CAP 35 - Part 3 - Typing Discussion

[ausma]

CAP 35 So Far

-----

It's time to discuss one of the most important decisions for CAP 35--its type! Please follow ausma's posts carefully and DO NOT immediately propose type combinations until she says so.

Below is the role decided by the Concept Assessment poll:

Wall + Typing Contradiction sweeps.

 

[ausma]

Thanks ausma for the baton!

As it turns out, no matter how much you try, you will never be able to get rid of me. For those who don't know me, my name is ausma, and I will be once more taking the reigns of our CAP's typing. It has been decided upon by the TLT and kenn to move straight into typing since the winning contradiction was, in fact, related to typing, and a second concept assessment would most likely undermine this stage of the process.

As you all know, the contradiction we are building around is a Wall + Typing Contradiction. In essence, this is going to mean that we are going to be building a wall with a typing that goes a bit against the grain of what makes a standard wall stick. Because our typing is instrumental to fulfilling this concept, it's important we have a good and meaty dialogue around the relationship walls have with their typing, and what a typing contradiction would look like here.

To get us started, I'd like to ask a few questions so we can all get on the same page on the nature of this contradiction, and once we have an understanding of our direction, I will open the floodgates for typing suggestions.

___

Here are our preliminary questions:

1: We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

3: A very obvious angle toward having a typing contradiction as a wall is by observing the chemistry between weaknesses and resistances. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I'm going to give ourselves about 72-96 hours to answer these questions, since I have a busy early week and these are some really important foundational questions. I'll be back to review the answers and get started with establishing some direction!

 

[CharSiuEmboar]

1. What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?
Typing provides several successful qualities; 1. Resistances, 2. Immunities, and 3, lack of weaknesses. Immunities, such as those from Equilibra, Skeledirge and Gliscor present often targeted prevention that improves their ability to Wall - not only is it typing immunity, or specific move immunity, but also status immunity - getting Toxic'd or Burned leads to a lack of longevity, or Paralyzed preventing important Heals etc can limit CAP35's opportunity to act as a damage soak. And Resistances is extremely easy - having more resistances means more opportunities to take hits, however, it is important, similar to immunities that the resistance is useful. Bug is not a popular offensive move, but clicking U-Turn is, and it only makes the incoming switch's job easier to counter.

Is it necessary to lack these for response to the concept - I think so yes, or at least with the best of intent, but at the same time, there should be consideration made to whether the mon is useable and/or fun to use in the roll. If we end up making CAP35 no-one will ever use because we've tried to prove the concept and failed, that feels a waste of everyone's time.

There will always be tools to mitigate certain typing deficiencies, and they should be taken into consideration, especially if we're choosing the start. There has to be some silver-lining to the cloud we're intentionally designing, and even if we're choosing negative defensive typings, highlighting where else it a typing combination can contribute is certainly something that should be taken into account.

I think part of that is choose what we want to wall - do we want to specificall wall A+ and S Rank offensive pokemon - and then do we choose a typing that is then the weak to those, or do we choose a typing that intentionally avoids being effective against them.

2. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?
I believe the typical wall's typing succeeds by having useful resistances - a wall's success is being able to leverage an extended time-to-kill, which is a combination of typing, moveset, stats, ability and item choice all contribute to. Pokemon like Snorlax, who have limited weaknesses but few resists unfortunately begin to drop by the way-side - but the existence of Alomomola, Hippowdon, Garganacl and Milotic evidences it not simply being single type walls that dropped in utility, as water provided useful resistances. Outside of that, Blissey exists, but I believe that is the outlier perhaps, so unless CAP35 becomes "Blissey v2". There isn't one specific answer, as you can see though.

3. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?
Being strong against a meta-defining pokemon but with gaping defenses for others to exploit leads to CAP35 becoming a pretty typical partnership or counter pokemon, which has failed in the past - the moment that the meta-defining pokemon drop out of the meta, you're left with a wall that many can bypass and will therefore drop in viability. If we focus on limiting our weaknesses, the typing largely becomes irrelevant for the mon and, if successful, we've made a generic wall archetype on which typing won't matter.

In relation to CAP35, I think exploring the more weaknesses is the preferential route, but need to take care in how we define "useful resistances".

4. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?
If we want to check Dragapult S, having the offensive potential to do that via STAB contribution provides additional resource allocation (either base stat or EV's) to provide bulk which helps offset the lack of bulk from unsupportive typing.
Is it important, or needed? No - I believe Alomomola would likely still run Scald and Flip Turn even without STAB because of how they combine with the rest of its profile. Despite STAB and 100SPA, Milotic still runs Scald, with no offensive investment.
Does it defeat the contradiction - I do not believe so. If we have a conventional wall which Dragapult could not reasonably KO, and it is forced to switch to another which CAN wallbreak the conventional wall, we have the same effect here - except the unsupportive typing on CAP35 may provide more variance to consider should you switch out as well to try to take advantage of it.

 

[LouisCyphre]

My first thought upon seeing "wall with harmful typing" as the concept was Gen 4 support Celebi (Leaf Storm, Twave, Heal Bell, U-turn), and my second thought was Gen 5 Breloom—the old, Spore-legal sets especially. Yes, these aren't dedicated, Toxic-and-wait walls, but they're the best illustrations of the concept that I know in high tiers. Both of these Pokemon are plagued with piles of weaknesses, but overcome those typings with utility, role compression, and certain key resistances to check problematic Waters and Grounds in their respective tiers. I think the obvious conclusion we can draw from our concept assessment is that we're looking for a typing with a lot of weaknesses.

I'd call that the obvious conclusion, but I don't think I would call it correct.

Their use of certain key resistances should, maybe, give us pause. I wouldn't call Breloom's typing "contradictory to being a wall"—what it does is change what Breloom comes in on. These isn't really contradictory to walling at its core: Pokemon with EdgeQuake coverage need walling too, and Breloom happened to be the Pokemon best-positioned to switch in to both Ground and Rock moves. Their typing is a crucial component of their defensive profile.

I think, then, that for a typing to be contradictory to walling, it needs to be at least bereft of useful resistances. If one of the reasons the wall is successful at checking a given threat is because their typing answers the threat's set, then the typing is complementary to walling, isn't it? I think other aspects of the typing—synergy with weather, or useful STAB for threatening key threats—take a backseat to this.

So in short:

1. What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall?
   • Lack of useful resistances. If we derive our viability as a wall from our typing's resistances, we've made a Wall with Complementary Typing, even if the CAP has other weaknesses that could theoretically come up.
2. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?
   • Either of these would be anti-concept, but having crucial resistances would be more so. Useful resistances are the hallmark of a strong defensive typing. Your well-statted wall Pokemon can have any number of weaknesses, but as long as there are threats whose attacks are resisted by your Wall, your wall will find usage.
3. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?
   • As long as the type's resistances are useful defensively, the typing as a whole is useful defensively. I don't think it would be better for us to do either of these, but minimal weaknesses tends to come on typings with minimal resistances, so I would say that's how we can best fulfill the concept.
4. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes?
   • Utility moves can suffice of the threats are sufficiently ripe for them, but that's a large if to hang the entire CAP on. I think if we end up making the CAP a "Wall with a Typing That Lets It Blow Up Certain Threats", that doesn't necessarily violate our concept. In fact, I think we did that in part with Cresceidon. Not that Cresceidon's typing is in any way contradictory to walling, but their dual STABs hitting key threats is part of what makes them difficult to break.

I think what will stop us from making a perfectly inert defensive typing, that does nothing for our CAP and leaves their entire power budget open for later stages, is the intentional design of the type chart. No matter what type we give this Pokemon, they will have some kind of defensive profile. Even the "worst" types have built-in defenses in Gen 9. A mono-Grass CAP would be a crucial Ground- and/or Water-type resist, a Rock or Ice CAP would gain defenses from weather, and so on.

There's another wrench in the concept, too: There's a pretty hard limit on how bad our defensive typing can actually be. Regardless of what we assign our CAP, they'll always have the option to become solely Fairy-, Poison-, or Water-type on demand. Is there anything we can really do with our Wall, to harm their defensive typing and make Terastal unattractive?

What we should be doing, I'd say, is trying to identify the typing with the fewest defensive advantages, and then designing our CAP to leverage the other qualities of their typing while walling. Their typing needs to provide them tools they value other than resistances.

 

[Project_Mars]

1: What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?
I'm of the school of thought that the typing is one that doesn't appear to be a good typing, at the very least at first glance, for being a wall. The ability to come in and reduce incoming damage are two main qualities of typing that contribute to make a successful wall, just look at Pokemon like Primarina and Corviknight, both have typings with key resists that help them perform their roles. Finally, I think that for the concept it is necessary for the typing to have some positive merits for us to build around. An immunity or key set of resistances that can allow the typing's clear weaknesses to be accounted for in other stages (hopefully without eliminating them completely) in order to make something that is better than you would expect.

