Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 102

Thread: Should the 'Flying' type be replaced?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,561

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnegross View Post
    I always thought Flying as a type was a little weird. It would feel more natural if it were something such as "wind".
    ...That makes even less sense.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    blowjob
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fhqwhgads View Post
    ...That makes even less sense.
    What do you mean?

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    <--That way-->
    Posts
    975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magnegross View Post
    What do you mean?
    Well, how the hell will this "wind" typing work for pokemon that have wings?

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    blowjob
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark_Chaos View Post
    Well, how the hell will this "wind" typing work for pokemon that have wings?
    I'd say they'd be type Wind, and that's that?

    ._.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Temple of Time
    Posts
    939

    Default

    Noooooooope nope. That would be weird, it's fine how it is.
    "Love without truth is not real love, truth without love is not real truth"
    [IMG]http://oi51.*******.com/qn1ftl.jpg[/IMG]
    Credit to Wolftamer
        Spoiler:- Quote:

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    582

    Default

    You're spitting hairs and arguing semantics. First off, the original programming was for a Bird-type, but was scratched during testing; see Missingno. Secondly, all flying-type Pokemon do in fact fly, glide, etc., so it's pointless to argue against it. (Gyarados is just Godly enough to be considered Flying and pull off an awkwardly effective Bounce on anyone who argues.)

    Lastly, Zapdos' access to it's second typing is what differentiates it from other electric-types and makes it such a defensive brawler competitively. The like goes for Gliscor. So arguing that "flying-type as a secondary type is not effective" isn't really valid. And if this is all for asthetics, then really no one is going to be content.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario with Lasers View Post
    By the way, Miltank with Rapid Spin for great justice. ROTATING NIPPLES
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxim View Post
    It feels like... I had a halfmeter-long boner. After hearing this, it suddenly went all flaccid. Forever.
    3DS Friend Code (In-Game name is Jesse): 5343-7935-6882
    X Friend Safari: Grass-type: Blahdish, Sawbsux, GoGoatse ( -_-' troll freak...)

    I SUPPORT REGIGIGAS WITH EXPLOSION.

    ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ PRAISE HELIX ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    Ah, so that's where I must have misheard the flying=bird from. I'd seen it referenced somewhere but never bothered looking for the full details about it having been scrapped in production. Anyway, as I said before, Gamefreak knows what they're doing when they type Pokemon, so they gave Flying Pokemon that type for a reason.

    Just saying "replace it with levitate to free up the second type" doesn't really do anything. Levitate only protects Pokemon from Ground moves, Flying has a number of weaknesses and resistances associated with it, changing how it's played. Also, that would eat up an ability slot (Gyarados's Intimidate/Moxie, for example, or Tropius's Harvest/Solar Power/Chlorophyll, Mantine's Water Absorb . . . you get the idea).

    It isn't like they "gave up" a second type to replace it with Flying (or whatever you would prefer the type that flies to be named). I personally don't mind the name "Flying" for the type, but really, no Pokemon were mis-typed in the making of the games.
    Last edited by Ememew; 13th April 2011 at 2:51 AM.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    76

    Default

    How about 'Air' instead of flying. I also hate the name 'Flying'
    White Friend Code:
    1291 - 7521 - 4646


  9. #34
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    991

    Default

    We've reached a point where types don't need to be altered or it upsets the balance of the game. I'm happy where we are now, why change it?
    BLACK TEAM!
    (I have claimed Honchkrow, the Don)
    [IMG]http://i51.*******.com/xfnpc5.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i56.*******.com/21l4h6t.png[/IMG]
    R.I.P. Shiny Dusknoir and Shiny Ratticate
        Spoiler:- Credit:

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie Mulay View Post
    How about 'Air' instead of flying. I also hate the name 'Flying'
    I've thought this same thing for a while and argued it in another thread. Just rename 'flying' to 'air' or 'wind' type...a lot of other rpgs utilize the wind element along with others like fire, ice etc. Flying type makes no sense...as there are so many pokemon who can fly but are actually not flying type, nor could they produce air or wind based attacks. Having the ability to fly shouldnt warrant a type slot....its the pokemons mode of transport...by that logic there should be a walking and swimming type as well lol. If they tweaked the game mechanics a bit...they could make it so that pokemon like venomoth (bug/poison) can not be hit by earth elemental attacks...one way to do this is by increasing the ability slots. If you can have more than one type, why not more than one ability?

