how it performs offensively. Yes, STAB is a critical factor in the damage formula, but many pokemon already use moves outside of their base typing, and do quite well with them. In that case, a single type like Poison or something would probably do the best, as any sort of dual type would just add to a pokemon's potential offensive capability (give it more STAB). Of course, there are a scant few dual typings that still perform poorly in an offensive sense, but it would be much simpler to stick with a monotype. From this decision, we could attempt any of the following:

    • Increasing the defensive capabilities of the CAP to make up for natural offensive failings. This isn't a path I'd prefer to go down, as we'd simply end up with a pokemon like Umbreon, that lacks offensive prowess on its own, but has to make up for it through defensive bulk, statuses, and clerical activities.
    • Compensate for offensive weakness with higher offensive stats / wider movepool. This seems to be the more desirable of the two options I've stated so far, but sadly, I still find it lackluster, and already existent in some form. Weezing would be a great example of a pokemon that tried this, and does fairly well at it already, but not enough to make it into OU. A lackluster stab will simply be ignored in favor of more effective moves. The only possible outcomes from here would be to alter offensive capabilities through an ability, item, or natural stat boost. And, simply put, there are already many pokemon with unremarkable offensive typings that could always be made better by simply making them statistically better. Giving Weezing 130 SpAtk would probably earn it a spot in OU, but that's not really doing the CAP topic any justice.

    Clearly, I've found that I'm not much of a fan of any sort of offensively poor typing as a potential CAP. Fortunately, this part of the discussion has either long been skipped, or just not considered. Regardless, I enjoy being complete about everything, so I can't necessarily say that I wasted my time diving into that. Now, I'll move on to using defensively poor typings, with some alteration to make them more desirable. This section will actually cover 1DTO and 2MTO, amongst other things.

    The defensive typing of a pokemon is something that needs to be considered at all times, from the Teambuilder to the battlefield. Competitive-mons has long since become a reactionary game, relying on prediction and understanding of game mechanics to make the best choice. If a pokemon is burdened with several critical weaknesses, then it simply makes the game that much easier for an opponent that you're switching into. Not only that, but an opponent switching into your pokemon will have several more options as to how to take out your pokemon. Virtually anything that switches into a Celebi will have at least one SE move against it, and it will be that much harder for you to determine which move it is, so you will be less likely to switch into a proper counter for that specific move. So, just to clarify: I find that a poor defensive typing is the best option for this CAP topic. It's already well-established amongst everyone else here, but I'm more of a fan of reaching my own conclusions.

    Now, this might be painful for anyone who already knows the three options we were asked to choose between, and knows that after I eliminated one, that we only have offensive options remaining to choose from. But, I ask that you bear with me, and listen anyways. As for a defensively poor typing, we can somehow modify it through moves / abilities to either be defensively better, or offensively better. Or, the third option of doing nothing, which is silly and which I'll ignore.