2: In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

Resistances reduce incoming damage so they are more valuable. While a lack of weaknesses can be useful, ultimately you run into issues weathering an assault from heavy hitting Pokemon, even those with a typing neutrality unless you lean more heavily into stats, which is a route we could go but I don't think it would be as effective at selling a contradiction if we go that way.

3: Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?
I think that a wall with enough resistances can overcome the detriment of having weaknesses to common typings much easier than a wall with many weaknesses but resistances to a few key typings. The more cracks there are in the armor, in this case weaknesses, the easier it is to break it, whereas something with a clear exploitable weakness is going to be harder to tear apart, even if you are able to do so easily, simply by accounting for those weaknesses elsewhere (on the team).

4: Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I think both can be good, it really depends on what the Wall has access to. Primarina, for example, can provide a good offensive presence for it to lean into for it to be a successful wall while Moltres leans more into the threat of Burn for it to be a potent wall. Finally, I do not think having a STAB move to directly beat our desired check necessarily defeats the purpose of the contradiction, however it does need to be looked at carefully: If we were to give it an offensive rather than defensive typing and a decent offensive movepool then players would likely gravitate towards using it thusly which seems like it would defeat the purpose of the concept, which would be to have it be successfully used as a wall despite the typing not suggesting that it would be good at that role.

 

[kenn]

Lemme preface this that I am answering these questions strictly as a user and not as TL :)

1: What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

When I think of a typing contradiction in terms of a wall, I tend to lean towards types that are "offensive" in nature so a quality I wanna look for in any of those types is what can it provide defensively and how does one capitalize on those defensive qualities from an offensive type. I think having a typing that lacks qualities of a common wall is gonna end up with an unviable end product so instead of putting focus on dragging us down throughout the process, I'd like to see types that have potential to be a wall but are usually held back when it comes to the typical wall (whether that be through very common weaknesses or just overall general lack of bulk those types are associated with)

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

I think the former is way more fruitful. The latter can be achieved through pure stats, but I don't think that the route of a "statball" is as interesting as utilizing key resistances that types may provide for threats that it can easily wall and take advantage of. That being said, both sides of the coin has seen success with things such as Clefable or Blissey so they both can produce a viable end product, but I am definitely in favor of having resists to complement (or supplement) the bulk we may (or may not) have.

3: A very obvious angle toward having a typing contradiction as a wall is by observing the chemistry between weaknesses and resistances. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

I think there is definitely merit in having a good set of resists while keeping the weaknesses to a minimum, but I don't think that impedes a wall's potency. Having weaknesses is okay when you have 5 other members of a team so long as those weaknesses don't overlap completely with other potential teammates. I feel like if we "overcorrect" and try to get as many resists with a lack of weaknesses, it may need to heavily rely on stats to take neutral powerful hits and this gen has plenty of those Pokémon that just nail neutral targets with ease.

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I think having a solid STAB or STAB combo is necessary in this day and age of competitive Pokemon especially if it helps to dispose of the threats that we wanna check. Disruption tools can help complement a STAB move, but being the sole way to make progress is super rough unless this mon wants to be strictly dedicated to stall teams (which is a possibility but not the most ideal route imo). I do think coverage, though, is where it could get tricky because then people may try to use this CAP in an offensive manner and defeat the purpose of the process and/or miss the point of the concept. Small bits of coverage is fine to potentially harm certain threats, but I think that is where disruptor tools should shine imo.

I also don't think having a potent STAB move defeats the purpose of the contradiction because in my mind, that allows it to lean further into the potential resists the type may have to tank hits that it needs to do it's job.

 

[Explosion Badger]

1: We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

When it comes to building a successful wall, the obvious merits to mention are typings with very few weaknesses and a lot of relevant resistances, but there's also the ability to reduce indirect forms of damage and nuisances. reducing the impact of status conditions, entry hazards, and other annoyance tools is part of how pokemon like Corviknight and Ferrothorn have established their place in their meta's. It should follow then, that contradictory elements means a lack of resistances, a surplus of weaknesses, and/or a typing that lacks the ability to deny most nuisance tools. That being said, it should almost certainly not be the case that we lack all of these traits. Picking the absolute worst typing for this mon would require us to lean almost entirely on stats, moves and abilities to secure its role. This would almost certainly turn this Pokemon into a Tera sink, rendering our chosen typing pointless and creating a Pokemon that's frustrating for both user and opponent to teambuild around. Instead, while our typing should clearly lack a wide variety of defensive applications, it should have niche, useful traits that separate it from the benefits of more conventional wall typings.

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

Having resistances far and away surpasses having few weaknesses in terms of importance on a wall. As difficult as having a bunch of weaknesses may be, it's a flaw that can be patched up with proper support from teammates. Lacking resistances, on the other hand, means that we don't really wall any specific mons, and instead have to push our bulk super high in order to actually achieve our goal. Mons like Dondozo and Blissey need absurd HP and Defense/Special Defense in order to withstand the onslaught of neutral hits that they're meant to take. Of course, in Dondozo's case, Unaware means that neutral hits can only get so strong when facing the Don, so trading less resistances for less weaknesses helps in that regard, but it also means that the mon needs super high stats to survive the onslaught it needs to.

 

[Amamama]

What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall?

In my opinion a contradictory Typing for a wall should on paper be detrimental to a role as a wall, with several harsh weaknesses OR very few resists.
That said what makes a contradictory typing stand out compared to an unsalvagably bad one, is it has redeeming qualities. The contradiction arises, when CAP35 is capable of covering threads for a defensive core, despite it's glaring weaknesses and even if the typing is supposed to be the weakness, it's also the best place to find those defensive niches early. An example that has been brought up a lot, is SS TTar, which despite is horrendous defensive typing, was coveted, bc this typing plus it's ability made it a comparably safe check for the otherwise overwhelming Ghost types.

What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall

This also answers question 2:
A typing is best suited for a wall when it brings a lot of resists with it. Weaknesses can be covered by teammates, so having more resists is always better, than having no weaknesses but few resists. That said those resists also need to be easily applicable to the meta. Electric/Steel is an incredible defensive typing on paper, but weaknesses to Fire, Ground and Fighting are really hard to cover especially when the mons whose STAB you resist often cary these as coverage.
In general a good typing for a wall covers a good number of specific threats with resists to their STABs, while preferably taking only neutral damage from their coverage.

Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

For the reasons mentioned I don't think typings without resists to a number of key meta threats should be considered. The contradiction can only arise from typing, if the typing seems weak but offers tangible positives. Otherwise the typing will not be contradictory but simply bad possibly unsalvageable for the role and we will have to patch it up.

Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

Usually a resistance will provide the way in for a wall, because taking half damage is just always better. As long as these resists are meaningfully complementary and aren't easily exploited by common coverage of the mons CAP35 would like to cover, the amount of weaknesses doesn't really matter.
Broadly neutral walls rarely have success, unless the resists or immunities they provide are super valuable and even then, Mons Like Blissey require incredible Bulk to pull off being neutral, which tbf is a viable path for us, but since our focus is typing, I feel buffing a broadly neutral type via stats is kinda of a cop out.

Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

Passivity isn't necessarily an issue in general, so STAB typing isn't super important to the success of a wall. That said it can be the cherry on top, if a wall is hard to Switch into, bc of its STAB coverage and utility. This is especially true in SV, where passivity gets punished much harder as eg in SS (Look at Blissey running CM to not be set up bait to the SpA it is supposed to wall).

I think part of that is choose what we want to wall - do we want to specificall wall A+ and S Rank offensive pokemon - and then do we choose a typing that is then the weak to those, or do we choose a typing that intentionally avoids being effective against them.

I think this is a really suboptimal approach. The reality is, walls with unusual type combinations always have had very specific targets or set of targets, that other common walls had trouble to cover at all or at the same time (Ttar ghost/Psyspam, Mollux Ogrepon/Keldeo, Jellicent Keldeo). Usually, these hard to cover mons where top threats too. If the typing doesn't benefit from covering some S-A rank mons it's going to be incredibly hard, probably impossible to make work unless we go with a broadly neutral type and accept beeeg stats.

the moment that the meta-defining pokemon drop out of the meta, you're left with a wall that many can bypass and will therefore drop in viability

This is a risk, we agreed on taking, when we chose this route for the concept. Historically the viability of specified walls was tied to the viability of their targets. Ttar isn't OU anymore, bc the influx of new bulky dark types, as well as some of the ghosts it's supposed to check having SE STAB against it. On the other hand Mollux has risen since the start of the gen, bc Waterpon proves exceedingly hard to control, even though it started out the gen as one of the CAPs many of considered unviable. So long as CAP 35 is viable in the meta it's released into, we have succeeded. If we manage to make it viable for the remainder of gen 9 that's cool (another reason to try make 35 a check to top tier threats by the way), anything after gen 9 we can't predict anyway in any form.

