View Poll Results: Would you change typing chart?

Voters
158. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    32 20.25%
  • No

    126 79.75%
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 125

Thread: Do you think that some pokemon types are unnecessary?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    60

    Default Do you think that some pokemon types are unnecessary?

    I don't know if anyone has thought about it, but I think that pokemon types could have been categorized much better. For instance, we have ground and rock type pokemon which are basically the same and maybe should have been one type. Also I don't get the fighting type pokemon. I mean, every pokemon belongs to kind of an element or certain quality which is affected by genes. Learning martial arts maybe shouldn't have been a type. I also think there shouldn't be ghost type, but ghost and dark type should be one type.

    Ever thought about different categorization of types and what are your ideas?
    Black 2 team:

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThaVega View Post
    I don't know if anyone has thought about it, but I think that pokemon types could have been categorized much better. For instance, we have ground and rock type pokemon which are basically the same and maybe should have been one type. Also I don't get the fighting type pokemon. I mean, every pokemon belongs to kind of an element or certain quality which is affected by genes. Learning martial arts maybe shouldn't have been a type. I also think there shouldn't be ghost type, but ghost and dark type should be one type.
    I don't think Rock and Ground types are exactly the same, though they may be similar. Rock type attacks usually involve active use of boulders and the like (Stone Edge, Rock Slide, etc.), while Ground type attacks merely involve the ground in some way (Earthquake, Dig, etc.).

    As for Fighting type - do you think a normal human being would be as proficient as a black belt in martial arts? Of course not. In the same logic, while Pokemon are able to harness physical power (Physical moves), they are unable to do so specifically in the way of martial arts. With regards to genes, I could also argue that the genes would provide certain Pokemon with more muscles and physical prowess. Hence, Machoke would obviously be more "buff" than Mr. Mime and hence could utilise Fighting moves more effectively.

    I also beg to differ that Ghost and Dark are the same. Ghosts are, well, dead beings that come back to life. Darkness, on the other hand, is the lack of light or possibly "evil" or even "dark energy". Not all ghosts are evil and dark, and certainly not all evil things are ghosts.

    Going by your logic, I could also group Water and Ice under the same type - after all, Ice IS Water in solid form.

    Just my ten cents.
    3DS Friend Code: 2337-4080-6077 | Friend Safari (Poison): Cascoon, Venomoth, Muk
    Kalos Pokedex completed on 1 January 2014
    National Pokedex completed on 7 July 2014

    Shinies:

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,238

    Default

    No, I don't.

    Ghost is totally different from Dark. Rock and Ground are far from being the same, etc.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Lumiose City, Kalos
    Posts
    1,185

    Default

    These types may sound different, but, they have gone different directions in the game and they have very different types. We need all these types.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Goldenrod City
    Posts
    66

    Default

    No, Rock and ground have to completely different uses. Try hitting Charizard with a EQ... Then try hitting him with a stone edge... Big difference. Fighting types are one of my favorites and I really can't see where your coming from. Ghost types resist to fighting and Dark types are weak to it. Plus the different moves. not every type has to be wildly different from one another.

    3DS FC: 4313-0937-1327
    Friend Safari: Ghost; Lampent, Gourgheist, and IDk yet
    Nintendo Network: Raiin3


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default

    No, all the types have their role. Even that some of them have similar resistances and advantages, that doesn't make they become unnecessary.

    I think the opposite. In the large universe of Pokemons it should exist much more types than 17. Though I don't wanna any new type to be introduced, here are some I have already imagined:

    light type
    spacial type
    crystal type
    love type
    arachnid type
    mystic type
    robot type
    bird type
    dino type
    mud type

    Whist it may make sense in Pokemon universe, in-game it should be too complicated adpating to new types, so I like the current type chart and prefer it stays that way.
    Last edited by Pogaymon; 22nd January 2013 at 2:07 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystical Jackal View Post
    light type
    spacial type
    crystal type
    love type
    arachnid type
    mystic type
    robot type
    bird type
    dino type
    mud type
    light type - Normal/Psychic
    spacial type - Reminds me of Spacial rend
    crystal type - Steel
    love type - Normal, because of Charm, Attract etc.
    arachnid type - Bug
    mystic type - ...
    robot type - Steel/Electric
    bird type - Flying type
    dino type - Ground ?
    mud type - Ground, yeah.

    Like you, I don't want any type to be add. The one you imagined are too much similar to what we already have and some of them are species, not types.
    Oh my Feebas !
    Newest Shiny !


        Spoiler:- My Hunts and Shinies:


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystical Jackal View Post
    In the large universe of Pokemons it should exist much more types than 17.

    [...]

    light type
    spacial type
    crystal type
    love type
    arachnid type
    mystic type
    robot type
    bird type
    dino type
    mud type
    No, it shouldn't. We don't even know how large the Pokémon is to begin with.
    By the way:

    Light = Psychic.
    Spacial = It could work, but it is not needed.
    Crystal = Rock. Say hi to Gigalith.
    Arachnid = Bug. It doesn't matter if arachnids aren't bugs in real life, in the Pokéverse they are all the same.
    Mystic = Psychic + Ghost.
    Robot = Steel.
    Bird = Flying.
    Mud = Ground.

    Love... Seriously, wtf?
    Dino... Again, seriously, wtf?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    786

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sealotic View Post
    light type - Normal/Psychic
    spacial type - Reminds me of Spacial rend
    crystal type - Steel
    love type - Normal, because of Charm, Attract etc.
    arachnid type - Bug
    mystic type - ...
    robot type - Steel/Electric
    bird type - Flying type
    dino type - Ground ?
    mud type - Ground, yeah.

    Like you, I don't want any type to be add. The one you imagined are too much similar to what we already have and some of them are species, not types.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nyarlathotep View Post


    No, it shouldn't. We don't even know how large the Pokémon is to begin with.
    By the way:

    Light = Psychic.
    Spacial = It could work, but it is not needed.
    Crystal = Rock. Say hi to Gigalith.
    Arachnid = Bug. It doesn't matter if arachnids aren't bugs in real life, in the Pokéverse they are all the same.
    Mystic = Psychic + Ghost.
    Robot = Steel.
    Bird = Flying.
    Mud = Ground.

    Love... Seriously, wtf?
    Dino... Again, seriously, wtf?
    I was quite clear when I said that I just imagined then occasionally and that I don't wanna any new type to be introduced. Below is how I imagined each of them in my mind:

    light type - dark counterpart. Super effective on dark and weak to dark in the meantime (like ghosts and dragons). It could be the type of many Pokemons associated with purity and goodness.

    spacial type - first or secondary type of many Pokemons from space (Jirachi, Deoxys, for example). Or alien type...

    crystal type - share similaires with ice and rock type. (Cryogonal as ice/crystal or purely crystal type, Gigalith as rock/crystal type).

    love type - could be the type of many Pokemons associated with love (Luvdisc as water/love), sensuality (Jinx as Ice/Love type) or happiness (Chansey's line).

    arachnid type - For instance, Ariados, Spinarak, Skorupi would become arachnic/poison type. Arachnid is super effective on bug, as arachnids eat bugs. Galvantula/Joltik would become Arachnid/Electric

    mystic type - exclusive to Unown. Totally neutral (no weakness, no resistances, no imunnities and causes normal damage against all the other type). Then Unown wouldn't worry to cover weakness, as currently it cannot cover its weakness to dark, ghost and bug foes. It could be also the type of Arceus, a God normally wouldn't have any weakness (being normal type gives him disadvantage to fighting type).

    robot type - for Pokemons that are in fact robot (Metagross) or artificial (Porygon).

    bird type - bird for every pokemon that is really a bird, and flying for the ones that can fly. Then, Pidgeotto was going to be Bird/Flying and Doduo purely bird type.

    dino type - maybe this was indeed unnecessary. It could be a secondary type for fossils instead rock type. Humm, it could be renamed as fossil type.

    mud type - Pokemons that are related to both land and aquatic enviroments. Share similarities with ground and water type.

    Hey guys, don't take this list so seriously. I just imagined them at an early age, like many of you have already imagined several things. I just shared that with you for entertainment. The series doesn't need new types.
    Last edited by Pogaymon; 22nd January 2013 at 7:16 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Some mountain in kanto
    Posts
    1,182

    Default

    I don't think we have enough types.
    The Pokemon tcg info thread//for NEW PLAYER'S!!!
    I claimed magnemite, mawaru penguindrum, and more(eventually).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Humilau City
    Posts
    97

    Default

    I don't think any types need to be removed. I'm always open to introducing new types, though. I don't have anything in mind, nor am I advocating it, but I just wouldn't have a problem.
    Mortals will face the wrath of my RAYQUAZAR BEAM
    Proud to be a GreySkyShipper

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    If you present me with a good handful of types then to an extent, yes. Just look at Fire Emblem: sword, axe, spear; each resisting the one that are weak to their attacks.
        Spoiler:- 3DS friend-code:

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Russia,Moscow
    Posts
    52

    Default

    The only type I consider obsolete is Ice, so in my pokeverse it's a "pseudotype"    Spoiler:- {UNNESESSARY INFO}:
    {/UNNESESSARY INFO}
    I absolutely LOVE Raichu.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Eh. I kind of do dislike that rock/ground are two separate types. Yes one is useless against flying and one is super effective (and I think ice is good against rock and weak to ground or vise versa) but I think for them to have made that distinction in the first place is silly.

    Also why is there a bug type. (This has probably been addressed by someone already but I don't have time to read the whole topic at present). There's no bird type (no, NOT flying because no all flying Pokemon are birds) there's no mammal type, no fish type. There is a grass type though, but I think that makes much more sense (I have my reasons, I just can't really explain it). Though I think it should have been called "plant" not grass. The only one I can think of that resembles actual grass is Oddish's leaves. But obviously Oddish itself is more like a radish or something. But I digress.

    Edit: Oh, and dragon types too. Yeah, they're wicked but.. half them aren't even dragons. So it's not a literal type. And from an elemental perspective I just have no idea what it's supposed to be at all.


