Unpopular opinions

"All types are not equal" isn't a mistake, it's a feature, and that's what makes types flavorful from a worldbuilding and in-universe perspective, as well as a gameplay design perspective.

Different types are intentionally not equal because they have different roles to play from a gameplay standpoint in addition to their flavor standpoint. Bug-type is a weak type because it's basically an introductory type, it's an early game type and its classical members are the likes of Caterpie and Weedle and their derivatives. Small insects who in many cases undergo the metamorphosis process from larva->pupa->imago very quickly thanks to low evolution levels and act as early game crutches, being relatively strong early on but quickly falling off to be replaced by better Pokemon later on so you make room for Pokemon introduced later in the game. Bugs are a fairly intuitive "early game" type of Pokemon as insects are commonplace in our world and the metamorphosis process is very intuitive to a kid, and they interact with the three starter types in intuitive ways (and Flying, another early type, has an advantage against it, because of the classic "birds eat bugs" thing). It's an ideal early type and is weak as a result of that.

Meanwhile types like Dragon, Steel, and Fairy are more powerful because they are later game types, and conceptually are less intuitive and more abstract, with Dragon covering a very abstract concept and gameplay wise resists all three starter types and is only weak to itself, Ice (a late type), and later on Fairy. You get the drill.

It not only makes it more satisfying to use different types as per their flavor, like winning with Bugs, but it makes any newly introduced Pokemon who deviates from the traditional mold a type has established for itself stand out that much more. Bug has traditionally been a weaker type with weak Pokemon, but then you have something like Volcarona, a very powerful late-game Pokemon who is a Bug-type. Volcarona is standout and memorable to people because it combines being a Bug-type with being an exceptional and unique late-game powerhouse. In general many of Gen 5's Bugs are great, Scolipede, Durant, Galvantula, etc. which helps make them all really stand out: because they're Bug-types that are powerful. And they have more standout designs to boot. Or in the case of Dragons, which are traditionally associated with legendaries and pseudos, then you get to something like Druddigon or the Applin line or Turtonator+Drampa. They're dragons, but statistically less impressive and very average Pokemon, and even in terms of design and lore they are comparatively unremarkable in every aspect. A Dragon-type that isn't particularly powerful or impressive stands out because they're so, well, boring and average, in a type filled with exotic and powerful designs.

The fact that types are of different strengths relative to each other, and the fact they are often used and distributed in-game in different ways, makes them flavorful and more interesting in that regard.
 
While it is fair to give each type their own flavor, it doesn‘t stop Rock and Ice Pokémom to suffer because of the blatant mismatch Game Freak insisted so often despite being detrimental for so many slower Pokémon in both in-game and most competitive scenes.

Both types, at the moment, are best suited for all-out offensive with no important resistances, since both are pretty good offensive types in their own right. However, in practice, it resulted these two types becoming too rigid to the point that it makes offense-oriented Pokémon the only way to make them viable in the long run without resorting to overpowered defensive Abilities. Even the more offense-oriented Dragon have important resistances in Water, Fire and Electric.

Rock‘s important resistances are Fire and Flying, and also Normal and Poison as less signficant but still notable resistances. Those are dandy and all, but the issue comes from having five whopping weaknesses, four of which are Grass, Water, Fighting and Ground, the latter three being potent offensive types. The fifth weakness is Steel, which not only resists Normal and Flying, but is immune to Poison. And yet, a vast majority of standard Rock-type Pokémon are around 70 Speed or lower. As a result, the type’s only main perk is Stealth Rock, and even then that move is widely distributed than just kept for just Rock-type. While a lot of attacking Rock moves may be a flavor standpoint, it also means far less consistency for STAB.

As a result, not a lot of slow Rock Pokémon has managed to make a name, even with Sandstorm’s boost to the Special Defense of Rock-type Pokémon. The only exceptions are Tyranitar and Garganacl, the latter only because of obnoxiously good signatures and benefitting Terastalization a lot.

Ice may have better offensive profile compared to Rock, but have by far the worst defensive matchup. Having only itself as resistance may not sound too bad on a vacuum, but then it is weak to Fire, Fighting and Rock, all of which happens to be very good offensive types. The fourth weakness is, again, Steel, which while not a good offensive type on it’s own, just adds another issue to the pile of weaknesses. Even Normal didn’t suffered as much due to only having one weakness in Fighting.