"offensive" in nature so a quality I wanna look for in any of those types is what can it provide defensively and how does one capitalize on those defensive qualities from an offensive type.

This isn't necessarily a wrong way at looking at this prompt, but I think it's dangerous trying to find the contradiction in typings we consider exceedingly offensive, as quite a few of those typings are also really strong defensively often only being held back by not being on mons with other defensive attributes.

 

[Samirsin]

What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?
I immediately think about two things, an offensive typing or a typing that is bad defensively. With the former there can be some overlaps, as some types are good in both, like Fairy, for example, and the latter has a variety of definitions, like being weak to a lot of types or being weak to dominant types in the competitive metagame. A successful wall has typings that contribute to permanence, like immunities or relevant resistances. I think that for this concept it's not necessary to lack the qualities, but rather, embrace the defensiveness of bad defensive typings.

In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?
Generally, a lack of weaknesses provides a broad level of consistency that ensures that the wall can survive a wide range of hits. However, resistances are often more important for a wall because they allow it to completely negate damage from certain Pokémon or archetypes, giving it strong matchups against specific threats.

 

[AzothBend]

1: We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

It's is hopefully intuitive that there are good defensive typings, average defensive typings, and bad defensive typings. And each is determined by their weakness and resistance profiles. Walls generally would prefer a type with a lot of resistances to few weaknesses. Obviously, a purely good defensive typing is not much of a contradiction and should not be considered. Meanwhile, the absolute worst defensive typings risk unviability absent any superseding stats or abilities. So then, what's left? Something between just above average and just above useless. These are the types that offer mediocre defensive profiles; their strengths being some choice resistances to common offensive types without too many weaknesses.

That's the simplification, at least. Many types possess benefits removed from their weaknesses and resistances, like immunity to different status conditions or move types, or synergy with different field conditions. These benefits may allow some types greater defensive utility and should be considered as part of this step.

One point brought up in the Discord was the possibility of a contradictory defensive typing being a perceived primarily offensive type. This is an interesting way to view the problem, but it should not be the first priority. If things align, it may, however, lend credence to the overall contradiction of the typing.

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?
3: A very obvious angle toward having a typing contradiction as a wall is by observing the chemistry between weaknesses and resistances. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

One only needs look at the most capable walls across metagames. It is far more common that walls have resistances than a lack of weaknesses. There are only a few examples of the contrary; and many of these example rely on stats or abilities to make up for lost ground. Both are valid paths for the process, but the latter is inherently riskier and should be approached with caution.

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

Again, one only needs to observe successful walls of the past. Very few rely purely on passive play or disruption. Having some offensive capability, even if weak, is good. Directly hitting intended checks is nice, but can be offset with sufficiently useful secondary effects like statuses or stat changes.

As for the question of Terastalization, it should be a consideration but likely not at the cost of anything else. A dedicated defensive Tera is not inherently that worrisome, as it requires investment that removes potential from its teammates and risks becoming predictable.

 

[Admiral_Stalfos19]

Splitting Questions 1 & 4 into two segments each. It's easier to answer the both of them that way :]

1a.) What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall?
The number and degree of weaknesses and resistances tend to make or break a Pokemon's ability to wall off other mons in the same tier, but where those weaknesses and resistances are is even more important. While it's true that Steel resists the most types out of the entire game (just as the example I'm choosing to pull out of thin air), that's exactly why Fire, Fighting and Ground attacks typically show up as coverage options; it's those types specifically that smack Steel for SE damage. There are also immunities to consider as well, and that includes auxiliary immunities that wouldn't be registered in a typing chart itself. Let's review those auxiliary immunities real quick:

Fire-types can't be burned.
Electric-types can't be paralyzed across the board. Ground-types are immune to the most common form in Thunder Wave, but can still be paralyzed by other means.
Grass-types are unaffected by powder moves. (Of those, however, Stun Spore would be the only useful one as of this moment; as Smogon has seemingly abandoned the Sleep Clause in lieu of banning sleep moves in general, with Spore and Sleep Powder being big ones.)
Ice-types can't be frozen.
Poison-types and Steel-types can't be poisoned, except through the Corrosion ability.
Flying-types can only be hurt by a single entry hazard in Stealth Rock. (And even then, that's why most of them have Boots.)
Ghost-types can't be trapped by stuff like Fire Spin, Whirlpool, Sand Tomb etc.
And finally, Dark-types are immune to anything and everything that a Pokemon with the Prankster ability could throw at them.

1b.) Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?
Not only is the former absolutely not necessary at all, but deliberately evading such qualities and expecting the ability and/or stats to pick up the slack would only encourage the user to Terastalize CAP35 out of that typing entirely and into something that would be better suited from a defensive standpoint. And I feel as though that would defeat the purpose of this concept entirely. What we should be doing instead is looking at the unique defensive qualities that our chosen typing has, and comparing it to types that might also have those exact same qualities.

2.) In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?
Short answer? Yes. The more resistances and/or immunities a wall has, the better it does at... well, walling. By that same token though, having one too many weaknesses will hamper its ability to check mons that have different assortments of coverage. But the most important thing is to keep in mind where those weaknesses are, so that the other 5 mons can cover for them accordingly.

3.) Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?
Honestly, both of these are wrong. Too many (or even too critical) weaknesses in a mon that wants to be defensive will stop it from seeing play regardless of what unique resistances it might bring to the table, whereas trading resistances for less weaknesses will make it heavily reliant on its stats and ability (which, unless the stars align, might stop it from seeing play as well). Still, even though both ways are technically wrong, the key-resistance-but-many-weakness angle gets brownie points for being pro-concept.

4a.) Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes?
Truth be told, that depends entirely on the STAB move in question. If it has a high enough base power, and/or it's back by a high enough (Sp.) Atk stat, then by all means go ahead and click it. But otherwise that mon should probably focus on disruption or recovery, or whatever else it was meant to do. Coverage just doesn't seem to do enough damage without the STAB to back it up, and is better left for offensive Pokemon that have the investment to clean or break with it, but that's just my take.

4b.) If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?
Hella the latter. Walls can very easily fall into the trap that is being too passive, since due to rarely choosing to invest offensively in favor of maximizing their bulk, they may very well struggle to inflict meaningful damage without STAB in their favor. This is why it's worth taking the offensive qualities of each type as well as the defensive. Bulky Grounds held value, for example (and still exist to some extent), because STAB Earthquake would pair well with Toxic, hitting both the Toxic immune Poisons and Steels for super effective damage, whereas Toxic would wear down the bulky Waters that Grounds hated trying to deal with. Of course, this was back when Toxic was widely distributed, which isn't so much the case any more. But the example still stands.

 

[mark6870]

We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

Usually, walls go one of two routes. Walls such as Blissey, Clefable, or Alomomola have typings that have few weakesses and resistances, and their tankiness stems from their sheer bulk and reliable recovery. Others, like Scizor, rely on their vast array of resistances to check and wall specific threats. A 'contradictory' typing usually means that the typing either lacks resistances and has weaknesses to common attacking types that would make our job as a wall much harder.

In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

The lower our statistical bulk, the more we rely on the type chart to tank hits. As a wall with a contradictory typing, we will likely have detrimental weaknesses and as such we will want a typing that also has some useful resistances to even things out.

Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

Our potency should be impeded by weaknesses, as that is the most direct way of achieving our concept. Keeping our weak points to a minimum would be just creating a standard defensive wall, IMO.

Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes?

Both. Both is good. A STAB that you can use to check pokemon depends heavily on the typing, since being a wall means we aren't likely to invest in attacking EVs, and thus we rely on an SE hit to deal direct damage. Auxiliary disruption moves such as status or Taunt are often just as if not more important as they can disrupt and cripple a wider array of Pokemon.

If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I don't see an issue if we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks if they remain our desired checks. That would just mean the interaction becomes more nuanced and both parties would have to try and gain the upper hand on another.

 

[quziel]

Counterintuitive wall typing to me says one of four-ish things.

Firstly we are a typing with relatively few resistances, but correspondingly relatively few weaknesses. This is the mold that Blissey successfully occupies, and Pyroak unsuccessfully occupied during gens 6-8.2. This archetype is one that I'd considered defined by some of the average mono-types, combos that erase each-other's resists, and some of the truly blessed combos where you're combining a typing with few resists with another typing that has few resists. This is a very valid approach to me, though I think we'd have to be careful on optics here.

