The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

[Jukain]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well, admittedly, I ran into the same brick wall, as I am not sure why they would all of a sudden decide dragons are too powerful and make something specifically designed to counter it when all the dragon types have ALWAYS been ridiculously powerful. That was their intention. Then again, if they truly think that way then they would also realize that most Water pokemon use Ice anyway so they can almost be considered a third "weakness" to Dragon, or at least that Ice does it's job better than one would realize if you just look at the Ice types since they're not that impressive. Although one can argue in that case, then make more useful/powerful Ice types. Maybe they did all of a sudden decide that dragon SHOULDN'T be that powerful. I dunno.

 

[Zeta]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well, admittedly, I ran into the same brick wall, as I am not sure why they would all of a sudden decide dragons are too powerful and make something specifically designed to counter it when all the dragon types have ALWAYS been ridiculously powerful.

It wasn't a problem when the only Dragon-types you could field were Dragonite and Kingdra.

Now with the Dragon-type including 16 more Pokemon, it's beginning to be a problem. You can have a type that's purposefully imbalanced when there are only two individuals. That can't be done when you can make multiple teams of all or mostly Dragons. Where I live the semi-competitive meta-game is "Who can make the best team of 5 Dragons and one anti-Ice defender?"

 

[Naoto]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

On the note of the Fairy Type speculation, I think when the game hits the US. It'd probably be localized as something like "Light" Type. Sorta like a counter part to the Dark Type. Basically Pokemon that would usually be themed around peace, kindness, justice, and all that kinda stereotypical stuff affiliated with light in RPG's and Fantasy Novels.

 

[Rainbow]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

On the note of the Fairy Type speculation, I think when the game hits the US. It'd probably be localized as something like "Light" Type. Sorta like a counter part to the Dark Type. Basically Pokemon that would usually be themed around peace, kindness, justice, and all that kinda stereotypical stuff affiliated with light in RPG's and Fantasy Novels.

I've heard a lot of people say that can't happen because Fairy =/= Light. But when you think about it, Dark =/= Evil either.

Most rumors say that Fairy is the localized name, so maybe it's something like Light in Japan? Based on what Smash gave us, it'd make sense actually. Light would melt Ice, and be weak to Poison because it's an impurity (while light usually means pure)

 

[Meophist]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

If Pokémon aren't supposed to be evil(and only their trainers), then having Pokémon that are distinctly "good" causes the same problems. I don't think they would want to make a "good" type for that reason.

 

[Peppermint Phoenix]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well, admittedly, I ran into the same brick wall, as I am not sure why they would all of a sudden decide dragons are too powerful and make something specifically designed to counter it when all the dragon types have ALWAYS been ridiculously powerful.

It wasn't a problem when the only Dragon-types you could field were Dragonite and Kingdra.

Now with the Dragon-type including 16 more Pokemon, it's beginning to be a problem. You can have a type that's purposefully imbalanced when there are only two individuals. That can't be done when you can make multiple teams of all or mostly Dragons. Where I live the semi-competitive meta-game is "Who can make the best team of 5 Dragons and one anti-Ice defender?"

Yeah and your ideal of solution is to create a type who's name sake has been used for pokemon designed since gen 1 and has so such a large amount of pokemon that it would require a mass retyping instead of simply changing the non dragon to dragon psuedo legendary (legendary) ratio. I won matches in wifi tournaments and the champion tournament without use of a single dragon and only one ice type. So it's hard to see a problem here.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Woah, am I the only person here who don't see a single reason for changing the name Fairy to Light? The concepts are completely different. Also, as far as we know, the so called Fairy-type isn't a counterpart of Dark, it is just SE to it, the same way it is SE to Dragon. Seriously? That is like asking for Game Freak change the name of the Dark-type to... Coca Cola-type. Makes 0 sense.

 

[Naoto]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

If Pokémon aren't supposed to be evil(and only their trainers), then having Pokémon that are distinctly "good" causes the same problems. I don't think they would want to make a "good" type for that reason.

Well all Pokemon have there own personality, the contrast would be more Light Type sorta representing Holy Knights and Chosen Hero's while Dark Types would sorta represent Anti-Heroes or Robin Hood type characters.

Although, Light Type is just an educated guess on my part. My theory is no better then anyone else's!

