Thread: New Type or Alterations to Type Chart?

Originally Posted by Mr. Warrior

Thinking about it, we could use one or two new types to re-balance the type chart. People say Steel- and Dark-types were introduced because Psychic was overpowered in Gen I. Well, if you take a look at the OU tier, you'll see that types like Fighting and Dragon are dominating, while types like Poison and Ice are barely used, which means the type chart isn't as balanced any more.

Fighting is nowhere near what Psychic wad in Gen I... Psychic was a literal game-breaker you could curb-stomp the entire game with a Alakazam... Fighting types might take up a good portion of OU but Is there any Fighting types in Uber's?

There is no evidence at all regarding a new type... we do not need a new type, we haven't had one in over 13 years no type is overpowered... as the saying goes if it's not broke don't fix it... the type chart isn't broke we don't need a new type... any reason that we would need one? and to shake things up is not a reason

Originally Posted by Articwolf10

the type chart isn't broke we don't need a new type... any reason that we would need one? and to shake things up is not a reason

Is there any reason why we needed triple or rotation battles? Or are "unnecessary" additions okay as long as they can be ignored?

Originally Posted by Silktree

Originally Posted by Articwolf10

the type chart isn't broke we don't need a new type... any reason that we would need one? and to shake things up is not a reason

Is there any reason why we needed triple or rotation battles? Or are "unnecessary" additions okay as long as they can be ignored?

Pretty much yeah... I don't see how triple and rotation battles have anything to do with new types however... point is it's highly unlikely we will get a new type... I'm being realistic here... people were so sure we'd get a new type last Gen and when it came out no new types

I find it interesting how the arguments against a new type is "it's already balanced!". Umm, it really not. Several types outweigh, or over resist many of the existing types. Ironically, there's currently 17 types, adding a new type would make it 18, making it "even".

Originally Posted by Pokemaster97

I find it interesting how the arguments against a new type is "it's already balanced!". Umm, it really not. Several types outweigh, or over resist many of the existing types. Ironically, there's currently 17 types, adding a new type would make it 18, making it "even".

The arguments against it are:

1. It is not unbalanced enough that would necessitate making a new type. change the effectiveness of types and moves that already exist would work just as well.
2. There is no new type that could not fit into the current 17 types. crudely sometimes but still fit. Light particularly.
3. Introducing new types would create a massive gap between it and the current type with the fewest pokemon, or the new type would dominate the regional pokedex.
4. There is no more indication now then there has ever been that new types would be introduced.

Originally Posted by Ash_Pokemaster

It baffles me that the main argument of the people against new types is that "it's been like that for too long" and "it would mess up the types chart". It's beyond me how things staying still for too long is a good thing. Regardless to how good it is -- and frankly, it is one of the best turn-based battle systems -- and in spite of the risk in that, the Pokémon battle system needs some shaking up. A new type wouldn't be enough, but it would certainly be a catalyst and a step to the right direction.

Exactly! I wish I could take this post, frame it, and hang it up on my wall, but I won't 'cause that's kinda weird. But yeah, my number one reason I've been such a strong advocate for a new type is exactly that reason. It's been too long. They've added to just about everything else in successive generations, why not add to the type chart? I don't by the whole "17 types are enough" stuff either. 649 pokemon was more than enough, but now they're likely adding 100+ new ones. Why? Because they can. Why can't a new type be the same way?

Originally Posted by scrambled_togepi

Originally Posted by Pokemaster97

I find it interesting how the arguments against a new type is "it's already balanced!". Umm, it really not. Several types outweigh, or over resist many of the existing types. Ironically, there's currently 17 types, adding a new type would make it 18, making it "even".

The arguments against it are:

1. It is not unbalanced enough that would necessitate making a new type. change the effectiveness of types and moves that already exist would work just as well.
2. There is no new type that could not fit into the current 17 types. crudely sometimes but still fit. Light particularly.
3. Introducing new types would create a massive gap between it and the current type with the fewest pokemon, or the new type would dominate the regional pokedex.
4. There is no more indication now then there has ever been that new types would be introduced.

And you put it better than I ever could... so /end thread unless people can come up with actual reasons for a new type because Scrambled's argument is very conviencing

Originally Posted by Jeff

Originally Posted by Ash_Pokemaster

It baffles me that the main argument of the people against new types is that "it's been like that for too long" and "it would mess up the types chart". It's beyond me how things staying still for too long is a good thing. Regardless to how good it is -- and frankly, it is one of the best turn-based battle systems -- and in spite of the risk in that, the Pokémon battle system needs some shaking up. A new type wouldn't be enough, but it would certainly be a catalyst and a step to the right direction.

Exactly! I wish I could take this post, frame it, and hang it up on my wall, but I won't 'cause that's kinda weird. But yeah, my number one reason I've been such a strong advocate for a new type is exactly that reason. It's been too long. They've added to just about everything else in successive generations, why not add to the type chart? I don't by the whole "17 types are enough" stuff either. 649 pokemon was more than enough, but now they're likely adding 100+ new ones. Why? Because they can. Why can't a new type be the same way?

Enough for what? 17 types is enough to classify 649 different pokemon. 649 Pokemon was enough pokemon to expand the franchize for one generation at the begining of generation 5. Using those pokemon again without introducing new pokemon would force the franchise to retread old stories, muddle each pokemon's distinct characteristics to adapt them to new stories and features, and kill the since of discovering new pokemon.

Originally Posted by Articwolf10

Originally Posted by scrambled_togepi

Originally Posted by Pokemaster97

I find it interesting how the arguments against a new type is "it's already balanced!". Umm, it really not. Several types outweigh, or over resist many of the existing types. Ironically, there's currently 17 types, adding a new type would make it 18, making it "even".

The arguments against it are:

1. It is not unbalanced enough that would necessitate making a new type. change the effectiveness of types and moves that already exist would work just as well.
2. There is no new type that could not fit into the current 17 types. crudely sometimes but still fit. Light particularly.
3. Introducing new types would create a massive gap between it and the current type with the fewest pokemon, or the new type would dominate the regional pokedex.
4. There is no more indication now then there has ever been that new types would be introduced.

And you put it better than I ever could... so /end thread unless people can come up with actual reasons for a new type because Scrambled's argument is very conviencing

Calling posts you do not agree with not an "actual reason" is rather rude of you. Anyway, of course a new type isn't "necessary", but then again, neither was having another Eeveelution, adding Dark and Steel back in Gen 2, or creating new Formes for Pokemon. Just because it isn't "necessary" doesn't mean it will not happen, as it has been proved many, many times.

@Articwolf10; You've already been warned about your attitude towards people with differing opinions than yours. You may disagree with their reasoning behind an opinion, but we've made it clear before that you cannot dismiss an entire argument just because you disagree with it. You are neither judge nor jury in whether or not GameFreak will add a new type. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, then I would like to respectfully ask that you move on to other threads.

Originally Posted by Joshawott

@Articwolf10; You've already been warned about your attitude towards people with differing opinions than yours. You may disagree with their reasoning behind an opinion, but we've made it clear before that you cannot dismiss an entire argument just because you disagree with it. You are neither judge nor jury in whether or not GameFreak will add a new type. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, then I would like to respectfully ask that you move on to other threads.

I'm just asking them to give reasons why there should be a new type... I was just saying that Scrambled's post is pretty much the reason we WON'T get a new type...

Originally Posted by Articwolf10

Originally Posted by Joshawott

@Articwolf10; You've already been warned about your attitude towards people with differing opinions than yours. You may disagree with their reasoning behind an opinion, but we've made it clear before that you cannot dismiss an entire argument just because you disagree with it. You are neither judge nor jury in whether or not GameFreak will add a new type. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the discussion, then I would like to respectfully ask that you move on to other threads.

I'm just asking them to give reasons why there should be a new type... I was just saying that Scrambled's post is pretty much the reason we WON'T get a new type...

At least Scrambled is putting ideas forward. In various threads today you've been keeping up the same attitude about this. So either be constructive, or don't say anything at all on the issue until you can.

End of discussion.

I am not opposed to new types, I would welcome them. Especially since the type chart IS out-of-whack. No, it is not perfectly balanced.

Rock, Ground, Ice, and Fighting on offense are widely regarded as broken. Though for Rock that's mostly because of Stealth Rock ALONE - which by itself makes it very difficult to use most Flying and Bug-types. Water, Steel, and Dragon are widely seen as OP on defense. Poison is garbage on offense (which is counter-intuitive to it's theme), Ice is hands down the worst type (when you factor in how many Water-types learn Ice moves for free and their multitude of weaknesses and how limited their movepools tend to be), and Steel-attacks are a joke.

However ALL that being said: Woven Material-type is STILL absurd, though. That's like having a Paper-Type.

Originally Posted by scrambled_togepi

1. It is not unbalanced enough that would necessitate making a new type. change the effectiveness of types and moves that already exist would work just as well.

Honestly, them changing the type chart at this point is a lot less likely than them simply introducing a new type to even it out a bit more. The chart as it stands may not be screaming out that it needs to be reworked, but a new addition would simply be refreshing. Even though new moves have been introduced, battles have been pretty stagnant the last 2 generations. Abilities shook that up a bit. Introducing a new type for people to figure out and work with would provide a new challenge.

2. There is no new type that could not fit into the current 17 types. crudely sometimes but still fit. Light particularly.

Bite worked out perfectly fine as a normal move in Gen I. When first introduced the type was just about fighting dirty. Those types of moves could have easily been split between Normal and Fighting. It wasn't until Gen IV with moves like Night Slash and Dark Pulse that the type branched out into also being darkness. Those moves could have easily just been done with Ghost typing. There's nothing dictating what has to fit within a given type. Metal is just processed ore which is rock. It didn't need to get its own type, but it did. The same could easily be done with Light.

3. Introducing new types would create a massive gap between it and the current type with the fewest pokemon, or the new type would dominate the regional pokedex.

That has never mattered for anything. Every game introduces a huge amount of Normal and Water type pokemon, even though they are far and away the most populated types. Dark only had 6 in its first generation. So did steel, two of which weren't new pokemon. It wasn't until a generation later Steel even got a single type pokemon of that type. Hell only in the last two generations has Ghost really gotten any sort of presence. A disparity in number of pokemon of a given type never has mattered, and never will. It's world building, and it'll be built upon every generation. If a new generation is introduced now, within 3 generations it could easily rival some of the less populous types.

4. There is no more indication now then there has ever been that new types would be introduced.

To quote Josh, "There is no strong evidence for or against it." When the games come out we'll be able to say one way or another. That won't happen for a while, so this point really doesn't do much.

Originally Posted by GreatLiver

Originally Posted by scrambled_togepi

1. It is not unbalanced enough that would necessitate making a new type. change the effectiveness of types and moves that already exist would work just as well.

Honestly, them changing the type chart at this point is a lot less likely than them simply introducing a new type to even it out a bit more. The chart as it stands may not be screaming out that it needs to be reworked, but a new addition would simply be refreshing. Even though new moves have been introduced, battles have been pretty stagnant the last 2 generations. Abilities shook that up a bit. Introducing a new type for people to figure out and work with would provide a new challenge.

To each their own. I'm not seeing it though. I found the physical Special split effected the game much more then introducing abilities.

2. There is no new type that could not fit into the current 17 types. crudely sometimes but still fit. Light particularly.

Bite worked out perfectly fine as a normal move in Gen I. When first introduced the type was just about fighting dirty. Those types of moves could have easily been split between Normal and Fighting. It wasn't until Gen IV with moves like Night Slash and Dark Pulse that the type branched out into also being darkness. Those moves could have easily just been done with Ghost typing. There's nothing dictating what has to fit within a given type. Metal is just processed ore which is rock. It didn't need to get its own type, but it did. The same could easily be done with Light.

So you are admitting there is no point to introduce a new type. Incidentally that is what appeals to me about the light type. There are so many pokemon and moves that could be changed to it so it will vastly change the way old pokemon are used. My biggest issue is that Light is incredibly vage it will either be the same thing as electric or fire type or imply that some pokemon are naturally good. I don't like the word "good" It is my third least favorite word.

Also, Night Slash is a reference to a sword testing technique from japanese history that involves ambushing someone with a sword. Hence the high critical hit rate, and its connection to underhanded fighting. Dark Pulse has something to do with thinking dark thoughts if I remember correctly. It's the "evil" type.

3. Introducing new types would create a massive gap between it and the current type with the fewest pokemon, or the new type would dominate the regional pokedex.

That has never mattered for anything. Every game introduces a huge amount of Normal and Water type pokemon, even though they are far and away the most populated types. Dark only had 6 in its first generation. So did steel, two of which weren't new pokemon. It wasn't until a generation later Steel even got a single type pokemon of that type. Hell only in the last two generations has Ghost really gotten any sort of presence. A disparity in number of pokemon of a given type never has mattered, and never will. It's world building, and it'll be built upon every generation. If a new generation is introduced now, within 3 generations it could easily rival some of the less populous types.

That was in generation 2. There were only 6 dark pokemon in generation 2 and 4 ghost types, and there are roughly 30 ghost type pokemon now. I do mostly agree with you on that point though.

4. There is no more indication now then there has ever been that new types would be introduced.

To quote Josh, "There is no strong evidence for or against it." When the games come out we'll be able to say one way or another. That won't happen for a while, so this point really doesn't do much.

I don't agree with that logic. It's like saying "nothing has changed but something can so I expect it to change" as opposed to "Nothing has changed so I don't expect anything to change."