    • Incerasing the defensive capabilities of the CAP to make up for natural defensive failings. Okay, now this idea almost doesn't make any sense. I mean, yeah, you could beef it up to 150/150/150 defenses, and watch as it laughs at the two possibly typings of moves that you can potentially switch into, but that just isn't fun, and lacks the creativity that I'd expect from CAP. You could allow it to start weather, and perhaps enjoy some defensive boost, but then we'd be refocusing into a weather user, rather than a poorly-typed Pokemon with a twist. However, I am reminded of some abilities that could potentially help out. Solid Rock is an option, that reduces the damage of SE moves. Rhyperior did a fine job with it when it was released, and actually fits the idea of this cap fairly well. But, Solid Rock was rather underwhelming, and I never see Rhyp in OU. And then, there's Wonder Guard. Oh, Wonder Guard. An ability that's beyond compare, in a tier of its own, and truly something that could earn a CAP topic of its own (given enough time and more desirable ideas beforehand). And personally, I think that this is one of the best topics to bring up the potential usage of Wonder Guard in. It definitely fits the role of giving a defensively horrible pokemon a much-needed defensive boost. Surely, it will still get hit hard, and probably killed by many of the main offensive types in OU, but to those few things it's able to resist (ground via balloon?), it can actually come as a surprising counter, and perhaps even a free turn. Of course, since the metagame is focused on appropriately countering a strategy, and since Wonder Guard is an amazing counter to a lot of things, I'm afraid that it might overtake the original CAP topic in importance. Regardless, I could easily see where this concept could shake up OU. It'd almost be mandatory for such a pokemon to run dual typings, simply to add more weaknesses to compensate for WG's immunity to everything else.
    • Compensate for defensive weakness with higher offensive stats / wider movepool. This last list bullet contains both of the topic points, involving whether or not we should employ a single or a dual-type pokemon to fulfill the CAP idea. Since we're looking for poor defensive typings, it's almost guaranteed that we're going to have to browse amongst dual-typings, as those tend to carry many more critical weaknesses than any single type would. So, simply from that, I wouldn't consider 1DTO as a good option for this CAP. Mono-Rock or Mono-Ice would be the worst mono-types, and we already have a solid mono-rock in Stratagem, that does fantastically in an offensive sense. As for a Mono-Ice type, even though I love the ice type, I fail to see where it wouldn't just become an ice-type Stratagem, or something else focused on quick pokes and hasty retreats before it gets steamrolled by any pokemon that can hit it first. Not to mention, with a single type, the worst that it could take is 2x effective damage. It's not desirable, of course, but it's nothing like having multiple 4x weaknesses like Magcargo. Now, onto the 2MTO option. It's the only one left, so I have to support it, right? Not entirely, as it turns out. You see, many of the problems that I outlined into 1DTO are actually shared by 2MTO. Such a pokemon would have to rely on either speed or natural physical bulk in order to be able to land an attack, regardless of how strong that attack may be. And regardless of bulk, it's likely not going to be able to survive any sort of attack after the fact. It'd essentially just be a sweeper / revenge killer that'd get more-easily revenge killed / scared into switching out after a move. However, the fact that it has many more weaknesses does play into the idea of having horrible typing and yet being effective, so this at least follows the spirit of this CAP. So, from what I can make of it, 2MTO seems to better fulfill the type-requirement for what we want to achieve with the CAP, but I still find it lackluster.

    In conclusion, I would actually prefer to see a 2MTDO (Two Mixed Types used Defensively and Offensively, to some extent), involving a horrible, weakness-ridden dual typing and Wonder Guard, along with some physical prowess to take advantage of the fact that it has terrible typing. Essentially, the typing could be both a blessing and a curse: the reason that people use it, and the reason that people avoid it. The worst defensive typings (notably, the infamous Ice/Rock typing) usually have fantastic offensive capability as a 'fair' tradeoff. The idea of the dual typing being an offensive boon, requiring prediction and skill to maneuver into and out of battle, and not being overly reliant on revenge-kill mechanics is simply alluring to me, and I can't see a better place for it than in this specific CAP.
  7. Yllnath

    Yllnath

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2008
    Messages:
    304
    While I disagree with Okuu's final conclusion in his post about Wonder Guard, after reading his thought out post, I've decided to back 2MTDO, for what it's worth.

    I had issues with 1DTO and 2MTO for the entirety of this thread, for just making a bad typing do well at offense isn't really shocking. There are a lot of pretty decent frail-mons that still do well at offense.

    However, trying to make a pokemon, that has a considerably "bad" typing, that we then try to turn into a pokemon that can perform somewhat well both defensively and offensively (or bulky offensive, for example), without using 150/150/150 defensive stats could be a pretty fun endeavor. Trying to find a combination of typing where you still have some crippling weaknesses, but also some key resistances to make the pokemon workable (basically what gives Celebi it's reason of being in OU) defensively. Combine this with decent abilities that can support a more offensive or defensive approach, and a good movepool that facilitates both. Having the discussion about what typings would best fill this role would be incredibly engaging and gives us something great to learn from. You can't just think of types in terms of STABS or in terms of resistances, but have to look at both of them, and then still try to find and discuss the typing combinations that could be considered 'bad' from one point of view (Because of type A, pokemon X, Y and Z in OU will give this CAP a hard time), but has some redeeming qualities in it's overall typing to give it switch-in opportunities and "typing bulk" to do well against a different spectrum of common-used type attacks in OU.

    And once we then get to further stages, I trust Deck enough, that even if we picked a typing that has a hard time against multiple types in OU, yet still needs to work somewhat defensively (as well as offensively), that we don't end up with 150/150/150 defensive stat spreads, or perhaps Wonder Guard, when that ability may not even be necessary, because something like Solid Rock could suffice.

    Anyway, I hope Deck will consider this addition to his concept approaches, as I believe 2MTDO is probably actually the most fun version to explore: Find the "worst" conceivable typing combination, that in itself still has enough saving graces to be able to perform in both defensive and offensives niches in OU.