    3ds Friend Code: 3480-3956-6165
    In Safari: Onix, Dwebble, Barbaracle (Rock Types)
    Currently looking for HA Bulbasaur and Chespin family members. Please message if you want to add me.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Goldenrod City
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IndigoAir View Post
    Eh. I kind of do dislike that rock/ground are two separate types. Yes one is useless against flying and one is super effective (and I think ice is good against rock and weak to ground or vise versa) but I think for them to have made that distinction in the first place is silly.

    Also why is there a bug type. (This has probably been addressed by someone already but I don't have time to read the whole topic at present). There's no bird type (no, NOT flying because no all flying Pokemon are birds) there's no mammal type, no fish type. There is a grass type though, but I think that makes much more sense (I have my reasons, I just can't really explain it). Though I think it should have been called "plant" not grass. The only one I can think of that resembles actual grass is Oddish's leaves. But obviously Oddish itself is more like a radish or something. But I digress.

    Edit: Oh, and dragon types too. Yeah, they're wicked but.. half them aren't even dragons. So it's not a literal type. And from an elemental perspective I just have no idea what it's supposed to be at all.

    I think you are taking the typings way to literal. I mean take flying type for example. It includes birds, as well as bats, some dragons, some bugs, among others, so we don't really need a bird type. It's just the way things are categorized with out making it to complex. I like the types how they are.
    Last edited by Raiin; 22nd January 2013 at 10:29 PM.

    3DS FC: 4313-0937-1327
    Friend Safari: Ghost; Lampent, Gourgheist, and IDk yet
    Nintendo Network: Raiin3


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    207

    Default

    I'm not the happiest with the matchups (normal moves should be super effective against a couple types, for instance.), the number of types is fine.
    Currently Residing in the orange islands.

    Fire is the key to life.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Who knows?
    Posts
    217

    Default

    I'm perfectly fine with the types we have already, and I don't think they need to add any on. Especially a Light type, I swear I will hurt someone if they make a Light type. WE DON'T NEED A LIGHT TYPE. WE HAVE PSYCHIC TYPE FOR THAT.
    Last edited by NightmareHybrid; 22nd January 2013 at 11:09 PM.

    Name: Specter
    Adopt one yourself! @Pokémon Orphanage

    My signature is so empty now.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Yes
    Posts
    1,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NightmareHybrid View Post
    I'm perfectly fine with the types we have already, and I don't think they need to add any on. Especially a Light type, I swear I will hurt someone if they make a Light type. WE DON"T NEED A LIGHT TYPE. WE HAVE PSYCHIC TYPE FOR THAT.
    I agree! The type chart is really good right now, and if anything, we should beef up the types that need it instead of neglecting them just to add a new type.
    even if we don't understand each other, that's not a reason to reject each other. There are two sides to any argument. Is there one point of view that has all the answers? Give it some thought.
    ^ This is the reason why I like arguing. If I come off as standoffish or overly angry in an argument, don't worry. I'm probably having the time of my life. Whether I agree with them or not, the pokemon fandom has a lot of different opinions, and I love how nobody is afraid to share them.


  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Mexico
    Posts
    203

    Default

    The types have been so good, we don't need something new, It had working well, I wouldn't mess up.
    Lucario: Master of Aura...... and Chocolate!



    FC(Pokemon Y): 4313-1362-5177

  20. #20

    Default

    I wouldn't change it now, but if Pokemon started over completely from scratch then they could probably remove a couple types. Ice, Ghost, and Rock would probably be the easiest.

    The bug type could probably be next. It works differently than all the other types. We don't have a dog type that Arcanine, Mightyena, and Houndour are, so why do all the bugs get a type?
    Black: Keegan - 4127 4040 9358

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    228

    Default

    I just sort of wish this thread was on /vp/, so I could give it the response it really deserves.

    Suffice to say - no, I don't think any of the types are "unnecessary" (or at least no more "unnecessary" than the entire game) and no, Rock and Ground are NOTHING alike.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Arizona Bay
    Posts
    471

    Default

    If anything, I expect GameFreak to add more types than remove them; however slim that chance is.

    The types are good as it is, but new ones wouldn't bother me.
    Nothing interesting here. Carry on.
    Author's Profile

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Youtube
    Posts
    1,343

    Default

    All of the types are good and need not be revoked from the chart entirely. Ground and Rock aren't the same thing, and they have different weaknesses to each other.
    And you questioned my sanity. My Anime List

    Quote Originally Posted by Excitable Boy View Post
    if Arceus is the Alpha Pokemon

    wouldn't Mega Arceus be

    the O-Mega Pokemon

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ohio... Lets not talk about it
    Posts
    111

    Default

    No I think they are all fine.

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Autis-misc View Post
    All of the types are good and need not be revoked from the chart entirely. Ground and Rock aren't the same thing, and they have different weaknesses to each other.
    Just because they're different now doesn't mean that they're both necessary. There could theoretically be a ground type, rock type, dirt type, earth type, and sand type. They could theoretically all have distinct weaknesses and strengths. This would not justify having all of them in the game.
    Black: Keegan - 4127 4040 9358

Page 1 of 5 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
  •