    So something like Pidgeot would be a straight up Air type (because it can produce moves like whirlwind) with the added ability of flight. (no need for normal as a second typing). It would still possess the same weaknesses and strengths as a 'flying type'...meaning weak to electricity..strong to bug etc...except this way it makes more sense. This then opens up the possibility of future pokemon being an Air type (meaning something that can manipulate air/wind etc) without having to actually fly.
    Last edited by Ampersand; 13th April 2011 at 6:01 AM.
    VINDICATE

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ampersand View Post
    I've thought this same thing for a while and argued it in another thread. Just rename 'flying' to 'air' or 'wind' type...a lot of other rpgs utilize the wind element along with others like fire, ice etc. Flying type makes no sense...as there are so many pokemon who can fly but are actually not flying type, nor could they produce air or wind based attacks. Having the ability to fly shouldnt warrant a type slot....its the pokemons mode of transport...by that logic there should be a walking and swimming type as well lol. If they tweaked the game mechanics a bit...they could make it so that pokemon like venomoth (bug/poison) can not be hit by earth elemental attacks...one way to do this is by increasing the ability slots. If you can have more than one type, why not more than one ability?

    So something like Pidgeot would be a straight up Air type (because it can produce moves like whirlwind) with the added ability of flight. (no need for normal as a second typing). It would still possess the same weaknesses and strengths as a 'flying type'...meaning weak to electricity..strong to bug etc...except this way it makes more sense. This then opens up the possibility of future pokemon being an Air type (meaning something that can manipulate air/wind etc) without having to actually fly.
    Because a Bronzong with both Levitate and Heatproof or a Gyarados with both Intimidate and Moxie sound so fun to fight? I get what you're saying, but I prefer the one ability, one item, up to two types format. It's not like any Pokemon were "mis-typed." Changing it's name to "Air" might make more sense (especially for stuff like Gyarados), but the idea that changing the name of the type would change who had that type is a little odd. Plus, there's Tornadus. The pure Flying Pokemon that pretty much exemplifies the "wind/air" component of the Flying-type. After seeing this called flying, I'm pretty sure most people would realize that Flying basically means, in Poke-world terms, "air/wind" already.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Hogging Caitlin's Bed
    Posts
    927

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jessie Mulay View Post
    How about 'Air' instead of flying. I also hate the name 'Flying'
    This is like changing "Grass" to "Plant", haha.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Temsik Park
    Posts
    5,374

    Default

    I'm fine with it, thank you very much.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,376

    Default

    I think your rant is coming from the fact that your favourite Poke is stuck with a part Flying type, while some dragons like Reshiram get to have their own unique typing.
    "Your signature was too epic! My epeen couldn't handle its epicness" - so called half-arsed mod (they know who they are)

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zild
    Posts
    936

    Default

    You want to change the types of all Pokémon with the Flying type?

    This will upset the balance of the game. At the moment I would have thought the type chart was in more or less equilibrium, as best you could get for 17 types.

    Flying is a good type with many resistances to key attacking types.

    And you realise the changing of Pokémon types has only happened for seven Pokémon, five of which are the same and two in the same line. Never has something as large scale as you want has ever happened, nor will it ever happen.

    tl;dr changing the Flying type is a bad idea.

  16. #41

    Default

    Make an addition rather than a change.

    All of the "bird" flying types (Pidgeotto, Swellow, Staraptor, Braviary, etc.) become Bird/Flying instead of Normal/Flying. Implies that they are, in fact, bird Pokemon (similar to the Fighting type representing Pokemon that resemble fighters) while also having the ability to fly (hence keeping the flying type).

    Pokemon who can fly - but are not birds - don't change (ex. Jumpluff, Aerodactyl, Charizard, etc.).

    Seems fair, no? The only thing left to do would to give the "bird" typing different qualities of "flying". This is just an idea that I personally think would work...

    Bird pokemon are resistant to fighting/ground attacks (seems redundant for most; however, consider birds that cannot fly)
    Bird attacks are weak against Steel/Rock/Ice
    Bird attacks are strong against bug/water
    Bird pokemon are susceptible to Ice and Poison attacks.

    This gives the formerly normal/flying pokemon more advantages. They become 4x resistant to fighting attacks which is makes pokemon like Pidgeot suddenly much more appealing. They also give these unused pokemon more appeal in that they can combat water types (water types can afford to take this hit).

    The new 4x weakness to Ice isn't so bad (most currently die to an ice attack anyways) and gives Poison types something to be good against other than Grass. Also gives Ice a second resistance which it desperately needs (ice is terrible defensively, currently only resistant to itself).

    I don't see any problems with this. No pokemon become overpowered, and desperately underused normal/flying types suddenly become useful.