    This last part may be considered somewhat looking ahead too much.
    I can't help but look at something like Celebi here, which may not be the best example pokemon of this, but even if the typing combination Grass/Psychic screams weaknesses, we all know that Celebi actually works pretty well, even as a bulky mon, because of key resistances that are very important in OU. Trying to find a typing combination where you try to find a list of cons like "It's SR-weak, U-turn weak, etc, etc" and then have a pros list where you try to save the typing "But, it fares well against the weather wars, etc. because of the .. typing", you're basically immediately discussing niches based on typings alone, which I feel could be an incredibly interesting discussion to have in the typings discussion threads. The only issue this leads to is that your then sort-of doing both the typing discussion and the counter/threat discussion at the same time. It's actually your goal in your proposed typing to list why your typing is "bad" to begin with, and that's exactly because of how it fares against certain key mons in OU. (And thus you immediately start building your counters/threats list for that typing).
  8. srk1214

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

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,492
    That was quite a wall of words, but it all seems quite well reasoned out. I respectfully disagree on a few points, but I heavily stress the respectful part. A lot of thought went into Okuu's post.

    I would also like to mention that Wonder Guard has been briefly discussed on PS between a number of CAP contributors including myself, Dusk, jas, and cape. The general consensus from us was that Wonder Guard is certainly worth discussing as long as the typing is something with TONS of weaknesses like Ice/Rock.

    Personally, I am opposed to it on principle, since Wonder Guard feels like it should be given its own project, much like how I opposed Multitype in the early stages of Necturna discussion. But I can't deny it seems like it could work and would be fun to develop. We'd want to pick the right typing to start off for sure. More weaknesses doesn't mean more important ones. Ice/Rock is immune to Dragon for example. Would Dragon/Rock be worse for a Wonder Guard poke? True it has fewer weaknesses, but Ice/Rock CAP setting up on Choice locked Draco Meteors and Outrages doesn't seem like a good outcome to me.

    Anyways, I think Wonder Guard would be an excellent solution of sorts to the issues dual-types face in this discussion. If we don't pursue it though, I'm still in favor of monotype.



    p.s. "Trying to find a typing combination where you try to find a list of cons like "It's SR-weak, U-turn weak, etc, etc" and then have a pros list where you try to save the typing "But, it fares well against the weather wars, etc. because of the .. typing"

    You mean like Abomasnow :p
  9. 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
    We already know what it takes to make an offensive Pokemon OU. Mainly, being more effective than a similar Pokemon. Mismagius is not OU because Gengar is faster, stronger, has a better movepool and can do other things than prat about with weak Shadow Balls or try to set up. Mismagius has Nasty Plot - that makes not a blind bit of difference, because Gengar has the more sustainable niche. If Mismagius and Gengar had their stats and movepools swapped, their places in the usage stats would swap also. Similarly, Vaporeon is OU and Milotic is not because of Wish, which gives it a niche Milotic does not have. Making a mono-type attacker only constitutes making something that is stronger than something already in OU - and that's something we already know.

    Given that I wrote that analysis, I feel obliged to say: Eelektross is terrible. Everything in OU, pretty much, hits hard and fast, and while Eelektross can do impressive stuff like surviving Haxorus's Mould Breaker Earthquake, it cannot really hit anything hard enough to make it usable over, well, anything else. Its mixed attacking stats are not great. It languishes in the lower tiers because it is simply not as good overall, not for lack of a Fire-typing or whatever.

    Yes, I would agree with you here. That would be a waste of time. Though as far as I can tell, nobody has suggested actually doing that, so I'm not sure what the point is here...

    The thing is that "the worst" typing in an OU context generally boils down to either being entry hazard weak (such as Ice/Fire) or priority weak (such as Ice/Rock). There are plenty of "bad" typings that don't come close to being as bad as these two categories. While this would be a legitimate way to go, perhaps, it does have the problem of greatly limiting our field of play, as there are typings that do happen to be legitimately worse than everything else and also nigh-on unsalvageable, save for extreme methods.

    That seems like a ridiculously low bar to set, if anything. There is very very little in existence in BW that can actually afford to not use its STAB, and those that can are usually hyper-defensive Pokemon like Blissey and Dusclops - and if we manage to make a successful hyper-defensive CAP with a poor defensive typing, we will almost certainly have succeeded anyway. I imagine you have mono-Poison in mind when saying this - unless we are giving our Pokemon perfect three-move base 120 power coverage moves outside of Poison-type moves in addition to base 150 attacking stats and a number of boosting moves, it is extraordinarily unlikely that it would ever be able to lose the great neutral coverage afforded by its STAB.

