Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type - Page 8
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 146

Thread: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

  1. #106

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    I,for one am glad that Kingdra will now have two weaknesses....
    That thing is a nightmare!
    Also if fairy is super-effective against dark,Hydreigon is pretty much screwed.....

  2. #107

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    If you're going to introduce a new type, then it has to come in a set of three or more to keep types balanced.
    Does it? No, it only needs to have a set of strengths and weaknesses, preferably forming a new RPS triangle the way Dark did with Fighting/Psychic.

    Besides, if you want to counter something, why not Spiritomb or Sableye? They have no weaknesses.
    Sableye isn't exactly a powerhouse, and Spiritomb's movepool is more limited.

    PS: In Gameplay Trailer 4 we see a Flabebe using what looks like Fairy Wind on a Litleo. Anyone want to guess its elemental relation to Fire? It's hard to make out the "thud" sound effect that indicates the damage type....
    Last edited by Stratelier; 19th June 2013 at 09:39 AM.

  3. #108
    追放されたバカ Spyspotter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Zero Isle South
    Posts
    290
    Blog Entries
    12
    Add Spyspotter on MySpace

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratelier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    If you're going to introduce a new type, then it has to come in a set of three or more to keep types balanced.
    Does it? No, it only needs to have a set of strengths and weaknesses, preferably forming a new RPS triangle the way Dark did with Fighting/Psychic.
    It doesn't need too, but if you want it to balance things out, you do.

  4. #109

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratelier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    If you're going to introduce a new type, then it has to come in a set of three or more to keep types balanced.
    Does it? No, it only needs to have a set of strengths and weaknesses, preferably forming a new RPS triangle the way Dark did with Fighting/Psychic.
    It doesn't need too, but if you want it to balance things out, you do.
    Yep, adding Steel and Dark in Gen II ruined the type chart balance because there wasn't a third. In fact, Steel and Dark are so overpowered and unbalanced that - er. . .
    Up the airy mountains / Down the rushy Glen /
    We dare not go a-hunting / For fear of Fairy-type Pokémon

  5. #110
    追放されたバカ Spyspotter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Zero Isle South
    Posts
    290
    Blog Entries
    12
    Add Spyspotter on MySpace

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratelier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    If you're going to introduce a new type, then it has to come in a set of three or more to keep types balanced.
    Does it? No, it only needs to have a set of strengths and weaknesses, preferably forming a new RPS triangle the way Dark did with Fighting/Psychic.
    It doesn't need too, but if you want it to balance things out, you do.
    Yep, adding Steel and Dark in Gen II ruined the type chart balance because there wasn't a third. In fact, Steel and Dark are so overpowered and unbalanced that - er. . .
    I know I've said it before, but the reason that two types worked is because the type chart was already unbalanced, and needed to be fixed. Now, it's (mostly) balanced, and the only type that needs help is the poison type. Even then, you don't need to create new types; all you have to do is make poison strong against steel (acid eats metal) and water (a tiny bit of pollution can cause a lot of damage to sea creatures) and make fire strong against poison (many acids and toxic gases are flammable).

    Now, say you wanted to put in a new type, called type X. Say type X was weak to fighting and psychic and strong against poison and ghost. Please do not tell me that type X would keep the typechart balanced. It would make fighting and psychic too strong, and it would make poison and ghost too weak. But, if type X was introduced along with other types, it will keep the typechart balanced so that no type is too weak or too strong.
    Last edited by Spyspotter; 19th June 2013 at 11:35 AM.

  6. #111
    I eat eggs in users' sigs rafaelluik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    There's no need for more types to be added to balance, they only need to edit the other types to add/rearrange effectiveness, resistances and weakness.
    Last edited by rafaelluik; 19th June 2013 at 03:28 PM.
    Browsing with Opera browser elegance and mastery.

  7. #112

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    One thing that bugs me is people who have no competitive battling skill talking about balance. Throughout this thread, I've seen a lot of chatter from people who clearly don't have much, if any, real competitive battling experience. I'm going to be completely blunt - if you don't know how to play at a high level, balance doesn't concern you and your input is not relevant. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a simple truth. Balance concerns those who are great at the game - just because unskilled players can't deal with Dragon Pokemon doesn't mean Dragons are overpowered, it means those players need to get better.

