The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart - Page 140

View Poll Results: Is the Fairy-type OP?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    12 27.27%
  • No

    32 72.73%
Page 140 of 260 FirstFirst ... 4090130138139140141142150190240 ... LastLast
Results 2,086 to 2,100 of 3888
Like Tree2118Likes

Thread: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

  1. #2086
    I eat eggs in users' sigs rafaelluik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Rio de Janeiro
    Posts
    223

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    I support the Fairy-type idea completely. Naming doesn't matter, everybody knows the Pokémon in the Dragon-type category are completely over-powered and with no weakness (Dragon and Ice moves aren't enough available outside of Water and Dragon themselves, not to mention these moves are pretty much underpowered compared to other types to these Pokémon that can learn it).

    Of course they must do it but not create another beast, for example, making Fairy the new overused Pokés, or making the Fire-type to resist it (one more resistance to this type! NO GF, just NO.) or be super effective against it would automatically unbalance the game again and create a new over-powered overused group of Pokémon (the fire-types). Also if they add any more super effective type against Grass would make me to drop Pokémon completely, common this just has to bother you as a fan even if you don't use grass-type Pokémon, just look at the tables in Bulbapedia. I'm hoping they'll actually take at least one type that resist grass off that table or perhaps make Grass super effective against Fairy IDK. Giga Drain power increase in the last generation weren't enough to make them usable and Petal Dance leave all stuck in 3 successive moves and only a single Pokémon don't become confused by it.

    Something else that is bothering me until now is that Elioptile and Litleo are part Normal and being real this just serve to make them weak to Fighting. ¬¬
    Browsing with Opera browser elegance and mastery.

  2. #2087
    Get Wild Rainbow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,240

    Visit Rainbow's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    My problem with every fairy Pokemon ending up as cute and feminine is that it's wasted potential. When you look at the lore of fairies, there's so much variety that would be great in Pokemon (orcs, goblins, banshees, elves, trolls, demons, etc). For them to all end up falling into the "winged little girls" category would be disappointing. There's Gardevoir so far at least, but still.
    avatar signature

  3. #2088
    Sailor Star Chaser FaerieStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    A sunken ship
    Posts
    203

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by vivian20 View Post
    I dont see whats wrong with the stereotypical concept of fairy. I would like to see a type in wich the pokemon care about others. This does not mean that EVERY pokemon in the type has to be like this, some could be mischievous.
    Also, i think most fairy types will be feminine looking, because sylveon has feminine bows, and eevolutions are made to scream their type. Ex: most grass types have leaves in their bodies, so leafeon had to be leaves in its body. Most water types have fins, so vaporeon has fins. To be feminine looking is not a bad thing at all, though.

    I think that moves that heals another pokemon might be fairy types, becaue healing is a comun goal for people that search for magic beings. Also, the song of the fairies is enchanted, so, the move sing should be fairy type, because a lullaby that makes everione fall asleep is surely enchanted.
    There's nothing wrong with the cute little flying thing concept. In my case, I just would love to see the mischievous side as well, because I love that kind of faeries. For instance, I'd love to see the Mismagius line as faeries. They're mischievous, magic, mystical, partially based on banshees... I think they just fit the faerie role perfectly.

  4. #2089
    Have a pancake. Green Zubat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,607
    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: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    I think the advertisement of Boomblast, a sound-based move, as normal is a sign that GF wants to strengthen the connection between Normal and sound-based moves, so I don't think moves like Sing & Heal Bell will change type, personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grass Type Warrior View Post

    In Grass' instance, a loss of the Ice weakness (and ideally, the Flying weakness) would make them much more effective defensively. Offensively, if they were to deal neutral damage to, say, Flying and Steel (<--don't ask me to justify this, I can't) they would immediately have a much broader range of attacking options.

    In my opinion, however, in order to fix the Grass type, you don't actually have to change the type chart around. By simply expanding their movepool (access to Ground and Fairy moves would help with that immensely,) you're already giving them a good advantage. If Game Freak can't work the backwards compatibility into the new games, it gives them the perfect excuse to retcon the whole "Water types learn Ice moves" thing. By making Water types unable to learn Ice moves, you take away the Water type's greatest defense against Grass types, giving the latter a new lease on life (it also helps to buff up the Ice type.)

    With these changes, Grass has a good way to deal with the three most common types in the metagame (Dragon, Steel, and Water) without having to alter the type chart at all.
    Whilst these suggestions would strengthen Grass, I don't agree with most of them on the basis of the meaning of the types and such. For example, it makes sense for types to learn moves of other types closely related to themselves, so I wouldn't condone Water-types being prevented from learning Ice moves. And besides, Ice is already very strong offensively, so I don't think it needs buffing by making Water unable to learn its moves. However, in the same vein, Grass & Ground are both earthy types, so I would support Grass-types being allowed to learn more Ground moves, and the same for Fairy, if Fairy is also nature related.