    To repeat a #cap example, take mono-Psychic. It has many of the same problems for an attacking Pokemon as mono-Poison, namely being more or less useless against Steel-types and Tyranitar. And yet Reuniclus, Alakazam, and Espeon all seem to do perfectly well using their Psychic-type STAB on attacking sets. So I don't think STAB is any great concern here.

    Darmanitan was OU once. Victini, its closest dual-typed comparison, never came close.

    Yes, mono-Fire isn't the best type, certainly. But it also certainly isn't the worst type in OU. It doesn't exist in OU at present because there are so many better things you could be using - Heatran and Infernape aren't weak to Stealth Rock, which is a great deal, and Volcarona has absurd advantages to its use even so, with high stats, Quiver Dance, and Fiery Dance, such that its dreadful typing is almost irrelevant defensively - it is, after all, a Fire-type that can more or less set up on bulky Water-types. If there were a mono-Fire-type with advantages that exceeded these, then yes, we would see it in OU. No such Pokemon exists. The best of them is probably Arcanine, which is admittedly very strong, but its stats are nowhere near sufficient to make it a usable bulky Fire-type over say, Heatran, who occupies a singularly better niche.

    You can't say that unless our CAP has some absurd set of offensive stats that making typing completely irrelevant, at which point you might as well be comparing it to Mewtwo or Deoxys-A, both of whom are, funnily enough, mono-Psychic. I suppose Volcarona is another comparison which could be made, and it would never be OU if it didn't have Quiver Dance or very high stats. It could, however, without its Bug-typing. Defensive ability will almost always come into it - see Pokemon like the previously mentioned Victini or even Moltres. Their secondary typings bring their own share of advantages and disadvantages. For a hyper offensive Pokemon these are not so bad. For a defensive or even a balanced Pokemon, these can be disastrous. Most mono-types are nowhere even close to as bad as the worst dual-types - although admittedly, the best are nowhere near as close to the best dual-types. They occupy the middle of the spectrum, as it were.

    I say it again: Just because a typing is uncommon does not make it bad. There is a real tendency in this thread to simply examine the typing and totally ignore the Pokemon itself - Volcarona has a terrible, terrible typing, mostly because of Stealth Rock, but it is saved by its incredible offensive options and stats, which enable it to boost bulk at the same time as Speed and attacking power. Ask anybody before BW whether Bug/Fire was a bad typing and they would have said, "well duh". Now that Volcarona exists, this is no longer the prevailing view. Similarly, simply due to the lack of usable mono-types in OU, people seem to be using this as evidence that mono-types must be worse by definition. It only means that there are no mono-types with a viable niche, not that they are inherently bad. In Ubers more than a third are mono-types. More than half if you count all of Arceus's formes as different Pokemon. It means nothing.

    I fail to see how either of these is a bad thing. We want the typing to provide some sort of advantage, not just to "be there", and even if the second is the case, it gives us a challenge to go forward with - trying to find ways to make it usable without going to extreme lengths. At least, without trying to patch up a typing that isn't necessarily bad to begin with, like mono-Fire, Poison, or Bug.

    Pretty much agree with all of this barring the necessity of Wonder Guard. There are very few typings that would, I think, legitimately require Wonder Guard in order to be effective. I'd much rather try to be cleverer with stats and abilities together than solve the whole problem with a ridiculously good ability. Volcarona managed it - not very elegantly, true - but it still managed it.

    -----------

    I will restate this again - I think we are going the wrong way about trying to decide what we want out of our Pokemon. I honestly believe that rather than trying to make x random type extraordinarily powerful by repeatedly lumping on various random benefits to make it stronger, such that it simply displaces something else currently in OU, we should try to focus it on a particular niche - something that it can do that other Pokemon can't, simply by virtue of its typing alongside abilities or whatnot, or alternatively, something that it can do better than already existing Pokemon. This could take the form of countering very specific threats, or alternatively, a general playstyle.

