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 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 125

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

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The Only Place I Know
    Posts
    225

    Default

    I love the typing. I'd love for more types to take form.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    32

    Default

    I believe that Normal is somewhat necessary, but I'm just not fond of it. I don't know, it's just too normal I guess.

    Help these dragons live, click on them.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mercay
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguinofhonor View Post
    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?
    That's pretty much exactly what I was thinking, though I'm not as convinced that Ice needs to go.

    If I were starting from the ground up, I'd be using this as the type guide (name changes intentional)


    Fire
    Electric
    Water
    Ice
    Poison
    Fighting
    Plant (formerly Grass)
    Psionic (formerly Psychic)
    Metal (formerly Steel)
    Normal (inc. Flying)
    Dark (inc. Ghost)
    Earth (merging Rock and Ground)

    Bug and Dragon would assimilate into wherever their dual type pointed them. Pure Bug or Dragon types would have to be a judgement call.

    I don't advocate the removal of any types at this point, though. I'd actually be kind of excited if they added new ones.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    44

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raiin View Post
    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.
    You may have misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying there SHOULD be a "bird" type, or that "flying" was the same as a bird type. The part in brackets was because I thought after the comment before it people might say something to effect of "There is a bird type, it's just called flying" so I was just pointing out that not all flying Pokemon are birds. My point was that it doesn't make sense to have a bug type because all the other types are based off of elements, not what real-world animals the Pokemon resemble.
    Also the part about Oddish looking like a radish, I was just saying it would have made more sense for them to call it Plant type than Grass type. Calling it "grass" is kind of strangely specific. Just like bugs wouldn't necessarily be their own element apart from arachnids or worms, grass would not be its own element apart from shrubs or flowers.


    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.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    785

    Default

    While some people may be against the add of new types, in a large universe of Pokemons, it would make things make more sense. The only problem on adding new types by now would be the alterations on the chart that we're used for 4 generations, and that's probably why GF didn't add any since. Adding a new type requires not only altering the chart as well as altering the type of previous Pokemons and the introducion of items as well (stat uppers, plates, gummies, gems, insenses, etc).

    In my viewpoint, the most drastic thing on adding new types is about how newbie players would see the game. For old players like most of us, it would be just a short period of adaptation, but for a new player that is introduced to Pokemon in a generation where there are 30 types, it would be some trouble for him understanding them (even the 17 I haven't memorized totally, only the ones I use most). As said in the previous text, new types would also introduce new items, and because the item collection would get bigger, newbie players got more chances to give up on the game early.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zubeon View Post
    Earth (merging Rock and Ground)
    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.
    For those that think ground and rock are pratically the same, they have some differences besides type chart. Rock Pokemons are generally made of rock (Geodude, Nosepass), got some kind of hard shell (Shuckle, Magcargo) or are from fossils (Omanyte, Kabuto, else). Ground Pokemons live in similar enviroment of rock Pokemons, but they aren't made of rock nor got any mineral armor on body (Sandshrew, Hippopotas, Gligar, for example). Can you imagine Sandshrew being purely rock type? Can you imagine Geodude being purely ground type? I think it's quite hard to imagine that.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Mercay
    Posts
    413

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystical Jackal View Post
    While some people may be against the add of new types, in a large universe of Pokemons, it would make things make more sense. The only problem on adding new types by now would be the alterations on the chart that we're used for 4 generations, and that's probably why GF didn't add any since. Adding a new type requires not only altering the chart as well as altering the type of previous Pokemons and the introducion of items as well (stat uppers, plates, gummies, gems, insenses, etc).

    In my viewpoint, the most drastic thing on adding new types is about how newbie players would see the game. For old players like most of us, it would be just a short period of adaptation, but for a new player that is introduced to Pokemon in a generation where there are 30 types, it would be some trouble for him understanding them (even the 17 I haven't memorized totally, only the ones I use most). As said in the previous text, new types would also introduce new items, and because the item collection would get bigger, newbie players got more chances to give up on the game early.