It wouldn’t be so bad if so many Ice-type Pokémon aren’t slow. And most standard Ice-type Pokémon that have 100 base Speed or higher doesn’t hit hard enough to be notable, with Alolan Ninetales and Weavile being the only exceptions. It does not help that Slush Rush Pokémon aren’t consistent due to how little Hail or Snow offered compared to other weathers. Aurora Veil and Snow’s Defense buff for Ice-type Pokémon feels overly compensating than anything else, because at the time of Gen 7, the damage is already done. And we already know that Ice can be prove game-breakingly good if used well offensively, as shown with Weavile, and especially Chien-Pao and Iron Bundle.

Flavor worked on other types because they don’t have too many weaknesses or too little resistances to the point of allowing for some flexibility and make it work, so even a more defensive Fighting-type can work with the right secondary type, stats, Abilities and moves. Rock and Ice Pokémon doesn’t have the same luck because of such an atrocious defensive profile, and as a result, the only way to make them viable without super good Abilities is to make them fast and hard-hitting… which can make things boring pretty quickly for these two types just as fast as making them slow that struggle to make the most of their own type.
 
ScraftyIsTheBest said:
Meanwhile types like Dragon, Steel, and Fairy are more powerful because they are later game types, and conceptually are less intuitive and more abstract, with Dragon covering a very abstract concept and gameplay wise resists all three starter types and is only weak to itself, Ice (a late type), and later on Fairy. You get the drill.
Click to expand...
I actually think there should be more focus on early-game Dragon types because it resists all starter types. It made sense to have Rock as a first gym type because it resists the default Normal attacks, thus pushing new players to explore coverage options. However, later generations have given starters STAB at the outset, so I think those should be looked at as the 'default attack' now. Dragon could fill this role potentially better than Rock used to because it doesn't threaten SE damage on any starter either (giving more time for new players to figure out what's going on before losing).
 
i just don't agree with "the type table being naturally unbalanced adds flavour" because all of those arguments can just easily be applied to the pokémon themselves. i do think some mons should be naturally weaker and others naturally stronger; that's why we have early game mons and legendary mons. but an entire type being supposed to be worse? having even its stronger late game members suffer from having it? imo that's not good game design and none of the arguments on this page convinced me, and tera really showcased this imbalance.
 
(This kinda responds to Sam's post, kinda is just my own unpopular opinions that kinda relate.)

Slow Ices and Rocks suffering is based. I'm super down for some Pokemon being bad, super down for some Pokemon being suboptimal, and super down for this resulting from polarized archetypes (or just 'types' in this context, ha, see what I did there? I'm so smart) that have good reason to be polarized (having a body made of ice seems pretty polarizing in the context of monsters fighting monsters, wow, I'm on a roll) and don't make the metagame miserable.

When the discussion comes around to buffing types, my focus is on the identity types can or should have, and how buffs play into their strengths and weaknesses. I want 18 types that are fun and have a reason to exist (not necessarily "that are good", see Scrafty's post - this post was made before Axie's and I may respond to it eventually). If type alone isn't enough for a Pokemon to be fun and have a reason to exist (again, not necessarily "to be good"), that's where I'd throw in fun moves and/or abilities.

For an example, Ice is a glass cannon type, so I'd buff it through attacks. People complain that the offensive prowess of Ice and the high distribution of Ice Beam (and once Hidden Power Ice) make it more interesting in the hands of non-Ice Pokemon, and I agree with this complaint. "Coverage type" is a pretty bad "reason to exist" to me, I think types should make the Pokemon that actually have them more interesting too. Physical Ice move buffs (Triple Axel, Loaded Dice Icicle Spear, etc.) have done this to an extent, and I'd complement that with special move buffs. I want there to be a good special Ice-type move that is better than Ice Beam and more focused on Ice-type Pokemon in distribution, to make actually having the type more interesting: whether that'd be e.g. a retool of Blizzard or its own thing is fairly unimportant to me, conceptually.

Similarly, Psychic is struggling to find a competitive reason to exist. I'd lean on its Gen1 identity as an offensive powerhouse, putting Psychic (the move) to at least 100 BP and/or increasing its SpD drop chance to at least 30%.
 
Axiemeister said:
i just don't agree with "the type table being naturally unbalanced adds flavour" because all of those arguments can just easily be applied to the pokémon themselves. i do think some mons should be naturally weaker and others naturally stronger; that's why we have early game mons and legendary mons. but an entire type being supposed to be worse? having even its stronger late game members suffer from having it? imo that's not good game design and none of the arguments on this page convinced me, and tera really showcased this imbalance.
Click to expand...
Ok my dear sir, I am listening, how exactly do you plan to make 18 types *exactly identical*?
Are you really asking pokemon to just become checkers?

Or you would rather have... rock paper lizard spock?

If all types were "equal number" in what they resist/weak, then at that point types themselves don't have any real distinguishing factor.
 
