• Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.
  • Pronoun field selections have been updated! To ensure they show up correctly, please reselect your preferred option(s) in the Account details page. Click here for more information.

The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

Is the Fairy-type OP?


  • Total voters
    59

Aves

Das wahr ist das ganzen
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
I disagree entirely. By giving Poison offensive capabilities, you give the Poison types that are, by their individual stat distributions, inclined towards offense more room to breath, whilst the bleeder strategy would still see use on the defensively inclined species. It's not being made into a duplicate of any other strong offensive types, it's just allowing offensive Poison-types to actually realise their potential.

Suppose that idea were attempted. In implementation, it would end up in one of two scenarios: poison would become imbalanced, or the tension between its two roles would end up rendering each less effective. Not every type can be good against a lot of other types. I haven't seen a compelling reason why poison, the poster child of bleeding, would be better taking up a slot in a different archetype.

I don't see why Poison should be restricted to two strengths when you yourself agree that, strategically speaking, the Grass strength is practically meaningless. In fact, strengths against Grass, Water, Fairy & Bug would be more like 2¾ strengths, since Bug is like a slightly better version of Grass anyway. If Bug did become weak to Poison again, though, I'd recommend giving Bug some more resistances to defensively buff it (e.g. to Psychic & Dark, which its already good against), and reinstating its own strength against Poison too.

Making poison good against grass and bug serves more to hurt the power level of grass and bug than to benefit poison's power level. The changes to bug you propose, in addition to being less parsimonious, would also end up just making psychic and dark worse, when they already don't have a lot of offensive firepower.

Poison would be able to serve a much better offense role hitting water and fairy, both of which can be common and perhaps have few other exploitable weaknesses, losing its less useful effectiveness against grass (and bug also being unneeded). Fighting and ground would be nerfed a bit, which in turn would help to bring other types into prominence (steel would become more viable against ice, bug would become more viable against grass and dark, fire becomes a bit better). Flying, by being more distinguished in its effectiveness array from fire, would become more offensively viable. Grass would be less of a butt monkey. Ice and rock would gain defensive niches.

No, I'm sorry, this won't work; half of your choices are completely counter-intuitive. To elaborate, I've included your list below w/comment in red:

Poison: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against fairy and water. No to losing Grass strength, for reasons stated in previous posts.
Fighting: Loses effectiveness against ice. No; Fighting breaks ice.
Ground: Loses effectiveness against steel. No; soil erodes metal.
Rock: Gains resistance to rock and electric. Agreed.
Flying: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against ground. Agreed with the first part, but how is Flying's SE on Ground to be explained?
Steel: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Gains weakness to electric (and/or water). Yes to Fairy strength, no to Electric weakness (faraday cage), and maybe to Water strength.
Grass: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Loses ineffectiveness against steel and poison. No to Fairy strength, if fairies = nature (that'd be like Grass being good on itself), and no to neutral on Steel and Poison; Steel is too hard to take much damage from plants, whilst Poison is the antithesis of Grass (hence resistance)
Ice: Gains immunity to ice and resistance to water. Could see water resistance happening (Ice freezes Water, weakening its attack?), but why should Ice be immune to itself?

Also, I don't think Fighting & Ground have problems as big as the others on that list.

I'm not sure what "counter-intuitive" is supposed to mean in any substantive way. It's possible to justify intuitive relations between any types in the chart one way or the other. It's possible to argue justifications for and against any such relation. So your objections in each case are more or less non-arguments.
 

Green Zubat

Have a pancake.
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
0
I disagree entirely. By giving Poison offensive capabilities, you give the Poison types that are, by their individual stat distributions, inclined towards offense more room to breath, whilst the bleeder strategy would still see use on the defensively inclined species. It's not being made into a duplicate of any other strong offensive types, it's just allowing offensive Poison-types to actually realise their potential.

Suppose that idea were attempted. In implementation, it would end up in one of two scenarios: poison would become imbalanced,

Poison is already unbalanced, demonstrated by it's complete lack of firepower and great defensive/support capabilities. Giving it some offensive potential would restore balance.

or the tension between its two roles would end up rendering each less effective.

How would making Poison good offfensively make it any worse defensively, and vice versa?

Not every type can be good against a lot of other types. I haven't seen a compelling reason why poison, the poster child of bleeding, would be better taking up a slot in a different archetype.

You mean, other than the fact that not all Poison Pokemon are in a good position to take advantage of the bleeder strategy (aka the sweepers)? And I didn't say it should take up a different slot, just that more options should be available to it.

I don't see why Poison should be restricted to two strengths when you yourself agree that, strategically speaking, the Grass strength is practically meaningless. In fact, strengths against Grass, Water, Fairy & Bug would be more like 2¾ strengths, since Bug is like a slightly better version of Grass anyway. If Bug did become weak to Poison again, though, I'd recommend giving Bug some more resistances to defensively buff it (e.g. to Psychic & Dark, which its already good against), and reinstating its own strength against Poison too.

Making poison good against grass and bug serves more to hurt the power level of grass and bug than to benefit poison's power level. The changes to bug you propose, in addition to being less parsimonious, would also end up just making psychic and dark worse, when they already don't have a lot of offensive firepower.

Well, to be honest, I think both of those types wouldn't really feel the resistance much given the fact that they're already weak to it, and a bit stronger than you give them credit for, I believe. And regarding Bug, I don't think it would be so hurt if it was buffed in other ways, such as those mentioned.

Furthermore, I still disagree about Grass. Even now, when Poison is offensively useless, Grass is still having problems, so clearly it's not due to the Poison weakness, and as such I don't think removing it would do much good. Really, I think it would be better to remove its weakness to Flying, a much stronger offensive type, and give Grass more resistances (maybe even an immunity?), and remove some of the resistances to it. That would sort out the Grass problem.

Poison would be able to serve a much better offense role hitting water and fairy, both of which can be common and perhaps have few other exploitable weaknesses, losing its less useful effectiveness against grass (and bug also being unneeded). Fighting and ground would be nerfed a bit, which in turn would help to bring other types into prominence (steel would become more viable against ice, bug would become more viable against grass and dark, fire becomes a bit better). Flying, by being more distinguished in its effectiveness array from fire, would become more offensively viable. Grass would be less of a butt monkey. Ice and rock would gain defensive niches.

No, I'm sorry, this won't work; half of your choices are completely counter-intuitive. To elaborate, I've included your list below w/comment in red:

Poison: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against fairy and water. No to losing Grass strength, for reasons stated in previous posts.
Fighting: Loses effectiveness against ice. No; Fighting breaks ice.
Ground: Loses effectiveness against steel. No; soil erodes metal.
Rock: Gains resistance to rock and electric. Agreed.
Flying: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against ground. Agreed with the first part, but how is Flying's SE on Ground to be explained?
Steel: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Gains weakness to electric (and/or water). Yes to Fairy strength, no to Electric weakness (faraday cage), and maybe to Water strength.
Grass: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Loses ineffectiveness against steel and poison. No to Fairy strength, if fairies = nature (that'd be like Grass being good on itself), and no to neutral on Steel and Poison; Steel is too hard to take much damage from plants, whilst Poison is the antithesis of Grass (hence resistance)
Ice: Gains immunity to ice and resistance to water. Could see water resistance happening (Ice freezes Water, weakening its attack?), but why should Ice be immune to itself?

Also, I don't think Fighting & Ground have problems as big as the others on that list.

I'm not sure what "counter-intuitive" is supposed to mean in any substantive way. It's possible to justify intuitive relations between any types in the chart one way or the other. It's possible to argue justifications for and against any such relation. So your objections in each case are more or less non-arguments.

Oh, so I take it you'd have no problem with Grass being good on Fire? Or how about Electric being weak to Poison?

Swapping type effectiveness around any which way you want makes is not only confusing (as per the above), but also makes the types literally meaningless, something which I would've thought you'd be against, seeing as you were the one who was saying Poison should be unique, and not be made into another bland offensive type.
 