    For example, take BW Celebi. It doesn't have a particularly good offensive or defensive typing, and yet it is ideal, alongside its stats, for combating - as well as being a part of - the three big playstyles of BW, Sand, Rain, and Volt-turn. This is, granted, also achieved through a big BST, but then again, none of its individual stats are actually extortionate, unless you care to count 100/100/100 as unreasonable for a bulky attacker, as opposed to a wall. Another example of this is DPP Tyranitar. Rock/Dark isn't the best defensive typing, and doesn't give it particularly good resistances, but the combination of Sand Stream and its Rock typing enables it to take special attacks pretty damn well, and its Dark typing enables it to take out fast-but-frail attackers, like Starmie, Gengar, and before they were banned, Lati@s, as well as giving it a niche as the bulky, powerful Pursuit user.

    So, I would actually like to see us try to create something that can take on a specific portion of the metagame well. A Fire/Rock with Dry Skin could make a pretty good Rain counter, as well as any other general utility it might have. An Ice/Steel with Snow Warning might make a reasonably good general weather counter, or alternatively a Grass/Rock with Cloud Nine. On the other hand, if we wanted a general counter to Terrakion, Gliscor, and Landorus, we could have a sort of Ground/Psychic Claydol v2, for sake of argument.

    Even if this is not our primary focus, it is something we ought to be keeping in mind when choosing a typing. Unless, of course, we are picking a mono-type, in which case we'll just go all out with the movepool and ability anyway.
  10. DougJustDoug

    DougJustDoug Knows the great enthusiasms
    is a member of the Site Staffis an Artistis a Programmeris a CAP Contributoris an Administratoris a Battle Server Admin Alumnusis a Smogon IRC SOp Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
    CAP Leader

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Messages:
    3,098
    Deck Knight, I freely admit that my proposal flies in the face of many things we have traditionally considered to be "the right way to build a Pokemon". I expect many people to dismiss it as folly. When I first thought of it myself, I actually thought of it as a joke! I said to myself, "You know what would be hilarious? To ask the CAP community to intentionally pick really bad typing and argue for all the worst aspects of the type for a pokemon, instead of picking good typing and arguing for the strong points! Then make everyone deal with the crappy type and try to get around it! What a riot that shitstorm would be..."

    But then I started thinking about it more, and I realized it would NOT be a shitstorm -- it would actually be right in line with the concept and would be very focused discussions. In fact, it would be a helluva lot more focused than any attempt to discuss "Typing that is bad, but also kinda good" or "Typing that is Ok, but has some really bad points here and there" or "A single type that is bad if used this way, but can be good if used this way". All those discussions will get nowhere. People won't really know if they are supposed to be talking about "good typing" or "bad typing" -- because you have explicitly asked everyone to talk about both, and applied convoluted definitions for everyone to balance in the discussion. I just don't see those conversations producing much meaningful learning, because many people won't really grok what the heck is being discussed in the first place!

    And when people don't understand what's really going on, or have a clear intuitive idea of what we are shooting for -- they will revert to what we always do on CAP, which is -- GIVE THE POKEMON GOOD TYPING. And in the case of this concept, that is definitely NOT the goal. We can quibble over what defines good or bad typing, but I really don't want people picking the best typing based on the types best strengths. And if you think by making a bunch of detailed acronyms and definitions that you can educate the masses into understanding the subtle variations of meaning in "kinda bad, kinda good, depending on the context" -- that just ain't gonna work Deck. Surely you know this.

    Think politics, DK -- which I know is near and dear to your heart. People don't vote based on the complex explanations and policy definitions of a platform - they vote based on the headlines and clean soundbites that emerge around the platform. On this CAP, you are not going to get any semblence of "bad typing" from the difficult concepts you are expecting everyone to digest. You'll get "good typing", because that's all people really know on CAP -- and our history on this very much supports that assertion. That's why I am saying you need to change the headline here, Deck. You need to clean up the message and make it the opposite of what we have always done. You need to make this about "bad typing", and be very clear about it.

    I'm not saying the CAP discussion participants are stupid at all. In fact, the quality of posts in this first thread have been very intelligent. But collectively, I think you'll have a project management problem on your hands if you go the current way. The way I'm proposing is counter-intuitive as hell, and it is a big risk. But I think we'll learn a lot regardless of outcome, and everyone will actually have a lot of fun participating.



    EDIT:
    Some people mentioned that my posts look like I am attacking Deck Knight, so I want to be really clear here that I'm not trying to do that. I am arguing for a position that is different than what DK proposed, so yeah of course I have some disagreement. But I am naming Deck Knight specifically, not to "call him out", but rather to appeal to the only person whose opinion matters in this thread -- which is the Topic Leader. For those of you that are new to CAP, be aware that we are all trying to convince the TL, not trying to "get votes" or whatever. Perhaps I am hurting my cause, if I'm pissing off DK with the way I'm presenting arguments. So, I'll just say here that I'm not trying to force this down his throat.