    For those that think ground and rock are pratically the same, they have some differences besides type chart. Rock Pokemons are generally made of rock (Geodude, Nosepass), got some kind of hard shell (Shuckle, Magcargo) or are from fossils (Omanyte, Kabuto, else). Ground Pokemons live in similar enviroment of rock Pokemons, but they aren't made of rock nor got any mineral armor on body (Sandshrew, Hippopotas, Gligar, for example). Can you imagine Sandshrew being purely rock type? Can you imagine Geodude being purely ground type? I think it's quite hard to imagine that.
    I don't think Rock and Ground are the same. I just think they have enough in common to have potentially been one type, in the broader conception of 'earth' as an element.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Sometime pokemon is interesting...sometimes not.....should add some ineteresting stuffs

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Goldenrod City
    Posts
    66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IndigoAir View Post
    You may have misunderstood what I said. I wasn't saying there SHOULD be a "bird" type, or that "flying" was the same as a bird type. The part in brackets was because I thought after the comment before it people might say something to effect of "There is a bird type, it's just called flying" so I was just pointing out that not all flying Pokemon are birds. My point was that it doesn't make sense to have a bug type because all the other types are based off of elements, not what real-world animals the Pokemon resemble.
    Also the part about Oddish looking like a radish, I was just saying it would have made more sense for them to call it Plant type than Grass type. Calling it "grass" is kind of strangely specific. Just like bugs wouldn't necessarily be their own element apart from arachnids or worms, grass would not be its own element apart from shrubs or flowers.
    Ah I get what you're saying now.

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


  9. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NW England
    Posts
    6,138

    Default

    Technically, this is unannounced game Speculation so I can shut it.

    There have been a one or two side games where types where missing. And that confused me a bit.




    Since this thread, was shut on a weak technicality, I've reconsidered my stance after some consultation.

    However many similar threads have been shut due to a Flaming.
    Writing LJ Twitter Raptr


    MikeSharpeWriter.com -Project Elfish Jarate

    3DS - 3007 - 8991 - 4413 (VM/PM me to add you)

  10. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystical Jackal View Post
    For those that think ground and rock are pratically the same, they have some differences besides type chart. Rock Pokemons are generally made of rock (Geodude, Nosepass), got some kind of hard shell (Shuckle, Magcargo) or are from fossils (Omanyte, Kabuto, else). Ground Pokemons live in similar enviroment of rock Pokemons, but they aren't made of rock nor got any mineral armor on body (Sandshrew, Hippopotas, Gligar, for example). Can you imagine Sandshrew being purely rock type? Can you imagine Geodude being purely ground type? I think it's quite hard to imagine that.
    I get that, but I don't think an entire type split is necessary.

    If you look at other types there are similar splits. There are ice types that are made of ice (Glalie, Cryogonal) and then ice types that are just Pokemon that inhabit icy areas (Mamoswine, Walrein). By the rock/ground example, we could split them along these lines into two types.

    But I think the simpler solution is just having one type with different kinds of Pokemon in it. If Cryogonal and Mamoswine can be in the same category, so can Geodude and Sandshrew.
    Black: Keegan - 4127 4040 9358

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Smelling the cat food
    Posts
    9,234

    Default

    Mamoswine's tusks are made of ice. Walrein's tusks are used specifically to break ice, and its signature move is Ice Ball.

    How is, say, Panpour related to ice in any way?

    Quote Originally Posted by penguinofhonor View Post
    If Cryogonal and Mamoswine can be in the same category, so can Geodude and Sandshrew.
    Geodude and Sandshrew are both Ground-types.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The United States of Kingdom
    Posts
    5,417

    Default

    Well in terms of the actual types themselves, yeah, some are sketchy, and if they'd made the typings different, we'd all take that as face value instead. We'd accept whatever typings they came up with. But regardless of what the types actually are, it's the fact that they're arranged into what is largely a succesful balance of strength and weaknesses that makes us so accepting of them.

    Having said that, Bug, Dragon, and maybe Ghost, are weird in that they aren't really an element or main attribute so to speak, but refer to what sort of animal they actually are, which is a bit strange. Not saying 'omg they shuldnt exist', it's just a bit odd. But obviously I'm perfectly fine with it.

    In terms of new types, we can all throw around potential ideas, but the one type that I think could and perhaps should exist is something like the 'Synthetic' or 'Abnormal' type, for things like Ditto and Porygon, because how exactly are DNA transforming creatures and a synthetic Pokemon that can travel through cyberspace 'Normal' in any way?
    My Youtube Gaming Channel
    (There's Pokemon!)


    Pokemon Y Tag Team Wonderlocke
    Pokemon are put in teams of three, the first Pokemon obtained of the three is the captain.
    Only switching between members of your team.
    If the captain faints or the other two team members faint, the whole team is released.

    Badges: 4
    Deaths: 8

    Team Muscle Mashers



    Team Hopping Mad


  13. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    55

    Default

    I wouldn't change or merge any of the existing types in the game. The Base Stat changes from Gen II to Gen III caused enough problems already. God knows how much chaos would come from modifying or merging existing types. I would rather change the type table if it was to add in new types.

