CAP 14 CAP 3 - Concept Assessment

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
I agree, Yilx, that the justification for choosing a monotype can't be just that there are very few monotypes in OU.

But I don't think you can discount the fact that that is true so offhandedly. Ninetales hardly counts as a normal case since it is OU for one reason and one reason alone, weather-starting. This case cannot be made for all OU weather starters. Politoed, sure, but Tyranitar would still be OU even without Sand Stream.

I think the possibility of exploring a monotype that does not currently exist in OU (or at least not in that specific role i.e. make a defensive monoelectric that would not be competing with Jolteon in any way) gives us an opportunity to learn what it takes to make it in OU when pokemon of that monotype, sometimes with great stats, movepool, or ability have not become OU.

A bit of an extreme example, obviously, since no one would honestly make the case Eelektross belongs in OU... but why not? It has no weaknesses, great mixed attacking stats and not terrible bulk. True its speed is atrocious, but then, so are lots of mixed attackers.

Indeed this question must interest at least a few people, since Smogon has devoted time to 4 different sets under the OU metagame area of the site. http://www.smogon.com/bw/pokemon/eelektross/ou

I think this path is much more interesting than taking two offensive types that cover each others' weaknesses and making another offensive threat. I'm looking to make something that will actually help us study the underlying necessities to be successful in OU. Not just: OK so we made an Ice/Fire Special Sweeper (with mountaineer or Magic Guard or whatever of course since CAP has a fetish with not being SR weak) with 110+ Special Attack and access to any move it needs to KO everything in OU that doesn't resist both STABS/is named Chansey/Blissey.

...

Now what?

This is a chance to do what CAP is intended to do and truly study the OU metagame.
 

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 Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
CAP Leader
I'm feeling like this concept assessment is "wandering" a bit more than usual. It's always hard to narrow down and focus at this stage, so don't get me wrong. I just think this is bit more difficult than usual. I think a big contributing factor is because of this element of so-called "bad typing" in the concept itself. CAP doesn't normally try to build a "bad" anything in terms of pokemon aspects, so I think it is particularly hard for us to fit that into this CAP in a way that makes sense for the way we build pokemon.

I think it is because the definition of "bad typing" is dodgey to begin with. Are we trying to build a pokemon with truly "bad typing" overall? Are we trying to build a pokemon with what is traditionally perceived as "bad typing" but then making that typing actually "good typing" when taking our whole completed pokemon into account? Are we trying to overcome the "bad aspects of typing" that we choose? Are we trying to emphasize the "good aspects" of typing that is "mostly bad"? I could go on and on...

My point is that the term "bad typing" is ill-defined at best. But somewhere, somehow, some way -- "bad typing" is undeniably an aspect of the pokemon we want to build, however you choose to define the term. Unfortunately, many definitions of "bad typing" are mostly relative to other aspects of the pokemon. And on the CAP project, we are forced to decide each aspect of a pokemon in discreet steps. So we have a very hard time "defining bad typing" on this CAP, over the course of several weeks, through several separately discussed and voted steps. I think it's almost impossible to achieve, and worse than that -- IT WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO LEAD DISCUSSIONS.

I think this concept assessment is a harbinger of future threads, unless we put a new paradigm in place to make the process more manageable.


This is chiming in a bit late, and I'll respect it if Deck Knight doesn't want to consider it at this stage, but I thought of an interesting way we might "lead" this CAP to achieve the concept, and make this whole thing "fit" a bit better with the logistics of the CAP community creation process.

What if during the typing stages, we completely reverse the normal goal -- meaning let's make the goal to come up with "bad typing". Ignore everything else, just make it a contest to identify the worst typing combinations imaginable. Then after that, we revert and try to use every other step to overcome the bad typing. I think the typing steps would actually be very interesting. We would have some very good discussions on what constitutes "bad typing". And then later we specifically learn what things overcome bad typing.

Right now, by trying to come up with "bad, but not horrible" typing, or "bad typing if the following later steps come out a certain way", or whatever -- I think we'll learn very little. The discussions will be a mess, and I foresee a bazillion poll-jumping infractions being handed out along the way. Heck, the way we are currently structuring this, we are practically forcing the community to poll-jump in every step to have meaningful discourse. And we'll probably end up with good typing anyway, because normal CAP's end up with freaking amazing typing. Unless we set out to make TERRIBLE typing -- it will probably be very good typing, because CAP projects have an enormous bias towards making good typing for our pokemon.