Adeleine said:
Similarly, Psychic is struggling to find a competitive reason to exist. I'd lean on its Gen1 identity as an offensive powerhouse, putting Psychic (the move) to at least 100 BP and/or increasing its SpD drop chance to at least 30%.
Click to expand...
as a psychic type fan, please literally just make us neutral to steel

like holy shit dude we have a theme of bending metal spoons, we do not need to be resisted by the best type in the game. Then there is 20,000 Dark Types, and the offensive prowess is fucking mid. SE against Fighting Types which have Knock Off and U-Turn, and Poison. Poison is interesting but then a lot of Poison types have dualtypes that make it not matter.
 
Samtendo09 said:
snip
Click to expand...

This is still because TPC mostly do slow and defensive pokémon for these types with rock having abysmal sp. def too, grass is worse than both offensively and defensively but it has more varied pokémon. My take is that rock and ice are mid types, their great offense are hampered by their awful defenses and the worst type is Psychic.

The type chart is fine, a perfectly balanced one wouldn't work because different types have different trends in stat distribution, even if dragon and bug had the exactly same resistances and super effectiveness, dragon still would be better because it has more powerful pokémon. The only changes I would make is making fairy doesn't resist bug and making rock weak to ice.
 
Last edited:
ScraftyIsTheBest said:
"All types are not equal" isn't a mistake, it's a feature, and that's what makes types flavorful from a worldbuilding and in-universe perspective, as well as a gameplay design perspective.

Different types are intentionally not equal because they have different roles to play from a gameplay standpoint in addition to their flavor standpoint. Bug-type is a weak type because it's basically an introductory type, it's an early game type and its classical members are the likes of Caterpie and Weedle and their derivatives. Small insects who in many cases undergo the metamorphosis process from larva->pupa->imago very quickly thanks to low evolution levels and act as early game crutches, being relatively strong early on but quickly falling off to be replaced by better Pokemon later on so you make room for Pokemon introduced later in the game. Bugs are a fairly intuitive "early game" type of Pokemon as insects are commonplace in our world and the metamorphosis process is very intuitive to a kid, and they interact with the three starter types in intuitive ways (and Flying, another early type, has an advantage against it, because of the classic "birds eat bugs" thing). It's an ideal early type and is weak as a result of that.

Meanwhile types like Dragon, Steel, and Fairy are more powerful because they are later game types, and conceptually are less intuitive and more abstract, with Dragon covering a very abstract concept and gameplay wise resists all three starter types and is only weak to itself, Ice (a late type), and later on Fairy. You get the drill.

It not only makes it more satisfying to use different types as per their flavor, like winning with Bugs, but it makes any newly introduced Pokemon who deviates from the traditional mold a type has established for itself stand out that much more. Bug has traditionally been a weaker type with weak Pokemon, but then you have something like Volcarona, a very powerful late-game Pokemon who is a Bug-type. Volcarona is standout and memorable to people because it combines being a Bug-type with being an exceptional and unique late-game powerhouse. In general many of Gen 5's Bugs are great, Scolipede, Durant, Galvantula, etc. which helps make them all really stand out: because they're Bug-types that are powerful. And they have more standout designs to boot. Or in the case of Dragons, which are traditionally associated with legendaries and pseudos, then you get to something like Druddigon or the Applin line or Turtonator+Drampa. They're dragons, but statistically less impressive and very average Pokemon, and even in terms of design and lore they are comparatively unremarkable in every aspect. A Dragon-type that isn't particularly powerful or impressive stands out because they're so, well, boring and average, in a type filled with exotic and powerful designs.

The fact that types are of different strengths relative to each other, and the fact they are often used and distributed in-game in different ways, makes them flavorful and more interesting in that regard.
Click to expand...
My only contention is that this is true in theory much moreso than in practice. You have a decent point with something like Bug being early game, but if the Mons themselves are already designed in a way that lets them fall off, why cripple the type itself on top of that with resistances from Fairy, Poison, and Ghost, which seem like the types you wouldn't run into until past the point Early-Bugs would be phased out anyway? This is one example where I think the Mon design is at odds with the Type Chart, alongside the previously mentioned grievances with Rock and Ice getting bulky slow mons despite their terrible defensive traits.