    At the highest level of play, Dragons are not an issue. Only five of them, all five of which have 600 BST, great movepools and abilities, are used in standard competitive battles, and they aren't overly dominant at all. The Dragon type itself is not a good type - every "mundane" Dragon is terrible by fifth generation competitive battling standards, and even three legendary Dragons with 600+ BST are also not good enough to be commonly used. There are seven Dragons that are banned, but every single one of them is a cover legend, and every cover legend ever happens to be banned from standard battles, because they're all ridiculously overpowered - which is independent of the fact that they're Dragon type. The Dragon type itself is clearly not an issue for skilled players. The only Dragons that are powerful are good for reasons other than being Dragon type, and there's only a couple of them, and those few don't dominate at all.

  8. #113

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    One thing that bugs me is people who have no competitive battling skill talking about balance. Throughout this thread, I've seen a lot of chatter from people who clearly don't have much, if any, real competitive battling experience. I'm going to be completely blunt - if you don't know how to play at a high level, balance doesn't concern you and your input is not relevant. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a simple truth. Balance concerns those who are great at the game - just because unskilled players can't deal with Dragon Pokemon doesn't mean Dragons are overpowered, it means those players need to get better.
    No, it doesn't. That's a "Pro vs Scrub" mentality. A game needs to balanced around all levels of play. Why? if a game feels unbalanced at low-level play, there's no motivation for a player to get better. The game feels inherently unfair, and thus why should you work at it? I've actually talked to game developers a lot about this. Competitive high-level play generally only makes up 2-5% of any game's audience. So balancing soley for that minority is a good way to make your game feel punishing, overly complex, and unfriendly to new players. Balancing for all levels is more challenging but healthier overall for the long-term state of the game. If the game is only balanced at the highest levels of play, than only expert players will experience a balanced field. But nobody starts as an expert player. So it's foolhardy to focus 100% of balance work there.
    Up the airy mountains / Down the rushy Glen /
    We dare not go a-hunting / For fear of Fairy-type Pokémon

  9. #114
    I eat eggs in users' sigs rafaelluik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Latias418 View Post
    One thing that bugs me is people who have no competitive battling skill talking about balance. Throughout this thread, I've seen a lot of chatter from people who clearly don't have much, if any, real competitive battling experience. I'm going to be completely blunt - if you don't know how to play at a high level, balance doesn't concern you and your input is not relevant. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a simple truth. Balance concerns those who are great at the game - just because unskilled players can't deal with Dragon Pokemon doesn't mean Dragons are overpowered, it means those players need to get better.

    At the highest level of play, Dragons are not an issue. Only five of them, all five of which have 600 BST, great movepools and abilities, are used in standard competitive battles, and they aren't overly dominant at all. The Dragon type itself is not a good type - every "mundane" Dragon is terrible by fifth generation competitive battling standards, and even three legendary Dragons with 600+ BST are also not good enough to be commonly used. There are seven Dragons that are banned, but every single one of them is a cover legend, and every cover legend ever happens to be banned from standard battles, because they're all ridiculously overpowered - which is independent of the fact that they're Dragon type. The Dragon type itself is clearly not an issue for skilled players. The only Dragons that are powerful are good for reasons other than being Dragon type, and there's only a couple of them, and those few don't dominate at all.
    You must be kidding, for sure you're a very sarcastic Dragon user.

    Look at this type effectiveness table: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Grass_(type)
    Then look at this: http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Dragon_(type)

    Come back and tell me the game is balanced, specially considering the coverage moves the dragons can get.
    Last edited by rafaelluik; 19th June 2013 at 04:11 PM.
    Browsing with Opera browser elegance and mastery.

  10. #115
    Lions, Tigers, and Bears Mokoniki's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    An unknown planet
    Posts
    1,046

    Follow Mokoniki on Tumblr Visit Mokoniki's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Latias418 View Post
    One thing that bugs me is people who have no competitive battling skill talking about balance. Throughout this thread, I've seen a lot of chatter from people who clearly don't have much, if any, real competitive battling experience. I'm going to be completely blunt - if you don't know how to play at a high level, balance doesn't concern you and your input is not relevant. I'm not trying to be rude, but this is a simple truth. Balance concerns those who are great at the game - just because unskilled players can't deal with Dragon Pokemon doesn't mean Dragons are overpowered, it means those players need to get better.