A typing with a large number of resistances and a large or even larger number of weaknesses is a route I particularly like for us. Its very easy to pull a Tyranitar or a Celebi and give us a typing where basically half the meta can hit us SE, including mons we're supposed to wall. Though in the cases of mons we're supposed to wall we're ideally taking SE damage from weaker coverage moves rather than their STAB moves. This archetype has shown success over the gens, and atm I think the wall that exemplifies it most is perhaps Ting Lu, a mon with 6 weaknesses, 4 resists, and 2 immunities.

A typing with a small number of resistances and a large number of resistances is another one I've seen brought up. Think something like Avalugg where you have one resistance and four weaknesses. I will note that this archetype is one that is almost always relegated to lower tiers. Its very hard to find a place in a higher power-level meta when basically everything is hitting you for high effective base power and you have very few resists to come in on. That said Avalugg has seen some limited success in higher tiers on stall teams thanks to its combo of truly unmatched physical bulk and Rapid Spin. This is a very hard route, and while its the most obviously "contradictory" I'd argue its a bad idea.

A final route that I think is hard to thread the needle on, but potentially worth pursuing is choosing a type that so obviously is a wallbreaking/sweeping type that it just appears out of place on a wall. I think an example here would be something like Bulky Zard-x or Bulky Volcorona (in earlier gens). I say its hard to thread because a lot of "very good offensive typings" also have obvious defensive merit; think Garchomp's Ground/Dragon that despite its incredible offensive prowess also is like, very obviously a Ground type that also packs a Dragon type's resists. There's genuinely very few typings that I think fit this category, but I think they should be allowed.

TL;DR:

Optics are probably the most important factor when choosing our typing, it needs to look out of place on a wall.

1. Lotsa Resists, Lotsa Weaknesses: Celebi/Tyranitar/Moltres?/Lunala?
2. Few Resists, Few Weaknesses: Blissey/Pyroak/Zamazenta
3. Offensive God Typing: Primal Groudon/ Bulky Zard-X/Lunala?
4. Few Resists, Lotsa Weaknesses: Avalugg

I think all of these archetypes of types should be admittable, and the above is my personal feelings on how feasible they are / how much design space they allow. I've also tried to provide examples where relevant. Note that not all the examples are strictly walls, especially the offensive god typings, cause well, gamefreak usually aligns offensive god typings with mons that have pretty good offenses.

 

[Anchor9]

I think the most optimal route in a Tera Metagame is few resists, and few weaknesses. Lots of weaknesses usually means you’re going to end up with a quad weakness. Depending on what we want CAP 35 to check, this could just open the door to an easy Tera Blast on Mons that can afford it such as Iron Moth. Of course, you can use Tera to give yourself a better defensive typing, but that defeats the purpose of this concept. A typing with few weaknesses and few resists is probably the optimal kind to discourage Terastillization and minimize the impact of Tera Blast. Stats also play an enormous role in this, such as in the case of Blissey and Ting-Lu, who have such gargantuan bulk that non-STAB super effective moves often don’t matter. I can see other methods working if they're designed like Avalugg and Tyranitar, which don’t mind their bad defensive typings due to their enormous bulk and snow or sand support. While Tera will not exist in future generations, we need to consider its interactions to make this CAP successful now without compromising the original concept.

TLDR: Few weaknesses and few resists is probably the best typing design in order to take away the need to Terastillize and to minimize the impact of Tera Blast. Other methods such as lots of weaknesses + lots of resistances and lots of weaknesses + few resistances will only work with gargantuan bulk or an ability that rewards CAP 35 in staying its original type.

 

[viol and bass]

Quz's categorization of options above is really helpful and a good way to think through our options.

In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I hope this isn't poll jumpy cuz I'm gonna talk about stats a little bit.

To me, "lotsa resists lotsa weaknesses" is probably the route that holds the most potential, and specifically I think typings that stack a lot of useful resists that are not necessarily very synergistic in terms of walling whole mons is an interesting approach. Like top-tier typings are usually ones that resist common mons' STABs while not being weak to common coverage. Think about like Primarina into Zamazenta, Corviknight into Rillaboom, etc. Some of these "lesser" typings will instead often resist part of a pokemon's moveset while being weak to another part.

There are ways to make that functional, one of which is by simply having enough bulk to tank weaker coverage moves when you resist a pokemon's STABs (like bulky Gholdengo into Crunch Zamazenta). That's probably to some degree mandatory. Another approach that I think is very cool in this process specifically is weaponizing your speed stat. For example, Great Tusk does not wall Raging Bolt (it drops to a Draco Meteor), but because Tusk is immune to its priority and it can outspeed Bolt, it can often contain the threat regardless through good positioning (until it teras and kills you). This is a fairly offensive example, but we recently made Cresceidon so obviously the value of speed on a wall is not lost on us.

A significant subset of the typings we're likely to be looking at will be more superficially offensive than defensive, which means we may have access to relatively threatening STABs despite walling being our primary role. Forcing out Pokemon that would otherwise exploit our typing's holes (or at least preventing them from switching in) is one interesting way to lean into our typing's strengths while mitigating its weaknesses, and having STABs that pose a threat is the best way to do that. That threat level is what these typings could have to offer over ones that are more sturdy but more passive. It's not at all antithetical to the concept, and in fact that "leaning in" is what makes the concept tick. For this process it's worth considering less straightforward approaches to making a defensive typing work.

 

[Lectrys]

1: We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

Typings that contradict the wall role often involve many weaknesses (even with many resists), at least one 4x weakness (hopefully without many resistances - Grass/Steel, Bug/Steel, and Ground/Flying are still too good wall typings due to their many resistances even with singleton 4x weaknesses, while Dark/Psychic actually looks like a decent wall-contradicting typing due to its one 4x weakness and few resistances), and/or a weakness to Stealth Rock (this doesn't contradict wall typings as much anymore due to Heavy-Duty Boots).

There are typings that are pretty much irredeemable on potential walls due to their nearly complete lack of defensive merit, though, such as Ice/Rock. It is probably necessary to have something, anything resembling a defensive niche for our contradictory typing to succeed at the role. Few resistances can be a start, with a 4x weakness preserving the contradiction (e.g. Dark/Psychic, which even comes with an immunity). Plentiful weaknesses and plentiful resistances can be another start (e.g. Bug/Flying, Rock/Fighting, even Ice/Steel). Even typings with only 3 weaknesses and many resists can be decent ideas as long as the weaknesses are common enough (e.g. mono-Fire).

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

For a wall, it is sadly more important to possess a lack of weaknesses than have resistances. Note that walls with few resistances, such as Blissey and Chansey, have seen success. See my answer to Question 3 for more details.

3: A very obvious angle toward having a typing contradiction as a wall is by observing the chemistry between weaknesses and resistances. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

Regardless of how many resistances it has, a wall is actively impeded by having too many weaknesses. Typings like Grass/Psychic, Grass/Dark, and Rock/Steel are actively squinted at on mons with defensive value (e.g. Celebi, Zarude, Stakataka) due to their many weaknesses (some even 4x weaknesses) even when bundled with useful resists. Typings like Ice/Rock are pretty much irredeemable on potential walls (e.g. Avalugg-H, which does have reliable recovery and meaty physically defensive bulk). It is therefore often better to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances.

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

No, STAB moves are not necessary to succeed as a wall. Cresselia often uses non-STAB moves to defend itself, such as Ice Beam and Moonblast. Corviknight and Skarmory often decide to use Body Press instead of either STAB (and Corviknight also uses U-turn to boot). Ferrothorn also often joins the no-STAB party in generations with Body Press (partially because it also gets to keep Knock Off). Blissey and Chansey infamously use Seismic Toss. Garganacl technically has STAB on Salt Cure, but it has a tough time 3HKOing anything with it.

A STAB move that lets the mon beat its desired checks gets used precisely to help beat mons that should check it, and this helps defeat the purpose of the contradiction. Heck, this might even slowly push the purported wall into the Tank role instead. A STAB move that lets the mon beat what it is supposed to check is probably helpful, though.

 

[a fairy]

1: We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

I think that the average wall wants to not be weak to moves (not that they want to resist, necessarily!) and avoid too many troubles with entry hazards. I think a successful wall wants to resist notable offensive hits for their tier and specifically, resist Stealth Rocks on top of it. Losing 10+% every time you switch in as a part of doing business is so bad, that there's only so many cases of 'mons handling it. Corv and Zapdos get Roost, Moltres and Talonflame mandate HDB and Defog management. Most any 'mon can be a wall regardless of typing, but knowing the popular moves you need to be able to take hits from (some of Dragon, Fairy, Ground, ETC) while not opening up the death spiral that is hazards anathema is so important.