    Deck Knight, I fully defer to your judgment on this, and I know you can and will take this thing in a direction you think is best. I'm gonna participate in this CAP and try to make it the best it can be regardless of where you take us. I'm just putting an opinion out there that I want you to consider, like everyone else in the thread.
  11. Furosuto

    Furosuto

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,410
    I have to admit, I'm a little confused right now. Theorymon stated that we get a typing that is considered bad, but make it's typing the best thing about it via stats, abilities, movepool, etc.

    What DK has said is that we make the typing the main selling point about it. Nothing about the stats or anything like that.

    It seems like the CAP concept has changed a little bit. At least that's what I'm seeing. Can someone guide me to what I'm seeing wrong?
  12. Treadshot A1

    Treadshot A1

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,253
    Basically, the two points you mentioned are the same thing. Make a bad typing seem good. One says that we use stats and stuff to make it good, the other is open ended. But both take a bad typing and make it useful.

    For example, you take a type like Ice Ground, and realise it is pitiful defensively. How do you sell that typing as good? Ah, right. Base 100 speed, Base 120 attack and shoddy defensive stats. What does this scream? LO + 3 attacks, or an Scarfer. This shows how a bad type initially can be sold as a good typing, sine it's offensive potential can be utilised with the right stat spread and item.

    Of course, that's Mamoswine in a nutshell (I fudged the base stat numbers, but you get the idea). It's basically all about marketing. What would you give a product to make it sound good, even if it had a crippling weakness? The only difference is that theorymon says to use stats and stuff to make its typing good, while DK hasn't specified what will be used. This doesn't mean stats and stuff have been ruled out, it just means that everything is fair game for the time being.
  13. Okuu

    Okuu Applications Support, Pettan Co.
    is a Battle Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    I have no idea how it's typically handled here, but I generally want to avoid ending up with something that's basically a slightly restatted version of an already existing pokemon. Treadshot's example above is a perfect one: If we choose a defensively poor typing, and decide to make up for it by giving it good offensive stats, then it'll just end up getting a scarf/band/specs on it and becoming another revenge killer / sweeper that will ostensibly perish upon getting damaged by anything that isn't a hazard. And we already have things like Weavile / Mamoswine / Darmanitan / Rhyperior / Chandelure / Roserade who fit that role perfectly. Not to mention that those sort of pokemon aren't necessarily useful because of their typing, but because of their stats. Something with decent defensive bulk, high speed, and 120+ base offense is going to see some time in competitive play. Even something without the bulk can still function as a revenge killer, but it's not going to survive long in OU play without a varied moveset. But frankly, at this point, the idea of having a terrible typing has been completely lost, and we'd just be making a revenge killer. Which is a completely lame idea. Regardless of what typing we end up making it.
  14. MLaRF

    MLaRF

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    239
    This right here is so true. To be honest, I think making a pokemon that's centered around offensiveness might even be a cheap way to put the "bad typing" on the backburner, since all you really have is a power boost to a certain cluster of attacks, and the weaknesses and resistances of the type are made irrelevant by anyone with the power to ohko it. If we emphasize offenses on this mon, it's more like we're trying to take the moves' type and make them more useful instead of the pokemon. So we should have something at least somewhat based on defenses in order to make it a generally worthwhile experience.

    This generally lends itself to a single-type, which is also easier because we don't have to worry about [A] its second type bringing it down, like poison/electric being murdered by sandstorm, or its second type being more prominent, like bug/dragon moreover emphasizing its dragon typing, as some extreme examples. Unfortunately the original options only had a dual-type as defensive, which really hurts its capabilities, because there are some good types that could really use a defensively-natured OU mon.

    What I'm getting at:
    • If we don't make it reasonably focused on defenses, we'd be moreover redefining the attacks' type and not the pokemon's.
    • If we make it dual-typed, we have a huge boatload of issues with synergy we have to watch out for, and though it has more positive potential than single-typed, it also comes with an equal amount or more of negative potential.
    • I don't think things like 1DTO and 2CTD are good slates to go by, single-type vs. dual-type should be considered at a different stage than how we use the types.
  15. Okuu

    Okuu Applications Support, Pettan Co.
    is a Battle Server Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    Messages:
    121
    Also, now that I consider it, why are we making a choice between 1DTO / 2CTD / 2MTO / etc right now? I see that some people like(d) 1DTO as an option, but when you think about it, there aren't many options to select from once you get in there. It's almost guaranteed that we'll end up with a Mono-poison attacker (which I personally find boring, but I'd trust you guys to think of some way to make it not completely lame). And I can't imagine a CAP about horrible typings going without a formal vote about what typings we should use. I suggest that, for now, we just consider something along the lines of this:

    • Defensively poor typing, offensive balancing
    • Defensively poor typing, defensive balancing
    • Defensively poor typing, mixed balancing
    • Offensively poor typing, defensive balancing
    • Offensively poor typing, offensive balancing
    • Offensively poor typing, mixed balancing

    I can't even think of what would go in some of those categories, but I'm sure that they both cover every possible pokemon we could think of to meet the goals of this CAP, and that they still offer us a decent chance at a typing poll.
  16. No Luck Involved

    No Luck Involved

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,813
    I think Doug's suggestion that we discuss what exactly constitutes a bad typing is a good way to proceed. This CAP can't really be pushed along the conveyor belt like usual because the typing is so central to the concept that it pretty much is the idea itself (unike a 'psychological warfare' or other where the typing is non essential to the concept itself).

    Personally I don't believe there are any typings that are inherently 'bad' because all of them have offensive and defensive qualities. However it is clear that some types are used much more than others in OU, and so 'usage' could be a way to differentiate a 'good' type from a 'bad' type.

    If we got down to it and analysed why exactly a certain type is not used in OU; such as Bug/Flying, Fire/Flying, Ice, Normal, Poison or whatever; we could go on to suggest a 'niche' for that certain type in the OU environment and give it the tools it would need to be 'useful' in that niche role and on OU teams. If we could analyse all the lesser used types and find a specific (and useful) job to perform to its strengths then I'd consider that a huge success - it wouldn't have to be a sweeping monster or defensive behemoth imo, just to find out what jobs a lesser used (or 'bad') type can do and what tools it needs to be useful in OU.
  17. srk1214

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

    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    2,492
    This was in reference to my fears of what would happen with a type like Fire/Ice.

    I mean, bugmaniacbob, how else would you fix Fire/Ice other than by giving it the type of stats/movepool I mentioned?

    I get this is an extreme example, but I'm really worried about starting with such a bad typing that we have no choice but to overpower everything else about it.
  18. paintseagull

    paintseagull pink wingull
    is an Artistis a Forum Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    943
    Okay, gonna try to make a brief post before this thing is done.

    The idea of thinking of bad offence vs bad defence might be more straightforward, but I think what really matters is bad overall. Maybe something with bad defences has great offences and that's a way the typing can shine through (Rock/Ice and 2CTD in general). This could still be bad overall - it would still have a hard time as an offensive pokemon having to deal with its huge weaknesses. Maybe we could look at making *either* an offensive or defensive pokemon that just kind of sucks at both. Something that has "okay/bad" defences AND "okay/bad" offences provided by its typing, so that we wouldn't just be relying on hitting convenient types super effectively.

    I don't agree with this worry of giving bloated stats/movepool/ability if we pick something that's "too bad". That's what we're trying to answer - how do we make a bad typing work? We will look into every option. That's not something we need to know now - if we did, this would be a boring CAP.

    I generally think we need a dual type here. A lot of 2x weaknesses or at least one 4x. This thing needs to suffer if not used correctly. It seems like we already know what there is to know about the worst mono-types - people seem to have a reasonably clear path forward for these suggestions. I know we can't screw ourselves into a corner at the first step here, but I also don't want to undersell our creativity.

    I think what Doug said made a lot of sense, and I support that.
  19. capefeather

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

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2009
    Messages:
    2,884
    Ahh I can't catch up on all the recent posts right now, so I'll say one more thing.

    Let's make something clear. When I said dual-type is a better option than monotype, that wasn't to say that a monotype option is inferior to a dual-type option. It's just that there are unarguably more options in the dual-type set. However, I don't think that it's all that fair to eliminate one set or the other in the concept assessment stage. Mainly, it's a superfluous commitment, an unnecessary risk to the typing stage. It seems to me as if a lot of people want monotype because they have a specific monotype in mind, and the same thing applies to dual-type. It doesn't seem fair to narrow the typing discussion down directly like this before it even happens. And picking one or the other doesn't even have much to do with actually fulfilling the concept.
  20. 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
    It's getting close to the wire here, so I'll begin the post about closing this all down.