Last edited:

Zeta

Bulbapædist
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
7,789
Reaction score
715
Really, I think it would be better to remove its weakness to Flying, a much stronger offensive type, and give Grass more resistances (maybe even an immunity?), and remove some of the resistances to it. That would sort out the Grass problem.

But Flying ain't doing so hot itself (Hi, Stealth Rock). : /
 

Aves

Das wahr ist das ganzen
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
Poison is already unbalanced, demonstrated by it's complete lack of firepower and great defensive/support capabilities. Giving it some offensive potential would restore balance.

If so, that would be only to make it an offensive type at the expense of the bleeding archetype, which you previously stated was possible to avoid.

How would making Poison good offfensively make it any worse defensively, and vice versa?

If poison is balanced and good at offense (to the extent you suggest), then it cannot also be good at defense (to the extent which seems appropriate for the concept).

You mean, other than the fact that not all Poison Pokemon are in a good position to take advantage of the bleeder strategy (aka the sweepers)? And I didn't say it should take up a different slot, just that more options should be available to it.

Huh? Every type has pokémon whose individual statistics do not support the use which its type would normally relegate. The fact is, being good against four types doesn't make offense an "option." It makes offense optimal. In a balanced implementation, therefore, defense would be suboptimal and would no longer define poison's archetype.

Well, to be honest, I think both of those types wouldn't really feel the resistance much given the fact that they're already weak to it, and a bit stronger than you give them credit for, I believe. And regarding Bug, I don't think it would be so hurt if it was buffed in other ways, such as those mentioned.

I think you're missing my point. It's not that psychic and dark are weak. It's that they're fine. They do not require nerfing, which serves no purpose other than to try to compensate for bug getting a fourth weakness it also doesn't need. This is inelegant.

Furthermore, I still disagree about Grass. Even now, when Poison is offensively useless, Grass is still having problems, so clearly it's not due to the Poison weakness, and as such I don't think removing it would do much good. Really, I think it would be better to remove its weakness to Flying, a much stronger offensive type, and give Grass more resistances (maybe even an immunity?), and remove some of the resistances to it. That would sort out the Grass problem.

I suggested removing both weaknesses. Although grass is problematic for reasons other than poison directly, piling the weakness on top of the others doesn't help, either. Here it's a little bit of perception being reality. People are going to perceive grass as a suboptimal choice because it has both a lot of weaknesses and is not good against a lot of types. I think grass being weak to fire, ice and bug are all appropriate. While it's possible to see how poison and flying weaknesses can also make sense, the more important question is simply: are more weaknesses needed? It doesn't serve a purpose; it's overkill which hurts both grass and poison at both ends.

Oh, so I take it you'd have no problem with Grass being good on Fire? Or how about Electric being weak to Poison?

Swapping type effectiveness around any which way you want makes is not only confusing (as per the above), but also makes the types literally meaningless, something which I would've thought you'd be against, seeing as you were the one who was saying Poison should be unique, and not be made into another bland offensive type.

To the contrary, what I'm suggesting is that "intuitiveness" is not a sufficient criterion for establishing type relations in the type chart. For one, it's pretty subjective. You found my adjustments to be counter-intuitive, but that is only the case if you assume a paradigm in each case. I could very easily counter your objections in each case, using my own paradigm. But my position would be further bolstered by the fact that I'm drawing off other criteria for evaluating the type chart beyond intuition (two already mentioned being balance and parsimony). When you weigh these other criteria you are able to get out of the trap of making imbalanced types like fighting which are good against everything because you find this conceptually intuitive.
 

Sutekh

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I just hope that Ice is super effective on Fairy. Ice has had a bit of a downfall over the last few generations and it needs something to step it up a bit.
 

Green Zubat

Have a pancake.
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
0
I just hope that Ice is super effective on Fairy. Ice has had a bit of a downfall over the last few generations and it needs something to step it up a bit.

Making Ice super on Fairy won't help. Ice has the opposite problem to Poison--great offensive capability, terrible defenses.

Poison is already unbalanced, demonstrated by it's complete lack of firepower and great defensive/support capabilities. Giving it some offensive potential would restore balance.

If so, that would be only to make it an offensive type at the expense of the bleeding archetype, which you previously st
ated was possible to avoid.

I think you need to re-read my above comment: If Poison is given more attack power, and its defenses aren't nerfed (which is what I'm suggesting), its ability to fulfill the bleeding archetype will still exist, but it'll just also have the option of being played offensively too.

How would making Poison good offfensively make it any worse defensively, and vice versa?

If poison is balanced and good at offense (to the extent you suggest), then it cannot also be good at defense (to the extent which seems appropriate for the concept).

Would it really be unbalanced, though, if Poison was fair offensively, which I think the proposed changes would make it, and remained great defensively? It's seems like it would just be a reverse Rock-type then, which isn't a bad position to be in, I think. That said, Poison could just not become SE on Water and settle for strengths against Bug, Grass & Fairy, if the prior suggested changes would be too much, offensively.


Well, to be honest, I think both of those types wouldn't really feel the resistance much given the fact that they're already weak to it, and a bit stronger than you give them credit for, I believe. And regarding Bug, I don't think it would be so hurt if it was buffed in other ways, such as those mentioned.

I think you're missing my point. It's not that psychic and dark are weak. It's that they're fine. They do not require nerfing, which serves no purpose other than to try to compensate for bug getting a fourth weakness it also doesn't need. This is inelegant.

Not exactly. The thing is, Bug is a lot like Grass in that it has problems both offensively & defensively. The resistance to Dark & Psychic would serve to add some needed resistances, even without the weakness to Poison, on top of some of the resistances against Bug being removed. What's more, the common Bug/Poison pairings within the type, and the often high Sp. Atk & Speed stats of Psychic & wide movepools can often prevent Bug from effectively countering Bug, so a slight nerf such as this might be in order.

The weakness to Poison is for a separate reason (discussed prior), but would also be part of removing some of Bug's ineffectiveness (by making it also SE on Poison instead). Altogether I think that these changes would make Bug stronger overall than it is now, and would make sense. The strength on Poison would also serve to keep Poison in check, preventing it from becoming too strong. That said, I think this runs the risk of reducing Poison's bleeder potential, so I think that, on further reflection, it would be fair to actually let the weakness to/strength against Poison slide, like you suggest.

Furthermore, I still disagree about Grass. Even now, when Poison is offensively useless, Grass is still having problems, so clearly it's not due to the Poison weakness, and as such I don't think removing it would do much good. Really, I think it would be better to remove its weakness to Flying, a much stronger offensive type, and give Grass more resistances (maybe even an immunity?), and remove some of the resistances to it. That would sort out the Grass problem.

I suggested removing both weaknesses. Although grass is problematic for reasons other than poison directly, piling the weakness on top of the others doesn't help, either. Here it's a little bit of perception being reality. People are going to perceive grass as a suboptimal choice because it has both a lot of weaknesses and is not good against a lot of types. I think grass being weak to fire, ice and bug are all appropriate. While it's possible to see how poison and flying weaknesses can also make sense, the more important question is simply: are more weaknesses needed? It doesn't serve a purpose; it's overkill which hurts both grass and poison at both ends.

Why do you think Fire, Bug and Ice are all appropriate though, but not Flying and Poison?

I genuinely think that if Grass was given more resistances, and some to it were removed, the four weaknesses Grass would have minus Flying would be just short of too much, and hence OK.

Oh, so I take it you'd have no problem with Grass being good on Fire? Or how about Electric being weak to Poison?

Swapping type effectiveness around any which way you want makes is not only confusing (as per the above), but also makes the types literally meaningless, something which I would've thought you'd be against, seeing as you were the one who was saying Poison should be unique, and not be made into another bland offensive type.