    At the highest level of play, Dragons are not an issue. Only five of them, all five of which have 600 BST, great movepools and abilities, are used in standard competitive battles, and they aren't overly dominant at all. The Dragon type itself is not a good type - every "mundane" Dragon is terrible by fifth generation competitive battling standards, and even three legendary Dragons with 600+ BST are also not good enough to be commonly used. There are seven Dragons that are banned, but every single one of them is a cover legend, and every cover legend ever happens to be banned from standard battles, because they're all ridiculously overpowered - which is independent of the fact that they're Dragon type. The Dragon type itself is clearly not an issue for skilled players. The only Dragons that are powerful are good for reasons other than being Dragon type, and there's only a couple of them, and those few don't dominate at all.
    I couldn't help but scoff at that first paragraph. Pokemon is not a hardcore competitive gaming franchise. It is something that is meant to appeal to everyone. Forgive me if I am generalizing, but you are part of the minority here. You should think about this from a casual standpoint, as most of the people that play this game are just here for the monsters and getting to explore the new gaming world.

    You have to consider that aside from us, most of those who play Pokemon are just little kids who don't really have a very large grasp of battling strategies. At the "highest level of play", Dragons may not be an issue, but on lower levels they are. Dragons resist most of the commonly used Pokemon types. If you don't have a Steel type on your team, which is the only type that resists Dragon, or an Ice or Dragon type on your team to deal with them offensively, you are pretty much screwed. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that has seen a Garchomp, Kingdra, or Haxorus on someone's team and just gone "Oh, dear God why?" Every fully evolved Dragon, that is not Altaria or legendary, is at the top of the food chain in these games and are very hard to deal with on lower competitive levels because they strike fast and deal lots of damage. Adding the Fairy type is a good way to balance out the Dragon type on lower levels of play.

    I think it is a very intriguing idea for the new type to be added. And, for someone like yourself who seems very into the competitive scene, it could make for some interesting new strategies don't you think?
    Hello hello (What), hello hello (What), tell me what you want right now! Hello hello (What), hello hello (What), I'mma give it to you girl right now!

    "My hobbies include staring at hot asian men, crying over hot asian men, and shipping hot asian men with other hot asian men~"
    Quote stolen from tumblr. Claims: Zhong Hui, Xu Shu, Sewddle, Protect, Sitrus Berry, Max Repel, and Sap Sipper

  11. #116
    I eat eggs in users' sigs rafaelluik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Yes some Pokémon have access to Ice Beam for example, etc, but it doesn't go farther than this.
    Hydreigon is only bearable because it's weak to Fighting due to its Dark dual-typing, otherwise we are forced to use a specific Pokémon just to counter you.
    Browsing with Opera browser elegance and mastery.

  12. #117
    Have a pancake. Green Zubat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,606
    Blog Entries
    20
    Follow Green Zubat On Twitter Add Green Zubat on Facebook
    Follow Green Zubat on Tumblr Visit Green Zubat's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeta View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stratelier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Spyspotter View Post
    If you're going to introduce a new type, then it has to come in a set of three or more to keep types balanced.
    Does it? No, it only needs to have a set of strengths and weaknesses, preferably forming a new RPS triangle the way Dark did with Fighting/Psychic.
    It doesn't need too, but if you want it to balance things out, you do.
    Yep, adding Steel and Dark in Gen II ruined the type chart balance because there wasn't a third. In fact, Steel and Dark are so overpowered and unbalanced that - er. . .
    I know I've said it before, but the reason that two types worked is because the type chart was already unbalanced, and needed to be fixed. Now, it's (mostly) balanced, and the only type that needs help is the poison type.
    Actually, whilst Poison needs help the most, the type chart's problems do not stop there; Ice needs buffing defensively, Steel needs more firepower, and Grass needs help all-round.

    Even then, you don't need to create new types; all you have to do is make poison strong against steel (acid eats metal) and water (a tiny bit of pollution can cause a lot of damage to sea creatures) and make fire strong against poison (many acids and toxic gases are flammable).
    This really wouldn't be helpful to Poison. Whilst the strengths against Water & Steel would definitely elevate Poison's offensive potential to a respectable level, the weakness to the very offensively strong Fire-type is unnecessary, and would do a lot of damage to Poison's defensive capabilities. Not only do Fire Pokemon often have high attack & speed stats and generally powerful STAB moves (half of which hit for 100 base power or more), as it stands, 27 of the 56 current Poison types (~50%) are doubly weak to Fire (either as Grass or Bug dual types). In short, implementing these changes would basically give Poison the same problems as Grass.