        Spoiler:- Bird/Flying Pokemon (Last Stage Only):


        Spoiler:- Unique Circumstances:


        Spoiler:- Debatable:
    Last edited by Fast_shoesXx; 13th April 2011 at 8:38 AM.
    !

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    Except that they are Normal-types for a reason. The addition of Tornadus (pure Flying) pretty much demonstrates that they could have dropped the Normal type from Normal/Flying if they had wanted to, but instead they assigned the Normal-type to them anyway because they have the characteristics of Normals as well as of Flyings (plus it gives STAB Returns, Ghost immunity). Yes, it took 5 Generations for this to happen, but really, there was nothing preventing them from making, say, Farfetch'd, a pure Flying beyond the fact that it pretty much had as many Normal characteristics as it did Flying (see movepool, etc). Normal =/= Type-less, so things that are Normal or part Normal have that type for a reason.

    Look at the Serebii Pokedex. Search by Flying-type. You'll see that there aren't really that many Normal/Flyings in comparison to other Flyings, and that they're mostly the regional birds. What fits a regional bird better than Normal?

    Pidgey line (regional birds), Spearow line (might as well be regional birds), Farfetch'd (looks "normal" to me), Doduo line (it's a flightless bird, but still Flying, so what better than normal to go with it - especially with Tri-Attack as one of it's main moves?), Hoothoot line (regional birds), Togetic/Kiss (evolved from a Normal-type), Tailow line (regional birds), Swablu (guess they didn't want it to be a dragon right away, normal seems to suit it just fine), Starly line (regional birds), Chatot (what else would you give it?), Pidove line (regional birds), Rufflet line (again, what else suits it, and since it's counterpart is a dual-type, shouldn't it be, too?). Of all the Normal/Flyings, the only one I can really see dropping the normal type is Swablu, and that's only because it loses that type upon evolution. The rest (including Swablu) seem to have the characteristics found in other Normals (like Girafarag, Bibarel, etc.). I don't see how making them "Bird/Flying" would help anything.

    Would it make sense to turn the fish Pokemon into Fish/Water to imply that they're fish while also having the ability to live in water? Type =/= species it's based on.
    Last edited by Ememew; 13th April 2011 at 8:27 AM.

  18. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ememew View Post
    What fits a regional bird better than Normal?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ememew View Post
    (looks "normal" to me)
    Subjective. I can't argue against your opinion and you can't use it as an argument against me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ememew View Post
    I don't see how making them "Bird/Flying" would help anything.
    Please re-read my post. They become more useful in a competitive environment.

    A point you mentioned was that I over-looked was the immunity to Ghost attacks. However, I don't see much importance in this as Normal/Flying pokemon are not defensive. However they would no longer be able to switch into such attacks which is a con. And yes, the loss of STAB Normal does hurt, but is the STAB Bird not even more useful with the abundance of bulky water types?

    Do you fully believe that remaining normal/flying is an advantage? Why? You have yet to prove that the cons outweigh the pros of my theorized change.
    Last edited by Fast_shoesXx; 13th April 2011 at 8:51 AM.
    !

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    london, England GMT
    Posts
    317

    Default

    it would make more sense to not change anything.

    White FC: 2666 1277 6544
        Spoiler:- Credit & Trade offers:

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,594

    Default

    But I'm not arguing that they would be any better or worse competitively, just that Gamefreak had its own reasons for applying the types they did to the Pokemon that have them.

    I understand your point about subjectiveness, but what you're suggesting is that Gamefreak change a Pokemon's type just to make it better in competitive play.

    My first example with Farfetch'd (a paragraph up from that quote) stated that a reason it "looked normal to me" had to do with it's movepool, which is similar to that of a lot of Normal-types (i.e. a lot of Normal moves, while those that aren't are making use of it's physical characteristics of jabbing and slicing the way Persian gets similar moves related to its claws). At most with Farfetch'd, I could see a Grass-type addition (because of the leek), but its movepool does nothing to support a Grass-type over Normal. Regional birds share many characteristics with the Normal regional rodents, and often have a number of Normal attacks in their movepools.

    What I'm basically saying is that Gamefreak decided to make them Normal-types because Gamefreak (who made them) decided that they had the characteristics of Normals. They don't really care about the effects this has on competitive play or the tiers fans put together. When I say it "looks like a Normal" it has nothing to do with whether or not I think it looks like a Normal-type, but rather that I can see what made Gamefreak decide it fit into that particular category. Sorry if I worded it poorly last time.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10

    Default

    I don't thinking Flying types need to be altered. Although if they are readdress to be called bird types they should lose there super effective damage on grass and pickup new prey. Grass has too many problems they need some room to breath. Flying although is not an overwhelming powerful type that you will see in almost every team like a dragon, steel, or dedicated wall. Not a type but I feel every team should have one.