I think that exploring what a wall weak to hazards is, would not be the right approach to focus on. Whether we like it or not, we all keep a handful of Heavy-Duty Boots in our coat closet, meaning that if we explore that direction, figuring out whether we just want a locked item slot or if we want to build into the design a push away from HDB is something that sounds unideal. Let's explore resistances and weaknesses to moves, rather than entry hazards.

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

I think that Blissey is a wall with a "typing contradiction", so I'm going to be advocating for something not too dissimilar to that vein. It's clear that 'mons like Porygon2, Blissey/Chansey, and Zamazenta are all powerful walls in various OU formats despite their typing contributing majorly to their wall. While 'mons like Primarina and Gliscor benefit greatly from their location on the type chart, I would like to explore what a lack of weaknesses brings us, rather than resistances. The average wall, I believe, is primarily a resistance-focused mindgame, especially in modern Tera climate. When Fairy/Dragon/Water are the highly used options, you know it's for their resistances - you don't see Poison quite as much, despite only having one weakness, or Normal nearly ever - one weakness to an uncommon type aside Zama!

3: A very obvious angle toward having a typing contradiction as a wall is by observing the chemistry between weaknesses and resistances. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

Clodsire has four weaknesses, nearly all of which are notable Achilles Heel sore spots for it (sorry, Ice, it's a long ride back to your heydey). And yet, it's still a very potent defensive Pokemon. All of Gholdengo's weaknesses are serious presences in the metagame, yet it persists as a solid Pokemon that can make a defensive presence on the team rather than require defensive support. Hatterene with 3 notable weaknesses still succeeds.

It seems to me that having weaknesses is not a major impedement for many successful walls. Meanwhile, it's much harder to find Pokemon willing to toss away resistances in exchange for having few weaknesses. The closest that comes to mind are Pokemon like Rillaboom, Dondozo, and Clefable - and even each resists 4 types (Clefable resists 3 and is immune to 1). Like in the previous answer, relying on a neutral type that does not resist much but is also weak to few things seems interesting to me.

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I am of the belief that a strong STAB move is not a necessity to be a wall. Having a STAB defeat our desired check is not beneficial to an exploration of this concept, many walls are satisfied using supportive moves - disruption, coverage, pressuring - to make their mark on the battle. They're a wall, their mere presence on the field should be enough to stall the opposing 'mon's ability to make progress. There's little need to threaten back with a Draco Meteor or Overheat or whatever to accomplish one's task as a wall.

 

[shnowshner]

late posting :D

Quickly going to list off qualities that are valuable for walls:

1. Ability to sit infront of key threats and deny them progress
2. Able to switch onto the field without significant consequence
3. Not overly passive to where it's easily exploitable
4. Has a means of positively contributing to your teams win conditions

These aren't facets of every good wall ever or even exclusive to walls, but a lot of the most venerated walls in Pokemon history combine aspects of these four. Skarmory is maybe the most obvious example: it's huge Defense and typing let it beat a ton of Pokemon, even Special Attackers that it seems designed to struggle with, immunity to Spikes, Sand, Toxic and neutrality to Stealth Rock makes it easy get onto the field and keep healthy, while in turn providing those hazards for its team to abuse, and can even abuse them itself with Whirlwind to rack up damage in spite of its lacking offensive presence. (You even get IronPress nowadays to apply more direct pressure while further walling physical threats out!)

Typing is immediately impacting the first two and is where a lot of the "contradictory" nature of our prospective defensive typing will come into play. Skarm's capacity to stuff out the opponent does not come from stats alone: Steel/Flying is naturally resilient in both packing a ton of resists and immunities to attacking types and forms of passive damage.

In comparison, you have Pokemon like Chansey and Avalugg, which have found success as walls moreso on their titanic statlines in spite of poor defensive typings. Normal is significantly better than Ice, but only provides a defense against Ghost, so it's hard to call it good, especially when you're still vulnerable to all forms of passive damage at base. Nonetheless, Chansey and its surrogate twin Blissey have held longstanding niches in most OU metas just off unrivaled Special Bulk alone, and in Chansey's case the funny Eviolite item that lets it beat some Physical attackers anyway. Avalugg is generally very bad as a wall, but dedicated stall teams have employed it to answer dangerous Physical monsters, prominently during the Zygarde era of SS where many other walls struggled to win the 1v1.


Strictly speaking I don't think we need to give CAP 35 the least good yet functional defensive typing possible. At its core our typing should come across as broadly suboptimal yet still provide enough merit to let us perform well within our role: having a bad matchup spread which thus limits how effective our statline would be, or a vulnerability to chip damage that leaves us easily worn down if faced with too much pressure.

I want to talk briefly about how I'd like to approach our typing going forward. It's not hard for us to "patch-up" a defensively awkward typing with strong defensive Abilities, and we shouldn't pretend that a typing with one of its bad weaknesses removed is still the same typing in practice. Nobody is going to look at a Fire/Flying type with Magic Guard and wonder how that would succeed as a wall. This isn't to say that strong defensive abilities are off the table, but rather that our wall should succeed in spite of its flaws instead of ignoring some of them.

Also, as a response to question 1 regarding the intrinsic value of our type: I find our concept will be much healthier if designed around specifically working with its type to function, instead of just having a bad typing and great everything else. Yes I am talking about Garganacl. Regardless if you like Garg as a powerful defensive piece or wish for its swift deletion from all formats, Garg is a very successful wall with a pretty ass typing in pure Rock. This strength comes from its fat defensive statline, unique Ability that gives it a pseudo-resist and status immunity, and a great movepool containing all of recovery, team support, useful offensive tools, and the notorious Salt Cure – one of the best forms of incremental progress in the game, and largely what defines Garg as a mon. That Rock typing isn't super conducive to its success, clearly demonstrated by how strong Garg is as a Tera user to further enhance its defensive merit and win long-term. Now, Garg doesn't need Tera to work: it has the bulk to tango with plenty of mons already, and the Fire/Poison resists + Purifying Salt are more than serviceable if preserving Tera elsewhere is needed. The point I am making here is that, if our approach to the concept is simply moving the slider for Typing down and everything else way up, our walling capacity is gonna feel way less contradictory when CAP 35 wins the game via Tera for the 100th time. I find it more appealing to have our typing be intertwined in how we operate as a wall rather than largely a detriment to be overcome, ideally to where players, looking at CAP 35 for the first time, are unsure of how we can work as a wall until seeing what exactly our typing enables us to accomplish.

 

[Da Pizza Man]

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I think that for a wall, it isn't very important for us to be a hard hitter or to have access to strong STAB, so much as it to avoid us trying to be passive. These are not the same thing, and the key difference, in my opinion, is the ability (or lack thereof) to make progress. Having access to decently strong STAB moves is one way to avoid this pitiful, but I think that having the ability to make consistent progress through the game through disruption while still not exerting a ton of offensive pressure is a very viable route that we can take (Toxapex in past gens is a pretty good example of this. Knock + Scald is a fairly consistent progress maker despite the mon being quite weak). I also disagree with kenn's assessment that taking this route would strictly limit us to stall teams. I gave the example of Toxapex in past gens earlier, but to give one from this gen, Arghonaut pretty much lives and dies by this principal and is a common staple of balance teams and sees quite a lot of usage on bulky offense teams as well, and I would argue that Crescideon also fits nicely in the same boat.

I want to talk briefly about how I'd like to approach our typing going forward. It's not hard for us to "patch-up" a defensively awkward typing with strong defensive Abilities, and we shouldn't pretend that a typing with one of its bad weaknesses removed is still the same typing in practice. Nobody is going to look at a Fire/Flying type with Magic Guard and wonder how that would succeed as a wall. This isn't to say that strong defensive abilities are off the table, but rather that our wall should succeed in spite of its flaws instead of ignoring some of them.

This is something I would also like to talk briefly as well, as I very much agree with this assessment. In fact, I'm actually going to go as far to say that trying to patch up the weaknesses of our typing through an ability would be anti-concept, and as such, I believe it is imperative that we choose a typing where this would not be necessary. Without giving examples, there are certain typings that just can't really be redeemed without addressing their flaws during the ability stage, as these flaws are either to significant and/or the typing doesn't have enough strengths to really make up for them, and I believe these typings should be completely off the table.