    Furthermore, apart from the strength on Water, I don't think these changes are very intuitive. For a start, Poison is about biological toxins, or in other words, actual poisons. Whilst some poisons can be acidic as well, hence the handful of acidic poison moves (Acid, Acid Spray & Acid Armour), this is not an essential element of a poison, and hence is not the focus. Metals are non-porous, and so won't take in biological poisons, hence Steel is immune. Furthermore, as poison is a relative term, referring to anything that could cause harmful effects to an organism when taken in, I don't think it would be fair to even say that most poisons are inflammable, hence the weakness to Fire doesn't make that much sense.

    Now, say you wanted to put in a new type, called type X. Say type X was weak to fighting and psychic and strong against poison and ghost. Please do not tell me that type X would keep the typechart balanced. It would make fighting and psychic too strong, and it would make poison and ghost too weak. But, if type X was introduced along with other types, it will keep the typechart balanced so that no type is too weak or too strong.
    How does timing have anything to do with it? The reason type X wouldn't keep the type chart balanced is because you gave type X weaknesses to already powerful types, and bad strengths. Fairy, on the other hand, if it was weak to Poison & Steel, and strong against/immune to Dragon, would balance the chart quite well. Sure, it wouldn't fix all it's problems, but it would go quite a way towards it.
    Last edited by Green Zubat; 19th June 2013 at 06:54 PM.



    Credit to Missingno. Master for creating this lovely team snap for my sig :)

  13. #118

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    No, it doesn't. That's a "Pro vs Scrub" mentality. A game needs to balanced around all levels of play. Why? if a game feels unbalanced at low-level play, there's no motivation for a player to get better. The game feels inherently unfair, and thus why should you work at it?
    This is exactly the motivation: it's not that the game is unbalanced, it's that you aren't skilled enough to deal with the challenges you're facing. Your motivation is to get better so that you can overcome the challenge. By losing to something that it unfair at a lower skill level, you are encouraged to try to find solutions to your problem, and in the process you become a better player.

    I've actually talked to game developers a lot about this. Competitive high-level play generally only makes up 2-5% of any game's audience. So balancing soley for that minority is a good way to make your game feel punishing, overly complex, and unfriendly to new players. Balancing for all levels is more challenging but healthier overall for the long-term state of the game.
    In an ideal world, balancing for all levels is indeed far better. However, it is simply not realistic - especially in games with a massive amount of variety. I am a professional gamer (literally, I live off of it) who has played many, many games competitively, and I have yet to find one where it's well balanced for new players, casual players, intermediate players, advanced players, and top players alike. If you'd like to point me to one, by my guest, because I'd really love to see it! Pokemon is certainly not it, and Game Freak, who are not a studio focused around competitive gaming, certainly aren't going to be the ones to accomplish such a feat.

    If you had to pick only a single skill level to balance at, the top level is by far the most important - otherwise, much of the motivation to get to the top is killed off as every one of the best players will be doing the same unbalanced thing leading to uninteresting gameplay. If there are strategies that are unbalanced at a lower skill level, you can always overcome them by becoming better, which ceases to be true at the top level.

    I'm not saying 100% of the effort should be focused on top level gameplay, but given that this is Game Freak, we're not getting a game that's being developed extensively with competitive gameplay in mind every step of the way. For them to take such a drastic measure as introducing a new type for the primary stated purpose of nerfing something that's fine at higher level gameplay does not sit well with me. Especially when not only does this nerf the currently powerful but balanced (at higher level) five competitive dragons, it hits the rest of the Dragons who struggle hard. It doesn't seem to me like Dragons are so unbeatable at a low level of gameplay that this needed to be done. However, I do not have the greatest perspective of low level gameplay, so I concede that I might be wrong here. I've never really heard complaints about Dragons before, even from lower level and casual players, but then again I interact with the top 10% or so more than I do with the bottom 90% combined.