 

[Meophist]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

If Pokémon aren't supposed to be evil(and only their trainers), then having Pokémon that are distinctly "good" causes the same problems. I don't think they would want to make a "good" type for that reason.

Well all Pokemon have there own personality, the contrast would be more Light Type sorta representing Holy Knights and Chosen Hero's while Dark Types would sorta represent Anti-Heroes or Robin Hood type characters.

Although, Light Type is just an educated guess on my part. My theory is no better then anyone else's!

Individuals do have personality, but generalizing that too much onto entire species wouldn't be the best of ideas, I think.

 

[Rainbow]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I don't expect a name change either way, since I think there's only 2 types that have gotten their name changed in localization. I just don't think a Light type is all that farfetched, if it were to ever happen.

 

[Naoto]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Light can be just as bad as darkness.

One quote from a game I think is appropriate reads. "Even the Devil can quote scripture to meet his own ends."

Light type is a possibility, but not a likely one.

 

[Jukain]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well, a truly all dragon team would've been possible by the third gen, although it would involve using a legend. It became possible without legends in the fourth gen, and now, it's nearly possible to do a team with a different sub type for every slot in a Dragon team without legends too. (you can have a different sub type for every slot if you use legends by now) The question then becomes how many is enough to be considered a problem. Of those dragons, 4 are pseudo legends and 5 are "regular" pokemon. For me, I would consider those 5 ordinary dragons to be a greater threat since people can get them more easily than the pseudos, but the pseudos are nothing to sneeze at either. I think the meta has always had at least one dragon be what a lot of people use, and they didn't seem to be too concerned about that, although like you said, not too many dragons existed then. Honestly, it's Garchomp specifically that tipped the scales. It's ruled the meta for two gens now. I might say otherwise that there are enough dragons to be concerned about them in general, and to say "just make less powerful dragons" by now would be pointless since the powerful ones already exist. If you value balance, then something would have to be done to make more viable dragon counters. I might not agree that a new type was the best way to do this, but the implication is that not just Dragon was the problem. The fifth gen buffed up Fighting and Dark pokes significantly, so now they have to worry about them too.

 

[NoirGrimoir]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Garchomp, Salamance and Dragonite are incredibly overpowered, IMO. They aren't impossible to bring down, but its like if you want to have a chance you have to specifically carry around one of the same couple pokemon to counter it and then get lucky. Because while you're switching to something that might have a hope of killing them, they are sword dancing and in the next turn they've out-sped you and OHKO'd you, and then they sweep the rest of your team. Good night. Their presence makes things A) really difficult, or B) very predictable, I feel.

 

[Peppermint Phoenix]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well, a truly all dragon team would've been possible by the third gen, although it would involve using a legend. It became possible without legends in the fourth gen, and now, it's nearly possible to do a team with a different sub type for every slot in a Dragon team without legends too. (you can have a different sub type for every slot if you use legends by now) The question then becomes how many is enough to be considered a problem. Of those dragons, 4 are pseudo legends and 5 are "regular" pokemon. For me, I would consider those 5 ordinary dragons to be a greater threat since people can get them more easily than the pseudos, but the pseudos are nothing to sneeze at either. I think the meta has always had at least one dragon be what a lot of people use, and they didn't seem to be too concerned about that, although like you said, not too many dragons existed then. Honestly, it's Garchomp specifically that tipped the scales. It's ruled the meta for two gens now. I might say otherwise that there are enough dragons to be concerned about them in general, and to say "just make less powerful dragons" by now would be pointless since the powerful ones already exist. If you value balance, then something would have to be done to make more viable dragon counters. I might not agree that a new type was the best way to do this, but the implication is that not just Dragon was the problem. The fifth gen buffed up Fighting and Dark pokes significantly, so now they have to worry about them too.

I can't agree with you that a type's should balanced based on the pokemon that that exist. I don't see the pokemon of a type and type itself as the same entity. Did Blissey make normal overpowered no Blissey was just a strong pokemon that pissed some people off. I don't see dark type getting a variety of strong pokes as reason to nerf dark. All I see is that we should get more weak dark and dragon. Pokemon type advantages are more permanent then ratios. Not to mention some things are meant to unbalanced like Salamences stats. There is balance of in game and the fact that some in-balance that is put there with purpose makes games more engaging. Chess is a perfectly balanced game but that means it is studied so you can spend years maybe even decades studying it before actually being creative. See the perfect imbalance episode of extra credits. If you want a type to be stronger just make stronger pokemon and moves of that type. Simple as that. I don't really see a problem in that there are some types that everybody uses.

