Lanturn is not a dolphin it is based on deep ocean angler fish.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Pokemon Black & White, aka Gen 5. Coming to Japan in Fall 2010.
- Thread starter Firestorm
- Start date
- Status
Yea. It's based off of an angler fish but it has distinct characteristics of a dolphin. Even in the show, it sounds like a dolphin...kinda, it sounds like its laughing and that sounds like dolphin sounds. If you just look at it, it's basically a dolphin with lights on its head and a fish tail. It's also much more plump and meaty than a fish.
It's worth keeping in mind that many Pokemon share traits from multiple species of animal, and some share traits from animals that aren't even remotely similar. Lanturn is certainly more fish than Dolphin, but its nose is Dolphin like.
Funny, I always thought that was Poison.
I'd actually like Lanturn to get an evo that is more angler fish esque . . . you know, with vicious fangs and such-- though the stat spread would be so different there nintendo might be better off just making a new pokemon.
It could get an ability that increases the power of biting attacks, like Iron Fist but good (like a 50% boost) so that it could use Ice Fang and Thunder Fang well.
In water/electrics, I think it's high time we get an electric eel-- you know, one of the only real animals that actually does shock its prey to death with electricity?
It could get an ability that increases the power of biting attacks, like Iron Fist but good (like a 50% boost) so that it could use Ice Fang and Thunder Fang well.
In water/electrics, I think it's high time we get an electric eel-- you know, one of the only real animals that actually does shock its prey to death with electricity?
It's nothing like a dolphin. It doesn't have a horizontal tail fluke, streamlined body, or dorsal fin.
Guarent'D
Competitively, this is probably true. They both have the same number in OU and UU: two and three. And while Crobat is BL, Weezing, Drapion, and Toxicroak see nowhere near the usage of Blaziken, Typhlosion, Arcanine, and Moltres. But note: except for Arcanine, every relevant Fire-type is either a starter or a legendary, all the way down to NU, where the best Fire-type is still Charizard!
See, I was talking about single player, where there are only two types of games: those with Growlithe available early and those with no relevant non-starter Fire-types until the legendaries like Ho-oh and Heatran show up. Meanwhile, players can pick up Poison-types as early as the first forest and continue getting strong, relevant ones with mainstays like Tentacool and Zubat as well as newer contributors like Roselia. With Fire, you can take Chimchar, settle for the woefully-underpowered Rapidash, or just settle for playing the entire main storyline with no Fire-type. There is no reason at all for this.
I think that the beginning routes should feature a Fire/Flying type pokemon instead of the same Normal/Flying type that we get every generation. (Though I do oh so love Staraptor)
Ponyta should get its first evo at about lvl 20-30 (42 is WAAYY to late) And at level ~40 it should evolve in a Pegasus of fire!
Pegadash @ Life Orb
Flare Blitz
Brave Bird
Mega Horn
Morning Sun
Needs loads of HP through
I agree. I am so tired of people comparing Pokemon to real-world animals with some characteristics they lack!
For example, a lot of people say that Magcargo resembles a snail. Ridiculous, since it lacks eye stalks, epithelial cilia, and a downward-facing respiratory pneumostome. I have even heard some people compare Tentacruel to a jellyfish, despite the fact that it doesn't have a rhopalial lappet, a gastrovacular cavity, or any statoliths! Thank you for finally pointing this out!
You guys are trpping balls if you think Lanturn looks any more like a dolphin than any other fish.
That's true-- and Growlith always appear very late in the game, and doesn't even get flamethrower until level 35!! Plus you need fire stone to evolve it, not easy. Needless to say, it's not an ideal in-game fire type.
In HGSS there's houndour too, but houndour doesn't get flamethrower until level 43 (48 for houndoom) and doesn't evolve until level 24. Neither pokemon appears before the 3rd gym (and then is severly under-leveled) . . .
Despite this lack of fire types in game though, there's one thing I have to point out-- in terms of coverage, there's really nothing a fire type does that can't be accomplished by a water type, often times better. Except for Grass (which is shitty and is weak to ice), there's no type that fire hits that Water can't hit for at least neutral. Taking STAB boost into account, as a primary attacking type, Water completely outclasses Fire, and this effect is felt even stronger in-game.
Even on the defensive side, Water shares Fire's 3 best resistances, fire, ice and steel, and has better weaknesses (I'll take being weak to electric/grass any day over being weak to water, rock and ground).
In other words, while pokemon like Salamence and appreciate fire attacks for super effective coverage (as well as anything that truly hates scizor/forry), in terms of choosing a type to actually be . . .
Almost every fire pokemon would have been better off if it had been born a water type instead, in-game or competitively.
Seriously, take any fire type, imagine it as a water type with the same movepool (save all the fire moves water moves instead with ice moves added to its pool), and you'll see that it would be a much stronger pokemon.
Infernape? Heatran? They would be so much tougher and destructive if they had SR resistance, water type and STAB Hydro Pump instead.
Pretty much the only perk to being a fire type (over water) is Overheat, because if water had an overheat-esque attack on pokemon with decent sweeping stats, it would have a similar effect on the game as Draco Meteor due to Water's insane neutral coverage. Oh, and being immune to burn is nice, but I'd still rather be non-SR weak, especially since both types are primarily special-attacking.
. . . so, in short, if you're hard up for a fire type in-game, you could always pick up a tentacool?
I remember reading earlier in the thread someone suggesting the same Pokemon. And that Magic Guard would be a fitting ability. If it had magic guard, it would definitely be OU imo.
Surely that's Sharpedo's inevitable second ability right? Though of course there's no reason why only one Pokemon can get it.
Fixed. Assuming that said Pokemon would have at least marginally better stats than Rapidash, which is reasonable.
Well the point I was making is that both in game and competitively, you don't really need fire types to accomplish anything.
Offensively, the enemy pokemon who you need fire to defeat like Skarmory or Scizor get destroyed by fire attacks from pretty much anything, whether you have STAB or not. Other pokemon are just as easily dealt with using STAB water attacks, and as for grass types celebi, breloom and roserade are dealt with easily enough even without fire.
Defensively too, water is a superior type.
As for flavor, I actually think there should be more water pokemon than any other type-- after all, most of planet earth is covered by water, and percentage-wise only the tiniest portion of species on earth live out of water. No species on earth can exist without it period.
Since, as a children's series, it's important for pokemon to keep it's semi-educational angle, I think it's integral for them to continue making water pokemon, and if anything put even more of an emphasis (than they already have) on protecting and caring about the ocean. Don't get me wrong, this is something they have already done (been doing)-- but it's something that they need to continue from a business perspective.
You put into words quite well exactly why there are such a large number of water Pokemon. However, this also means there is a large pool of water Pokemon from previous generations to draw from. The national dex can be mostly water Pokemon, but the new Pokemon don't need to be.
I agree. In fact I am hoping there are more viable fire types, as the pool of viable fire pokemon is pathetically small. If you take away the legendaries (which i dont use in game) it gets even smaller.
Tell that to any high executive at GF and they will be laughing their asses off. While pokemon has died as a fade at one time or another for this or that generation in this or that country, pokemon has enjoyed constant success only because of it's sesame-street-like orientation to appease Japanese children.
After living in Japan too, one thing I have to say that thoroughly impresses me (from a business standpoint) is that parents here have virtually no stigma against pokemon. They don't have issues with their kids playing pokemon video games, and quite willingly take part in and support pokemon events and merchandise. This is in large part thanks to the wholesome image pokemon has strived so hard to achieve, and the family oriented "safe" reputation nintendo has worked so hard to build.
If you think being semi-educational isn't important to the pokemon business model and its continued success-- you're kidding yourself.
The real world functions on money, not coolness. Actually, I'm absolutely certain that the designers at GF care a whole lot more about the educational value and image of their characters than whether the base stats and abilities are competitive or not.
The thing about relying on old pokemon though is that it's the new pokemon that drive marketing and messaging. Therefore, GF will as of necessity, have to make new pokemon that can be used to create whatever image or send any message that they want, this includes backing their "tree-hugging" green political messages.
That doesn't necessarily mean making more ocean pokemon (after all, there's lot of aspects of nature for tree-hugging), but I don't doubt they'll give us at least one more Kabutops/Relicanth/Gastrodon (ie. some pokemon extremely like a little-known real animal just for educational value).
Actually, Fire intersects with Flying the most as far as type coverage is concerned. During first gen, there was really no reason to get a Fire type as both Fire and Flying (which you needed anyway for Fly) hit Grass and Bug, with Flying also hitting Fighting and not being resisted by Water and Dragon. Ice types were usually part Water, so the Fire weakness didn't really matter. Fire is basically there to hit Steel types.
Wouldn't that be a TentaHot? :naughty:
Meh, never mind. It sounded funnier inside my head.
I think one of the reasons there are so few fire types (and that so many of them are starters and legends) is that having them in the wild almost always requires the creation of special fire-based areas. The more mundane-looking ones like Growlithe, Ponyta, and Houndour can get by in regular grass, but all the others are out of luck. Magmar could only be found in Cinnabar's Pokemon Mansion in RBY or the Burnt Tower in GSC. The vast majority of fire types in RSE are found in the Fiery Path, Mount Chimney, or Mount Pyre.
Water Pokemon, on the other hand, are super easy - just plop them somewhere in a pond or the ocean and you're good. GF doesn't have to create special areas for them, so they can afford to make a ton.
That said, I am hopeful that Gen 5 will contain fewer water types. Gen 4 had far fewer than Gen 3, and it's likely that trend will continue. That's why I was so happy when I heard that "the cities are going to be bigger" in Black/White - even if there's nothing to do in them, it just means they'll be less room for GameFreak to put water!
Edit: @Res Ipsa: Sigged for truth.
- Status