    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.
    Explain how Dark is immune to Psychic if it is supposed to represent Light.
    Dark and Light are complete opposites and Light being the last major element to have been not covered properly and is spread across a wide range of often unrelated types (the closest we get are Flash Cannon and Mirror Shot from the Steel type, Morning Sun and Flash from the Normal type, Synthesis from the Grass type, Aurora Beam from the Ice type, Signal Beam from the Bug type and Psybeam from the Psychic type). The amount of differences it has from existing types (and being scattered among them) and it being largely untouched I think is enough for it to warrant a new type.
    If GameFreak were to make Light a real type and they modify existing pokemon and moves to accommodate the new type, I would hope that any pokemon being imported from the previous generation games retain their old types (this applies to any learned moves) and only change into their new Light types through some sort of mysterious event as to make the shift optional. Cressilia is an obvious example of a pokemon getting changed to the Light type while the Muskdeers and Lucario are also candidates for a change to the Light type.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,164

    Default

    I look all at the types as distinct, so no, I don't find any unnecessary. Well, actually, I guess I've questioned the uniqueness of the Normal type, although I still found it unique. For example, pokemon like Pidgeot and Fearow could just be flying types, while pokemon like Chansey and Audino could be classified as light (meaning a pokemon that was particularly nice or benevolent), assuming it was introduced. However, a pokemon like Raticate doesn't really fit into any of the other types (unless it could be interpreted as dark), so Normal type would still be required.

    As for the similarily between ice & water and rock & ground, I'd say this:

    Ice & Water: consider Cryogonal and Goldeen. One is an ice type that has nothing to do with water, while Goldeen has nothing to do with ice.

    Rock & Ground: similar to the last argument, consider Donphan and Solrock
    I'm looking for a Serperior named Serpedera. It'll be at lvl 98 or above. If you happen to have such a pokemon please PM me.

    Pretendeavors (Goals I have that don't really mean anything) Updated 10-04-13

    Voltorb Flip, Level 8 Victories: 16
    White Geonet: All countries completed!!! (130), 505 Trade Locations (of 513)
    The Last Ten: Locations
    Arunachel Pradesh, India * Dadra & Nager Hall, India * Formosa, Argentina ()
    Henan, China * Himachal Pradesh, India * Lakshadweep, India
    Lubusz, Poland * Madhya Pradesh, India * Shaanxi, China () * Sikkim, India

    Pokeathlon Pokedex: 493/493- COMPLETED!!! (01-05-13)

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penguinofhonor View Post
    I get that, but I don't think an entire type split is necessary.

    If you look at other types there are similar splits. There are ice types that are made of ice (Glalie, Cryogonal) and then ice types that are just Pokemon that inhabit icy areas (Mamoswine, Walrein). By the rock/ground example, we could split them along these lines into two types.

    But I think the simpler solution is just having one type with different kinds of Pokemon in it. If Cryogonal and Mamoswine can be in the same category, so can Geodude and Sandshrew.
    About Glalie and Cryogonal we could fix that if the "crystal" type were created, then they would be crystal/ice or purely crystal type. Just a split suggestion to split ice into ice and crystal.

    Quote Originally Posted by NightmareHybrid View Post
    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.
    You probably didn't understand the purpose of a light type nor know how to describe a psychic type to say that psychic and light are the same type. Technically, they are not.

    Psychic Pokemons have powers from their mind. They overused their brain along the years and on that way they didn't need to focus on body anymore. That is probably why most of the psychic Pokemons have low defenses and Attack (most of them, not all). Psychic Pokemon's moves are associated with the use of the mind, not with magic. They're not magical.

    Light type is so the opposite of dark. Light vanish darkness, and vice versa. Light type would be associated with goodness, purity, magic, mystic, etc. They're not light because they're intelligent, they're light because they spread good feelings, basically. Cresselia, currently psychic type, would be a light type as she is said to vanish darkness caused by Darkrai (which is a dark type).

    Many Pokemons that are associated with magic, purity, goodness, light, were given the psychic as type in spite of many of them don't use the mind to generate their powers. But as there isn't a light type, they were given the closest type to it. I have always thought on light type since Gen II, as a counterpart for dark.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Crazy Town, Land of Insanity
    Posts
    4,233

    Default

    Sigh. Because apparently nobody actually knows that the Dark pe is nonexistant, I'll say it.

    The Dark Type doesn't really exist innJapan (eg: game hat created the game) it's named the Evil type. What is opposite to Evil? Justice, which is represented by Fighting/Psychic type.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dirkac View Post
    Sigh. Because apparently nobody actually knows that the Dark pe is nonexistant, I'll say it.

