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

Can we all agree that a Fairy Type is better than a Light Type?

#41Xerneas66Posted 5/1/2013 12:27:43 PM
pretty much everything Light type could cover is done by existing types.

Counter to Dark = Fighting
Literal light = Electric (see: Lanturn and Ampharos)
Kind ways = generally covered by Normal, but can be by other types as well.

Seriously, it's like with all new type ideas. They sound cool on paper but ingame there just wouldn't be enough to differentiate them from other types.

And don't even get me started on the atrocious Sound and Love types.
#42KeeperOfShadowsPosted 5/1/2013 9:25:35 PM
Xerneas66 posted...
pretty much everything Light type could cover is done by existing types.

Counter to Dark = Fighting
Literal light = Electric (see: Lanturn and Ampharos)
Kind ways = generally covered by Normal, but can be by other types as well.

Seriously, it's like with all new type ideas. They sound cool on paper but ingame there just wouldn't be enough to differentiate them from other types.


Considering that GF made Rock and Ground two separate types, I don't think this would really be an issue.

Similar, yet different.
---
Feel free to apply sarcasm tags if you didn't like my post.
You're too angry... calm down... and let the madness take hold. - Arne83
#43Xerneas66Posted 5/2/2013 8:24:05 AM
KeeperOfShadows posted...
Xerneas66 posted...
pretty much everything Light type could cover is done by existing types.

Counter to Dark = Fighting
Literal light = Electric (see: Lanturn and Ampharos)
Kind ways = generally covered by Normal, but can be by other types as well.

Seriously, it's like with all new type ideas. They sound cool on paper but ingame there just wouldn't be enough to differentiate them from other types.


Considering that GF made Rock and Ground two separate types, I don't think this would really be an issue.

Similar, yet different.


What I'm really trying to say is that a Light type mon that uses light as a part of its lifestyle ala Ampharos would just have nothing to differentiate it from being an Electric type.
Same with it being a 'justified' mon, it could easily be Fighting, but with its goodness incorporated into its design ala the Muskedeers.

with Rock and Ground however, lets take two examples. One Water/Rock and one Water/Ground.
Relicanth = its a fish that has a stone colored body, and design-wise it just wouldn't be a Ground type.
whereas Swampert, a Water/Ground, is a water type that has association with mud, uses the Ground to attack with, and design wise it couldn't be any less of a Rock type.
I think the Rock type is based more on the mineral itself, whether its with Rock incorporated in its design ala having a shell, or armor, or whether its a living rock
Ground type is more based on the concept itself, with the Pokemon either spending part of time underground, or all of its time underground, or if it has something like mud incorporated in its design.
I can think why someone would think they were similar, but there is actually more amount to differentiate both of them than there is to differentiate Light and Electric/Psychic/Fighting

And lets say for arguments sake that a Light type is introduced:
Would Lanturn be changed to Water/Light to fit in? How would you distinguish it from an Electric type?
And Chandelure, it's clearly a Ghost type and clearly has flames. However, being the first Pokemon to be based on a lamp, what would happen to it? Would you take away its Ghost typing to make it a Fire/Light type, which due to its design just wouldn't happen, or take away its Fire type to make it a Ghost/Light type, which also just wouldn't happen due to its design.

And if it was a counter to Dark types, eg 'justified' mons
Would you change the Muskedeers to part Light instead of Fighting? They are clearly Fighting types, yet the biggest counter to Dark types we have, what with all of them having the Justified ability, SACRED Sword.

tl;dr, the Light type is redundant and won't happen, and Rock and Ground are more distinguised than people think.
#44KeeperOfShadowsPosted 5/3/2013 6:41:14 AM
Xerneas66 posted...
pretty much everything Light type could cover is done by existing types.

What I'm really trying to say is that a Light type mon that uses light as a part of its lifestyle ala Ampharos would just have nothing to differentiate it from being an Electric type.
Same with it being a 'justified' mon, it could easily be Fighting, but with its goodness incorporated into its design ala the Muskedeers.

And lets say for arguments sake that a Light type is introduced:
Would Lanturn be changed to Water/Light to fit in? How would you distinguish it from an Electric type?
And Chandelure, it's clearly a Ghost type and clearly has flames. However, being the first Pokemon to be based on a lamp, what would happen to it? Would you take away its Ghost typing to make it a Fire/Light type, which due to its design just wouldn't happen, or take away its Fire type to make it a Ghost/Light type, which also just wouldn't happen due to its design.

And if it was a counter to Dark types, eg 'justified' mons
Would you change the Muskedeers to part Light instead of Fighting? They are clearly Fighting types, yet the biggest counter to Dark types we have, what with all of them having the Justified ability, SACRED Sword.

tl;dr, the Light type is redundant and won't happen, and Rock and Ground are more distinguised than people think.


Not every single pokemon who utilizes light would need to have their typing changed. Many current pokemon have traits that would seemingly qualify them for other types. Such as *flameshield* Charizard's draconic appearance.

But I do understand where your coming from. I just don't think this series is one in which you should use logic to argue for or against something. Whatever happens happens, of course. Though I also doubt there will be another type.
---
Feel free to apply sarcasm tags if you didn't like my post.
You're too angry... calm down... and let the madness take hold. - Arne83
#45ArctimonPosted 5/3/2013 8:02:39 AM
Light>>>>>Fairy

That being said, at this point I really don't want either of them.
---
~~Baltimore Ravens - 2013 Super Bowl Champions~~
Xiaolin Chronicles set to premiere Spring 2013!
#46stranksyPosted 5/3/2013 8:21:58 AM
I would want Light well over Fairy, and I'm sure the localization team would think the same thing; the 6-14 year old kids who play, and don't know anything more about fairies than what Disney has told them, will not support it. A few will probably flat-out refuse to use fairy types because "lol they're gay". Most of us on this board, however, are aware of the malicious nature of most fairies in folklore, such as the Dullahan, etc.

But I digress; GameFreak has actually established quite well through the Pokemon that they call "fairies" what type of fairy we would be getting. And I don't support that. I don't wholly support "light" either, but I do support it over fairy.

That said, I do want a new type that manages to embody what Fairy and Light could be by lore; weak to steel and poison, neutral to most, and strong to dragon, dark, and ghost. In addition, the chaos of adding a new type is the perfect time to rearrange the type chart and attempt to even the playing field. Water needs to gain at least one more weakness, due to their rampant use of the very powerful ice attacks, and ice needs to gain a couple resistances (or at the very least, neutralities) to make them useable. Psychic has been fairly well checked since Generation II introduced Dark and Steel, but I could see it becoming OP again if the wrong changes were made. Dragon's type effectiveness should be able to stay the same without to much trouble, but Poison needs to be made SE to either Water and Fighting, or Water and Psychic.

And that sir, is my rant of the morning.
---
When life's really getting you down, take solace in the fact that you're going to die.
#47EdwardoMario16Posted 5/4/2013 6:49:35 AM
Light Type makes no sense because there is no "Dark" Type in Pokemon. When people bring up a "Light-" Type, I get the idea that they're talking about generic "Holy" Shining Light element in RPG's.

Pokemon's "Dark" =/= "BWAHAHA POWER OF DARK MAGIC" in RPG's

So if there was a Light-Type, what would it be?

Fighting and Psychic aren't "Light" either. Yeah, they oppose Dark, but they are not Light. Fighting sure, it based around fighting with honor and trained combat, but it's still punches and kicks at the end of the day. Psychic of course deals with the mind.

"Fairy" has a lot of versatility. It could mean anything. Magic (Most Especially This), Light, Benevolence, Blessing, Mischief, Mysticism..."Fighting" and "Psychic" don't represent those things.

I also see it as a "mythology" type like Ghost and Dragon. "Fairy" could represent creatures/spirits/legends that don't fit into "Ghost". Stuff like Nymphs, Sylphs, Angels, Pixies, Gnomes, Genies, and of course, Fairies. Hell, according to the rumor that Xerneas (based on a Celtic God) is "Fairy" as well, ANYTHING can be "Fairy". Unicorns, Pegasi, Bulls, Minotaurs. Anything can be "Fairy". It can't be just little pink blobs and winged creatures.

So yeah, Mythology meets Pokemon. Go Fairy-Type.
---
This is the worst bird yet.
White 2 FC: 3483 0523 8765
#48MetaFalconPunchPosted 5/4/2013 6:52:57 AM
Aphoph posted...
Say what you will about a Fairy Type but at least it's not a Light Type.

Like, why would you want a Light Type? 'Cause there's a Dark Type? But we already have Fighting as the foil of Dark.


*rolls eyes until they fall out of my head*

Now look what you've done!
---
Pretend this signature is a basilisk. You are now dead.
#49Shadow_StarWolfPosted 5/4/2013 8:04:40 AM
From: KeeperOfShadows | Posted: 5/2/2013 1:25:35 PM | #042
Considering that GF made Rock and Ground two separate types, I don't think this would really be an issue.


Ground is essentially the earth itself while rock is specifically the dense, hard stuff, usually found on the ground. It'd be silly to make them as a single entity just because it is a norm. Other stuff include Ground and Grass being separate, considering "Earth" also occupies the elements of foliage in other games.
---
http://i.imgur.com/ZOdcN.png
We Are XROS HEART!
#50BountyanPosted 5/4/2013 8:15:06 AM
EdwardoMario16 posted...
Light Type makes no sense because there is no "Dark" Type in Pokemon. When people bring up a "Light-" Type, I get the idea that they're talking about generic "Holy" Shining Light element in RPG's.

Pokemon's "Dark" =/= "BWAHAHA POWER OF DARK MAGIC" in RPG's

So if there was a Light-Type, what would it be?

Fighting and Psychic aren't "Light" either. Yeah, they oppose Dark, but they are not Light. Fighting sure, it based around fighting with honor and trained combat, but it's still punches and kicks at the end of the day. Psychic of course deals with the mind.

"Fairy" has a lot of versatility. It could mean anything. Magic (Most Especially This), Light, Benevolence, Blessing, Mischief, Mysticism..."Fighting" and "Psychic" don't represent those things.

I also see it as a "mythology" type like Ghost and Dragon. "Fairy" could represent creatures/spirits/legends that don't fit into "Ghost". Stuff like Nymphs, Sylphs, Angels, Pixies, Gnomes, Genies, and of course, Fairies. Hell, according to the rumor that Xerneas (based on a Celtic God) is "Fairy" as well, ANYTHING can be "Fairy". Unicorns, Pegasi, Bulls, Minotaurs. Anything can be "Fairy". It can't be just little pink blobs and winged creatures.

So yeah, Mythology meets Pokemon. Go Fairy-Type.


I like you.
---
3DS FC: -
White 2 FC: 1765 0547 5604, Name: Kojo