I think the term "bad typing" is mentioned a lot in the metagame. I'd like us to put a microscope on the term and really explore it. Then every later step we use the same microscope to define "overcoming bad typing" -- which is another oft-used phrase in the metagame that lacks real definition.

This could be a helluva interesting CAP, but going down the current road appears that we are trying to make a "CAP that is not as amazing as usual" and that is probably fail, because I don't think people are taking into account the step-by-step nature of the CAP project. And BTW, it's a common pitfall of CAP during concept assessment. Whatever we do has to be executed in isolated steps where the community is basically looking at one thing and one thing only at any given time. We often get this idea that during each step we are looking forward to future steps too, and taking their outcomes into account. We don't. And future steps almost always work out different than you expect.

If this concept in any way involves "bad typing" -- then we damn well better ensure bad typing during the typing steps. And the only way I can see us doing that is by making it a "worst typing possible" contest. Which, ironically, would be very interesting competitively because I think we'll finally have an intelligent debate about what constitutes "bad typing" in absolute terms. I love that sort of thing, and I think other CAP participants would too.
 
I hate to sound like I'm sucking up but in realizing that I was interested in this CAP because I wanted to see what a non-offensively-shitty poison pokemon would look like, I think that DougJustDoug has the right idea and it would probably be wise to take his advice. Reading through this thread makes it seem like people are arguing multiple things at once.
 
I'm torn between 1DTO and 2MTO.

1DTO - this idea has a few things going for it, such as a rarity of mono-type OU 'mons and finding a balance between not overcharging a stat to make it viable. The latter thing is a key point I would like to raise, because it would help us understand what would make an OU Pokemon OU. (I.e. a pure poison with guts or a pure steel with Adaptability)

2MTO - this is a good way to figure out how two types that may never be seen can interact, in spite of any potential overlapping of STABs (fire/poison would have 2 STABs on grass, for example), however the same mixed typing would lead to interesting coverage (again:fire/poison would get coverage on steel, bug, grass, and ice.) the one thing I can see as an issue is that in order to increase viability a bit higher stats may be needed. Also: I really like the idea of a fire/poison ant Pokemon. For the pun of it.

Honestly I am leaning towards 1DTO. Also: had two offensive types in a defensive manner been discussed? I don't think electric/ice would be too devistating off a, say, 50 base attack stat, and it's stealth rock weak, has weaknesses vs fighting, fire, ground, rock, and steel (and with that most priority moves and a lot of offensive typings) and could thus help with this goal as well.
 
The only real problem I have with Doug's post is that we're not actually trying to take a bad type and give it everything else it needs to be good, I may be misinterpreting your post but that's what it seems you're saying, sorry if otherwise. What the original concept was take a type whose bad parts are the most looked-at, like poison's offinsive capabilities or fire's weakness to 3 key types, and instead of making it god-like we mold it around emplasizing its good points, like poison's defensive capabilities or fire's resistances to good-but-not-great typed attacks like bullet punch, iron head, and u-turn.
However, I would also like to say that I completely agree with what you're saying that our current goal should be to look at what "bad" types we can go for. I've kinda seen several-odd suggestions for typing in this thread, even though it's not the typing discussion, so I think first we should maybe come up with a list of types and combos, sort that into lists that are like the suggested 1DTO/2DTM/2CTD (replacing any mistakes with the proper acronym), and then discuss which list we'd like to use.
 
The only concern I have with Doug's post, if we were to jump into a typing discussion now, is that "bad typing" is somewhat related to the playstyle of the pokemon, like Asylum_rhapsody also said. For instance, for a pokemon that is intended to be a hyper offensive glass cannon, it doesn't matter if it ends up Rock/Ice, or whatever. I'd argue it's actually a pretty good typing, suddenly.

So a "bad" typing is pretty hard to define, unless known what the niche/role/whatever the pokemon is intended for. If we're making a defensive pokemon, or bulky offensive, then suddenly, Rock/Ice seems like a scary typing to try and balance.

But other than somewhat quickly defining whether to go an offensive or defensive route, I don't see any other obstacles as to why not to go with Doug's idea and just have, like he put it, a contest to find the worst typing possible.
 