    I couldn't help but scoff at that first paragraph. Pokemon is not a hardcore competitive gaming franchise. It is something that is meant to appeal to everyone. Forgive me if I am generalizing, but you are part of the minority here. You should think about this from a casual standpoint, as most of the people that play this game are just here for the monsters and getting to explore the new gaming world.
    I am perfectly aware that I am part of a minority, and that Pokemon is not developed with hardcore competitive gaming in mind. That being said, a huge chunk of the casual playerbase probably doesn't care about balance all that much. The highly competitive players are generally the ones it affects most, after all, as they spend the most time focused around it. Again, I'm not saying 100% of the balance should be focused around high level gameplay, but despite us being a minority the balance for us should still be considered carefully given that it's most important to us.

    You have to consider that aside from us, most of those who play Pokemon are just little kids who don't really have a very large grasp of battling strategies. At the "highest level of play", Dragons may not be an issue, but on lower levels they are. Dragons resist most of the commonly used Pokemon types. If you don't have a Steel type on your team, which is the only type that resists Dragon, or an Ice or Dragon type on your team to deal with them offensively, you are pretty much screwed. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one that has seen a Garchomp, Kingdra, or Haxorus on someone's team and just gone "Oh, dear God why?" Every fully evolved Dragon, that is not Altaria or legendary, is at the top of the food chain in these games and are very hard to deal with on lower competitive levels because they strike fast and deal lots of damage. Adding the Fairy type is a good way to balance out the Dragon type on lower levels of play.
    I have considered this, but I just did not think that Dragons were unstoppable at a lower level. As I said earlier in my post in reply to another user, though, I don't have the greatest perspective on low level play, so I am pretty willing to accept that I've been wrong in this regard.

    I think it is a very intriguing idea for the new type to be added. And, for someone like yourself who seems very into the competitive scene, it could make for some interesting new strategies don't you think?
    The metagame changes completely with every new generation - there won't be a lack of new strategies, so nerfing some things that are powerful but balanced at my level of play (while also nerfing even more things that are already underpowered) isn't exactly what I'm interested in.

    ---

    I suppose my perspective as a top-level player lead to a major bias. I apologise if I came off as condescending towards lower level / casual players. I should not have said that your input on balance didn't matter if you weren't a highly skilled player - that is obviously not true.

  14. #119
    I eat eggs in users' sigs rafaelluik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    Don't try to sound realistic because you aren't. Dragons unbalance the game in all levels of gameplay.
    If a person tries to enter a higher level of gameplay this person will be forced to use a dragon or something else specifically to counter you. This isn't fun. We want to be able to battle on Wi-fi too, with variety, etc.
    Browsing with Opera browser elegance and mastery.

  15. #120

    Default Re: Fairies and the Fairy Type: Why Fairies aren't a bad idea for a type

    I'm not saying 100% of the effort should be focused on top level gameplay, but given that this is Game Freak, we're not getting a game that's being developed extensively with competitive gameplay in mind every step of the way. For them to take such a drastic measure as introducing a new type for the primary stated purpose of nerfing something that's fine at higher level gameplay does not sit well with me. Especially when not only does this nerf the currently powerful but balanced (at higher level) five competitive dragons, it hits the rest of the Dragons who struggle hard. It doesn't seem to me like Dragons are so unbeatable at a low level of gameplay that this needed to be done. However, I do not have the greatest perspective of low level gameplay, so I concede that I might be wrong here. I've never really heard complaints about Dragons before, even from lower level and casual players, but then again I interact with the top 10% or so more than I do with the bottom 90% combined.
    Just from anecdotal evidence coming from someone living in the southern United States - there was going to be a semi-competitive/semi-casual Pokemon battling scene at the local state college. This organization's formation was nixed because the scene devolved into "whoever has the fastest dragon with Dragon Dance/Outrage Combo" wins. With the occasional upset from a well put-together Mamoswine. But even then it just formed a triangle of Mamoswine, Dragons and Mamoswine counters. If 18-24 year olds are struggling with dragons, at least here, I can't imagine how difficult it is for the game's target audience of 10-15 year olds. Dragon may be balanced at the absolute highest tier, but the combination of Dragon's strengths (only Steel-types resist Outrage, resistance to several major offensive types, most are demi-legendaries, only vulnerable to itself and Ice-types and 99% of Ice-types are ridiculously weak) all add up to a problem that's been building for a while since so many dragons were added to the game.
    Up the airy mountains / Down the rushy Glen /
    We dare not go a-hunting / For fear of Fairy-type Pokémon

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •