Printable View
... Which would leave every grass/bug type with three compounded weaknesses. That's just a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gengarzilla
And pretty much everything can learn Toxic by TM, so I don't know how you want to make Bad Poison more available.
It's like, what /can't/ learn Toxic by TM these days, seriously.
I don't think any of those is a very good idea. I think the series is fine as it is, and addition of types or something would make it all the more confusing for some players.
You do realize that water is a pretty good solvent, right? Like, it dissolves poison? So tell me again why poison should be SE against Water. Besides, why should water creatures be more prone to poisoning then, say, birds? Land creatures?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gengarzilla
Quite frankly it should be the other way around, though I'm not advocating that, as Water is fine as it is.
The only thing I remotely see is Bug, but even that's a very shaky one.
To be honest, I like the games the way they are. To much metgame talk here, it seems like.
I don't think there is going to me an overhaul. Game Freak/Nintendo has found a good system to work with. Why fix something that isn't broken?
If there IS going to be an overhaul, it would have little to no relation with competive play.
If there will be an overhaul in gen 6 it will most likely graphical. Considering the games will probably be on the 3DS. :/
The same can be said about some species of plant life suriviving on an artic tundra, yet Grass is still weak to Ice, so what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by H-conYou do realize that water is a pretty good solvent, right? Like, it dissolves poison? So tell me again why poison should be SE against Water. Besides, why should water creatures be more prone to poisoning then, say, birds? Land creatures?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gengarzilla
Quite frankly it should be the other way around, though I'm not advocating that, as Water is fine as it is.
The only thing I remotely see is Bug, but even that's a very shaky one.
Those particular species don't exist as a Pokémon yet, so that point is invalid. If you mind linking us to said plants it might make more sense to us. (...just in case someone finds this post in the future, anyway.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghetsis-DennisThe same can be said about some species of plant life suriviving on an artic tundra, yet Grass is still weak to Ice, so what's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by H-conYou do realize that water is a pretty good solvent, right? Like, it dissolves poison? So tell me again why poison should be SE against Water. Besides, why should water creatures be more prone to poisoning then, say, birds? Land creatures?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gengarzilla
Quite frankly it should be the other way around, though I'm not advocating that, as Water is fine as it is.
The only thing I remotely see is Bug, but even that's a very shaky one.
Plants of the Arctic and Antarctic — Polar Plants — Beyond Penguins and Polar BearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaker Jirachi
There's also the Snover family, which based off of a tree that can survive on snowy regions. But the main point is that despite these facts, the majority sees plant life not being able to survive on cold regions, so the majority also believe pollution destroys water, thus announcing the idea of giving Water types an additional weakness to Poison types.
I guess that makes sense. Still, I'm thinking that the majority thought the pollution destroying water thing is just a misunderstanding on both ends - as far as I know of the issue, pollution doesn't affect water itself, but it makes it nasty for those who live in it or have to drink it. Hope we've cleared up that issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghetsis-DennisPlants of the Arctic and Antarctic — Polar Plants — Beyond Penguins and Polar BearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaker Jirachi
There's also the Snover family, which based off of a tree that can survive on snowy regions. But the main point is that despite these facts, the majority sees plant life not being able to survive on cold regions, so the majority also believe pollution destroys water, thus announcing the idea of giving Water types an additional weakness to Poison types.
I don't think you understand what my point is. Water is a very effective solvent of all kinds of stuff, and that includes poison. Sure, poison can create a local poisoning, but on a massive scale that won't take much affect, given the dilution. Seeing how Water types are based on (at least mostly) marine animals and the like, why should they be more prone to poisoning than say, a rat? A bird?
The idea of poison being SE to Water is, I think, based on two sentiments. First of all, it incorrectly bases itself on the criteria of water poisoning. I'm not going against that water creatures can't be poisoned (quite the opposite), and that this can kill of a lot of things effectively, but seeing how this argument could be extended to encompass a lot of life as we know it, it's really a moot point. The second is that I think a lot of people just want the Poison type buffed offensively (not that they're that much of an offensive type to begin with) and in the process add more weaknesses to Water. They then base themselves on the first reason listed.
One could just as easily as the water/land pollution example extrapolate how Fire could be SE against pretty much every type out there, for that matter. Nobody is arguing for that, luckily, but people gladly ignore this sentiment and jump right to water pollution, ignoring what is arguably reality. If anything, they could SE eachother, though I'm not advocating this change at all. Quite frankly, the type chart is fine as it is.
From what I've read, Electric shouldn't be SE from Ground types, as well as Electric not being SE against Flying. One could say that giving Water a Poison weakness is a form of balance by nerfing Water's dominance in the metagame, leaving Ice capable of taking neutral hits from Poison types and acquire STAB Ice Beam.Quote:
Originally Posted by H-con
Then how the heck are Ice and Poison types suppose to improve if battles favor Water, Dragon, Steel, Ground, and Fighting types, all of which outclass both of their roles in terms of offense and defense?Quote:
Quite frankly, the type chart is fine as it is.
There is no guarantee that what you are suggesting will help "improve" the performance of certain types in the metagame. You can nerf water types by removing ice beam, right? Wrong, battlers will use hp ice on their vaporeon, slowbro, etc. Limiting ice type moves to ice isn't going to help. The main flaw is within many ice types itself. Weavile would be great if it had more powerful attacks, for example. Most ice types are defensive in nature even though the ice type is best used offensively. Even adding a 120 powered physical ice move can help kyurem, kyurem-b, mamaoswine, lapras, weavile, abomasnow, and so many more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghetsis-DennisFrom what I've read, Electric shouldn't be SE from Ground types, as well as Electric not being SE against Flying. One could say that giving Water a Poison weakness is a form of balance by nerfing Water's dominance in the metagame, leaving Ice capable of taking neutral hits from Poison types and acquire STAB Ice Beam.Quote:
Originally Posted by H-con
Then how the heck are Ice and Poison types suppose to improve if battles favor Water, Dragon, Steel, Ground, and Fighting types, all of which outclass both of their roles in terms of offense and defense?Quote:
Quite frankly, the type chart is fine as it is.