    Furthermore, though I recognise the need to buff Grass defensively, I don't think removing its weaknesses is the best way to go, as it would be very counter intuitive, with the possible exception of Flying (I never really got why Flying is good on Grass). I think the best way to strengthen Grass is to remove the many resistances to it, and give it more resistances to the other types. In particular, I think Grass would benefit quite a lot from gaining new resistances to Fairy, Rock & Fighting, and I think these resistances would be quite intuitive i.e. Fairy may be associated w/nature, so that would be like Grass resisting itself; Rock is weak to Grass, and very similar Ground, which Grass already resists; Fighting, well, have you tried to punch a flower? XD

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainy Day View Post
    My problem with every fairy Pokemon ending up as cute and feminine is that it's wasted potential. When you look at the lore of fairies, there's so much variety that would be great in Pokemon (orcs, goblins, banshees, elves, trolls, demons, etc). For them to all end up falling into the "winged little girls" category would be disappointing. There's Gardevoir so far at least, but still.
    The only thing that bothers me about dark Fairy-type mons is that it might tread on Ghost's feet a bit, which has already used several of those concepts listed. I think it'd be better to keep Fairy as generally cute & feminine, and save the darker ones for dual types e.g. the Misdreavus line may become Ghost/Fairy.
    Last edited by Green Zubat; 20th June 2013 at 12:37 AM.



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

  5. #2090
    Registered User Lugiafanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    632

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Zubat View Post
    I think the advertisement of Boomblast, a sound-based move, as normal is a sign that GF wants to strengthen the connection between Normal and sound-based moves, so I don't think moves like Sing & Heal Bell will change type, personally.
    The concept behind that is (duh) a very load sound, which would hurt pokemon. Obviously, an (arguably) enchanted lullaby is a different sort of sound entirely.
    Pearl FC: 0689 8559 2961
    Platinum FC: 3868 1384 3198
    SoulSilver FC: 2021 2908 5745
    Black 2 FC: 4170 2700 6717

    My shop!

  6. #2091
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    279

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Yeah, boomblast is not a enchanted sound, its just a very loud sound. In real life, whales use their very loud sound to hunt. They can make your head explode if they want. And its just a real life animal.
    But a lullaby that makes everyone fall asleep? Its enchanted. A bell that cures poisoning, burns, etc when chimed? Its enchanted too.
    And, yeah, there may be "bad"and scary fairies, but they should be paired with ghost.
    Ghost types are generally "bad"and steal souls and life energy from people and pokemon. They like to scary others. It would be interesting if fairy was somewhat of an oposite to ghost's behavior. It would make the gengar clefable shadow theory even stronger. Gengar would be clefable's shadow, her opposite.
    Phoenixon likes this.

  7. #2092
    Das wahr ist das ganzen Aves's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Pleroma
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Poison fills the archetypal role of the bleeding strategy. Becoming more straightforwardly offense-oriented would take away from that, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
    I never suggested that Poison should lose it's defensive/supportive capabilities, only that it should also have some more offensive potential. I don't see how giving Poison more firepower, at least not in the way I suggest, would stop players from being able to utilise the "bleeding" strategy if they wanted to play Poison that way.
    The thing is, if poison were super effective against four types, that would place it in a minority of types which are good to use on offense in their own right because of their broad coverage. This would push the use of poison in the same way that, say, fighting is used. Its previous role would be comparatively suboptimal, and thus, would not be used. I think it's more appropriate to push the power level of poison's bleeder strategy, which ought to be central to its use, so that it becomes competitive, rather than make it a duplicate of other pure offensive types. On average, most types are effective against about three other types. Some defensively oriented types end up emerging which are lower than this average, and this is okay if they have some other perks or at least have niche offense potential (psychic and dark are a great examples of types which are super effective against fewer types, but the types they are good against have less common/numerous weaknesses). The problem with poison is both that it should have two types, not one, and its one type being grass is basically meaningless with all of grass' other weaknesses. Similarly, steel being good against ice and rock is unfortunate for all parties involved.


    I think there are better, more effective alterations to the overall type chart than boosting poison in that way.
    How, exactly? Poison is weak offensively because it has only one strength, and against a type that isn't particularly strong defensively anyway, and which is often neutralised by the common Grass/Poison pairing. The simplest solution to this would be to give Poison more strengths e.g. against Fairy, and maybe other types too. That seems pretty effective to me.
    I'm glad you asked. I'd say my approach to revamping the type chart is probably more systemic than tweaks that GF would choose, but if I put on my real world hat I could see something like this:
    Poison: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against fairy and water.
    Fighting: Loses effectiveness against ice.
    Ground: Loses effectiveness against steel.
    Rock: Gains resistance to rock and electric.
    Flying: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against ground.
    Steel: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Gains weakness to electric (and/or water).
    Grass: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Loses ineffectiveness against steel and poison
    Ice: Gains immunity to ice and resistance to water.

    Poison would be able to serve a much better offense role hitting water and fairy, both of which can be common and perhaps have few other exploitable weaknesses, losing its less useful effectiveness against grass (and bug also being unneeded). Fighting and ground would be nerfed a bit, which in turn would help to bring other types into prominence (steel would become more viable against ice, bug would become more viable against grass and dark, fire becomes a bit better). Flying, by being more distinguished in its effectiveness array from fire, would become more offensively viable. Grass would be less of a butt monkey. Ice and rock would gain defensive niches.

  8. #2093
    II.5 Eradia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    648

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by rafaelluik View Post
    Something else that is bothering me until now is that Elioptile and Litleo are part Normal and being real this just serve to make them weak to Fighting. ¬¬
    They also gain an immunity to Ghost-type moves from this, and Normal-type STAB.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kayde View Post
    "OH HOT DAMN! LOOK AT THAT FUCKING BELL! IT'S SMALL AND CUTE AND HAS A FUCKING RIBBON ON IT'S FUCKING HEAD! BACK THIS PARTY VAN UP! I GOTTA CATCH THAT SHIT!!"

  9. #2094
    Sailor Star Chaser FaerieStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    A sunken ship
    Posts
    203

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by vivian20 View Post
    And, yeah, there may be "bad"and scary fairies, but they should be paired with ghost.
    Ghost types are generally "bad"and steal souls and life energy from people and pokemon. They like to scary others. It would be interesting if fairy was somewhat of an oposite to ghost's behavior. It would make the gengar clefable shadow theory even stronger. Gengar would be clefable's shadow, her opposite.
    If anything, the "bad" pokémon would be the Dark type, being literally the evil (Aku) type in Japan and all...

  10. #2095
    Hail to the Kingler Rithirh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    126

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    I'm surprised they haven't announced that Snubbull and Granbull are part fairy type since their species is "Fairy Pokemon". I'm curious if they are just holding off until a later date, or if they aren't planning on changing them. Granbull would at least add some "toughness" to the fairy typing as opposed to all the other fairy Pokemon that are just cute.

    EDIT: But if GameFreak is set on making cute Pokemon fairy type, they might as well make Mawile part fairy type (since it's not part dark and should be...) since it is a pretty cute Pokemon, and its move pool doesn't make much use of its Steel typing anyways.
    Last edited by Rithirh; 19th June 2013 at 09:11 PM.
    Which came first: the Mew or the Arceus?

  11. #2096
    Registered User Stratelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,249

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by FairyGaga View Post
    This is what happened to Fighting.
    Not coincidentally, I despised virtually all fighting type species in G1, G2, and even G3. Still hating the Machop line with a passion, finally started to respect Hitmonchan in G4 (physical elemental punches!), part-bug Heracross isn't as lucky (4x weak to Flying!), never gave the Makuhita's line more than a "meh", only warmed up to Medicham via Pokemon Colosseum. Riolu/Lucario were the first Fighting types I actually liked the aesthetics of, Mienfoo/Mienshao being the second. I don't mind Fighting as a battle type, I just never really liked the Pokemon in it.

  12. #2097
    Have a pancake. Green Zubat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,607
    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: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Aves View Post
    Poison fills the archetypal role of the bleeding strategy. Becoming more straightforwardly offense-oriented would take away from that, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
    I never suggested that Poison should lose it's defensive/supportive capabilities, only that it should also have some more offensive potential. I don't see how giving Poison more firepower, at least not in the way I suggest, would stop players from being able to utilise the "bleeding" strategy if they wanted to play Poison that way.
    The thing is, if poison were super effective against four types, that would place it in a minority of types which are good to use on offense in their own right because of their broad coverage. This would push the use of poison in the same way that, say, fighting is used. Its previous role would be comparatively suboptimal, and thus, would not be used. I think it's more appropriate to push the power level of poison's bleeder strategy, which ought to be central to its use, so that it becomes competitive, rather than make it a duplicate of other pure offensive types.
    I disagree entirely. By giving Poison offensive capabilities, you give the Poison types that are, by their individual stat distributions, inclined towards offense more room to breath, whilst the bleeder strategy would still see use on the defensively inclined species. It's not being made into a duplicate of any other strong offensive types, it's just allowing offensive Poison-types to actually realise their potential.