    The Dark Type doesn't really exist innJapan (eg: game hat created the game) it's named the Evil type. What is opposite to Evil? Justice, which is represented by Fighting/Psychic type.
    Despite dark being "evil" in Japan, it is worldwide known as dark. As most of the people knows English instead Japanese, then "dark" becomes the most-used term to describe those Pokemons.

    Plus, the opposite of evil would be holy or saint, and Justice isn't indeed represented by any specific type (much less a double type).
    Last edited by Pogaymon; 25th January 2013 at 1:21 PM.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    The Enterprise
    Posts
    2,789

    Default

    the only type i could think of being unnecesarry, is ground (being pretty close to rock) but i dont want it gone by any means.
    #AlphaSapphire
    I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses.
    If you have a question about my religion, or wish to discuss my religion, the Bible, or anything related to this topic, feel free to PM or VM me or take a look at the information in my profile.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North east England, IT EXISTS!
    Posts
    542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystical Jackal View Post
    Despite dark being "evil" in Japan, it is worldwide known as dark. As most of the people knows English instead Japanese, then "dark" becomes the most-used term to describe those Pokemons.

    Plus, the opposite of evil would be holy or saint, and Justice isn't indeed represented by any specific type (much less a double type).
    The creators are Japanese and likely don't care about what it's known as in English. It more means Evil in that the moves that they use involve dirty tricks or causing pain (Nasty Plot, Beat Up, Bite, Foul Play and the Pokemon Zoroark) and is meant to be opposed to Fighting Type which is representing the more honourable (this is Japan remember) martial arts (Karate Chop, Sky Uppercut, Circle Throw and Pokemon like Sawk and Throh).

  20. #45
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A white Van with no windows...
    Posts
    3,767

    Default

    Lets just all go and clump types into the original TCG types

    Nature-Bug, Poison, Grass,
    Water-Water, Ice, some Dragons
    Earthen-Fighting, Rock, Ground
    Fire-Fire, Some Dragons, some Ground
    Static-Electric
    Mind-Psychic, Ghost
    Mineral-Steel,
    Night-Dark, some Ghosts
    Colorless-Dragon, Normal, Flying
    Minncinno used Substitute!Minncinno used Thunderbolt!


    Serebii.net, come for the Pokemon news, stay for the forums.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    A lighthouse near Castelia
    Posts
    164

    Default

    I wish Poison had another type it could beat (besides grass)
    But otherwise, nothing needs to be added or removed.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    785

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MetalFlygon08 View Post
    Lets just all go and clump types into the original TCG types

    Nature-Bug, Poison, Grass,
    Water-Water, Ice, some Dragons
    Earthen-Fighting, Rock, Ground
    Fire-Fire, Some Dragons, some Ground
    Static-Electric
    Mind-Psychic, Ghost
    Mineral-Steel,
    Night-Dark, some Ghosts
    Colorless-Dragon, Normal, Flying
    This is utterly one of the baddest ideas I've ever seen suggested in this forum.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Russia,Moscow
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Let's just cut it to four classic alchemical elements [fire,earth,air,water+add some 5th element like Chaos/Magic/Spirit] and call that a day XD *I've got my own mons that work like that, but even then, elements are split depending on speciality and moveset*
    I absolutely LOVE Raichu.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    I'm here but not all there
    Posts
    270

    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.
    Because otherwise the game wouldn't work. Using what you suggested, Bugs would become Normal, Ground/Earth, or even Grass! And having a Bug type makes the game more realistic and therefore simpler: bugs have thin exoskeletons, and therefore are weak to Rock Throws. They're attracted to bright lights, so they're weak to flamefire. They're eaten by birdsFlyings. Otherwise, we'd have superstrong bugs.

    And about the names: it's what comes off the tongue (in English) the easiest.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlitzBlast View Post
    YOUR DOG IS NOT A POKEMON.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flurried Rains View Post
    Female Alakazam. Oh hot damn I love a girl with a mustache.
    Quote Originally Posted by Azereus View Post
    You don't think a muscular female body builder without a shirt isn't disturbing? I guess we're all different when it comes to social norms...

  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    A white Van with no windows...
    Posts
    3,767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mystical Jackal View Post
    This is utterly one of the baddest ideas I've ever seen suggested in this forum.
    it's meant as sarcasm towards all the folks wanting to combine stuff like Water and Ice, or Ground and Rock.
    Minncinno used Substitute!Minncinno used Thunderbolt!


    Serebii.net, come for the Pokemon news, stay for the forums.

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
  •