    Personally I think there should have been an 18th type thought up a while ago cause simply 17 isn't an even number. The trickiest thing with designing an 18th type would be how it type combos with others or would its mix of resistances just cause more problems for already struggling types or an unnecessary immunity such dark>psychic comes out of the equation. Hell when they designed dark I wonder if someone later went hey guys derp dark/ghost no weakness's 3 immunities, yeah man sounds cool. With that in mind If an 18th type is ever designed I wouldn't care if there are one or two type combination's that are purposely overlooked and never brought together. Flavor wise its also really hard to get an agreement on what would be balanced while making sense of what we know with nature/ mythology In digging for a new type.
    [IMG]http://i52.*******.com/30ll07b.gif[/IMG]
    So I'm really evil apparently

  22. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragoniteftw View Post
    it would make more sense to not change anything.
    I shall correct the above statement.
    It would make sense to not change anything.
    Birds fly. So they are flying types. Massive banana dinosaurs fly. So they are flying types.
    I believe it is much simpler this way, no?

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    A box
    Posts
    1,326

    Default

    Why bother changing anything. Most people are happy with the typings. It would be confusing to change it now.


    I have claimed the beast that is Shieldon.
    Credits to Geekachu for my amazing licky.
        Spoiler:- The rest of my sig:

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grassette View Post
    I shall correct the above statement.
    It would make sense to not change anything.
    Birds fly. So they are flying types. Massive banana dinosaurs fly. So they are flying types.
    I believe it is much simpler this way, no?
    turtles swim..so they should be swimming types
    rats run...so they should be running types.

    do you get what im saying here? is the basis of a type formed on how the pokemon gets from a to b, or on the element it can manipulate? the reason fire pokemon are fire type is because they can manipulate fire into attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ememew View Post
    Because a Bronzong with both Levitate and Heatproof or a Gyarados with both Intimidate and Moxie sound so fun to fight? I get what you're saying, but I prefer the one ability, one item, up to two types format. It's not like any Pokemon were "mis-typed." Changing it's name to "Air" might make more sense (especially for stuff like Gyarados), but the idea that changing the name of the type would change who had that type is a little odd. Plus, there's Tornadus. The pure Flying Pokemon that pretty much exemplifies the "wind/air" component of the Flying-type. After seeing this called flying, I'm pretty sure most people would realize that Flying basically means, in Poke-world terms, "air/wind" already.
    Im not saying all pokemon should have two abilites...just like all pokemon dont have 2 types. and theres no reason why game freak could re-do some of the abilities so it doesnt end up being too unfair. heck..it doesnt even have to be an ability...but some sort of new concept they introduce hopefully on the 3ds with the new games...something that basically negates ground moves being able to hit pokemon that are flying or levitating. if this was to be done...then yes certain pokemon would either lose the flying type and it would be replaced by something else. charizard would become fire and dragon, with the ability of flight and maybe a few air moves for example.
    Last edited by Ampersand; 13th April 2011 at 11:57 AM.
    VINDICATE

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    United kingdom
    Posts
    110

    Default

    To arguments saying that the bird type couldn't replace flying over the fact that some flying types do not look like birds; read my post. I said that any flying pokemon which don't fall under the category of a Bird will simply be able to avoid ground type moves whilst still having their own abilities, whilst the bird type recieves new unique characteristics.

    Unless GF are willing to give it to just tornadus and perhaps difloon, a 'wind' or 'air' type wouldn't work. Typing comes down to what a Pokemon is, its skills, or what elements it consists of. The only typing which is none of these and shouldn't be a proper typing is flying, which is why im bringing up this argument in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by poizonsting View Post
    I think your rant is coming from the fact that your favourite Poke is stuck with a part Flying type, while some dragons like Reshiram get to have their own unique typing.
    Rant? Whos ranting? Its called discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grassette View Post
    I shall correct the above statement.
    It would make sense to not change anything.
    Birds fly. So they are flying types. Massive banana dinosaurs fly. So they are flying types.
    I believe it is much simpler this way, no?
    Bedrill can fly, he is not the flying type.
    Flygon can fly, he is not the flying type.
    Venomoth, Dustox, Latias, Latios, Volbeat, Illumise, Volcarona, Hydreigon, Reshiram and Zekrom can fly, they are not part flying type.

    Yes, very obvious and simple.
    Last edited by Sonikku; 13th April 2011 at 12:02 PM.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •