This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Why are People so against the Light type?

#121OCShoesPosted 4/15/2013 7:40:31 AM
snuffles504 posted...
The only type match-ups I can think of that don't make obvious logical sense are Psychic > Poison and Ice > Dragon. Some of the match-ups use overly-basic logic.


Just wanted to throw in my rupee:

Dragons in a rather general sense(I think it depends which mythology you're pulling it from) are a type of lizard, or a reptile. Lizards are cold blooded, so they would be susceptible to extreme cold. (This might be more of that "overly basic logic" you were talking about, lol.)

Psychic > Poison has never made much sense to me either. I had it explained to me as the mind being above the ailments of the body whereas Psychic > Fighting was mind over the body or mind over matter, but then that calls into question why Poison !> Fighting.
---
4 / 10 - Poor - game is unremarkable and flawed
The Official Latios of Everything
#122LexifoxPosted 4/15/2013 8:02:06 AM
BlazingRain posted...
And apparently it's also easier to give irrelevant remarks than it is to answer a question.


I was saying that you should point out misinformation instead of insulting. I apologize for not spelling it out.

Not relevant to this topic, but they don't go anywhere because you refuse to let them.


I CAN easily be ignored and I do go into less of those topics.

A new type wouldn't make it any less "stable" than the attack split, abilities, natures, etc. In fact, it'd probably be a smaller change.

A new type wouldn't radically alter what Pokemon is or how the game functions.


I'm talking about doing a large retcon through existing Pokemon.

And it was an invalid one (and I already explained why).


It was an example of a large change.
---
"Murder of the living is tragic, but murder of the idea is unforgivable." - Janus, speaker of the synod
#123LexifoxPosted 4/15/2013 8:05:10 AM
BlazingRain posted...
The existence of cars does affect the production of boats. There are a limited number of resources that could be put into either of them, and so there's no way for both of them to be produced at maximal capacity since they compete for those resources.


At this point we're just arguing semantics. Do you happen to know what shared resources go into the productions of cars and boats, incidentally?

Anyway, there are plenty of standard elemental designs that could be used with a new type (i.e. a light bird, dragon, dog, fighter, etc.). I can't think of many completely original designs that would require a light type off the top of my head, but it would open the door for designs based on Amaterasu, a Greek based Light/Fighter (like Hercules), angelic Pokemon, and maybe something related to solar energy.


But if there are existing Pokemon that many feel lend themselves to a Light/Sound/whatever typing, then doesn't that prove that the lack of typing doesn't prevent or hinder the creation of new Pokemon?

I guess my original statement wasn't clear, but I meant that I don't think the developers cared enough about the metagame back in Gen 2 that they added 2 new types to help it.


You think it's a coincidence that both new types happened to defend against the most powerful types of Gen 1 (Normal and Psychic), and had weaknesses to some of the least used?
---
"Murder of the living is tragic, but murder of the idea is unforgivable." - Janus, speaker of the synod
#124LexifoxPosted 4/15/2013 8:16:31 AM
BlazingRain posted...
Or the attack split, or the addition of abilities. But you don't want to admit that because it hurts your argument.


The physical/special split was more of a type change than a Pokemon. You'll have to forgive me. Gens 1 and 2 weren't very good and I tend to forget those things.

It's pretty obvious that your Charizard arguments aren't an example of bored trolling, but rather a product of your poor ability to make an argument.


Yes, "type the first thing that comes to mind while you wait to respawn" is a pretty poor way to argue.

Changing 20 the types of 20 Pokemon would change 3% of all of them. Adding abilities changed 100% of them, and the attack split changed a large number of attacks. Stop acting like a new type would cause a meltdown in the world of Pokemon. It wouldn't.


Putting aside the argument of saying it'd only be 20 Pokemon, it would depend on the Pokemon in question since some are known to play specific roles and a type change would impair their ability to do this.

Read it better.


My apologies for not re-reading to catch one sentence.

Clearly the early ghosts were all gaseous, and so a crow and a dog would have looked out of place with Gengar and Misdreavus.


Gengar and Misdreavus don't look particularly gaseous. The former appears rather solid and sturdy, while the former has a "tattered" look about it. But I ask you this: You argue that a crow and dog would look out of place because the early ghosts were "gaseous". Do you feel that if Gen 2 introduced "non-gaseous" Ghosts then "crow and dog" would be accepted just fine?
---
"Murder of the living is tragic, but murder of the idea is unforgivable." - Janus, speaker of the synod
#125LexifoxPosted 4/15/2013 8:16:34 AM
As for the others, there are very few designs that would be impossible without the type they belong to. Many if not most Pokemon are merely elemental variations of some real thing. A fire horse, thunder bird, dark crocodile, etc. Heck Pokemon could have existed without a type system at all. But the types allow multiple variations on a base design, and adding more types increases that opportunity. We have water birds, thunder birds, dark birds, etc. With a light type we could also have light birds. We could have light dragons. If you think those are unnecessary, then so are the steel birds, the fire birds, the dark dragons, the water dragons, etc. You might as well be asking for the removal of the entire type system.

This is a really stupid argument that you're making.


It's a very stupid extrapolation you're making.
---
"Murder of the living is tragic, but murder of the idea is unforgivable." - Janus, speaker of the synod