To the contrary, what I'm suggesting is that "intuitiveness" is not a sufficient criterion for establishing type relations in the type chart. For one, it's pretty subjective. You found my adjustments to be counter-intuitive, but that is only the case if you assume a paradigm in each case. I could very easily counter your objections in each case, using my own paradigm. But my position would be further bolstered by the fact that I'm drawing off other criteria for evaluating the type chart beyond intuition (two already mentioned being balance and parsimony). When you weigh these other criteria you are able to get out of the trap of making imbalanced types like fighting which are good against everything because you find this conceptually intuitive.

But by doing so you're ignoring the meaning of the types, which is an essential element (no pun intended) of the franchise. I think, when drawing up type match ups, it's important to have a good balance between intuition and strategy. That is, it's fine to rejig the types for the sake of the metagame, but you need to be able to justify those changes in the context of the various themes of the types, otherwise they start to lose meaning, hence the criticisms I posted of your suggestions. I mean, if you can justify those changes against criticisms then that's fine, but you can't just handwave them away by just saying any combination can be justified, which I doubt is the case. That way the types can maintain integrity, but still be switched around for balance; you just need to compromise a bit.
 

Vyrron

#TeamSword
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
1,106
Making another type weak to Ice won't help at all. People will continue using Water-types that know Ice-type moves, while Ice-type Pokemon will remain useless.
Something I don't understand, by the way, is why all Water-type Pokemon have access to powerfull Ice-type moves like Ice Beam and Blizzard but only a handful of Ice-type Pokemon can learn moves like Surf.
 

Sutekh

New Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
I just hope that Ice is super effective on Fairy. Ice has had a bit of a downfall over the last few generations and it needs something to step it up a bit.

Making Ice super on Fairy won't help. Ice has the opposite problem to Poison--great offensive capability, terrible defenses.
Then what they should do is give Ice a defense boost in Hail, à la Rock in Sandstorm.
 

Garren

Onduru ruragittan disukaa
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
5,521
Reaction score
561
So, I'm sure it's been brought up, but do you think only Gardevoir will be part-Fairy while Ralts and Kirlia will remain pure-Psychic? I imagine that might be the case so Gallade won't have to override its Type, instead just adding "Fighting" to differentiate it from Gardevoir more so.

Although, on that same line, I think it'd be cool to have Snorunt and Glalie end up as Fairy-type (they're in the group and all, plus it'd be fun to have a "scary" Fairy Pokemon to dispel the notion of them all being feminine) with Froslass overriding it with Ghost.
 

FaerieStar

Sailor Star Chaser
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
0
I believe Ralts and Kirlia will remain pure psychic. That said, I think Gallade would actually be a nice Fairy/Fighting pokémon... although I don't see that happening.
 

Cabecote

New Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I just hope that Ice is super effective on Fairy. Ice has had a bit of a downfall over the last few generations and it needs something to step it up a bit.

Making Ice super on Fairy won't help. Ice has the opposite problem to Poison--great offensive capability, terrible defenses.
Then what they should do is give Ice a defense boost in Hail, à la Rock in Sandstorm.
Do you mean a new ability? What about Ice Body?
Personally I love the heal. My Vanilluxe has it and it's great.

So, I'm sure it's been brought up, but do you think only Gardevoir will be part-Fairy while Ralts and Kirlia will remain pure-Psychic? I imagine that might be the case so Gallade won't have to override its Type, instead just adding "Fighting" to differentiate it from Gardevoir more so.

Although, on that same line, I think it'd be cool to have Snorunt and Glalie end up as Fairy-type (they're in the group and all, plus it'd be fun to have a "scary" Fairy Pokemon to dispel the notion of them all being feminine) with Froslass overriding it with Ghost.
I think they will remain Pure Psychich. Gallade will also remain Psychich/Fighting.
About Glalie, I honestly wouldn't like if he became part Fairy type :/ But I've to agree that a scary fairy would be cool ^^
 
Last edited:

FaerieStar

Sailor Star Chaser
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
0
I just hope that Ice is super effective on Fairy. Ice has had a bit of a downfall over the last few generations and it needs something to step it up a bit.

Making Ice super on Fairy won't help. Ice has the opposite problem to Poison--great offensive capability, terrible defenses.
Then what they should do is give Ice a defense boost in Hail, à la Rock in Sandstorm.
Do you mean a new ability? What about Ice Body?
Personally I love the heal. My Vanilluxe has it and it's great.

I guess he means all Ice types getting a defence boost in Hail, like all Rock pokémon have their Special Defence increased in Sandstorm.
 

Urilikya

THIS IS MY PLANET!
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
I'd rather see Ice resist Fairy than be super effective against it.

Then again, I've always wanted Ice to resist Flying, too.
 

vivian20

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
486
Reaction score
171
Ice wont resist fairy, sylveon easily broke the ice in pokemon smash. Then, it should be SE agoinst ice. Or, AT LEAST, regular damage.
Yeah, the fairy egg group is yosei in japan, but yosei is generally translated as fairy. So, its the same thing, in the end.
Yōsei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

FaerieStar

Sailor Star Chaser
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
251
Reaction score
0
Yôsei and Faerii may be (almost) the same thing in the real world, but they are making a distinction, after all, by using different terms.
 

Aves

Das wahr ist das ganzen
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
I think you need to re-read my above comment: If Poison is given more attack power, and its defenses aren't nerfed (which is what I'm suggesting), its ability to fulfill the bleeding archetype will still exist, but it'll just also have the option of being played offensively too.

Not nerfing poison's defenses and giving it four types it's super effective against would imbalance poison, what's more, it would needlessly create tension with what ought to be its primary role. I have seen nothing out of you which establishes why poison needs four types in order to have "offensive potential," which would seemingly apply to all types having offensive potential. The only reason I can think for why you're suggesting this is because you're biased as a poison fanboy.

Would it really be unbalanced, though, if Poison was fair offensively, which I think the proposed changes would make it, and remained great defensively? It's seems like it would just be a reverse Rock-type then, which isn't a bad position to be in, I think. That said, Poison could just not become SE on Water and settle for strengths against Bug, Grass & Fairy, if the prior suggested changes would be too much, offensively.

Four types is more than fair offensively. Three types is fair; two indicates defensive orientation. But the defensively oriented types typically still have some offensive potential, depending upon which types they are good against. So poison would still gain offensive potential with two types.

Not exactly. The thing is, Bug is a lot like Grass in that it has problems both offensively & defensively. The resistance to Dark & Psychic would serve to add some needed resistances, even without the weakness to Poison, on top of some of the resistances against Bug being removed. What's more, the common Bug/Poison pairings within the type, and the often high Sp. Atk & Speed stats of Psychic & wide movepools can often prevent Bug from effectively countering Bug, so a slight nerf such as this might be in order.

You've basically just stated that these changes to the type chart would functionally serve very little purpose.

Why do you think Fire, Bug and Ice are all appropriate though, but not Flying and Poison?

It's a combination of the fact that they are the most intuitive, and (this is the key part), in addition to being intuitive, having those three weaknesses would fulfill standards grass needs to meet as being part of the type chart. Namely, that it would have an average number of weaknesses, considering that grass probably doesn't fit the offensive powerhouse role.

I genuinely think that if Grass was given more resistances, and some to it were removed, the four weaknesses Grass would have minus Flying would be just short of too much, and hence OK.

It would still be a lower tier type.

But by doing so you're ignoring the meaning of the types, which is an essential element (no pun intended) of the franchise. I think, when drawing up type match ups, it's important to have a good balance between intuition and strategy. That is, it's fine to rejig the types for the sake of the metagame, but you need to be able to justify those changes in the context of the various themes of the types, otherwise they start to lose meaning, hence the criticisms I posted of your suggestions. I mean, if you can justify those changes against criticisms then that's fine, but you can't just handwave them away by just saying any combination can be justified, which I doubt is the case. That way the types can maintain integrity, but still be switched around for balance; you just need to compromise a bit.

Not at all. I recognize the meaning of the types. That's not the point. The point is, it is neither possible nor desireable to make the type chart completely realistic and consistent with what we find intuitive. Some exceptions have to be made for the sake of balance. It's already the case that some relations don't totally make sense (or require a bit of creative thinking), while others could easily be reversed. I found your criticisms to be very unimaginative, sometimes grasping at straws, and generally made just for the sake of being critical. Thus I did not think it was worth spending my time refuting you, considering how the conversation would likely go, besides the fact that calling something "counter-intuitive" is basically meaningless.

But since you insist...

Fighting: Loses effectiveness against ice. No; Fighting breaks ice.

Following that reasoning, ice should be weak to all types, on account of ice being easy to break. Not all ice pokémon are composed of ice. The meaning of the ice type, which all pokémon of that type share, is an affinity for cold. Ice has a lot of weaknesses; fighting has a lot of strengths. By balance consideration it's the least needed relation.

Ground: Loses effectiveness against steel. No; soil erodes metal.

Again, so what? Erosion of metal by soil is a slow process, whereas ground has a lot of strengths. It can afford to lose this one, especially since it makes room for weaknesses which are more intuitive than ground.

Flying: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against ground. Agreed with the first part, but how is Flying's SE on Ground to be explained?

It's the typical air-vs-earth relation. Wind can toss up, carve through, and quickly erode soil. Flying creatures can use their aerial physical moves most advantageously against earthy creatures.

Steel: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Gains weakness to electric (and/or water). Yes to Fairy strength, no to Electric weakness (faraday cage), and maybe to Water strength.

So because you managed to conceive of one possible (and obscure) scenario in which steel would not be weak to electric, therefore the weakness would not be intuitive? I fail to see how steel "loses its meaning" by being weak to electric, when it's commonly understood that it conducts electricity.

Grass: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Loses ineffectiveness against steel and poison. No to Fairy strength, if fairies = nature (that'd be like Grass being good on itself), and no to neutral on Steel and Poison; Steel is too hard to take much damage from plants, whilst Poison is the antithesis of Grass (hence resistance)

Fairies in lore are often weak to particular magical herbs.

Ice: Gains immunity to ice and resistance to water. Could see water resistance happening (Ice freezes Water, weakening its attack?), but why should Ice be immune to itself?

How is an ice type going to be harmed by becoming more cold than it already is? If you compare to fire, for example, you can see how a fire attack increases entropy, so even fire types would take a little damage. But ice attacks decrease entropy, and being supernatural embodiments of coldness, ice types can easily be seen to not be harmed by it. But more importantly, making ice immune to itself gives it something special that water doesn't have, thus an incentive to use ice types for ice attacks instead of water.
 

Envoy

Formerly GTT
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,994
Reaction score
702
A point about Steel: It is already the best defensive type in the game, bar none. It has eleven resistances and one immunity. That's insane. The only thing keeping it somewhat in check is a weakness to three common attacking types. Remove one of them (such as Ground) and you have yourself a type that is practically unstoppable defensively (which, in turn, will eclipse Poison in this role, thus making any buffs to the Poison type moot, because who the hell can't learn Toxic anyway?)
 
Last edited:

Aves

Das wahr ist das ganzen
Joined
Apr 23, 2010
Messages
86
Reaction score
0
It's not like electric and water aren't common attacking types, too. They certainly would become more common if they were effective against an additional type, whereas ground, which is currently ubiquitous, would be toned down. Particularly if both electric and water were good against steel, it would not become too good defensively. Though in the case of both, steel might have too many weaknesses.
 

Isaac Gravity

Drifter
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
555
Reaction score
154
@Grass Type Warrior; ...Steel types have amazing base phys defense and (as a mecha fan) I love those guys but... Steel types are extremely vulnerable to the most exposed types (Fight, Ground, Fire) in the game in such a horrible way that their resistances and base defenses don't amount to much.

If not for the big three in what hurts them, their special defenses are normally average to poor so there's also that work around as well.
 
Please note: The thread is from 7 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Top Bottom