    On average, most types are effective against about three other types. Some defensively oriented types end up emerging which are lower than this average, and this is okay if they have some other perks or at least have niche offense potential (psychic and dark are a great examples of types which are super effective against fewer types, but the types they are good against have less common/numerous weaknesses). The problem with poison is both that it should have two types, not one, and its one type being grass is basically meaningless with all of grass' other weaknesses.
    I don't see why Poison should be restricted to two strengths when you yourself agree that, strategically speaking, the Grass strength is practically meaningless. In fact, strengths against Grass, Water, Fairy & Bug would be more like 2¾ strengths, since Bug is like a slightly better version of Grass anyway. If Bug did become weak to Poison again, though, I'd recommend giving Bug some more resistances to defensively buff it (e.g. to Psychic & Dark, which its already good against), and reinstating its own strength against Poison too.

    Poison would be able to serve a much better offense role hitting water and fairy, both of which can be common and perhaps have few other exploitable weaknesses, losing its less useful effectiveness against grass (and bug also being unneeded). Fighting and ground would be nerfed a bit, which in turn would help to bring other types into prominence (steel would become more viable against ice, bug would become more viable against grass and dark, fire becomes a bit better). Flying, by being more distinguished in its effectiveness array from fire, would become more offensively viable. Grass would be less of a butt monkey. Ice and rock would gain defensive niches.
    No, I'm sorry, this won't work; half of your choices are completely counter-intuitive. To elaborate, I've included your list below w/comment in red:

    Poison: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against fairy and water. No to losing Grass strength, for reasons stated in previous posts.
    Fighting: Loses effectiveness against ice. No; Fighting breaks ice.
    Ground: Loses effectiveness against steel. No; soil erodes metal.
    Rock: Gains resistance to rock and electric. Agreed.
    Flying: Loses effectiveness against grass. Gains effectiveness against ground. Agreed with the first part, but how is Flying's SE on Ground to be explained?
    Steel: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Gains weakness to electric (and/or water). Yes to Fairy strength, no to Electric weakness (faraday cage), and maybe to Water strength.
    Grass: Gains effectiveness against fairy. Loses ineffectiveness against steel and poison. No to Fairy strength, if fairies = nature (that'd be like Grass being good on itself), and no to neutral on Steel and Poison; Steel is too hard to take much damage from plants, whilst Poison is the antithesis of Grass (hence resistance)
    Ice: Gains immunity to ice and resistance to water. Could see water resistance happening (Ice freezes Water, weakening its attack?), but why should Ice be immune to itself?
    Also, I don't think Fighting & Ground have problems as big as the others on that list.
    VeggiePopper likes this.



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

  13. #2098
    Face of mercy? NOPE Yato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Anywhere
    Posts
    6,663
    Blog Entries
    435

    Follow Yato on Tumblr

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Stratelier View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FairyGaga View Post
    This is what happened to Fighting.
    Not coincidentally, I despised virtually all fighting type species in G1, G2, and even G3. Still hating the Machop line with a passion, finally started to respect Hitmonchan in G4 (physical elemental punches!), part-bug Heracross isn't as lucky (4x weak to Flying!), never gave the Makuhita's line more than a "meh", only warmed up to Medicham via Pokemon Colosseum. Riolu/Lucario were the first Fighting types I actually liked the aesthetics of, Mienfoo/Mienshao being the second. I don't mind Fighting as a battle type, I just never really liked the Pokemon in it.
    It's just the design that Fighting types had that were unfavorable to some people because of the overly masculine features. Their stats were pretty good in the Attack area. Personally, I love my Gallade, and he's the best fighter I've ever had covering both Psychic AND Fighting on his own. His type coverage and moveset were pretty well distributed.

    Though, for some reason, I haven't seen much people actually using Gallade o_O


    If other types can introduce one or two decent pokemon in that area, it would greatly help as well. Remember how Bug-types were regarded as 'weak' and 'uselss', and then suddenly there's Galvantula and Volcarona?

  14. #2099
    Get Wild Rainbow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,240

    Visit Rainbow's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    I know the type chart doesn't have to make sense, but Poison losing it's strength to Grass would be kinda silly. That makes more sense than being strong against Water at least.
    avatar signature

  15. #2100
    Sailor Star Chaser FaerieStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Gender
    Uncertain
    Location
    A sunken ship
    Posts
    203

    Default Re: The Fairy Type and Alterations to Type Chart

    Quote Originally Posted by Rithirh View Post
    I'm surprised they haven't announced that Snubbull and Granbull are part fairy type since their species is "Fairy Pokemon".
    We have Horsea and Seadra, whose species are "Dragon Pokémon", but are not dragon and didn't even have a dragon evolution in gen I. So I guess the species name doesn't grant the type :/
    Also, in Japanese, Snubbull, Granbull and Clefairy and Clefable are "yôsei" pokémon, while the type is "faerii". Horsea and Seadra are "doragon", just the exact name of the Dragon Type.

    (Just giving data, I don't know if they'll be faeries in the end... I'm pretty sure the Clefs will be faeries, at least)
    Green Zubat and Rithirh like this.


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
  •