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 Live Chat Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnus
CAP Leader
The only real problem I have with Doug's post is that we're not actually trying to take a bad type and give it everything else it needs to be good, I may be misinterpreting your post but that's what it seems you're saying, sorry if otherwise.
I am trying to propose a way to manage this project from a direction standpoint that can be executed in the discreet steps that CAP has in place. The current assessment is wandering quite a bit, and I think we are going to have a very hard time staying on track with this CAP, if we proceed along current lines.

I don't disagree with the stuff most people have posted so far, I'm just pointing out that I don't think we'll be able to use this current assessment as a guide to keep the project on track. In fact, I think the current assessment is going to lead many people off track, and encourage a ton of poll-jumping comments from here on out.

I agree that my proposal puts a spin on the concept that perhaps wasn't to the letter of what Theorymon wrote. But concepts are not dictated to the community word-for-word, nor do they need to be followed to the letter of the OP. The concept assessment phase is where we make an "interpretation" of the concept and then move forward with that. I am proposing one such interpretation.

I think the interpretation I am making is fairly straightforward and clear for the community to discuss in relatively isolated steps. If the interpretation varies a bit from the exact wording of the concept post, I think that is fine, if the trade-off is a more manageable CAP that is not a bunch of wandering discussions and poll-jumping speculations. I do not think my proposal is so deviant from the concept so as to change the purpose of the concept entirely. I think it is very faithful to what we want to do on this CAP.

I may be off-base. I merely wanted to throw it out there to see if others agree. But let's be clear, my proposal is NOT arguing to be a more ACCURATE interpretation of Tmon's concept wording -- I think it is a more MANAGEABLE interpretation. That's all.
 

jas61292

used substitute
is a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a CAP Contributoris a Battle Server Moderator Alumnus
Moderator
The only concern I have with Doug's post, if we were to jump into a typing discussion now, is that "bad typing" is somewhat related to the playstyle of the pokemon, like Asylum_rhapsody also said. For instance, for a pokemon that is intended to be a hyper offensive glass cannon, it doesn't matter if it ends up Rock/Ice, or whatever. I'd argue it's actually a pretty good typing, suddenly.

So a "bad" typing is pretty hard to define, unless known what the niche/role/whatever the pokemon is intended for. If we're making a defensive pokemon, or bulky offensive, then suddenly, Rock/Ice seems like a scary typing to try and balance.

But other than somewhat quickly defining whether to go an offensive or defensive route, I don't see any other obstacles as to why not to go with Doug's idea and just have, like he put it, a contest to find the worst typing possible.
Well, not to reiterate myself too much, but I would argue that while you might see nice offensive STABs like Rock/Ice and think it is not a bad offensive type in theory, in practice, the number one Pokemon in OU will OHKO you with priority unless you have defenses on the level of Giratina. Throw in weaknesses to every single common attack in OU, and you realize that it is not going to be so easy. Doesn't matter how powerful you are if you can't get an attack off. I think the idea that a typing is only bad for certain roles is flawed, unless you get really specific. There are so many ways to do offensive, defensive and supportive roles that it is hard to claim any typing is really bad at one of them, without using reasoning that stretches to all three.

That being said, I would like to say that I am fully supportive of what DougJustDoug proposed. I think if we really want to be successful we need to not just look at types that are "sort of bad but not really", and really reach down to the bottom of the barrel. Discussing what really makes a typing worse than other would be very interesting, and I think that may be one of the most important things we can learn from this CAP.
 
I'd generally disagree with the assessment the thread is "wandering." Actually the main complaint being put forward in #cap is that the thread is "tedious." I am not trying to set a world speed record for CAP, I am trying to lead discussion so that at the later steps we avoid many of these problems.

I can assure everyone I am doing everything I have done so far for the specific reason that this thread is the only discussion thread we have before we get into discussing the element that is supposed to define the CAP, which is the typing. As such I am using it to slow the process down and limit the discussion on which types I think would be viable in discussing the concept.

Specifically we are supposed to be making a "bad typing" that we then make over so that its typing becomes "good." The problem with that philosophy is that in order for that to work, you cannot ramrod through GIGO: Garbage-In, Garbage-Out. The more we have to "fix" the eventually type winner, the stronger the bandwagoning impulse for powerful stats or abilities will be. The end goal of this concept is not "salvage a terrible type" it's "use a type considered bad and build around it so the type works because of that type, rather that smothered in mitigating factors." If a Fire / Ice Pokemon never uses its Fire STAB because its switchins are always Rain Offense Pokemon and Heatran (which it can at least try and Freeze with Ice), then we haven't made the type successful, even if it can compete because of absurd stats/ability/coverage.

