Policy Review Typing Changes in Buff Process

approved by spoo

Hello, I want to write something about the precedent of typing changes being last-resort/near forbidden for upcoming buff processes.
While I dont think it has ever been explicitly banned, I think the buffs so far are generally all accepted equally in all stages apart from typing, which has been explicitly mentioned to be a last resort and an area to "avoid". But there are a lot of situations where a typing change can lead to a clean fix that doesnt alter any other areas in a major way, also preserving the mon's intended playstyle.
What I'm suggesting here is that moving forward, the buff process will not dissuade typing changes as buff submissions for our defensive CAPs. I think it would be a good idea to do this before a process that heavily benefits a typing change starts, or at least have the conversation earlier than the opening of that process.

:malaconda: :snaelstrom: :pyroak:
A lot of CAPs are overall stacked with good qualities, but their typing doesnt allow them to succeed. Some examples are Malaconda, Snaelstrom, and original Pyroak. They offer little to no defensive use, and as a result are a major stretch to add to any squad. For Conda, Snael, and Pyroak, these mons' typings are clearly better offensively than defensively but they have been otherwise designed with defensive playstyle in mind. I think as we saw from the Pyroak process, the safest solution for a lot of these types of mons with a mismatching typing and other stages is to completely rework their playstyle to match the offensive/defensive role the typing suggests. But I personally think that typing changes in these scenarios could lead to preserving their playstyle, smaller overall changes and honestly more reliable success.

I think something we felt with the Pyroak process is that Pyroak had done next-to-everything it could have in order to try and be purely defensive already: it has godlike defenses that start to look stupid when buffed further, a good movepool, and while the ability was meh, an ability change alone was not considered enough of a buff to bring it to viability as a wall. At the end of the day, you can argue that its just the wrong set of resistances to operate as a wall. Outside of slapping on Magic Guard or Regenerator, its hard to make this mon make sense in a defensive way thanks to a typing mismatch with stats and movepool, and every workable submission was turning it into an offensive tank or fully offensive powerhouse. Our other defensive CAPs have even more extreme situations than Pyroak since they hold good abilities that define their identity, and would either need to turn into absolute defensive monstrosities or tanks/sweepers if typing is off the table.

I'm wondering how other people feel about typing changes in the buff process. It may be the case that people already generally feel that they are on the table when the time is right, but so far I've only seen the general consensus to be that they are off-limits which is why I felt this could use a post, specifically with the defensive CAPs and future defensive CAPs that fall down in mind.

(As an additional question, how do you feel about changing typings for already offensive CAPs with awkward typings like Volkraken, Caribolt, or perhaps Chromera? These mons could definitely find themselves onto more teams if they had better switchins, although there are offensive solutions here that dont feel like a major rework like it would with our defensive walls.)
 

Da Pizza Man

Pizza Time
is a Pre-Contributor
Can't really say I'm super behind this proposal to be quite honest.

Something we should generally strive for when doing buffs is that we should for the most part, being trying to stick with small changes such as changing an ability, increasing stats a smidge, or adding a couple moves that it was desperatly missing, or a combination of all three.In my opinion, a type change is almost never a "small overall change". On defensive mons, changing something's set of weaknesses and resistances completely changes its match-spread and more often then not, how the mon even functions in-game. Let's take :Landorus-Therian: for example and instead of it being a Ground/Flying type, it is now an Rock/Flying type (The fact that this type is on the current slate is a concidence and something I realized around the end of typing this up). Suddenly this mon's matchups are flipped completely on their head. It now just loses to Electric-Types instead of having to be worn down by them throughout the period of the game, but on the flip side it's also now a Flying resist and also plays slightly better into Fire-Types then it did before. I think that if the argument is to allow type changes to preserve a mon's identity and to preserve its playstyle, then it sort of feels like making such a drastic change like this is defeating the purpose of why we allowed this change in the first place?
 

Brambane

protect the wetlands
is a Contributor Alumnus
I have no strong opposition to type changes, but with 2 caveats:

1. Once a CAP has had its type changed once, it can NEVER have its type changed again except during the buff's PPL/review
2. A CAP can have a single type changed or added (for a mono-type CAP like Stratagem), but cannot have both types change or a type removed

The first one is to prevent CAPs from having multiple different type combinations across multiple generations. Frankly that is confusing and something completely distanced from the reality of Pokemon's design philosophy. I would be opposed to it for similar reasons we limit certain abilities and custom elements; we shouldn't need to resort to breaking the established design of the game to achieve our goals.

The second point stands more on precedent; while the introduction of Steel and Fairy have altered the types of some Pokemon, a dual-type Pokemon has never had a complete typing change, nor has a Pokemon ever lost a type it had before to go from a dual-type to a mono-type across generations. This somewhat limits our design space, but we purposely limit our design spaces throughout the CAP process to adhere to the game's thematic standards. I don't see why we would deviate from that trend here.

With those above stipulations in line, I believe we can place type changes equal to other proposed buffs.
 
Can't really say I'm super behind this proposal to be quite honest.

