• ME encounters a spooky skeletal dragon. Watch here as he shouts physics at it, in the hopes of preventing it from KOing itself.
  • All content from the former Roleplaying Games forum has been merged into the Writers' Workshop forum. You can find more information in this thread.

    We hope to see you roleplaying away soon!
  • The World Beyond Restructure is now finished! Check out the update here!
  • It's time for the Writer's Workshop Summer event: our second themed one-shot competition! Check out the sign-up thread here!
  • Hey everyone! The Writer's Workshop is hosting an exciting event, Trainers of Fanfiction! It's a community event focused around your characters!

The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

Is the Fairy-type OP?


  • Total voters
    59
真実の英雄
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
335
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I'm baffled by the arguments against a new type. I mean, if you're against it, then at least make some good arguments. Not just "I don't like it," or, "It's been too long."

I was hoping for a Light-type, but I guess a Fabric-type would be pretty interesting and unusual. Definitely not something I was expecting.
 
Simpler times ahead
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
11,065
Reaction score
2,333
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

There will not be a new type... there is no logical reason... and Fiber type really out of all the possible types that has to be the stupidest... silk would be something to do with bugs because you know silk comes from silkWORMS there will be no new type /end thread
Instead of posting random blurbs that make little to no sense for a train of thought, how about posting a legitimate argument for once? What exactly is stupid about fiber, which would offer some pretty interesting designs, and not to mention would allow the introduction of more synthetic Pokemon? Why would silk have to do with bugs, when up till now they have done nothing to connect the two? More importantly lets say the correlation happens between silk and the bug type, why do it with Eevee, and not an actual silkworm Pokemon, like Sewaddle could have been?

On second thought, perhaps the Nymph idea, the greek mythology idea not the bug one, has more credentials then originally thought. Ninfa is the spanish word for Nymph, so Ninfia would work I guess. But have they ever used non-enlgish words for the Romanization before? Good lord I can't wait till the -Eon name cause it would definitely be the deal breaker.
They haven't used non-English words for the Eeveelutions.
But in Japanese, "nymph" IS written ニンフ (ni-n-fu). When a western word has 'm' right before a consonant (like "computer"), in katakana m is changed by a n (コピュータ, ko-n-pyuu-ta). So, "Ninfia" (or Nymphia) does come from "nymph". The fact "nymph" is "ninfa" in Spanish (and another languages), is just coincidence.
Well then that just muddles things even more. I just can't see this being based on a bug that would still be in its infant stages, nor can I see this being a Pokemon based on dancing maidens. GF taking us for a ride with this Pokemon, and you know what? I likey, Been a good while since Pokemon made us spin our wheels to understand it.
 
Bulbapædist
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
7,789
Reaction score
714
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Nymphs can be considered a type of Fairy.

What has Fairies mostly been associated in Pokemon?

Normal-Type. Cleffa, Clefairy, Clefable, Snubull, Granbull.

Nymph = Fairy = Normal Type.
 
Simpler times ahead
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
11,065
Reaction score
2,333
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Nymphs can be considered a type of Fairy.

What has Fairies mostly been associated in Pokemon?

Normal-Type. Cleffa, Clefairy, Clefable, Snubull, Granbull.

Nymph = Fairy = Normal Type.
I do say sir, your logic is so infallible that I do believe I have to put up my speculation vest, and call it a day. You have proven us all wrong! [/sarcasm]
 
Bulbapædist
Joined
Jan 31, 2004
Messages
7,789
Reaction score
714
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Lord knows I wouldn't mind a Fairy-type, though. ; D
 
Amphibious Friend
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
15,997
Reaction score
5,744
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I'm all for a fiber/fabric/cloth type. It would help create ideas for new Pokemon so that they would be less limited to naturally occurring objects and creatures.

Or better yet, what about a "Synthetic" type? It could encompass things like fabric but also things like plastic and glass as well.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
41
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

There will not be a new type... there is no logical reason... and Fiber type really out of all the possible types that has to be the stupidest... silk would be something to do with bugs because you know silk comes from silkWORMS there will be no new type /end thread
Instead of posting random blurbs that make little to no sense for a train of thought, how about posting a legitimate argument for once? What exactly is stupid about fiber, which would offer some pretty interesting designs, and not to mention would allow the introduction of more synthetic Pokemon? Why would silk have to do with bugs, when up till now they have done nothing to connect the two? More importantly lets say the correlation happens between silk and the bug type, why do it with Eevee, and not an actual silkworm Pokemon, like Sewaddle could have been?
There shouldn't NEED to be an argument... it:s OBVIOUS that there won't be a new type... you guys are just grasping at straws... but an argument...

1) There hasn't been a new type for 13 years adding one now is stupid

2) We do not need a new type since it's balanced already... the ONLY reason Steel and Dark were introduced was to nerf Psychic.