    DougJustDoug: I fully appreciate people (esp. CAP's userbase and Smogon's base in general) don't necessarily "get" complex policies, it's about headlines, doing something bold, etc. That isn't the purpose here though, and I'm not the kind of person who rushes things either because its "tedious" or alternatively "wandering." The entire point of CAP is learning from the discussion, and my leadership style is to begin with a concrete proposal as a baseline and let it be hashed out among the various CAP members.

    Aside from the tedium whiners, I feel the thread has been going fine, and it's help me clarify the direction I want to lead with on this. Initially I thought I'd only end up going with one method, so that the typing discussion could zero in on like proposals and choose the best amongst them.

    My position now is to be far more lenient in allowing the content of types discussed, but I'll still be using the 1DTO and 2CTD lists in the typing thread as the initial boundaries, with discussion to allow other types provided they can be argued as sufficiently "bad." The 2CTD list does include several fairly horrendous types, but they come with a built-in advantage that is not immediately seen, something which bad dual-types selected at random might not have.

    What I do not want is a free-for-all race to the bottom on typing. I may in fact pare down my lists more when I finally make the OP in Type Discussion. I still want there to be discussion, I just want it to be focused on "which is the worst bad typing that can still be considered the Pokemon's strong point given the proper support" Not "which is the worst bad typing period." Despite getting slaughtered by priority and SR, Ice / Rock is still magnificent offensive STAB, and if we give it Prankster and Baton Pass, it could even evade Bullet Punch. That's good outside the box thinking that can help salvage a type, but I want the discussion to be on the merits of Ice / Rock as potential strengths, not on how utterly shitty Ice / Rock is on paper. The shittiness on paper of many bad types is self-evident.

    One last thing I should clarify. When I say I don't want something to be like Tyranitar, Celebi, or Volcarona, what I mean is I don't want the perfect convergence of overwhelming stats, movepool, and / or ability. The fact Tyranitar uses the SpD boost of Rock with Sandstream and smashes face with Stone Edge and Pursuit for Pokemon that try to run away are actually good examples of the end-game. I just wouldn't want it on a Pokemon so powerful and versatile that people question it's the *type* that does it rather than being the ability and stats. Let's be real here for a moment, if Tyranitar didn't have Sand Stream, Rain Offense would roll over it, Sand Stream is a massive part of the reason it can switch in. It would still be used though, because nothing with the strongest Pursuit in the game, Dragon Dance, and a godly Stone Edge is going to be sidelined.

    Celebi is the weakest example since it doesn't really use both STABs. Its best set only uses the Grass STAB and aside from the Fighting resistance, its Psychic STAB is a footnote and actually a hindrance, considering how U-turn and Pursuit murder it. Celebi's typing isn't really its strong point like it can be argued with Tyranitar. Volcarona has epic offensive STAB and breaks face, so it's more in the Tyranitar mold, but a lot of it has to do with almost custom moves in Fiery Dance and Quiver Dance, and having almost unheard of 135/100 Offense. There's a few Pokemon with that, but none of them have 85 / 65 / 105 Defenses (The latter of which, along with SPEED gets boosted by Quiver Dance lol) to back it up.

    So to close out, here's how we're going forward:

    • The Typing Discussion will be initially open to a list selected from 1DTO and 2CTD.
    • Additional types can be argued for outside those lists, provided it meets two standards: It is sufficiently self-evidently bad (has key weaknesses and vulnerabilities to common strategies), but does have enough strong points that you can also argue it would be defining (for example its offensive STAB combination is stellar, like Volcarona's and Tyranitars, its one or two resistances can be capitalized on to turn a match around, etc.)
    • "Offensive" and "Defensive" use designations will be ignored. These will be argued in Threats and Stat Limit Discussion.

    The Discussion will focus on:
    • Why the typing is considered bad.
    • What positive qualities it brings that can make it defining positively.
    • What role it could fit given its weaknesses and defining strengths.
    • Is this the worst typing that could be selected and still fulfill the above discussion points competently?

    I imagine people are a bit tired of how I like to structure things, but this is a concept that hits hard in the early stages, and I am committed to forcing the analysis there instead of rushing through and trying to fix mistakes. I believe this approach is the best way to pull what we need out of the concept and learn from it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

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