 

[Amamama]

This is something I would also like to talk briefly as well, as I very much agree with this assessment. In fact, I'm actually going to go as far to say that trying to patch up the weaknesses of our typing through an ability would be anti-concept, and as such, I believe it is imperative that we choose a typing where this would not be necessary.

I agree with shnow as well. The typing should bring something to the table that functions regardless of abilities. What I don't agree with is the idea, that a typing shouldn't be patched up whatsoever, lest we fail concept. I think patching a typings holes or adding to it via ability is pro concept so long as the defensive utility of CAP35 doesn't solely come from its ability or a typing ability interaction.
Again a typing we go for here must have something tangible to start with. So long as we don't chose a typing, which has nothing to offer defensively - something I'd consider anti concept, bc if you're typing doesn't play a role in your defensive capabilities, how can it be contradictory to that defensive task - we should be fine.
Now one issue we will encounter is that the line between useless defensive typing and mostly useless typing with some benefits and typing that is solid defensively but niche is blurry. The shift from A tier Type to D tier Type is gradual and what some might find mediocre at best, others will say Is good defensively or what some consider irredeemable trash, others could see some silver linings in.
Unless we establish a hard rule, what types fall in between the trash and the gold, we will constantly be arguing about if a typing is irredeemable or another too good.

 

[Imw0rstadP0keM0n]

1: We are building a wall that has a "typing contradiction". What exactly makes a typing contradictory in the context of being a wall? What qualities of typing contribute to making a successful wall? Is it absolutely necessary for our typing to near entirely lack these qualities for a successful response to the concept, or is it instead necessary to have some positive merits to our typing to succeed at the role?

Typing contradictions would be any typing that would prevent the wall from, well, acting as a sufficient wall, whether that's a weakness to a common move (u-turn, knock off, earthquake, etc) or a lack of resistances in general. I think that another potential contradiction would be a weakness to field hazards--though this should not be a focus since boots exist. I think in general focusing on one "Lacking quality" instead of "all lacking qualities" should prevent unforseen problems with design, such as CAP 35 being a Tera Hog, or just flat out being unviable.

2: A typing that's bad defensively often still has some defensive qualities that give it the ability to answer specific Pokemon in the form of resistances. However, even with good resistances, a common way to beat walls is to go at their weaknesses, whether that means using good coverage or having a naturally good STAB move into them. In succeeding as a wall, is it more important for us to have resistances or possess a lack of weaknesses?

In general, I think having a large number of resistances is more important for wall barring extreme numerical bulk. Skarmory is a vastly superior physical wall to Avalugg despite the numerical difference in bulk thanks to Skarmory's useful list of resistances. That's not to say that pokemon with less resistances overall never work, but usually those pokemon have something exceptional to overcome that problem. Blissey is one great example but another would be Garganacl, whos' great physical bulk and access to Salt Cure circumvent the problems that the rock typing have (weaknesses to two of the most common coverage moves, CC and EQ)

3: A very obvious angle toward having a typing contradiction as a wall is by observing the chemistry between weaknesses and resistances. Is a wall's potency actively impeded more by having many weaknesses coexist with some useful resistances, or is it better for us to keep our weak points to a minimum in exchange for resistances? Why?

Both approaches seem to work, though there does to be a general trend I want to point out for future development. The less resistances a wall relies on, the most numerically bulky it must be to compensate. A good example could be seen in Corviknight and Blissey. Corviknights' typing has a huge number of resistances, only two weaknesses, and gets away with only 98/105/85 bulk. Compare that of course to Blissey who only has one resistance and one weakness, who needs capped 255 HP and 135 Special Defense to act as an acceptable special wall.

I think if we go for the former approach (more resistances, but more weaknesses), we gain a lot more flexibility in our Stats discussion, but the latter approach would require significantly higher numerical bulk to succeed than a normal wall.

My personal preference is a lack of resistances with only one or two strong weaknesses, but I could see an interesting design working for the other side as well.

4: A wall is typically known for its ability to defensively answer offensive Pokemon, but lacking passivity is instrumental to being a meaningful wall by letting you 1v1, or at least dispatching, these Pokemon you are aiming to check. Is having a STAB move that lets you lean into checking Pokemon important to succeeding as a wall, or can auxiliary moves like disruption or coverage suffice for our purposes? If we have a STAB move to directly beat our desired checks, does that defeat the purpose of our contradiction, or is it necessary to succeeding as a wall, regardless of our typing's defensive potency?

I'd personally rather CAP 35 utilize utility/pivot moves to "beat" its' checks rather than try to outmuscle those checks with its' own offensive prowess. What I'd hate to see is CAP 35 either turn into a pokemon like Zamazenta (who by design is intended to be a physical wall but often ends up being a CB Revenge Killer) or a pokemon like Cloyster (a "wall" with great stats, poor typing, who ends up trying to clean games with Shell Smash sweep).

 

[dex]

A counterintuitive typing should not be unviable. This should be a question that everyone should be thinking about when thinking of possible typings for CAP 35. I think there are a couple prime examples you can give of Pokemon with "counterintuitive" typings that still get the job done:

Skeledirge is a wall that is particularly weak to Knock Off (in more ways than one). However, its targeted resistance profile and immunities make what could be a death sentence of a typing into something quite good for a mixed wall. I think being weak to some common utility/attacking moves (U-turn, Knock Off, Ground-type coverage, Electric-type coverage to name a few) can qualify a typing as counterintuitive. If a typing can still get a Pokemon to see use, like it does with Skeledirge, despite those shortcomings, that's super on-concept I think. A cautionary tail for this path would be a Pokemon like Latias, whose weaknesses to common types like Fairy and Ice and common moves like Knock Off and U-turn are too much for its useful resistance profile (Ground, Fighting) to overcome.

Blissey has no resistances. This is usually not something you want for a wall! But what it lacks in resistances it makes up for in bulk and utility goodness. This is another route I think is pretty on-concept, a Pokemon with bulk so massive it can overcome a mediocre typing by sheer force of stat-age. The cautionary tale for this archetype would be a Pokemon like Avalugg, which has singular typing so bad that there is not a whole lot that can be done to salvage it despite monstrous bulk.

There's definitely more paths (and some not so clean cut as the two examples above) that work, but I definitely think that people should be looking out for how a typing could viably play in the metagame when submittals come around.

 

[Superperson00]

Counterintuitive wall typing to me says one of four-ish things.

Firstly we are a typing with relatively few resistances, but correspondingly relatively few weaknesses. This is the mold that Blissey successfully occupies, and Pyroak unsuccessfully occupied during gens 6-8.2. This archetype is one that I'd considered defined by some of the average mono-types, combos that erase each-other's resists, and some of the truly blessed combos where you're combining a typing with few resists with another typing that has few resists. This is a very valid approach to me, though I think we'd have to be careful on optics here.

A typing with a large number of resistances and a large or even larger number of weaknesses is a route I particularly like for us. Its very easy to pull a Tyranitar or a Celebi and give us a typing where basically half the meta can hit us SE, including mons we're supposed to wall. Though in the cases of mons we're supposed to wall we're ideally taking SE damage from weaker coverage moves rather than their STAB moves. This archetype has shown success over the gens, and atm I think the wall that exemplifies it most is perhaps Ting Lu, a mon with 6 weaknesses, 4 resists, and 2 immunities.

A typing with a small number of resistances and a large number of resistances is another one I've seen brought up. Think something like Avalugg where you have one resistance and four weaknesses. I will note that this archetype is one that is almost always relegated to lower tiers. Its very hard to find a place in a higher power-level meta when basically everything is hitting you for high effective base power and you have very few resists to come in on. That said Avalugg has seen some limited success in higher tiers on stall teams thanks to its combo of truly unmatched physical bulk and Rapid Spin. This is a very hard route, and while its the most obviously "contradictory" I'd argue its a bad idea.

A final route that I think is hard to thread the needle on, but potentially worth pursuing is choosing a type that so obviously is a wallbreaking/sweeping type that it just appears out of place on a wall. I think an example here would be something like Bulky Zard-x or Bulky Volcorona (in earlier gens). I say its hard to thread because a lot of "very good offensive typings" also have obvious defensive merit; think Garchomp's Ground/Dragon that despite its incredible offensive prowess also is like, very obviously a Ground type that also packs a Dragon type's resists. There's genuinely very few typings that I think fit this category, but I think they should be allowed.

TL;DR:

Optics are probably the most important factor when choosing our typing, it needs to look out of place on a wall.