I would also contest Fairy being a Lategame type, at least in the way you attribute to Steel and especially Dragon. Since their introduction in Gen 6 (where I'll give some leeway in this case for retroactive mons like ORAS Ralts and early-game availability to show off like Florges), Fairies typically are attached to Pokemon the game doesn't really seem troubled to give you early on (which in my book is when the Wild Pokemon Range is ~mid-Teens and thus probably after 2-3 Gyms) like Milcery in Galar Route 4, Tinkatink in Paldea South Providence, or Cutiefly on Alola as early as Route 2. Fairy has plenty of species so it can scale with the progression curve, but the Type profile itself is available pretty early in adventures it exists in while being significantly better than other early game types like Bug, being more akin to Flying which is a consistent type that similarly scales by giving better Flying Types as you go or evolve into them.

I think Fairy manages to work this way for in-game purposes (again my grievances usually being Competitively framed) because its advantages aren't the kind that overwhelm the game (like having huge powerful moves relatively early like Gen 4 Staraptor or Flamigo's TM access to Close Combat and Brave Bird late game, Aerial Ace as early as Cortondo) so much as work as a generalist into everything without major shortcomings (Fairy does easy Neutral alongside common-main-game types like Fire or Ground), so it's hard to find a story fight where a Fairy Pokemon has no contribution to make and induce team creep the way it happens with Bugs for example. That's I think the type's main strength (for better or worse) in most contexts: It takes-away very little even if it adds little in turn, compared to Rock and Ice coming with the trade off of "Strong STAB typing, but very bad defensive profile."

tl;dr the Type chart being "unbalanced" makes sense but Gamefreak feels bad at doing Monster design that meshes with it.

That leads me to something else I wanna then mention: Ice is a type that is fundamentally broken in any context harder than the main game where difficulty is mostly a suggestion. Ice types we get for competitive seem to have 3 categories: absolute junk (usually slow tanky things that are undercut by weaknesses), okay-but-with-something-disproportionaly-strong (like Aurora Veil on ATales), or absolutely busted relative to their peers (Baxcalibur, Chien-Pao, Gen 8 Weavile, Iron Bundle). The type is so polarized (pun intended, cowards) that it's almost impossible to play to its strengths without making is disproportionately powerful but trying to give it a "balance" yields something mid because of how intrinsic those weaknesses are. The only relatively "normal" Ice types I can immediately think of are Mamoswime, Frosslass, and maybe Abomasnow for in-game. Some Pokemon like Lapras meet halfway but I think they're heavily buoyed by their secondary typing (Water covers/reduces most of Ice's weaknesses for example).
 
Blue glass said:
The type chart is fine, a perfectly balanced one wouldn't work because different types have different trends in stat distribution, even if dragon and bug had the exactly same resistances and super effectiveness, dragon still would be better because it has more powerful pokémon.
Click to expand...
but this is fine! what isn't fine is that a mon with the exact same stats, moves and abilities becomes notably better/worse simply by changing its typing. we already knew to an extent that this was the case with the rotom formes and some of the regional forms, but terastallization really drove that point home. it's good that bug is a type mostly inhabited by early game mons, it's bad that bug typing actively brings down late game mons. volcarona is a tera monster for exactly that reason.
 
Axiemeister said:
but this is fine! what isn't fine is that a mon with the exact same stats, moves and abilities becomes notably better/worse simply by changing its typing. we already knew to an extent that this was the case with the rotom formes and some of the regional forms, but terastallization really drove that point home. it's good that bug is a type mostly inhabited by early game mons, it's bad that bug typing actively brings down late game mons. volcarona is a tera monster for exactly that reason.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if a pokémon was only its typing but stats and abilities also are very important components so the negative traits that a type has can be fixed. They are all knobs that make a pokémon stronger or weaker and because of that it doesn't bother me that the type chart is unbalanced like it doesn't bother me that pokémon have different stats or that abilities have different power levels. Would Volcarona even be made if bug wasn't such a bad typing?
 
Blue glass said:
I would agree with you if a pokémon was only its typing but stats and abilities also are very important components so the negative traits that a type has can be fixed. They are all knobs that make a pokémon stronger or weaker and because of that it doesn't bother me that the type chart is unbalanced like it doesn't bother me that pokémon have different stats or that abilities have different power levels. Would Volcarona even be made if bug wasn't such a bad typing?
Click to expand...
i guess we'll have to agree to disagree because yes, volcarona was made the way it was because bug is a bad type, and i don't like that kind of design. it removes possibilities rather than add them.
 
Bakugames said:
I think the bug type should be removed because then we can have like 10+ insect lines in a single game without worrying about too many bug types. i think every pokedex should be 40% arthropods and invertebrates
Click to expand...
Remember that the Bug-type itself isn't required for an arthropod frame: many crustaceans are Water and you can always have something with two other types that overshadow the body shape (e.g. Drapion or Flygon). The only thing that stops GF from kicking out all of the mammals is cowardice.
 