If I wanted to rush this and just ask people to spend the next thread debating the worst conceivable types, we'd have a boatload of typings vying for which has the worst Pursuit, Stealth Rock, U-turn, Volt Switch, and Priority weaknesses. This is not an effective way forward because it actually will bring forward poll jumping on a massive scale. The list of things you need to fix Fire / Ice for example is mammoth. I'm not saying that won't eventually get voted in, what I am saying is we should be much more careful in what we're doing so that we choose something that has a strength to emphasize. In my personal opinion, if we have to rely on the strongest abilities, obscene stats, or incredible moves to fix the type, we aren't really fulfilling the concept. We're recreating Tyranitar, Celebi, or Volcarona, something Theorymon's concept explicitly states it doesn't want to do (or if it didn't, he did.)

Point blank, the reason I'm paring it down to Mono-types and 2CTD is because both of these will force the Pokemon to use its STAB. 2CTD requires using both to maximize effective SE coverage and ward off threats, while mono-types will be built to use STAB. That is the only way I will consider the project a success, is that the end product must use a STAB attack on everything but perhaps some non-attacking stall set, if it somehow gets to that. That is a very high bar to set, but I believe it best fulfills the concept.

I could also expand it to also include types that are weak to at least two out of SR, U-turn, Volt Switch, Pursuit, and weather STABs Water or Fire. Or just use the standard "if it's not one of these, prove it's bad typing."

I'll post a 24 hour warning on this. If you have more to add, you have 24 hours before I make a final decision.
 
While it may be a good idea to jump to the typing discussion so as to have some ground to work off of, I believe the reason DeckK have a discussion about a 'direction' is have have that typing based off of it. This may be obvious but people are having too many arguments about typing instead of fully clarifying their choice, whether that was 1DTO, 2MTO or 2CTD. Rather than discuss about the typing the explanation for the choice, discussing about the synergy given by the choice would be more coherent and more of a debate. Being subtle about your typing bias would help in the discussion whereas suggesting a typing combination would only have people interpret that typing itself.

What we should be doing here is simply discuss the choices, not giving suggestions on the typing, as the discussion was meant for. The typing will come later after we have established the choice. For now it is important to decide how we want the CAP pokemon to perform, regardless of its typing.
 
I think the best choice we can make at this possible junction is to decide to use a mono type or a dual type. Do we want to try and make a mono type better or try to use a dual type that we haven't seen in Pokemon before or maybe make a dual type that has been used better than it already has been. So the main issue that we have to answer within the 24 hour period that Deck Knight set is we have to reach an agreement. Mono type or Dual Type?
 

Stratos

Banned deucer.
I feel as if a lot of people in this thread believe that taking a good typing and putting it in an unusual role is fulfillment of this concept: it's not. That's Break the Mold. Are there ways in which you can Break The Mold with an Extreme Makeover? Absolutely. But they're few, and doing something like offensive steel is not one of them. I'll say here what I said on #cap: Extreme Makeover doesn't turn a parking garage into an office complex; it turns a terrible house into an amazing house.

That said, I concur absolutely with DJD. I don't necessarily think that it would be best to actually choose the worst typing, but neither do i believe we should try on our own to find typings with any redeeming factors. If we attempt our hardest to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to typing combinations, I feel that we'll get some on the sides as well, instead of what CAP usually does which is skim right off the top.
 
I feel as if a lot of people in this thread believe that taking a good typing and putting it in an unusual role is fulfillment of this concept: it's not. That's Break the Mold. Are there ways in which you can Break The Mold with an Extreme Makeover? Absolutely. But they're few, and doing something like offensive steel is not one of them. I'll say here what I said on #cap: Extreme Makeover doesn't turn a parking garage into an office complex; it turns a terrible house into an amazing house.

That said, I concur absolutely with DJD. I don't necessarily think that it would be best to actually choose the worst typing, but neither do i believe we should try on our own to find typings with any redeeming factors. If we attempt our hardest to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to typing combinations, I feel that we'll get some on the sides as well, instead of what CAP usually does which is skim right off the top.
This is a very good point but first we have to answer the question of whether we are going to use a Mono Type and Extreme Makeover that or we are going to try a type combination. In order for us to make it easier for Deck Knight and make the whole CAP project go smoother as a result we need to decide here and now whether we want to do Mono Type or Dual Type. WE don't need to decide which types or whatever right now, just one or another.
 