1. Lotsa Resists, Lotsa Weaknesses: Celebi/Tyranitar/Moltres?/Lunala?
2. Few Resists, Few Weaknesses: Blissey/Pyroak/Zamazenta
3. Offensive God Typing: Primal Groudon/ Bulky Zard-X/Lunala?
4. Few Resists, Lotsa Weaknesses: Avalugg

I think all of these archetypes of types should be admittable, and the above is my personal feelings on how feasible they are / how much design space they allow. I've also tried to provide examples where relevant. Note that not all the examples are strictly walls, especially the offensive god typings, cause well, gamefreak usually aligns offensive god typings with mons that have pretty good offenses.

I’m new here, so please let me know if I’m taking this down the wrong tangent! I feel that there’s another aspect that I don’t think has been covered, and that’s the Few Resists, Lotsa Weaknesses avenue made viable through a defensive gimmick. Purifying Salt would prove overwhelmingly powerful on any mon that wasn’t base Rock type, and it took the introduction of Terastallization to bring Wonder Guard from low viability to Ubers. By choosing an alternative to the Few Resists, Lotsa Weaknesses archetype, I believe CAP 35 would miss an opportunity to find creative alternatives to conventional walling. Should sheer bulk constitute the definition for a wall, if the same end result can be achieved through alternative means?

Here, Rocky Helmet Eiscue’s Hail/Snowscape interaction on the National Dex ladder comes to mind; despite mediocre stats and a worse typing, it’s able to continuously deny progress from a majority of physical sweepers and revenge killers. It’s movepool, typing and BST remain contradictory to this kind of role, yes, but it is able to function as a physical wall that is largely held back by an unviable typing.
I believe that choosing a complex typing equivocal to Celebi or Ting-Lu places a limitation on our scope for creativity.

If we decide that this wall is made viable through alternative means, and is restricted by a poor typing, combinations like Grass/Psychic and Ground/Dark add too heavy a layer of complexity. Would Shedinja be just a little more viable if it held a natural immunity to Leech Seed, or Sandstorm? Comparatively, would Gholdengo still have a centralizing impact on the meta if it was limited by a different, worse typing?



On a different note, what if the wording of CAP 35 - A wall with contradictory typing - be interpreted not in the context of itself, but in the context of what it walls?

Consider Gastrodon, or Jellicent, and their viability as bulky water types. Because of their typing, they are able to directly counter Water, Fire, Electric (for the former), Fighting (for the latter). What if CAP 35 was a wall that denies mons that it, by its typing, should otherwise be vulnerable to? There isn’t a such thing as a Psychic type that can wall Gengar, or a Flying type that feels comfortable in front of Kyurem. Could this be an alternative we would be able to explore? If so, by what means could it be made feasible?

Again, I’d like to apologise if this is the wrong approach towards this kind of topic, and I appreciate your patience going through this miniature essay :)

 

[ausma]

Hi all, thanks for your patience with me:

The idea of what a contradiction means really lies in the resistances and weaknesses; mainly, their chemistry with one another. Out the rip, it seems pretty unanimous that our typing should possess at least some tangible positive qualities, and I couldn't agree more. I think it's very telling that defensive Pokemon with typings that possess little to no redeeming qualities defensively are niche at best, and generally bad at worst. While we could theoretically pursue this angle, it would mean turning up the dial on just about everything else to compensate, which doesn't really make for an engaging or intuitive process imo. It's important to recall that this concept focuses on the idea of a contradiction as opposed to a fundamental setback, which by definition doesn't mean that what typing we end up having is going to be bad, but moreso go against the grain of what makes a defensive profile generically good. In this regard it can be easy to try and look into compensation as a means to build a viable CAP instead of making every part of it function together as a working system, and I am personally not content taking a direction like this with our typing. Regardless of the specific contradiction we take, I will at this time be putting entirely bad defensive typings on the backburner and will likely not be considering them unless there's a groundbreaking argument brought up before we enter suggestions. If this applies to you, please make yourself heard!

Speaking of which, in the last part of this discussion, a really fascinating and strong point regarding how we would want to have a typing with defensive qualities that we would actively enjoy keeping was brought up, given the caveat of Tera. I think this was a really astute point and one I believe we should lean into as we determine our typing, as a Pokemon with a typing that holds more drawbacks than positives is more likely to try and use Tera as an escape route and leverage its other powerful qualities (such as Garganacl). We should try to think about leaning into a defensive niche and work with what our typing brings to the table by leaning into it with our build, as opposed to trying to seeing our weaknesses as something to try and escape from.

The last part of my initial questions explored STAB moves and their relationship to this contradiction. In general it seems having a competent STAB is something people aren't really against -- unsurprisingly given the sensus on the nature of a typing contradiction -- and even if they were, we don't need STAB moves to succeed as a wall so long as we have tools to exert pressure in one way or another. I personally think having a nice STAB move is a nice bonus that could incentivize going with a given typing, especially if it has utility packed in. But, above all else it's really down to the utility we possess and how we manage to win the war of attrition into our desired targets; we do not need a dedicated, good STAB move for this purpose.

The primary situation I see now is that there's a relative divide as to the specific contradiction style we should lean into: many resistances with many weaknesses as a cost, and few weaknesses with a few resistances as a cost. In general, I don't actually see this as much of a problem, because I am not opposed to typing suggestions that have one or the other; both are equally valid and engaging in what they offer and I think are extremely valid routes to take with our contradiction. Before we dive into suggestions, though, I want to ask a few more questions so we can cover our bases as to what these two main contradictions have in store for us as we continue into the process. Not necessarily to force a focus into one direction or another, but to make suggestions more informed and deliberate.

--

Contradiction 1: Holder of Many

When a Pokemon has many resistances and many weaknesses, those weaknesses often end up being a reason that the defensive utility of its typing is rendered down as a result of coverage moves often undermining resistances. As such, there is a serious concession to be made about the specific Pokemon we will be able to check, since if we hold weaknesses to common coverage typings, we lose our ability to operate as a wall into a larger range of Pokemon we would be able to check on paper. So, typing suggestions need to be very focused and deliberate with this contradiction.

1: Is the weakness profile something we need to build around, as to minimize the range of Pokemon we want to check that are able to break through us? Or, should we lean more into a set of resistances being so potent that these weaknesses are harder to exploit due to the defensive niche of our typing accomplishing the role we want it to? Why?

2: Are certain offensive types more manageable as weaknesses than others? If so, how and why? How can we use this knowledge to our advantage in designating our typing niche?

3: Are there any typing weaknesses and resistances that, when in tandem, would undermine our specialized defensive profile in practice to a serious extent? For instance, having a U-turn or Knock Off weakness when holding a Water- or Ground-type resistance, due to the common users of these moves.

4: A point made regarding this contradiction is that hazards are a very major caveat that will impact our effective bulk, as they will always be able to break us down throughout the game; this is obviously no issue with Heavy-Duty Boots, the most common item for walls in the game, but the issue stands that moves like Knock Off are going to make these kinds of weaknesses stand out. How significant is having a resilience into Stealth Rock, and how might having more leverage in our item choice and into Knock Off impact our ability to improve the niche given by our typing's many resistances?:

Contradiction 2: Holder of Few

Conversely, a typing that's a holder of few resistances and weaknesses provides many more options since they all have effectively a very similar defensive profile with some deviation lent by given weaknesses and resistances. This improves typing suggestion flexibility a lot, but it's far harder to lean into a unique defensive niche when your resistances are few and far between.

1: We established earlier that having a good STAB move is nice, but not necessary. However, for this contradiction it's arguably a bit more needed as a way to carve out a unique niche when weaknesses aren't as much of an option. Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

2a: Since this contradiction is harder to build a unique defensive profile around, we need to play into whatever resistances we do have. Are there any type resistances or immunities that, by themselves, would be possibly significant enough to help carve out a niche for this contradiction?

2b: Although this contradiction comes with fewer resistances, it does also come with fewer weaknesses. This is a pretty nice caveat, but in a similar vein to the above question, are there any specific type weaknesses that would be significant enough to make a typing not worth serious consideration? How about when 4x weaknesses enter the equation?

3: Are there any typing weaknesses and resistances that, when in tandem, would undermine our widely applicable defensive profile in practice to a serious extent? For instance, having a U-turn or Knock Off weakness when holding a Water- or Ground-type resistance, due to the common users of these moves.

4: In a similar vein to the previous contradiction, this route would also have a shaky relationship with hazards. Without many resistances, we most likely come packed with a Stealth Rock and Spikes neutrality, which could also undercut our bulk to a serious extent since taking neutral hits is already a taller order for a wall of this design. How significant is having a resilience into Stealth Rock when having this contradiction, and how might having more leverage in our item choice and into Knock Off impact our ability to improve our defensive profile's flexibility into a wider range of matchups?

--

Because this is a bit less defining stage of questions, I'm going to give this batch about 48 hours. Once we're done, I will be sure to aggregate the common sensi around these contradictions to help inform suggestions, and we'll get started with them proper!