Ironmage said:
Remember that the Bug-type itself isn't required for an arthropod frame: many crustaceans are Water and you can always have something with two other types that overshadow the body shape (e.g. Drapion or Flygon). The only thing that stops GF from kicking out all of the mammals is cowardice.
Click to expand...
DrPumpkinz said:
There's no such thing as too many Bug-types. Why stop at 40%?
Click to expand...

finally, people who see my vision for the future of this franchise
 
I feel the biggest issue is the archaic attempt of RPG archetypes in just...discarding members if worthless

For a franchise that encourages team building and friendship, you'd think auto discarding a member would mean more, but the type chart and nowadays very bad late game powercreep aren't helping

Gen 1 dev was turbulent cuz GF went from "standard RPG" the first few years to "uhh, what the fuck do we do with these types?" The game balance got fucked

We have Onix setup as a standard boss 1st Gym cuz of the old mentality, only to straight up suck ass later cuz special weaknesses were too crippling. Pidgeot was meant to be a psuedo starter to grow up alongside actual starters, but fails cuz Dodrio and Fearow are just better, and flying type was such a late addition there were barely any options for moves compared to starters. Many late game mons are a mix of shit (Pinsir), good (Gengar despite moves, Alakazam), good if not for ass movepool (Dragonite)

Similarly, the Exp groups are very questionable. Why have them if you're varying Evo level to begin with!? Raising an already mediocre Dragonite is a hassle

Likewise, GF not having a proper EXP share for the whole team like any other RPG for many gens heavily pushed the >only fucking leveling up the starter to solo everything mentality, and made training others undesirable. Of course now they are barely getting used to exp share so difficulty is wack, but still

Ice not having many resistances is even dumber given it's still lategame. Where even for the archaic standard, it being that frail doesn't make sense. It's due to poor options the first few Gens it wasn't terrible (Fighting types Gen 1 LMAO, Fire not resisting Ice Gen 1), but then 4 on made it very very shitty for an ice type to not be a glass cannon

It's funny cuz if GF buffed ice defensively type wise, it might've prevented the dragon spam of late 4/5

Tangently, the rise of Fairy meant Psychic and Flying no longer were the goto answers to Fighting spam

It's a mess, but I overall disagree with the rigid rpg standard still affecting type access. It's also limiting for where you start in a region (because contrary to what Gen 4 attempted in being snowy, it only had 2 new ice types introduced, 4 others as a crossevo that were obnoxious to get)
 
pika pal said:
The only relatively "normal" Ice types I can immediately think of are Mamoswime, Frosslass, and maybe Abomasnow for in-game. Some Pokemon like Lapras meet halfway but I think they're heavily buoyed by their secondary typing (Water covers/reduces most of Ice's weaknesses for example).
Click to expand...
I think there's plenty of normal Ice-types. Jynx, Cloyster, Aurorus, Cetitan, Frosmoth, Arctozolt, Sandslash-Alola, Crabominable, modern Vanilluxe, and modern Weavile, alongside those you mentioned. Each of these can do well in some lower tier (or adequately in some tier above ZU), and they all benefit from Ice offensively.
 
Sonikku A said:
I feel the biggest issue is the archaic attempt of RPG archetypes in just...discarding members if worthless

For a franchise that encourages team building and friendship, you'd think auto discarding a member would mean more, but the type chart and nowadays very bad late game powercreep aren't helping
Click to expand...
Have the games ever made a big deal about discarding your pokemon?

sure, the anime makes a big deal about how your pokemon are your partners and the emotional bond between yada, yada yada, but the games still have under powered pokemon clearly meant to be replaced by newer members
then again, weak with late availability pokemon like Heatmor exist so :mehowth:
 
Rapti said:
Have the games ever made a big deal about discarding your pokemon?

sure, the anime makes a big deal about how your pokemon are your partners and the emotional bond between yada, yada yada, but the games still have under powered pokemon clearly meant to be replaced by newer members
then again, weak with late availability pokemon like Heatmor exist so :mehowth:
Click to expand...

Don’t you dare badmouth Heatmor.
 
Johto Lance is still the worst Champion.

I get why people complain about Geeta and Diantha, but even them feel more memorable to me than a guy who just had 3 of the same mon on a team with Hyper Beam. Like, I can tell there was at least some thought behind Geeta's team as a whole. Lance's just has always felt incredibly uninspired to me. Yeah, Dragon was a very rare type but there were other mons to give him (Tyranitar is right there). Granted, having a Dragon gym leader didn't help his options, but I still believe he's just lacking. I feel like part of that is not even having an easily distintive ace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top