 

[Lufenium]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

While I agree that dragon types should be overpowered to some extent, due to the immense beasts from which they are based on, they should have an effective way to counter them apart from Ice types.

 

[Peppermint Phoenix]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Here's another problem with the "dragon needs another type to knock down to size" idea wouldn't it not to knock it down to size thing: wouldn't it negatively effect ice indirectly. Ice types would be less useful because you have an alternative against dragons. That combined with the fairy's strength against ice just screws the existing type over too goddamn much for me to have shred of desire for this supposed new type.

 

[SUP3RN0VA]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

I don't feel we need a new type introduced for the sole purpose of bringing Dragon's power down a little. They only have good stats because every other type, except normal, has good super effective hits potential, where as Dragons can only perform 2x effective damage against themselves, and cannot perform 4x effective moves at all. I'm assuming that is also why most Pseudo legendary Pokemon are the Dragon type, because Dragon's already have great stats, it's easier to make them Pseudo as opposed to giving another type outstanding stats as well as potential great type combinations. In my eyes a Pseudo legendary of any other type, would be a lot more overpowered than a Pseudo legendary Pokemon that is of the Dragon type. I wouldn't mind if the new type was only super effective against Dragons, however, I don't think it is essential that the new type should also be immune to Dragon.

 

[Stratelier]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Since GF is aiming for a simultaneous release this time around, I for one think they'll be putting more thought into the naming than before. (Rememberhow Evil was named Dark internationally.) So if a new type is the antithesis of Dark, it does sound reasonable that its Japanese name could be "Love" while its international name is something like "Light".

One of my elemental wishlists is removing Fire's weakness to Rock. That's always bugged me. Ground I can understand, but Rock?

Maybe this is due to my ignorance and use of gaining knowledge from cartoons, but can't rocks put out fires?

I'm pretty sure rocks are resistant to fire, which is why people put rocks around a campfire to keep the fire from spreading.

Different relations between attack vs. defense, remember ... tossing a few small rocks onto a campfire ain't going to do anything to it. A lump of loose dirt does much better at smothering it.

... Which, to GF's credit, is the only thing I like about the Fire+Fighting starters: No weakness (and a ready counter) to Rock types.

 

[MicManGuy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Here's another problem with the "dragon needs another type to knock down to size" idea wouldn't it not to knock it down to size thing: wouldn't it negatively effect ice indirectly. Ice types would be less useful because you have an alternative against dragons. That combined with the fairy's strength against ice just screws the existing type over too goddamn much for me to have shred of desire for this supposed new type.

I feel like ice type just needs a lot of love in general. Seriously, 4 weaknesses and no resistance (besides itself)?

Grass and poison each need a little help as well. Maybe even Bug.

 

[DoctorWhy]

Re: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Well, a truly all dragon team would've been possible by the third gen, although it would involve using a legend. It became possible without legends in the fourth gen, and now, it's nearly possible to do a team with a different sub type for every slot in a Dragon team without legends too. (you can have a different sub type for every slot if you use legends by now) The question then becomes how many is enough to be considered a problem. Of those dragons, 4 are pseudo legends and 5 are "regular" pokemon. For me, I would consider those 5 ordinary dragons to be a greater threat since people can get them more easily than the pseudos, but the pseudos are nothing to sneeze at either. I think the meta has always had at least one dragon be what a lot of people use, and they didn't seem to be too concerned about that, although like you said, not too many dragons existed then. Honestly, it's Garchomp specifically that tipped the scales. It's ruled the meta for two gens now. I might say otherwise that there are enough dragons to be concerned about them in general, and to say "just make less powerful dragons" by now would be pointless since the powerful ones already exist. If you value balance, then something would have to be done to make more viable dragon counters. I might not agree that a new type was the best way to do this, but the implication is that not just Dragon was the problem. The fifth gen buffed up Fighting and Dark pokes significantly, so now they have to worry about them too.

This sounds great, but why is Ice getting a new weakness?

Dragon and Fighting types could definitely be taken down a notch, but some types need brought up. I would prefer if Fighting became weak to Poison, personally. Dragon weak to Fairy is good. I personally think Dark types are okay. Especially compared to Ghost types. Ghosts are more OP than Dark.