• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Unpopular opinions

Coronis said:
Not wanting to get involved in this competitive debate cos screw competitive I like ingame but isn’t this exactly what Worldie is saying?
Click to expand...
I probably misread his point or misspoke on mine. What I was trying to say is that Zacian's min-maxed stats are good, but Fairy is why it thrives rather than simply succeeds, since Bug is nowhere close to as effective a type in general (Bug has good moves but the type itself is pretty meh to be). That is to say it would maybe be "good" but not "insane" as it was in Gen 8 and still does well in Gen 9
 
Coronis said:
Not wanting to get involved in this competitive debate cos screw competitive I like ingame but isn’t this exactly what Worldie is saying?
Click to expand...
pika pal said:
I probably misread his point or misspoke on mine. What I was trying to say is that Zacian's min-maxed stats are good, but Fairy is why it thrives rather than simply succeeds, since Bug is nowhere close to as effective a type in general (Bug has good moves but the type itself is pretty meh to be). That is to say it would maybe be "good" but not "insane" as it was in Gen 8 and still does well in Gen 9
Click to expand...
My main point in regard to stuff like Zacian or Xerneas isn't that Fairy type doesn't make them better, as I said Fairy is definitely a good type regardless, is just that it's "part of the equation". These pokemon would still be absolutely insane with a different type. Being fairy makes them *even better* obviously, but even with the worst type ever they'd still be solid mons.

The general consensus is that "Fairy type is op", and my point is, it isn't, it's just a good type, as good as some of the other top types like Steel, Water, Fire. But it's only as good as the pokemon who have that type. I pointed to Clefable to also show that even though the fairy typing is definitely part of what makes it good, the mon was discovered to be good even as mono-normal type, because like every pokemon, it's the sum of the parts that makes it strong, not just the typing.

Fairy just happens to have a large amount of minmaxed pokemon in its ranking, mostly due to it having two of the most busted cover legendaries have that type, and half of the gen 7 semi-legendaries also being part fairy. Outside of the legendaries, "op fairies" are quite scarce, because once you take out the minmaxing, it's just a generically good type with no particular perk other than blanking dragon types.
 
Got curious to check on the Tera type distribution for singles. I still definitely think this isn't an absolute measure of how good a type is since that also includes e.g. access to fancier moves than Tera Blast, but anyway. Since the standard usage dump doesn't list tera types, I instead went through the sample sets of all OU analyses (including mons that have said analyses but aren't currently in OU). Each instance is counted as a fraction of how much the total analysis recommends that type (so e.g. Heatran has two sets with only Grass and Grass or Flying, so gets counted as 0.75 for Grass and 0.25 for Flying).
1705871910769.png

1705872466659.png

1705872475222.png
Water is the highest total, though that's buoyed (heh) by an overwhelming lead on STAB tera (including Rotom-W despite that being objectively worse defensively). It's second in non-STAB rankings but not significantly above the runners-up in Ghost, Flying, and Steel. Fairy, by contrast, has very few suggestions for STAB tera but is over 1.5* more likely than Water to appear as a non-STAB option. There's also a pretty clear gap between Fairy and everything else for total incidence.

In short, the singles data for Tera types seems to be this:
1705872444837.png
Conveniently, "Fairy's effectiveness is different between singles and doubles formats" would mean that neither "it's good but not crazy (in VGC)" and "it's crazy (in singles)" needs to be invalid. (unless, of course, you feel the need to say that all doubles/singles are invalid on principle).
 
Ironmage said:
Conveniently, "Fairy's effectiveness is different between singles and doubles formats" would mean that neither "it's good but not crazy (in VGC)" and "it's crazy (in singles)" needs to be invalid. (unless, of course, you feel the need to say that all doubles/singles are invalid on principle).
Click to expand...
Fwiw, if you're not familiar for VGC, most non-stab teras there will generally be either Grass to dodge Spore/Rage Powder, Ghost (for Fake Out immunity), Fire to avoid Will-o-wisp, or just whatever reverses a 4x weakness. Fairy and Water are the "generic non-tab teras" you will see if none of the above is important simply due to both types having the best lineup of single typed resistances vs weaknesses, both at only 2 weaknesses and resisting some of the most common meta threats.
You'd expect Steel to be up there, but the prevalence of Fire types (expecially Incineroar) and Urshifu existing makes it way less desiderable.
 
while that tera type table doesn't tell the whole tale it definitely says something about how some types are inherently worse than others when imo that shouldn't happen to types. obviously it should happen to individual pokémon, and it's inevitable that some type combinations will work better than others, but the viability of a mon changing radically depending on its type, and nothing else about it changing, screams lack of balance. bug type is the best example, specially offensively - why is it even resisted by a solid half of the types that do?
 
Axiemeister said:
when imo that shouldn't happen to types
Click to expand...
Honestly speaking, I think this is the issue with the general mentality.
It *should* be like that.

Pokemon is not checkers. It's more like 99D Chess.

Let's take regular chess. In chess, the pawns once they reach the other side can turn into another piece. 99% of the time, that piece will be the Queen or Rook, very very rarely you'd see a pawn turned into a Knight or Bishop. That's because these pieces are significantly better than the other and more valuable to have.
Noone complains that Queen is much stronger than a Bishop, because that is part of how chess plays out.

Pokemon is similar, amongst the various parts, there *is* the type inequality. And despite the type inequality, every type has some kind of good perks that can make it good in the right scenario.
Take Bug. Bug type is definitely not the best, however it does hit supereffectively Grass Dark and Psychic, and the high amount of resists lets it have one of the most busted pivot moves (U-Turn), giving extra value to the pokemon that can afford to run stab U-turn. One of the main quirks of Genesect was specifically how strong its U-Turns hit.
Defensively, surprisingly, Bug type is actually much less bad than people make it, resisting ground and grass while not being weak to ice. Bug/Steel is one of the best defensive type combinations of the game, even better than Grass/Steel.

People also meme how bad ice type is defensively, that on other hand is made up by how insaney strong stab ice moves are, to the point that any time a glass cannon ice type is released, they're almost always insanely strong.

I'll echo Yung Dramps . The type chart is fine. Pokemon does *not* need type equality. The massive diversity in how types interact is one of the key components of what makes pokemon pokemon.
Plus, having arguably or situationally bad types gives more creative liberty. You can make a pokemon have insane stats and balance it out by having a terrible typing, and other way around.

We were talking about Fairy types earlier, while I still stand that it doesn't make pokemon inherently op, it isn't false that many pokemon are viable purely due to being X/fairy combined with other trait. Case in point would be Tinkaton and Klefki, two pokemon that are basically carried by their typing that gives them way more switchin opportunities that their stats would otherwise allow.
 
There is literally only one thing that makes flavor sense about the Fairy-type: Fairies hate iron. That's why Fairy being weak to Steel doesn't bother me, but the rest of it does.
 
So ignoring this type debate, what if GF makes a Psychic type move SE on ghost types, like Exorcise, functioning similar to Freeze Dry

Cuz clamoring for Pursuit to come back hurts Psychic just as much if not more than Ghosts, so why not directly buff Psychic?

Unpopular opinion, Shadow tag should trap ghosts. If you can trap the literal shadows, which ghosts are repped by, you should be able to trap ghosts. And meta wise it'd be healthier
 
Sonikku A said:
So ignoring this type debate, what if GF makes a Psychic type move SE on ghost types, like Exorcise, functioning similar to Freeze Dry

Cuz clamoring for Pursuit to come back hurts Psychic just as much if not more than Ghosts, so why not directly buff Psychic?

Unpopular opinion, Shadow tag should trap ghosts. If you can trap the literal shadows, which ghosts are repped by, you should be able to trap ghosts. And meta wise it'd be healthier
Click to expand...
Shadow Tag is trapping them by immobilizing their shadows by touching them, it's an actual game.
 
Axiemeister said:
when imo that shouldn't happen to types
Click to expand...
The truth you learn in game design is that bumpy roads are required.

Winning with Bug Types wouldn't feel so good if they weren't so weak. Neither would they be as popular, IMO. You need weaker and stronger elements to create a more rugged feel to a game's world competitively, or else everything starts feeling like the same.
 
Worldie said:
impossible)

Call me when Aromatisse is banned to Ubers for being a fairy type.
Click to expand...
In all Fairness, Aromatisse was actually a top threat in Gen 8 1v1 thanks to the unique combination of Aroma Veil and Encore + Disable, with the former preventing it from being Encore and Taunted, giving it pretty much a very good matchup against Pokémon that aren’t hitting it super effectively which isn’t a lot because Poison and Steel are terrible attacking types.
 
"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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top