3) It would mess up the type chart... what would it be weak to? what does it resist? any immunities? adding a new type into the already complicated type chart is asking for trouble

4) Moves, what moves would be changed? what would moves of the new type even look like?

5) The Pokemon... would some Pokemon get a new type? that's only happened twice with Magnamite it makes sense he looks metallic and the Rotom forms make sense on what they're based on

6) GF has gave no hints of a new type it's all speculation
 
Simpler times ahead
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
11,065
Reaction score
2,333
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

There will not be a new type... there is no logical reason... and Fiber type really out of all the possible types that has to be the stupidest... silk would be something to do with bugs because you know silk comes from silkWORMS there will be no new type /end thread
Instead of posting random blurbs that make little to no sense for a train of thought, how about posting a legitimate argument for once? What exactly is stupid about fiber, which would offer some pretty interesting designs, and not to mention would allow the introduction of more synthetic Pokemon? Why would silk have to do with bugs, when up till now they have done nothing to connect the two? More importantly lets say the correlation happens between silk and the bug type, why do it with Eevee, and not an actual silkworm Pokemon, like Sewaddle could have been?
There shouldn't NEED to be an argument... it:s OBVIOUS that there won't be a new type... you guys are just grasping at straws... but an argument...
We're not looking for a fight cause we want something new from a franchise, we want to have others open to the idea just as much as we are.

1) There hasn't been a new type for 13 years adding one now is stupid
Nothing is stupid in an ever evolving franchise. Anything can happen, GF is the one who decides what's stupid or not.

2) We do not need a new type since it's balanced already... the ONLY reason Steel and Dark were introduced was to nerf Psychic.
True, but variety is nice. It doesn't need to happen just to balance things you know.

3) It would mess up the type chart... what would it be weak to? what does it resist? any immunities? adding a new type into the already complicated type chart is asking for trouble
Weak to fire, steel, and psychic, strong against rock, and fighting. Immune perhaps to ghost.

4) Moves, what moves would be changed? what would moves of the new type even look like?
No moves would need to be changed. Moves from the type would likely be based on strands of fiber, or other fiber based material.
5) The Pokemon... would some Pokemon get a new type? that's only happened twice with Magnamite it makes sense he looks metallic and the Rotom forms make sense on what they're based on
Again, Cottonee and Spinarak gaining a second type, and that's basically it.

6) GF has gave no hints of a new type it's all speculation
Sure, but if you're against the idea don't put us down cause you don't want it, let us have our fun.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,228
Reaction score
61
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Good lord I can't wait till the -Eon name cause it would definitely be the deal breaker.
Shit I keep forgetting about that. We should be getting an English name on like Thursday shouldn't we.

it's all speculation
You have just defined just about everything on this board. Congratulations.

I've more or less been opposed to the introduction of a new type for years, but at this point I simply think it would be fun. Novel type combinations are fun, but this would shake up the battle system more than anything we've seen probably since the introduction of Abilities back in Gen III
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
41
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

There will not be a new type... there is no logical reason... and Fiber type really out of all the possible types that has to be the stupidest... silk would be something to do with bugs because you know silk comes from silkWORMS there will be no new type /end thread
Instead of posting random blurbs that make little to no sense for a train of thought, how about posting a legitimate argument for once? What exactly is stupid about fiber, which would offer some pretty interesting designs, and not to mention would allow the introduction of more synthetic Pokemon? Why would silk have to do with bugs, when up till now they have done nothing to connect the two? More importantly lets say the correlation happens between silk and the bug type, why do it with Eevee, and not an actual silkworm Pokemon, like Sewaddle could have been?
There shouldn't NEED to be an argument... it:s OBVIOUS that there won't be a new type... you guys are just grasping at straws... but an argument...
We're not looking for a fight cause we want something new from a franchise, we want to have others open to the idea just as much as we are.

1) There hasn't been a new type for 13 years adding one now is stupid
Nothing is stupid in an ever evolving franchise. Anything can happen, GF is the one who decides what's stupid or not.

2) We do not need a new type since it's balanced already... the ONLY reason Steel and Dark were introduced was to nerf Psychic.
True, but variety is nice. It doesn't need to happen just to balance things you know.

3) It would mess up the type chart... what would it be weak to? what does it resist? any immunities? adding a new type into the already complicated type chart is asking for trouble
Weak to fire, steel, and psychic, strong against rock, and fighting. Immune perhaps to ghost.

4) Moves, what moves would be changed? what would moves of the new type even look like?
No moves would need to be changed. Moves from the type would likely be based on strands of fiber, or other fiber based material.
5) The Pokemon... would some Pokemon get a new type? that's only happened twice with Magnamite it makes sense he looks metallic and the Rotom forms make sense on what they're based on
Again, Cottonee and Spinarak gaining a second type, and that's basically it.

6) GF has gave no hints of a new type it's all speculation
Sure, but if you're against the idea don't put us down cause you don't want it, let us have our fun.
You're arguments FOR a new type are pathetic though, seriously... 1/2 are te same thing!