Something we should generally strive for when doing buffs is that we should for the most part, being trying to stick with small changes such as changing an ability, increasing stats a smidge, or adding a couple moves that it was desperatly missing, or a combination of all three.In my opinion, a type change is almost never a "small overall change". On defensive mons, changing something's set of weaknesses and resistances completely changes its match-spread and more often then not, how the mon even functions in-game. Let's take :Landorus-Therian: for example and instead of it being a Ground/Flying type, it is now an Rock/Flying type (The fact that this type is on the current slate is a concidence and something I realized around the end of typing this up). Suddenly this mon's matchups are flipped completely on their head. It now just loses to Electric-Types instead of having to be worn down by them throughout the period of the game, but on the flip side it's also now a Flying resist and also plays slightly better into Fire-Types then it did before. I think that if the argument is to allow type changes to preserve a mon's identity and to preserve its playstyle, then it sort of feels like making such a drastic change like this is defeating the purpose of why we allowed this change in the first place?
The purpose of considering typing changes for these defensive unranked mons is because they dont have those positive matchups like Landorus to "flip". They dont cover important offensive threats for your team because of their typing-based shortcomings, despite already good stats, movepools and abilities. But we know they have a defensive identity as this is where they found viability in previous gens as well as the intention behind their processes. Their current "best" sets are also usually defensive, though lacking. I believe some some typing changes could lead identical sets as their current usage but with increased viability. That to me is a clean preservation of playstyle.

I think creating a sidegrade typing for a mon with an already functional typing like ground/flying into rock/flying sounds like a pointless change that does indeed scramble the mon unnecessarily, so I guess I agree with you there. But I still think it can be part of the conversation, and written off if the mon has functional resists
 
Last edited:

Wulfanator

Clefable's wish came true!
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Top CAP Contributor Alumnus
While I do not think they should be our go-to fix, type changes/removals should be acceptable under the buff process. If at the end of conversation we determine that our buff target would fulfill its role better with a new typing as opposed to minor changes to moves or ability, then we should be allowed to pursue it. (I think it goes without say that a change to both typings is out of the question.) Likewise, if one of the buff target's current types is hindering its performance, we should have the ability to remove it. If a mon is being considered for a buff, we should really have the entire toolbox available to us to correct its issues.
 
Last edited:

Brambane

protect the wetlands
is a Contributor Alumnus
If we wish to pursue typing removals, i.e. removal of Snaelstrom's Bug-typing to pure Water, I think it should be under the following conditions:

1. The Pokemon has no other role that can accommodated within the confines of its original typing and design space
2. No other thematically-appropriate type combination would realistically achieve viability if a single type was changed

As such, type removals would be technically possible within the process, but I don't think we should resort to them when there are other valid routes for changing a Pokemon's typing.

I think there certainly a flavor component as well, which is why I mentioned it being "thematically appropriate." We make a lot of stretches and exceptions in CAP (Pajantom with Brave Bird, Krilowatt with Draco Meteor) but there is valid community enjoyment in creating authenticity and thematically-cohesive fakemons. Retypings should be believable in the context of the Pokemon's aesthetics. Malaconda could probably pull off Dark/Poison, Poison/Grass, or Dark/Dragon; I don't think Dark/Flying or Steel/Grass would make much sense.

Once we complete a project, there is a certain degree of design space we lock ourselves into in order to maintain the CAP's identity, which is equal parts competitive and aesthetic. The CAP project is a compromise of these two components; we limit ourselves from certain moves and abilities regardless if they are good or bad to maintain authenticity, and artists create designs that reflect the ongoing competitive design process. The result is the braided community that makes the project enjoyable and standout from other Fakemon projects. The fact we need specific frameworks or concepts to subvert our established restrictions is indicative of the commitment the project has to authenticity. I don't see why the buff process is an exception to this rule; we certainly kept to this with Pyroak when denying it access to restricted moves.

Basically, I don't see why we should pursue options that break away from our own creative standards when other alternatives exists. Even if you can somehow objectively prove that removing a type or completely changing a dual-type to a different dual-type is the BEST direction for the buff, if there is a slight less perfect alternative that achieves viability and respects both official game design and the original design intent of the CAP, we should pursue that option.
 
Typing should be out last resort to change, if Abilities, Stats, or certain moves don't cut it. I can only see it working once, and if it causes a problem, it should be rolled back to what it had before. The only one I can advocate for is removing Bug from Snaelstrom (and by extension Coribalis) to avoid being Rock-weak, but otherwise it is a stretch to consider.

That being said, Snaelstrom could work as mono Water and do fine. It wouldn't miss a Bug typing.
 
Last edited:

quziel

I am the Scientist now
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Smogon Discord Contributoris a Top CAP Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a member of the Battle Simulator Staff
Moderator
Echoing the consensus; typing changes are currently, and should be, on the table, but only when we don't have another easy way to buff the mon in question. Typing is tied to most of a mon's flavor, and changing it can really disrupt a major element of the project.

Also going to put a 24 hour warning here, after which we'll move any conclusions to moderator review.
 

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

Top