We're recreating Tyranitar, Celebi, or Volcarona, something Theorymon's concept explicitly states it doesn't want to do (or if it didn't, he did.)
The thing is, two out of those three are examples that Theorymon DID explicitly state he had in mind. It is our different interpretations of the concept that make it any different.

I get that people are afraid of a bandwagon effect that may happen if we pick a legitimately bad type. However, I think we have enough people on board who are rather uncomfortable with giving a CAP something that's too good, including the TL himself. I also think that this concept has a self-balancing effect, in that if we make stats too good, or abilities too good, or movepool too good, then we put the CAP in danger of being about those things rather than the typing. I think we have more than enough stops, even from the concept itself, to prevent something like Magic Guard or Wonder Guard from happening unless they are absolutely necessary (hint: they're almost surely not).

Doug's suggestion is very risky, but it is probably the best way to learn something from this concept. The key point is to look at typings that are perceived to be bad. Then we are forced to ask, "What actually IS a bad typing? How does a typing become bad, and how does it become good?" Maybe the "worst type" isn't actually the worst after all. Even if it is, maybe it's doable without resorting to going crazy on a single stage of the process.

And isn't that the whole point of what we're doing here? Coolness factor will probably come no matter what, but actually learning something requires a challenge, something that actually forces us to rethink what we believe in.
 
We should discuss typing after we decide mono or dual. When we do though, we should look closely at their strengths and weaknesses because if a type lacks any usable strengths, then we would have to make it good despite the type which doesn't follow the concept and if the type has too many strengths for its weaknesses, then it is actually a good type.

Anyways, I find 2CTD to be more interesting. I feel we can learn more about types and what bad typing really means from that option.
 

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a member of the Site Staffis a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Maybe the "worst type" isn't actually the worst after all.
I'd like to comment on this. What really is the worst type in the current state of OU? I'd argue that, despite the ubiquity of Steels, it's quite possibly mono-fire.

It's weak to SR, affected by Spikes, is crushed by both Rain and Sand teams. Resisted by Dragons. And because it's monotyped, it has no secondary STAB to deal with these things. Just like Volcarona would be useless against Sand with no STAB Bug Buzz to kill Tyranitar and Sp. Def Heatran wouldn't exist with no Steel-type.

True, Fire is hardly a bad STAB offensively, but in the current state of OU, where Sand and Rain dominate, I don't think CAP3 would even dramatically improve Sun teams.

It's hard to truly make a dual-type be as bad as a monotype since the secondary STAB is almost always useful, even if it also adds defensive liabilities. The only secondary STABs that don't help ever pretty much offensively are Poison, Steel (bar Scizor or Metagross with their gigantic attack stat), and Normal.

Heck, even Normal has pretty decent normal coverage with most things.
 
It's hard to truly make a dual-type be as bad as a monotype since the secondary STAB is almost always useful, even if it also adds defensive liabilities. The only secondary STABs that don't help ever pretty much offensively are Poison, Steel (bar Scizor or Metagross with their gigantic attack stat), and Normal.
This is only relevant to an offensive pokemon? A defensive pokemon would relish fewer weaknesses generally granted by it's mono typing.

If we want to explore the offence of a type then dual would be the most logical option so it gets those coverage moves. But then if we give it a bad offensive typing such as steel, then give it an amazing offensive typing such as ice are we not just compensating the pokemon for it's bad typing and not really focusing on making a bad typing good?

If we go for a mono-type we will likely have a 'bad' typing offensively. Our aim then is to make that mono-type good through use of moves/abilities/stats. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought this the aim of the concept and the most simple.

All that said I think dual typing would be interesting, a lot more options to explore in terms of how many opposing types effect it and how this pokemon overcomes that. Though in this direction I think is only good to the concept if one type does not compensate the other for how bad it is, because in this case we will focus on the 'bad' typing itself and how to overcome that.

(This is all relevant only to offence)
 
Would it help to know what basic role or build we want to fulfil before we decide on typing? After all I can envision the typing polls will be turmoil if some people are voting with the idea of making a sweeper/counter and some are voting with intent to create a cleric/annoyer/tank/wall.

The other option would be to limit it to 1DTO, which would make the typing polls much easier to navigate and result in a more concrete sense of direction from the get-go.
 
I have to agree with Doug. The idea is to take a bad typing and make it work, at least in part because of the hidden strengths of the typing. Doug's idea will not subtract from our ability to fulfill the concept, but will serve to focus our discussion. We don't even have to do a poll or anything. Just make a list of types which meet the criteria of the concept well and proceed from there.

That being said, we should decide between 1DTO and 2CTD before we make any decisions, or even do too much discussion on typing.
 
Well then lets discuss it right now. I think that 1DTO would probably be one of the better ideas we could do because it will let us make the process a lot faster and lets us fine tune the CAP to do what its supposed to fulfill in its concept. Although I would have been a fan of a Dual Type with Psychic/Bug I see that a lot of people will all have a lot of opinions about what typing to use and this might cause for the next stage to become overly complicated. There are a lot of options when discussing dual typing and while that isn't necessarily a bad thing we don't want to drag the type discussion out too far and 1DTO will let us decide on a type more efficiently so we can try and focus on making the CAP do what we want instead of deciding what it will do. And while there is nothing wrong with dual typing every CAP project I believe except Stratagem was a dual type anyway. While this isn't a bad thing it would allow us to focus on the root of the concept more than just worrying about the typing.
 
The problem with any sort of mixed typing is that it is likely to lend itself to one of two scenarios: A) the second typing balances or checks the first typing's weaknesses well enough that the overall typing combined isn't exactly "bad"; or B) the typing combination is truly "bad", and forces the use of exaggerated abilities, stats, and movepool to make the Pokemon in any way viable. In the first case, Celebi's typing might look bad on paper, but it provides it with ample opportunities to switch in and either support its team or set up. Furthermore, every type (except Normal, which rarely gets dual types outside of Flying) has a dual type in OU, proving that no type is truly "bad" when backed by another suitable typing. On the other hand, Scyther has good base 110 Attack, 105 Speed, 70 / 80 / 80 defenses that can be boosted by Eviolite, a great ability in Technician, and a movepool that boasts Roost, Swords Dance, U-turn, Agility, Baton Pass, Bug Bite, Ariel Ace, Pursuit, etc. However, those things would need to be greatly improved even further to really warrant using a Bug / Flying type because it is so bad.

Therefore, I think 1DTO is the best option, especially because it allows us to really look into a singular typing and try to fix just what makes that particular typing so "bad". Also, using a stereotypically defensive typing offensively isn't necessarily the best way to go with this concept. Instead, we should be finding a stereotypically "bad" typing, such as Fire, Poison, or Bug, and try to find ways to make its inherent unique strengths its main selling point, enough to actually compensate for its shortcomings.
 
we should be finding a stereotypically "bad" typing, such as Fire, Poison, or Bug, and try to find ways to make its inherent unique strengths its main selling point, enough to actually compensate for its shortcomings.
^
I would like to add flying and grass to this list, they are slightly more offensively viable however I would not consider either to be a "defensive" type and may not fit DTO adequately.

I would like to see Fire, Bug, or Flying (in that order of preference, none of these types are really *defensive* types but I think they could be interesting to work with, also fire has been my fave type since gen 1.
 
^
I would like to add flying and grass to this list, they are slightly more offensively viable however I would not consider either to be a "defensive" type and may not fit DTO adequately.

I would like to see Fire, Bug, or Flying (in that order of preference, none of these types are really *defensive* types but I think they could be interesting to work with, also fire has been my fave type since gen 1.
Fire, Poison, and Bug were just examples I picked off the top of my head, not really any sort of proposed "list". It's too early to be looking into which types specifically to work with. Instead, we should be focusing on how to proceed with this concept. I think focusing on a singular "bad" type, and bringing the most out of the type's unique strengths, is the best way to go forward. Giving anything dual typing will either fix the problems with its "bad" typing by compensating with a fitting secondary typing, or risk accentuating its flaws enough to require far better stats, abilities, and moves to make up for it.
 
I like the second and third options 2MTO and 2CTD but is there some way to combine them? What about something like a poison/ice combination where ice covers the ground weakness and poison negates the fighting weakness. There are still several weaknesses to common STAB but this combination would help improve poison type's offensive incapability while improving ice type's lack of defense options. Obviously this type combination is a suggestion for a later poll but i am using it more as a reasoning for looking at 2MTO and 2CTD and combining them as opposed to picking one or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)