 

[Amamama]

I will at this time be putting entirely bad defensive typings on the backburner and will likely not be considering them unless there's a groundbreaking argument brought up before we enter suggestions. If this applies to you, please make yourself heard!

I agree, that this is the correct decision but for the sake of discussion I think it would be wise, to define these typings before we go into submissions, so we know, what exactly you/we mean by entirely bad typings. I'm pretty sure people have strongly varying opinions of what constitutes as entirely bad. And I really don't look forward to the back and forth on this, while subs are open. At the same time, if we're going to define these types, I also wonder if we should do the same for the opposite end of the spectrum and define the too generically good types we aren't going to allow.

I think this was a really astute point and one I believe we should lean into as we determine our typing, as a Pokemon with a typing that holds more drawbacks than positives is more likely to try and use Tera as an escape route and leverage its other powerful qualities (such as Garganacl). We should try to think about leaning into a defensive niche and work with what our typing brings to the table by leaning into it with our build, as opposed to trying to seeing our weaknesses as something to try and escape from.

I don't think we can avoid this Mon wanting to use Tera sometimes. Realistically there are only very few mons that never want to tera and mons with suboptimal types are just more prone to that desire.
I concur, if we make a Mon, which wants to tera the moment it hits the field, we failed.
Either bc the Mon is so bad it's useless without the tera I e Avalugg, or because it's so good with tera, that it borders on being toxic I e Garg.
One thing we have to keep an eye on wrt that are resist and immunity abilities. Unless we chose a typing ability combo that is the best option with a specific immunity i.e. grass type with thick fat, it's very likely, that the Mon is going to want to tera, as a monotype like water with an additional immunity or resist is just going to be exceptional.
While these are high power typings I think a good example could be Venomicon, which really doesn't like to tera, bc the moves it resists are often vital to have a resist for on a Team and removing those, ends up affecting the entire defensive core. Compare that to Equilibra, which is a good Tera user, bc it retains that core immunity via it's ability, which means it doesn't affect the entire core.

Is the weakness profile something we need to build around, as to minimize the range of Pokemon we want to check that are able to break through us? Or, should we lean more into a set of resistances being so potent that these weaknesses are harder to exploit due to the defensive niche of our typing accomplishing the role we want it to? Why?

As was mentioned before in the thread, a good wall resist the STABs of the mons it wants to switch in on and is at least neutral to their coverage.
With the typing we chose we should focus on a set of viable mons, that fall in this category. I don't think they have to be many. But I think two or three viable mons that cant Touch CAP35 with their stabs are important to have. This is achievable even with bad types. At the same time I think we could be more leniant with coverage. While I'm not sure where I stand on wrt abilities that remedy weaknesses, I think if 35 is weak to the most common coverage of mons who's STABs it resists, we should allow ourselves the freedom to patch those later.
I also believe that looking at how attainable checking some mons is without resisting them can be fruitful.
Ttar was a great Zapdos check on top of checking Pult and Blace, even though it didn't resist Tbolt/Discharge. In a similar fashion CAP35 could be able to beat other defensively inclined mons while only being neutral to their STABs.

Thus atm our focus should lie on finding a solid set of mons whose combined STABs CAP 35 can resist or - in case of weaker defensive mons - be neutral to, to build a niche for 35. Dealing with coverage can come at a later step or even be relegated to ability/stats.

Are certain offensive types more manageable as weaknesses than others? If so, how and why? How can we use this knowledge to our advantage in designating our typing niche?

Id like to view this through the lens of our concept.
"Are there groups of mons with offensive types, which require being a certain set of generally good types?"

I'd say so yes.
Blanket checking offensive Dragons in SV without resorting to Fairy or Steel type is damn near impossible. Most of those fall under the umbrella of generally good though, so wanting to make a dragon type check is going to be quite difficult (this doesn't mean we could not build a check to one or two of these)
I'd say checking Fairies, falls into a similar trap. Yes some of the fire and Poison types that exist are truly bad defensively so we definitely could find some options but most of these options are still good, if not very good defensively.
Waters and Fires have more options with bad Grass/Dragon and Fire/Dragon types but still also have quite a few resistant types, that id consider too good, which limits the selection.
On the other hand, while Ground is one of the shittiest weaknesses to have, its also one of the easiest types to resist with a bad typing, bc so many Bug and Grass types are just bad defensively. The same goes for Fighting and Dark as there's a great selection of really aweful defensive types between Psychic/Bug and Fighting/Dark that resist these.
Rock falls into a similar category, with Flying and Poison moves, though they aren't as abundant and more rarely used as coverage.
Again I'm of the opinion, that we first should look at resists and not weaknesses. If a typing is weak to a top offensive type it can still be fine if it still resist another good set of types (rock being weak to ground fighting but resisting Fire and Poison).

Are there any typing weaknesses and resistances that, when in tandem, would undermine our specialized defensive profile in practice to a serious extent?

There is a large number of these frankly, especially when you consider groups of mons rather than a single target and I think it's easier to discuss these Case by Case. Often the solution to these will come down to ability anyway.
I do think that typings which resist the STABs of a target Mon but are 4x weak to their other STAB should just not be considered for that particular target (i.e. rock/fairy vs Kingambit or dark/dragon vs Hemoglobin.) That doesn't mean they are entirely disqualified though. Rock fairy could still end up being a potential Venom and Hemo Check and Dark/Dragon might end up being good against mons like Ogrepon or Kingambit.
What ANY typing in this discussion should provide is a clearly defined set of mons it should be able to answer on typing alone.

How significant is having a resilience into Stealth Rock, and how might having more leverage in our item choice and into Knock Off impact our ability to improve the niche given by our typing's many resistances?:

Honest I wouldn't bother with trying to make this Mon not be weak to rocks. Moltres and Mollux prove, that you can be a good wall with a crippling weakness to rocks and a mediocre defensive type. In general a lot of flying types function as walls despite this weakness. Obviously having item freedom on a wall is great, but realistically a wall will carry Boots or Lefties most of the time, so it feels like a waste of energy trying to make the Mon less reliant on boots (especially since we can adjust bulk accordingly)

Do you think this is true? Why or why not?

I think it's true and not true at the same time. Its not, bc walls don't require offensive moves if they have functional utility. Think of Blissey, which got away with having Twave and Rocks to pressure the opponent, for most of its existence.
At the same time it is true for even mons like blissey, bc if you rely on a neutrality to wall a threat, you kinda need immediate pressure to be able to force the opponent out, otherwise it just stays in and clicks its neutral STAB or coverage.
Falling into passivity in such a scenario is bad, which is more true in a gen with nerfed recovery and a good STAB is the easiest way around that.

Are there any type resistances or immunities that, by themselves, would be possibly significant enough to help carve out a niche for this contradiction?

Historically "neutral" walls have served as blanket checks to a specific stat bias rather than types and I think it's way easier to accept a neutral resist pallet and stuff it out with stats.
I do think that in SV it's particularly hard to focus on checking one typing, bc the mons with those types are just so varied (dragon for example as mentioned above)
If I had to point at types that are attainable and valuable to blanket check I'd say it's dark and ghost types, just bc these types are limited to very few mons in the tier, while at the same time being hard to consistently keep in check.

Are there any type resistances or immunities that, by themselves, would be possibly significant enough to help carve out a niche for this contradiction?

Ground obviously is good, but the only flying typing that's broadly neutral and not just a good typing is Flying/Normal.

Being a Volt Blocker is always nice, But I wouldn't consider any Ground combo purely neutral and given the density of good ground types this gen, I fear it will be hard to carve out a niche anyway.

The same goes for Steel types, the few types which are not good are hard to consider broadly neutral types.
I could see Pure Ghost and Pure Normal ans a range of Dark types that work here, though i think it's another debate if you consider poison/dark or ghost/dark controversial enough for this.
Overall though yeah having a safe move to come in on is always great especially if you lack resists otherwise.

are there any specific type weaknesses that would be significant enough to make a typing not worth serious consideration? How about when 4x weaknesses enter the equation?

I don't think so. The focus again should be on positive defensive qualities. And given that for this build most of the defensive value will come from stats and ability, I don't think one or two weaknesses to strong types are damning so long as the few resists you have are equally worth it.

Are there any typing weaknesses and resistances that, when in tandem, would undermine our widely applicable defensive profile in practice to a serious extent?

I think for a Mon like this, being a Mon that wants to answer Knock off, but being weak to hazards is more crippling than for types with focus on resists, since their defensive value derives mostly from their bulk and recovering lost HP becomes way harder when every move you take is neutral.