There is no REASON to add a new type! just because it would be cool/variety woulld be nice ARE NOT REASONS!

The whole new type thing is a WASTE OF TIME!! I just wish the mod's would ban this discussion until there is actual evidence...

also a massive total fail.. Spinerak is already Bug/Poison... so yeah... no Fiber type for him...
 
Last edited:
Simpler times ahead
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
11,065
Reaction score
2,333
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well I said everything I can on the subject, so if I can't take it farther, I'm sorry.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
41
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well I said everything I can on the subject, so if I can't take it farther, I'm sorry.
There isn't much to say for an argument on a new type, we won't get one plain and simple... a new type is just completely unnecessary... You'd think people would've learned their lesson after Gen V... we've gone 3 gen's in a row... a new type now would be pointless
 
真実の英雄
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
335
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

You're arguments FOR a new type are pathetic though, seriously... 1/2 are te same thing!

There is no REASON to add a new type! just because it would be cool/variety woulld be nice ARE NOT REASONS!

The whole new type thing is a WASTE OF TIME!! I just wish the mod's would ban this discussion until there is actual evidence...

also a massive total fail.. Spinerak is already Bug/Poison... so yeah... no Fiber type for him...
And your arguments are so much better? Please.

Stop coming into these topics and saying that because "there's no evidence," speculation is stupid and a waste of time. No one's forcing you to read through these topics. Your comments are rude and unnecessary, and you're not actually contributing to the topic of discussion.
 
The Possibly Fake
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
12,017
Reaction score
191
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Hey guys,
How about we stop simply dismissing ideas as stupid or pathetic just because you don't agree with it? Just to put it out there, the Bulbagarden Video Game Forum staff will NOT be placing any kind of ban on speculating whether a new type will be added in XY or not. There is no strong evidence for or against it, however, that doesn't give anyone the right to simply dismiss another person's idea or argument as "stupid" or "impossible".

As for whether one is actually needed or not, that's a separate issue (and as a competitive player, I can sure as heck say that the Dragon-type needs some nerfing. Just saying).

Thanks,
Joshawott
 
Too much water
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
1,591
Reaction score
2
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well then that just muddles things even more. I just can't see this being based on a bug that would still be in its infant stages, nor can I see this being a Pokemon based on dancing maidens. GF taking us for a ride with this Pokemon, and you know what? I likey, Been a good while since Pokemon made us spin our wheels to understand it.
Why not? If this is based on this...
 
Active Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
370
Reaction score
554
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

In my opinion, the only speculated new type that has a chance of coming to fruition is 'Light.'

I think the new eeveelution looks as if it could fit into that category quite nicely.
 
#TeamSword
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
1,261
Reaction score
1,105
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Thinking about it, we could use one or two new types to re-balance the type chart. People say Steel- and Dark-types were introduced because Psychic was overpowered in Gen I. Well, if you take a look at the OU tier, you'll see that types like Fighting and Dragon are dominating, while types like Poison and Ice are barely used, which means the type chart isn't as balanced any more.
 
Not Dead
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
18,910
Reaction score
12,617
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

But in Japanese, "nymph" IS written ニンフ (ni-n-fu). When a western word has 'm' right before a consonant (like "computer"), in katakana m is changed by a n (コピュータ, ko-n-pyuu-ta). So, "Ninfia" (or Nymphia) does come from "nymph". The fact "nymph" is "ninfa" in Spanish (and another languages), is just coincidence.
I wasn't aware of that; I wish someone had pointed it out before, but perhaps I missed it. Still, the design definitely doesn't resemble a nymph in the insect sense. I suppose that an animal manifestation of the Greek nymphs could look like Ninfia, but it is certainly counter-intuitive. It is too early to declare its type as being Normal just because that's how some fairies have been handled so far; nymphs are minor deities.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2010
Messages
2,235
Reaction score
41
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Thinking about it, we could use one or two new types to re-balance the type chart. People say Steel- and Dark-types were introduced because Psychic was overpowered in Gen I. Well, if you take a look at the OU tier, you'll see that types like Fighting and Dragon are dominating, while types like Poison and Ice are barely used, which means the type chart isn't as balanced any more.
Fighting is nowhere near what Psychic wad in Gen I... Psychic was a literal game-breaker you could curb-stomp the entire game with a Alakazam... Fighting types might take up a good portion of OU but Is there any Fighting types in Uber's?

There is no evidence at all regarding a new type... we do not need a new type, we haven't had one in over 13 years no type is overpowered... as the saying goes if it's not broke don't fix it... the type chart isn't broke we don't need a new type... any reason that we would need one? and to shake things up is not a reason
 
Not Dead
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
18,910
Reaction score
12,617
Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

the type chart isn't broke we don't need a new type... any reason that we would need one? and to shake things up is not a reason
Is there any reason why we needed triple or rotation battles? Or are "unnecessary" additions okay as long as they can be ignored?
 
Top