PDA

View Full Version : New Type: Light


YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 10:49 AM
Since most people agree that Light makes perfect sense for a new pokemon/move type in upcoming pokemon games, I've decided to make a separate topic in which different ideas about it can be discussed.

First, here's some type mapping I've come up with from reading other suggestions and thinking about it myself.

Defensively strong against: Light, Dark, Ghost, Psychic, Electric*
Defensively immune to: Fire (can't be burned)
Defensively weak against: Grass, Ice, Dragon

Offensively strong against: Dark, Ghost, Fighting
Offensively weak against: Light, Dragon, Ice, Electric*
Offensively ineffective against: Grass

*It's hard to explain Electric. When I try to think about it logically, Electric shouldn't be good against Light, but at the same time light shouldn't be strong against Electric. It wouldn't be all that strange...they have weirder things already with type-mapping, such as Ghost and Dragon both being strong against themselves.

As for other things that might not make apparent sense, it would be strong against Fighting because Dark is weak to it, so since Light is the opposite of Dark, it should be strong against it. I'm not sure it's the best logic though, because I didn't use it for other types such as Steel. But that's why this topic is open for discussion!

Grass should be obvious. Light is the source of plants' food. Grass would do nothing but feed from Light. Then they could work with it where certain Grass pokemon could not only be immune to Light, but take advantage of it in ways. I'm not sure if it should just heal them, since other types don't do that unless they have an ability like Water Absorb or Voltage Absorb, or whatever.


Now, past type mappings, there's a few other things. First of all, the most obvious move already in Pokemon that would become a Light attack would be Flash. But what about other attacks? Solarbeam? Flash Cannon? They may even have to tweak Sunny Day. I look forward to seeing some opinions on this.

Lastly, there should be a new status that is in virtually every other game of this style, and that Pokemon has neglected for quite awhile, which would perfectly for Light-type attacks. That is "Blind". Blind status would lower Accuracy and I suppose one of either Attack or Special Attack. Likewise, certain attacks would not work while under the Blind status, such as Future Sight, Lock-On, Detect, etc. Furthermore, and I'm not sure about this one (give me opinions here) it may even go so far as to make never-miss moves such as Swift able to miss (though they'd still have a really high accuracy rate). As for curing it, there would of course be blind heals as well as some type of berry that can heal it. Also there would be some kind of glasses/goggles hold item that would prevent Blind from occuring on whichever pokemon is holding it. The status would only last from 3-7 turns or so, not for the whole battle, and would not carry over outside of a battle.



Anyway, that's all I've got so far, feel free to add suggestions/opinions!

El Gofre
June 23rd, 2008, 12:42 PM
Light type will never be made, nor will any new type. The metagame is extremely well balanced and does not need a new type complicating things. Dark and steel were only brought in to weaken psychic type, which dominated 1st generation.

*Firestar*
June 23rd, 2008, 01:01 PM
It's not saying there will be, it's saying what if? Anyway I think they should make some new moves. Light sword (random move just made up) would be cool cause it could have high critical hit ratio and strike the foe three times as much damage with sunny day.
Solarbeam might be changed into light because it is light, Solarbeam.

Avey
June 23rd, 2008, 01:19 PM
Eh, as great as this thread is and all, there was really only one thread that was needed to explain the Light-Type, and that was made months ago. The type, Light, will never exist. Why? I know it seems like perfect sense because Dark-Type exists, but Dark-Type and Steel-Type were only made to weaken down the Psychic-Type in the second generation games as that was the type that absolutely dominated Red, Blue and Yellow.

YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 01:43 PM
About it never existing and the metagame and all that...

Wrong. You have to realize that the majority of pokemon players (meaning the majority of people giving Nintendo/GF money for their product) are people who don't even know what metagame means and couldn't care less about it. Nintendo and the like doesn't care about competitive battling, because that's all things that players have created. Adding light to change things is going to screw with the metagame, but only until players find a way to incorporate it and all of a sudden that's all a thing of the past.

The reasoning used against it being added is idiotic. Dark and Steel were added because they needed new content. Yes, they counteracted Psychic's dominance which probably was part of their reasoning, but look at when they added it. Competitive battling as it is today didn't exist. The only way of battling back then was with a friend and a link cable. So Nintendo didn't have "the metagame" in mind when they added the last two types, just like they NEVER have it in mind and will not refrain from adding new and exciting elements to their game just to protect its balance.

Gymnotide
June 23rd, 2008, 02:17 PM
Though I'm usually on the opposition for the speculation towards a "Light-type," you've provided alot more ideas than most of the previous dreamers. Some of your ideas I like, some of them I don't.

How would Blind be incorporated into the game with moves like Sand-Attack or Flash, as those moves are completely based off of blinding the foe. They would probably have to change them to your proposed status effect. How would this function on foes that can't see anyways, like Zubat or Abra? How would this work against goes immune to Accuracy-lowering effects, like Wingull or Torkoal? Also about Blind: Detect and Future Sight use the power of the mind, rather than physical sight, so those attacks shouldn't be affected. How would Blind make the Pokemon react to incoming Light-type attacks?

Morningsun and Synthesis = Light type? You would need to change alot of moves to accomodate such a broad typing.

Your reasoning that Light should trump Fighting would also imply that it would be effective against Bugs - Um. I guess Bugs don't appear as often during the daytime. Maybe.

Why is Ice good against Light? It seems that Ice would make Light more powerful by refracting and magnifying it. How would Light-type react to Mirror-type moves? Would they be reflected or dampened, and how can you tell?

I would think Dark-type to be good against Light-type, but also be weak to it. After all, with more light, there's just more darkness. What do you think?

All in all, shining light on enemies doesn't seem to really harm them, unless in the eyes, or if the light is really, really hot. It seems that most of the moves would be Support or Healing moves anyways.

Motsuko Live
June 23rd, 2008, 02:37 PM
C'mon, people... as Oni and Gerri previously stated, there will never be a light type! Let's forget about metagame for a second, shall we? Nintendo still has to incorporate the Light type's moves, effects, etc into the game. Not to mention, they'd probably have to change a few Pokemon, too. Such as Solrock; would that mass of oddly shaped rock not categorize into the Light type?

You seem to think that because Nintendo might not care about the metagame, it means they should undoubtedly add the Light Type. Did you not take into consideration all the changes that would have to be made? More type match-up memorization for veteran players, more items, possibly even more gyms! I think 4 generations is too far in to change the rules, suddenly.

YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 02:38 PM
Though I'm usually on the opposition for the speculation towards a "Light-type," you've provided alot more ideas than most of the previous dreamers. Some of your ideas I like, some of them I don't.

How would Blind be incorporated into the game with moves like Sand-Attack or Flash, as those moves are completely based off of blinding the foe. They would probably have to change them to your proposed status effect. How would this function on foes that can't see anyways, like Zubat or Abra? How would this work against goes immune to Accuracy-lowering effects, like Wingull or Torkoal? Also about Blind: Detect and Future Sight use the power of the mind, rather than physical sight, so those attacks shouldn't be affected. How would Blind make the Pokemon react to incoming Light-type attacks?

Morningsun and Synthesis = Light type? You would need to change alot of moves to accomodate such a broad typing.

Your reasoning that Light should trump Fighting would also imply that it would be effective against Bugs - Um. I guess Bugs don't appear as often during the daytime. Maybe.

Why is Ice good against Light? It seems that Ice would make Light more powerful by refracting and magnifying it. How would Light-type react to Mirror-type moves? Would they be reflected or dampened, and how can you tell?

I would think Dark-type to be good against Light-type, but also be weak to it. After all, with more light, there's just more darkness. What do you think?

All in all, shining light on enemies doesn't seem to really harm them, unless in the eyes, or if the light is really, really hot. It seems that most of the moves would be Support or Healing moves anyways.

Some good points. I will respond to the ones I can.

As for your first main paragraph there regarding the Blind status, it would pretty much do what you would logically assume in all those situations. Moves like Sand Attack and Flash would be changed to add the Blind Status. Flash already has the effect of lowering Accuracy. Change it to "Induces Blind status", which would in turn lower Accuracy. As for Pokemon who can't see, they would be immune to the status, simple as that. Same with the others you mentioned. You're right about Detect and such, so I suppose that idea is out the window.

Changing moves' types is not a big deal. They did it with Bite, and it actually made things a little more illogical, because then Bite was no longer weak against Rock types, when logically it should be. I think change is a good thing, we shouldn't be opposed to it when IMO it will do nothing but improve the game by adding more possibilities for all kinds of added content.

Like I said, the reasoning for Fighting isn't the best. It's just a suggestion, nothing I believe is essential if Light were to be added.

As for Ice, I actually got that off another suggestion in the "One New Type" poll topic. I probably should have made it the other way since you're right, and Light would probably melt ice. And in regards to mirror-type moves, I think it would work the same as any other type. I think any differently might be looking into it TOO much. You can't always think of it in terms of literal mirror reflection, because what about Steel? What the heck could a mirror do to Steel?

About the Dark v. Light thing, I thought about that myself. It might makes sense that Dark could be strong against Light too, as if Dark is overtaking Light. But you have to remember, Dark is not a thing in and of itself. Darkness is simply the absence of Light. As long as the Light is there, Dark won't exist. What you said about more Light creating more Dark is only true if something stands in the way of the Light to create a shadow.

And finally, in response to your conclusion, it's not fair to think of things that way when it comes to Pokemon. If that type of reasoning were used for everything in Pokemon, just how effective would moves like Bubble/Bubblebeam, Razor Leaf, Water Gun, Lick, etc. be?

C'mon, people... as Oni and Gerri previously stated, there will never be a light type! Let's forget about metagame for a second, shall we? Nintendo still has to incorporate the Light type's moves, effects, etc into the game. Not to mention, they'd probably have to change a few Pokemon, too. Such as Solrock; would that mass of oddly shaped rock not categorize into the Light type?

You seem to think that because Nintendo might not care about the metagame, it means they should undoubtedly add the Light Type. Did you not take into consideration all the changes that would have to be made? More type match-up memorization for veteran players, more items, possibly even more gyms! I think 4 generations is too far in to change the rules, suddenly.

So Nintendo just doesn't change? They never change? Change is a good thing. It's not hard to change a few moves/pokemon. They've done it before with Dark and Steel.

More memorization? That's a bad thing? You're using that to argue against adding content? Please, there are 493 pokemon in this game and 7-year olds can name them all in order.

More gyms?! THAT'S A GOOD THING!! That means they'll have way more stuff to add for a new game!

Gymnotide
June 23rd, 2008, 02:55 PM
Some good points. I will respond to the ones I can.

As for your first main paragraph there regarding the Blind status, it would pretty much do what you would logically assume in all those situations. Moves like Sand Attack and Flash would be changed to add the Blind Status. Flash already has the effect of lowering Accuracy. Change it to "Induces Blind status", which would in turn lower Accuracy. As for Pokemon who can't see, they would be immune to the status, simple as that. Same with the others you mentioned. You're right about Detect and such, so I suppose that idea is out the window.

Your proposition would also make Accuracy-lowering moves have a completely different functionality - they would not be able to lower Accuracy more than once, and like your first post said, they would also lower a different stat. It would also mean that Blind would bestow immunity to Paralyze, Burn, Poison and Sleep. This could be a good and bad thing - good because it brings in a new modus operandi where a player could Blind their own Pokemon, then use attacks that never miss, I suppose.

How would certain Pokemon be immune to a status effect? The only way possible as of now would be to replace its ability with something like "Sightless: This Pokemon cannot be Blinded." I guess that would change the functionality of those few Pokemon. Any suggestions?

About Pokemon that cannot have Accuracy lowered: how would that work? Would they only be immune to the Accuracy-lowering part of the status, but still be subject to the ATK/Sp.ATK lowering part? Or would they be immune to the status completely?

- - - - - - - - - -

The forums wouldn't load so you didn't get to see my edit where I proposed that Light-type would be immune to Light-type. If you shine a flashlight in broad daylight, what's it gonna do?

More memorization? That's a bad thing? You're using that to argue against adding content? Please, there are 493 pokemon in this game and 7-year olds can name them all in order.

LULZ.

YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 03:01 PM
Your proposition would also make Accuracy-lowering moves have a completely different functionality - they would not be able to lower Accuracy more than once, and like your first post said, they would also lower a different stat. It would also mean that Blind would bestow immunity to Paralyze, Burn, Poison and Sleep. This could be a good and bad thing - good because it brings in a new modus operandi where a player could Blind their own Pokemon, then use attacks that never miss, I suppose.

How would certain Pokemon be immune to a status effect? The only way possible as of now would be to replace its ability with something like "Sightless: This Pokemon cannot be Blinded." I guess that would change the functionality of those few Pokemon. Any suggestions?

About Pokemon that cannot have Accuracy lowered: how would that work? Would they only be immune to the Accuracy-lowering part of the status, but still be subject to the ATK/Sp.ATK lowering part? Or would they be immune to the status completely?

- - - - - - - - - -

The forums wouldn't load so you didn't get to see my edit where I proposed that Light-type would be immune to Light-type. If you shine a flashlight in broad daylight, what's it gonna do?

No, it wouldn't change ALL Accuracy-lowering moves, just Flash, because Flash would change to Blind-inducing. I don't see the reasoning for Blind making other statuses not work. I never implied that. Are we on the same page here? O.o

As for pokemon being immune to it, it would be the same way someone like Cranidos is immune to Paralyze. Only thing is they do that by Ability, and Pokemon can only have one Ability. That's another thing that could possibly change...allow Pokemon to have more than one ability, so long as they make sense based on the physical nature of the Pokemon.

And lastly, the Sp. Attack/Attack lowering...that was just a random thought...I'll go ahead and scratch that idea.

And good point about the flashlight. In that case, yeah Light should be immune to Light. Now, anticipating your next response to that part, mirror moves WILL still work. Reason being, they don't reflect the attack, they reflect the damage...unless I'm quite mistaken. As far as I know, use some kind of reflecting move on Thunderbolt against a Jolteon, the Jolteon doesn't absorb that. Or does it? Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Gymnotide
June 23rd, 2008, 03:04 PM
No, it wouldn't change ALL Accuracy-lowering moves, just Flash, because Flash would change to Blind-inducing. I don't see the reasoning for Blind making other statuses not work. I never implied that. Are we on the same page here? O.o

As for pokemon being immune to it, it would be the same way someone like Cranidos is immune to Paralyze. Only thing is they do that by Ability, and Pokemon can only have one Ability. That's another thing that could possibly change...allow Pokemon to have more than one ability, so long as they make sense based on the physical nature of the Pokemon.

And lastly, the Sp. Attack/Attack lowering...that was just a random thought...I'll go ahead and scratch that idea.

You can only be affected by one status condition at a time - that is, unless you intended it to be more like Confusion. In that case, then it makes sense.

Cranidos is not immune to Paralyze, heh.

YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 03:09 PM
You can only be affected by one status condition at a time - that is, unless you intended it to be more like Confusion. In that case, then it makes sense.

Cranidos is not immune to Paralyze, heh.

My bad, misread his ability. Either way, pokemon like Wingull who can't have Accuracy lowered would operate the same way. Wingull for example would be immune to Blind because of his Keen Eye ability.

And yeah, I suppose you can only be affected by one, but then why is that an argument against it if it's already an aspect of the game? We don't say Burn shouldn't be in the game because if a pokemon is Burned it can't be Poisoned.

Gymnotide
June 23rd, 2008, 03:13 PM
My bad, misread his ability. Either way, pokemon like Wingull who can't have Accuracy lowered would operate the same way. Wingull for example would be immune to Blind because of his Keen Eye ability.

And yeah, I suppose you can only be affected by one, but then why is that an argument against it if it's already an aspect of the game? We don't say Burn shouldn't be in the game because if a pokemon is Burned it can't be Poisoned.

Having good eyes doesn't stop someone from shining a lazer beam into them and making you lose your vision. Lulz.

Actually, I forget. I completely lost my train of thought - and it's your idea anyways, so you can conduct the train any way you want :P

YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 05:01 PM
Having good eyes doesn't stop someone from shining a lazer beam into them and making you lose your vision. Lulz.

Actually, I forget. I completely lost my train of thought - and it's your idea anyways, so you can conduct the train any way you want :P

Lol. Well, blowing bubbles at someone doesn't hurt either, yet we have that. It doesn't always need to make sense. Keen Eye already stops Wingull from being affected by anything that lowers Accuract, so if Blind lowers Accuracy (which it logically would) then Keen Eye should prevent that. That's all I'm saying. If it doesn't, so be it. Change Wingull's ability.

Gymnotide
June 23rd, 2008, 05:07 PM
I'm sure if the bubbles contained a massive amount of air on the inside, with enough pressure on the outside from keeping them from bursting, they would hurt a ton on impact. Like having a balloon popped in your face! Ouch.

Eheh.

YOOM-TAH
June 23rd, 2008, 05:23 PM
I'm sure if the bubbles contained a massive amount of air on the inside, with enough pressure on the outside from keeping them from bursting, they would hurt a ton on impact. Like having a balloon popped in your face! Ouch.

Eheh.

Maybe so, but look at the animation for Bubble. Doesn't look like it. Looks more like those kinda bubbles you buy for 50 cents for a kid to blow while playing at a picnic or something.

Fact is, no matter how you get around it, certain things don't make sense when you think about them in terms of logic. You have to think about them completely differently for them to make sense. A good visualization would be the show. Look at Piplup use Bubblebeam. They explode with smoke and everything. That makes no sense, but it's Pokemon, so we don't care! :D

El Gofre
June 23rd, 2008, 10:54 PM
In answer to your earlier point, nintendo care very muh about a metagame and fairness. If rules were made unfair then competetive battles would have no appeal and would detrat from the numbers at tourneys and the like.

And S&D were introduced to weaken psychic type. Lets have a look at 1st gen:
Psychic Type:
*Weak Against Bug- Seems fair enough, but the only pokemon capable of using bug moves are bugs, since none were available in TMs. Now compare all 1st gen Bugs to the two most widely used psychics, if not most widely used pokesmon, in 1st gen: Mewtwo and Alakazam. Both of these pokes outsped all bugs in the game and hit them with STABed, super effective psychics with two of the highest stats in the game. Then consider it has nothing that resists it, and tell me it wasnt imbalanced.

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 12:13 AM
In answer to your earlier point, nintendo care very muh about a metagame and fairness. If rules were made unfair then competetive battles would have no appeal and would detrat from the numbers at tourneys and the like.

And S&D were introduced to weaken psychic type. Lets have a look at 1st gen:
Psychic Type:
*Weak Against Bug- Seems fair enough, but the only pokemon capable of using bug moves are bugs, since none were available in TMs. Now compare all 1st gen Bugs to the two most widely used psychics, if not most widely used pokesmon, in 1st gen: Mewtwo and Alakazam. Both of these pokes outsped all bugs in the game and hit them with STABed, super effective psychics with two of the highest stats in the game. Then consider it has nothing that resists it, and tell me it wasnt imbalanced.

What is so unfair about Light? The fact that you all haven't given it any thought and therefore just think it will screw everything up does not constitute unfairness. It will still be a balanced game. It will just CHANGE the metagame. BIG DEAL. Stop being afraid of change.

And yes, they were introduced to weaken Psychic. I never said it wasn't imbalanced back then. But the fact is, if you honestly think that if Psychic was originally not as overpowered and imbalanced as it was, that they would not have EVER added ANY new types, you are absolutely out of your mind.

Azonic
June 24th, 2008, 01:10 AM
First off, I don’t see a reason to create a new type. As of now, none of the types and Pokemon particularly have a huge advantage of being resistant to so many types nor does one type have an offense that is resisted by such few types. Light is simply another basic idea created by the simple mind of a fan. Now if you put your mind to it, Light does not have much relation to any other type except Dark. What is the point of the LIGHT type? The elements and typings in the metagame can be considered almost equal as of now. Now, look at the fact that the ONLY time that new types were ever created were when the metagame was called uneven because Psychic types dominated the generation. As of now, none of the types dominate the generation. A large amount of Pokemon fans are intrigued to battle and learn about the competitive battling world and still be fascinated and satisfied by it. Some Pokemon are far stronger than others, but that wasn’t because of their typing. The metagame is even, the in-game play is also doable, what is the point for a new type at this time? Light is just another concept and thought just to oppose the Dark type. I see no other point in creating it other than this. If the Light type actually were created, a massive amount of the metagame would be changed, along with Pokemon typing alterations, new moves with a new concept, effects, and a whole lot of other stuff. I think Fire and Electric already portray Light pretty well. Really, what creates the light in our bonfire? What creates the light in our lamps? Fire and Electricity.

It's not unfair to make the new type at all, there's just no reason for this new type.

Motsuko Live
June 24th, 2008, 09:53 AM
Yeah, I see you're point YOOM-TAH... maybe it wouldn't be so bad having a light type. It sounds pretty interesting the way you've put it.

But I just don't get why Nintendo would randomly add a light type into the Pokemon games. As everyone's said, they didn't just add Steel and Dark because they felt like it, or because they overly care how much gamers wanted more types (though I'm sure they did a little bit). They added them because they needed to get rid of the advantage Psychic Pokemon had. Seeing as all the types are pretty balanced at this point in time, there's really no need to add the light type.

Look at it this way; say I had 3 stacks of... "cheese". xDD;
The first two stacks had 10 pieces, while the last stack only had 9. My objective is to make all three stacks even. I can use as many pieces of cheese that I want, but I have to pay for the extra ones I take. Normally, you would just add one piece of cheese to the third pile, correct? Correct. Now each stack has 10 pieces of cheese. But say I decided to buy three more pieces of cheese to give each stack 11 pieces. The stacks are still even, but I've wasted the amount of money it took to buy 3 pieces of cheese. What's the point?

Adding Dark & Steel in the second generation was fixing a mistake. Adding light would be like improving something that was fine to begin with. There's no point in adding a light type, but at the same time, there's no point in not adding one, really. (besides the extra work which would need to be done, but as you said before, it's not that much).

Anyway, I guess ultimately it's up to Nintendo to decide whether they want to add a light type or not.

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 10:48 AM
The problem is you all think of the game in the wrong way. You think of the game as a system of battling with other people. You see this system as balanced and fair, and so you see no reason for it to change.

That's fair, but do you really honestly think Nintendo sees it this way? Imagine if they used the "Don't fix what isn't broken" mentality for everything. The Wii certainly wouldn't exist. Brawl would be exactly the same as Melee. Mario Galaxy? That would have never come about. Why add all that 3D stuff when what they had already done was balanced and fair and didn't need to be changed?

The thought behind adding a new type does not have to come from the need to fix something. It should come from the desire to add new and exciting content. I for one do not want Pokemon to just be stale and boring for the rest of the time it exists. Let me ask you all something. You're all so obsessed with the "metagame" and its balance. What do you think about adding new Pokemon? That would certainly change things up wouldn't it? What about new items? New abilities? New moves? Wow, the metagame is completely different now! Are you guys just opposed to all new content in any way whatsoever? If not, then what's the problem with a new type? What makes adding a new type any different than adding new pokemon, items, or moves?

@Raikazu - If that's your mentality, then what about Ice? Ice is the same exact thing as Water, just at 0 degress Celcius or lower. Is there that big a difference between Rock and Ground? What about Ghost and Dark?

Point is, a lot of the types are similar, yes. If you think beyond that though, you can see as I pointed out in the first post (then revised through discussion with Gymnotide) that the Light type would make a lot of sense.

And for the last time, during the Gold and Silver era when it was first made, there was no such thing as the metagame. Yes, there were tournaments. And how many people used Substitute and Baton Pass and CMCune and Tyraniboah back then? No one. No one cared about it like everyone today seems to for some reason.

Motsuko Live
June 24th, 2008, 11:09 AM
I like you, YOOM-TAH. You actually think your posts through. I'm not just saying that to sound like I'm mature by "complimenting the opponent while arguing"; I seriously like the way you "discuss" things. =D

Anyway, there's something I still need explaining. You say that adding the light type is the same thing as improving graphics on a game, or improving a new console. But it really isn't.

See, when you improve graphics, you... well, that's just it. You improve them. As in, make it better. When you create a new console, you're basically improving the old one. Maybe there was a glitch in the previous version of the console, or maybe one of the characters head popped off in Super Smash Bros. when you performed a certain move. If so, you would normally improve them by fixing the mistakes. Even if it's not a mistake, the general idea of improving something is to make it more enjoyable.

So what about adding the light type makes playing Pokemon more enjoyable? You say it would make it less stale, but didn't adding Dark and Steel? They got old pretty quickly, didn't they? I just really don't see how adding the light type would improve the game in any way. But I'm not saying there's a reason it shouldn't be added, because there isn't. Like I said before, it's really up to Nintendo to decide whether they're going to add it. Not us. We can discuss it all we'd like, but in the end it's not our decision.

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 11:19 AM
I like you, YOOM-TAH. You actually think your posts through. I'm not just saying that to sound like I'm mature by "complimenting the opponent while arguing"; I seriously like the way you "discuss" things. =D

Anyway, there's something I still need explaining. You say that adding the light type is the same thing as improving graphics on a game, or improving a new console. But it really isn't.

See, when you improve graphics, you... well, that's just it. You improve them. As in, make it better. When you create a new console, you're basically improving the old one. Maybe there was a glitch in the previous version of the console, or maybe one of the characters head popped off in Super Smash Bros. when you performed a certain move. If so, you would normally improve them by fixing the mistakes. Even if it's not a mistake, the general idea of improving something is to make it more enjoyable.

So what about adding the light type makes playing Pokemon more enjoyable? You say it would make it less stale, but didn't adding Dark and Steel? They got old pretty quickly too, didn't they? I just really don't how adding the light type would improve the game in any way. But I'm not saying there's a reason it shouldn't be added, because there isn't. Like I said before, it's really up to Nintendo to decide whether they're going to add it. Not us. We can discuss it all we'd like, but in the end it's not our decision.

It sounds to me like you changed your argument. If you want to argue that there's no real reason to add it just because it wouldn't really add much, but there's also no real reason to not add it, I guess that's okay. But it seemed to me that you and others were arguing way more in favor of NOT adding it because it would create imbalance and mess with the metagame. And that argument is so narrow-minded and ridiculous that I actually want to throw up thinking about it.

I think Steel and Dark MAYBE got stale and old, but not really. Even if I truly felt that Steel and Dark adding nothing to the game anymore (other than more balance), I wouldn't go ahead and say I'd rather have them out, because more possibilities typically means more fun. I'm glad they added them, I wouldn't want it any other way.

(Though they really need to add more dark type attacks, namely dark SPECIAL attacks).

Here are my reasons why Light would improve the game:

--Encourages more originality in new pokemon design.
--Opens up a whole new window for certain attacks, as well as making other attacks make more sense in terms of what type they are.
--Can create some interesting type combinations (ex. Light-Electric, like a solar-powered thing, Light-Fighting, some kind of Paladin pokemon).
--Gives Grass what is in MY opinion a much needed strength/immunity.
--Just my personal opinion here, but it's just added content, and therefore it's an improvement. The analogy you said is valid, but I truly believe that adding a new type can not possibly do anything other than make the game better. Maybe that's just me.

Zorua
June 24th, 2008, 01:11 PM
--Can create some interesting type combinations (ex. Light-Electric, like a solar-powered thing, Light-Fighting, some kind of Paladin pokemon).


Just to let you know, Light and Electric are the same thing. Electricity does give off light, yes?

If not, then Lanturn would be Light/Water. If you checked the pokedex description, it would turn out to be "The underwater sea star". And if I'm correct, stars do give out light, yes?

I'm one of those who simply think light won't fit in the game. It's, how do you say, adding "Dr. Mario" to the Mario that already exists(reflecting this on Melee).

If Eletricity does what Light can do, what's the necessity for the type? All I'm seeing in this thread is "Blind" "Light Sword" and other things. You're making it sound like it should be included for the hell of it. If the light type were included in the game, at least think of some offensive/defensive Light attacks, other than the ones stated, and think about something other than the abilities. Light just CANT be a type, y'know. The only thing that could, is "???"

And I doubt "???" would be Light type, anyhow, if the true type would be revealed, cause Curse isn't exactly something pure.

And I may sound like I'm bashing your entire statements, but merely, I'm just pointing out stuff you're missing, and clarifying the other statements and whatever. I hope you understand what I'm saying.

Gymnotide
June 24th, 2008, 01:17 PM
No one said ??? = Light.

Electrical Energy =/= Light Energy
If so, then Electric and Fire would be the same.

Zorua
June 24th, 2008, 01:23 PM
No one said ??? = Light.

Electrical Energy =/= Light Energy
If so, then Electric and Fire would be the same.

Exactly. I brung it up upon myself to say it.

But who doesn't love to see flamethrowers and fire blasts? :<

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 01:35 PM
Exactly. I brung it up upon myself to say it.

But who doesn't love to see flamethrowers and fire blasts? :<

Bad reasoning. He shot down your point, as did I, and you say "Ah well everyone loves fire so..."

Again, you pointed out all kinds of similarities between light and electric. But AGAIN, what about Water and Ice? What about Ground and Rock? What about Dark and Ghost? They're all very similar. But the FACT is Light would open up possibilities that even Electric doesn't offer.

As for me not offering other info, it's because I was looking for suggestions and thoughts from other people. If you want, I'll go ahead and think of a list of 10 attacks, 5 offensive and 5 defensive, and post them later.

Bishopk
June 24th, 2008, 01:40 PM
The only reason I see to implement Light would be as the opposite of Dark. After all, we've got some pretty exciting opposites already (i.e. Water vs. Fire, Psychic vs. Fighting).

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 01:45 PM
I'm surprised no one brought this up yet, which is an interesting point that can have different opinions.

Light type would render Spiritomb and Sableye no longer without weakness.

I personally think that's a good thing but I can see people going different ways on that.

Zorua
June 24th, 2008, 01:49 PM
Bad reasoning. He shot down your point, as did I, and you say "Ah well everyone loves fire so..."

Again, you pointed out all kinds of similarities between light and electric. But AGAIN, what about Water and Ice? What about Ground and Rock? What about Dark and Ghost? They're all very similar. But the FACT is Light would open up possibilities that even Electric doesn't offer.


As for me not offering other info, it's because I was looking for suggestions and thoughts from other people. If you want, I'll go ahead and think of a list of 10 attacks, 5 offensive and 5 defensive, and post them later.

You do know, I'm not really in the debating mood. If I was, I'd bring out my best points ever, thanks.

Look at what you're doing, all you're doing is attacking other types for the benefit of the Light type. Don't say you're not, because you're questioning the necessity of the Ice type and ground type, even now. Those are your flaws. So let's put your idea into play, shall we?

Ice type is removed. Ground type is removed. Light type is added, the whole metagame is screwed, because god knows how many people use Earthquake and Ice Beam. And a lot of sweepers would suck hard without Earthquake.

Post those attacks, and their effects, and I'll see whether they fit or not. It's not going to matter how much debating is going to be done. Like Motsuko said, it's ultimately up to Nintendo to decide whether they want to add it or not. You want it to be added, but there are others who don't think it's necessary, such as myself and other people in this thread, despite the good points you bring up.

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 01:54 PM
You do know, I'm not really in the debating mood. If I was, I'd bring out my best points ever, thanks.

Look at what you're doing, all you're doing is attacking other types for the benefit of the Light type. Don't say you're not, because you're questioning the necessity of the Ice type and ground type, even now. Those are your flaws. So let's put your idea into play, shall we?

Ice type is removed. Ground type is removed. Light type is added, the whole metagame is screwed, because god knows how many people use Earthquake and Ice Beam. And a lot of sweepers would suck hard without Earthquake.

Post those attacks, and their effects, and I'll see whether they fit or not. It's not going to matter how much debating is going to be done. Like Motsuko said, it's ultimately up to Nintendo to decide whether they want to add it or not. You want it to be added, but there are others who don't think it's necessary, such as myself and other people in this thread, despite the good points you bring up.

You really need to read my posts more carefully and think about them before responding.

First of all, I never once said Ice and Ground should be removed and Light should be added. That would be idiotic, though not for the reason you mentioned. I said that if Light ISN'T added for the reason YOU said, then Ice and Ground and Ghost shouldn't exist either. That's all. But they all should exist.

And no one cares about the metagame and who uses Earthquake and Ice Beam. If those were taken away (not saying they should, that would be dumb) people would just find new moves and battle differently. Big deal. That is completely 100% irrelevant.

And of course it's up to Nintendo. Who else would it be up to? I'm not petitioning to add it here, I'm just throwing out a suggestion and getting feedback and other ideas, and responding to them. Not trying to be malicious or anything, just responding.

Gymnotide
June 24th, 2008, 01:57 PM
Bad reasoning. He shot down your point, as did I, and you say "Ah well everyone loves fire so..."

Again, you pointed out all kinds of similarities between light and electric. But AGAIN, what about Water and Ice? What about Ground and Rock? What about Dark and Ghost? They're all very similar. But the FACT is Light would open up possibilities that even Electric doesn't offer.

As for me not offering other info, it's because I was looking for suggestions and thoughts from other people. If you want, I'll go ahead and think of a list of 10 attacks, 5 offensive and 5 defensive, and post them later.

I like doing this type of thing.
I'll get back to you when I get some more details.

There are plenty of ideas that revolve around the literal nature of light:

Refraction / Distortion
Speed of Light
Intensity / Concentration
Rainbows
Prisms
Radiation
The Sun (e.g. Heliosphere, Corona)
Bioluminescence

And more abstract ideas like:

Vision
Knowledge
Purity / Cleansing
ERASER RAIN

~~saa tomerarenai Eraser Rain

Bishopk
June 24th, 2008, 01:59 PM
And no one cares about the metagame and who uses Earthquake and Ice Beam.

:(
(I'm sure someone out there cares about the metagame, although I agree it would just adapt.)

Zorua
June 24th, 2008, 01:59 PM
You really need to read my posts more carefully and think about them before responding.

First of all, I never once said Ice and Ground should be removed and Light should be added. That would be idiotic, though not for the reason you mentioned. I said that if Light ISN'T added for the reason YOU said, then Ice and Ground and Ghost shouldn't exist either. That's all. But they all should exist.

And no one cares about the metagame and who uses Earthquake and Ice Beam. If those were taken away (not saying they should, that would be dumb) people would just find new moves and battle differently. Big deal. That is completely 100% irrelevant.

And of course it's up to Nintendo. Who else would it be up to? I'm not petitioning to add it here, I'm just throwing out a suggestion and getting feedback and other ideas, and responding to them. Not trying to be malicious or anything, just responding.

I would respond to the first sentence, but I'm afraid I would cause dramaz, so I'm thinking before I post, k? :)

It doesn't matter, really. You're questioning their existence, and as such, you're implying that they should be removed. This sentence is bolded for the fact that I need to get my point strictly across, however "arrogant" I may seem at it. You're not accepting my disagreements correctly, after I just said I wasn't in the debating mood. If I was, clearly I'd type up 5 pages on why the light-type is unnecessary.

And no one cares about the metagame and who uses Earthquake and Ice Beam. If those were taken away (not saying they should, that would be dumb) people would just find new moves and battle differently. Big deal. That is completely 100% irrelevant.
I dare you to say that to the people who use Garchomp, Starmie, Swampert, Salamence, etc :D. Not to mention other bulky/killer sweepers who use those moves also. This is a flaw, and there's another one!

And no one cares about the metagame and who uses Earthquake and Ice Beam.I sure do. :o

Maybe you need to think out your posts before typing them.

Oh and, before you say that those pokemon don't matter/aren't needed, I would say that over 9,000 people use them. </lolinternetmeme>

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 04:00 PM
The phrase "no one cares about..." is a hyperbole. It's meant to emphasize just how small the percentage of pokemon consumers is that actually cares about competitive battling. And that percentage is quite insignificant.

And the statement you bolded is pretty much just completely 100% wrong. I was using hypothetical analysis to debate your point. YOUR point is that Light is unnecessary because there are already other types that are basically the same thing. MY point is that there are already other examples of this in pokemon, and they DO exist, and therefore your point is rendered moot.

And the people who use Swampert, Garchomp, Starmie, etc., were ground and ice to be removed (which obviously they wouldn't) would end up having to ADJUST. BOO HOO.

Motsuko Live
June 24th, 2008, 04:04 PM
It sounds to me like you changed your argument. If you want to argue that there's no real reason to add it just because it wouldn't really add much, but there's also no real reason to not add it, I guess that's okay. But it seemed to me that you and others were arguing way more in favor of NOT adding it because it would create imbalance and mess with the metagame. And that argument is so narrow-minded and ridiculous that I actually want to throw up thinking about it.

Actually, I'm fairly sure I wasn't arguing against it simply for the "metagame" reason, seeing as I don't even play the metagame, and have no idea what it's about. And I'm absolutely positive that thinking about it has nothing to do with you vomiting, so that was completely unnecessary. If anything makes me want to throw up, it's how worked up you're getting over this discussion. You say you want to discuss the light type; if you can't do it without insulting other members and their ideas, don't do it at all. Seriously.

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Actually, I'm fairly sure I wasn't arguing against it simply for the "metagame" reason, seeing as I don't even play the metagame, and have no idea what it's about. And I'm absolutely positive that thinking about it has nothing to do with you vomiting, so that was completely unnecessary. If anything makes me want to throw up, it's how worked up you're getting over this discussion. You say you want to discuss the light type; if you can't do it without insulting other members and their ideas, don't do it at all. Seriously.

You don't make me want to throw up, I didn't say that. It was the idea I described that does that. I'm sorry if you took that as insulting, I didn't intend that. I also mistook you for someone else because some of the posts on the first page happened rather fast.

Again, sorry if I offended you in a way.

As for discussing, yes, that is what I would like to do. However when the discussion doesn't happen because people come to bash the idea of adding a new type for reasons that I see as being wrong and provide evidence for those reasons being wrong, then I am going to get a little worked up.

How about this then? How about we end the argument on whether or not there should be a new type or whether or not Light is a good idea in general, and just discuss its possibilities in and of themselves, should it be added. Then we can all get along. :)

Zorua
June 24th, 2008, 04:33 PM
The phrase "no one cares about..." is a hyperbole. It's meant to emphasize just how small the percentage of pokemon consumers is that actually cares about competitive battling. And that percentage is quite insignificant.

And the statement you bolded is pretty much just completely 100% wrong. I was using hypothetical analysis to debate your point. YOUR point is that Light is unnecessary because there are already other types that are basically the same thing. MY point is that there are already other examples of this in pokemon, and they DO exist, and therefore your point is rendered moot.

And the people who use Swampert, Garchomp, Starmie, etc., were ground and ice to be removed (which obviously they wouldn't) would end up having to ADJUST. BOO HOO.

Actually, I'm 100% right, did you just not question why Ice and Ground were in the game?

My point still stands, I still don't see yours, other than unnecessary bashing of other types. If you weren't, then don't question their existence in the first place. Common sense.

Wow, I can see not many people would like that, would we? And little did you know, you're supporting my idea, with that last paragraph. Not many people would like adjusting to that, and I can see they would prefer the system now, then how it would be if Light was added.

See, this is proof my point still stands. And you're just bashing other types, finding some excuse to find Light reasonable to be added. Light was just something made up, completely based off the fact that there was a Dark type. Chances of being added into the game: very low to none.


How about this then? How about we end the argument on whether or not there should be a new type or whether or not Light is a good idea in general, and just discuss its possibilities in and of themselves, should it be added. Then we can all get along.Okay then.

I personally think Light is a bad idea, possibilities, like I said, little to none, and it shouldn't be added. :3

Motsuko Live
June 24th, 2008, 06:53 PM
You don't make me want to throw up, I didn't say that. It was the idea I described that does that. I'm sorry if you took that as insulting, I didn't intend that. I also mistook you for someone else because some of the posts on the first page happened rather fast.

Again, sorry if I offended you in a way.

As for discussing, yes, that is what I would like to do. However when the discussion doesn't happen because people come to bash the idea of adding a new type for reasons that I see as being wrong and provide evidence for those reasons being wrong, then I am going to get a little worked up.

How about this then? How about we end the argument on whether or not there should be a new type or whether or not Light is a good idea in general, and just discuss its possibilities in and of themselves, should it be added. Then we can all get along. :)

*AGREED* :D
I do see some pretty interesting possibilities for this Light Type. You're probably the only person to actually put some thought into this discussion before posting it.

hothead
June 24th, 2008, 07:58 PM
I THINK LIGHT WILL NEVER BE AN ELEMENT it will become to complicated and pokemon has perfected all the element so they are not dominated by one element that was the major downfall with red blue and Yellow i could be wrong but i think they will never make a new element especially light \

PS I DON'T mean to be mean i just think after so long they have fianally perfected all the elemnets and i don't think it should change

YOOM-TAH
June 24th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I THINK LIGHT WILL NEVER BE AN ELEMENT it will become to complicated and pokemon has perfected all the element so they are not dominated by one element that was the major downfall with red blue and Yellow i could be wrong but i think they will never make a new element especially light \

PS I DON'T mean to be mean i just think after so long they have fianally perfected all the elemnets and i don't think it should change

It's fine for you to have your opinion. Only thing is, what's to say Light will make it worse than it is? It will change, yes. But who's to say it wouldn't still be completely balanced?

Of course you can speculate either way, but I happen to have faith in Nintendo/GF that if they were to consider adding Light, they'd be able to make it work. I'm sure we can ALL agree on this: If Light or any other new type truly is impossible to implement without worsening the game, they won't do it. But if there is any kind of way, they can and should do it.

Now, tomorrow I will post up my list of moves. I already have several ideas. (Keep in mind they will all be new moves too, nothing like Solarbeam/Flash/Light Screen that would/could change).

hothead
June 24th, 2008, 09:21 PM
I agree with you on one point that if they do make a new elemoent i will staright away think light straight away but i don't think it will happen but like you said we a both entitled to our own opinion and i am not going to make a world war 3 happen over something that if it happens probably will not effect me that much in game play

Azonic
June 25th, 2008, 01:18 AM
@Raikazu - If that's your mentality, then what about Ice? Ice is the same exact thing as Water, just at 0 degress Celcius or lower. Is there that big a difference between Rock and Ground? What about Ghost and Dark?Yes, water at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit can also freeze the opponent. Fish can also survive on a dry tundra with icy cold blizzards. Hurling a block of ice at a flaming house can stop the fire from growing bigger. [/sarcasm]

And wasn't Dark already explained, like, a few posts ago?

YOOM-TAH
June 25th, 2008, 11:01 AM
Yes, and I can plug my DS into a light bulb and have it charge the same way as plugging it into the electrical outlet. Instead of putting batteries in the back of my remotes, I just shine a flashlight on them. And you know all those electrical wires running through cities and powering homes? That's just light from the sun in those wires! Oh, and plants. We all know how they use light for food, but did you know you can hook up a car battery to them and they can still undergo photosynthesis? [/sarcasm]

RSL
June 25th, 2008, 01:44 PM
With all this back-n'-forth about the Light-type, I propose another question: What if Nintendo actually DID introduce it and be in the type chart as Yoom-Tah indicated? How would we react?

(A poll taken awhile ago on Serebii stated that at least 65% of users there wanted a Light type to begin with)

YOOM-TAH
June 25th, 2008, 02:39 PM
With all this back-n'-forth about the Light-type, I propose another question: What if Nintendo actually DID introduce it and be in the type chart as Yoom-Tah indicated? How would we react?

(A poll taken awhile ago on Serebii stated that at least 65% of users there wanted a Light type to begin with)

Plus a poll here was quite similar.

I would react with "That makes sense, the game is now better because there is new and exciting moves, pokemon, and ideas. Awesome."

Azonic
June 26th, 2008, 05:43 AM
The sun is a big glowing fireball called a star. The energy it provides may be different, but it is still burning with fire from the hydrogen. And Flashlights - tell me, where does the light come from? Fire // Electric, proves my point. =/

YOOM-TAH
June 26th, 2008, 12:29 PM
The sun is a big glowing fireball called a star. The energy it provides may be different, but it is still burning with fire from the hydrogen. And Flashlights - tell me, where does the light come from? Fire // Electric, proves my point. =/

But once again, your point is moot because where does Ice come from? Just as the sun is a giant ball of fire and electric energy, ice is inherently water. It is H2O. The point in your sarcastic post was clear to me: while ice and water are the same thing with one slight physical difference, they function differently. My point was using your logic, showing that light and electricity function differently as well. Even if it's the electricity that creates the light, so it is that the water forms ice.

Zorua
June 26th, 2008, 05:16 PM
But once again, your point is moot because where does Ice come from? Just as the sun is a giant ball of fire and electric energy, ice is inherently water. It is H2O. The point in your sarcastic post was clear to me: while ice and water are the same thing with one slight physical difference, they function differently. My point was using your logic, showing that light and electricity function differently as well. Even if it's the electricity that creates the light, so it is that the water forms ice.

It's not only electricity that creates light. Fire also creates this. So it wouldn't make sense to make light out of light...cause it's light...?

Basically, it's like Red + Yellow = Orange. There, you have something new. Cold/Freezing below 0 temperature + Water = Ice.

Ice is basically a new element that came from water, just as light comes from 2 million different sources. So light definitely isn't new.

Oh and water doesn't FORM Ice. You can't just pour yourself a glass of water and expect the glass of water to turn into a block of ice just like that. You need Cold temperatures. This is exactly how water transforms into ice.

YOOM-TAH
June 26th, 2008, 05:19 PM
It's not only electricity that creates light. Fire also creates this. So it wouldn't make sense to make light out of light...cause it's light...?

Basically, it's like Red + Yellow = Orange. There, you have something new. Cold/Freezing below 0 temperature + Water = Ice.

Ice is basically a new element that came from water, just as light comes from 2 million different sources.

I disagree with you. And your last statement hurts your argument, just so you know.

Zorua
June 26th, 2008, 05:26 PM
I disagree with you. And your last statement hurts your argument, just so you know.

Maybe you should look at my edit. The post your just made is entirely invalid because of such.

Hurts my argument? Lol. My last sentence was to correct Yours. You think Light is so special and is so different and functions so differently/ in such a unique way that it even deserves to have it's own type in a Pocket Monsters game because it's just that ultimate?

To be honest, light is light. I don't care in what color, shape or size, cause electricity is basically the same thing: Color, shape, and size.

You should feel ashamed if you don't get that.

YOOM-TAH
June 26th, 2008, 05:37 PM
And it doesn't matter. The chemical FACT is that electric and light are not the same thing. The FACT is that they are no more similar than ice and water or rock and ground.

I don't think Light is special and all that. Just saying that if Light has so many sources as you claimed, then why are you making the argument that it's the same thing as Electric? One side of your argument says Electricity/Fire creates Light, but on the other end you say that Light has "2 million sources".

Zorua
June 26th, 2008, 05:53 PM
And it doesn't matter. The chemical FACT is that electric and light are not the same thing. The FACT is that they are no more similar than ice and water or rock and ground.

I don't think Light is special and all that. Just saying that if Light has so many sources as you claimed, then why are you making the argument that it's the same thing as Electric? One side of your argument says Electricity/Fire creates Light, but on the other end you say that Light has "2 million sources".

Uh, you didn't catch my exaggeration. Begone. >:<

It was basically a defense argument to electricity. Call it fail, whatever you will. It just came at the top of my head.

and....

Oh and water doesn't FORM Ice. You can't just pour yourself a glass of water and expect the glass of water to turn into a block of ice just like that. You need Cold temperatures. This is exactly how water transforms into ice.

Did you even read that?

Azonic
June 26th, 2008, 06:16 PM
Well then, YOOM-TAH, I'd like you to state one source of light that does not come from Electric or Fire, and we'll see if that source is actually important enough to create a whole new element. Basically what I'm trying to say is that Water needs something else to become Ice. Fire or Electricity do not need anything to create Light. Light would be quite pointless.

Caerus gets rep for this arguement. :D *shot'd*

Bishopk
June 26th, 2008, 07:09 PM
Oh and water doesn't FORM Ice. You can't just pour yourself a glass of water and expect the glass of water to turn into a block of ice just like that. You need Cold temperatures. This is exactly how water transforms into ice.

Electricity doesn't FORM light either. Light is merely a product. You can have electricity without light.

Zorua
June 26th, 2008, 07:12 PM
Electricity doesn't FORM light either. Light is merely a product. You can have electricity without light.

But did I ever say Electricity formed Light? By the post you just quoted, I don't see that in there.

Bishopk
June 26th, 2008, 07:14 PM
The logic you're using is that since water doesn't form ice, ice is different. That can be applied to light as well.

Zorua
June 26th, 2008, 07:16 PM
The logic you're using is that since water doesn't form ice, ice is different. That can be applied to light as well.

However, If I didn't say it, it isn't there, so you're just putting words in my mouth. o_o;

Bishopk
June 26th, 2008, 07:19 PM
However, If I didn't say it, it isn't there, so you're just putting words in my mouth. o_o;

Oh and water doesn't FORM Ice.

Then what do you mean? Electricity doesn't form light either.

Zorua
June 26th, 2008, 07:24 PM
Then what do you mean? Electricity doesn't form light either.

The logic I'm using only concerns water and ice. Where you got electricity and light and why you associate it with my post like, the world may never know. :[

I do not speak of electricity forming light.

Bishopk
June 26th, 2008, 07:27 PM
Then why even mention it? This whole discussion is about Light. I just assumed you were comparing it to Electricity and Light, since the rest of the thread is about that relationship.
I'm wayyy too argumentative since I got Phoenix Wright. I'm going to bed now.

YOOM-TAH
June 26th, 2008, 08:45 PM
Then why even mention it? This whole discussion is about Light. I just assumed you were comparing it to Electricity and Light, since the rest of the thread is about that relationship.
I'm wayyy too argumentative since I got Phoenix Wright. I'm going to bed now.

He and Raikazu have both proven that they have no idea what someone is doing when they use someone else's logic to come up with a hypothetical situation that thus disproves their logic.

Bishopk is right. Light is not inherent in electricity, or even fire for that matter (which I'll explain later). Water IS inherent in ice, since ice IS water. While it's SOMETIMES true, like you said, that pouring water into a cup doesn't turn it into ice, that depends on the environment. You can easily go up to Canada in January and pour some water out the window of your heated car and watch it immediately turn to ice. This is a not a reaction that requires energy, it happens naturally. Water DOES form ice. Water at room temperature is a liquid. Because of unique bonds known as Hydrogen bonds are present, water in its liquid form is actually is more dense in its liquid form than in its solid form ice (which is why ice floats in water). When the environment meets certain conditions (0 degrees Celcius and standard atmospheric pressure) water naturally turns to ice by having the hydrogen bonds breaking and the particles slowing down greatly. To say that water doesn't form ice is just chemically false. And laughable even.

As for fire, let's take a closer look at what fire is, or what causes fire.

Fire is an occasional product of a combustion reaction, which takes an organic compound and oxygen (and often times energy, though it CAN happen spontaneously depending on the environment and the organinc compound) and exothermically creates water and carbon dioxide. As far as the actual fire goes, it takes place where intense exothermic reactions are taking place with a gas, typically the oxygen in the air and the carbon dioxide from the reaction.

Light is independent of this. Not every combustion reaction brings about light. Burning alcohol is invisible to the naked eye. Likewise, when there is a fire, the fire itself is not the light. The fire gives off particles called photons which itself are light.

As for other sources of light? That's simple. Just because you don't have a good knowledge of Chemistry, doesn't mean those sources don't exist. ;)

While it's true that the most COMMON sources of light come from the Sun, incandescent light bulbs, and fires, all of which are the sources already mention and used in your argument, there are plenty of other sources of light which do not use or require or even have anything to do with either of those.

For example, take LED. LED stands for Light Emitting Diode. These are made from atoms which emit and absorb light at various energy levels. In this case, light emmision is spontaneous. Other examples of spontaneous emissions include gas discharge lamps (neon lamps/signs, and other gas-lamps), and lasers.

To get even more technical, and to just cover all my bases in case you say "lasers are powered by electricity", let it be known how a laser works. A laser works by a process known as stimulated emission, in which matter gets perturbed by a photon and loses energy, resulting in the production of another photon. Basically to make a very complicated process short and simple, this process repeats itself for the creation of a beam of light known as a laser, and this whole process only takes matter and another photon, and therefore does not require electricity.

Moving on, other sources of light that go beyond thermal/electrical means include chemoluminescence and bioluminescence. Certain chemicals produce visible radiation (light) on their own spontaneously. Likewise, certain living organisms such as fireflies have these chemicals, and in this case it is known as bioluminescence.

There are more sources than that, but I think that's enough to prove my point.

Do you want to continue arguing this? I've pretty much just disproved every single argument you all have made. If you want to stick to your opinion that it shouldn't be added, which I'm sure you will, that's fine with me. However the reasons behind your opinion have been made clear and I have taken all credence away from them.

Azonic
June 27th, 2008, 02:06 AM
Likewise, when there is a fire, the fire itself is not the light. The fire gives off particles called photons which itself are light. And without the fire, there are no photons, and thus no light.

As for other sources of light? That's simple. Just because you don't have a good knowledge of Chemistry, doesn't mean those sources don't exist. ;)Pokemon is aimed at the younger group. I'm pretty sure most of them don't even know about Chemistry, and creating a new type based on the study is rather confusing and pointless

For example, take LED. LED stands for Light Emitting Diode. These are made from atoms which emit and absorb light at various energy levels. In this case, light emmision is spontaneous. Other examples of spontaneous emissions include gas discharge lamps (neon lamps/signs, and other gas-lamps), and lasers.

To get even more technical, and to just cover all my bases in case you say "lasers are powered by electricity", let it be known how a laser works. A laser works by a process known as stimulated emission, in which matter gets perturbed by a photon and loses energy, resulting in the production of another photon. Basically to make a very complicated process short and simple, this process repeats itself for the creation of a beam of light known as a laser, and this whole process only takes matter and another photon, and therefore does not require electricity.

Moving on, other sources of light that go beyond thermal/electrical means include chemoluminescence and bioluminescence. Certain chemicals produce visible radiation (light) on their own spontaneously. Likewise, certain living organisms such as fireflies have these chemicals, and in this case it is known as bioluminescence.While you may bring up a point on that, I still highly doubt that such facts require their own type in Pokemon. Let it be known that younger kids don't know any of this stuff. Does LED, neon lights, and lasers actually deserve to have their own type, or is the idea simply too narrow?

What you've put up is that certain chemicals and atoms. Now after this type is created, there will be types involving every other chemical in existance. :x

You're going way too scientific for Pokemon. The younger audience knows that fire and electricity creates light. They don't know chemistry as well as some older Pokemon fans do. Why does Light needed to be added? There really isn't any need for a new type at this point anyways. Why is Light like another element? The base of the younger mind only knows about the relation with fire and electricity to light. And even the idea of the light emitting items without fire and electricity are far too narrow for an element.

Oh and for the record, Water creates Ice, and Ice creates Water. Fire creates light, but light doesn't create fire. =/

YOOM-TAH
June 27th, 2008, 11:08 AM
And without the fire, there are no photons, and thus no light.

Pokemon is aimed at the younger group. I'm pretty sure most of them don't even know about Chemistry, and creating a new type based on the study is rather confusing and pointless

While you may bring up a point on that, I still highly doubt that such facts require their own type in Pokemon. Let it be known that younger kids don't know any of this stuff. Does LED, neon lights, and lasers actually deserve to have their own type, or is the idea simply too narrow?

What you've put up is that certain chemicals and atoms. Now after this type is created, there will be types involving every other chemical in existance. :x

You're going way too scientific for Pokemon. The younger audience knows that fire and electricity creates light. They don't know chemistry as well as some older Pokemon fans do. Why does Light needed to be added? There really isn't any need for a new type at this point anyways. Why is Light like another element? The base of the younger mind only knows about the relation with fire and electricity to light. And even the idea of the light emitting items without fire and electricity are far too narrow for an element.

Oh and for the record, Water creates Ice, and Ice creates Water. Fire creates light, but light doesn't create fire. =/

As I suspected, you missed the entire point of my post. Your argument this whole time was that Light should not be added because Light is solely the product of electricity and fire. I just disproved that. You no longer have an argument.

I'm not getting scientific for the promotion of Light itself. All the above stuff such as LED and Stimulated Emission and all that is not my idea for the a new type. It was all to refute your arguments, which has been done. Seems to me that you resorted to saying that it's too scientific for pokemon to mask the fact that every single argument you've used against adding Light, I have shot it down using logic.

Reread my first post (plus the revisions made through talking with Gymnotide). THOSE are the ideas for the Light type, and those are not at ALL too scientific for little kids.

Here's some addition to that first post, some actual moves (which also use the ideas already mentioned such as Blind).

Offensive (damage-dealing) Moves:

Bug Light
Base - Physical (not sure about that though)
Power - 50
Accuracy - 100
PP - 20
Description - The attack's power doubles if used against a bug pokemon.
Ideas - I'm thinking of a couple different things here, possibly making it usable outside of battle to attract bug pokemon, and when they enter the battle the bug opponent is dealt damage to start. Reason I'm doubting that one is there's enough bug pokemon all over to not need to be attracted. I dunno.

Light Sword
Base - Physical
Power - 80
Accuracy - 100
PP - 20
Description - The user slashes the opponent with a sword crafted from light energy.

Eye Laser
Base - Special
Power - 90
Accuracy - 90
PP - 15
Description - The user shoots a laser from its eyes that damages the opponent and may cause Blindness.

Frenzy Flash
Base - Special
Power - 20
Accuracy - 100
PP - 20
Description - The user flashes light at the opponent to hit 2-5 times. May cause Confusion.

Gamma Beam
Base - Special
Power - 140
Accuracy - 80
PP - 5
Description - Hits the opponent with a huge blast of high-energy light, but sharply lowers Defense.


Defensive (non-damage dealing) Moves:

Brighten (could probably use a better name)
Base - Special (hard to say with moves like this)
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 15
Description - Absorb light to increase the user's Special Attack and Special Defense.

Light Shield (the partner to Light Sword)
Base - Physical
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 10
Description - Create a shield of light to sharply boost the user's Defense.

Refract
Base - Special
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 10
Description - The user takes the next hit and then doubles the damage back on the opponent. Only works with Special Attacks.

Foglight
Base - Special (not sure though)
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 20
Description - The user creates a strong beam of light which causes the opponent to flinch. May cause Blindness. (Fails if used in succession)
Ideas - I'm thinking maybe have it usable outside of battle in fog, but not like defog which gets rid of it. Instead, it will create more of a tunnel vision through the fog.

Illuminate
Base - Special
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 5
Description - Cast a shower of pure light which eliminates all status and stat changes.


So there's 10 moves. I'll keep thinking about more of them, and anyone else who wants can think of some too.


PS - Regarding the last thing you said. First of all, it's false, and second of all, it proves exactly what I said, that ice and water are chemically the same and fire/electricity and light aren't. But light can create fire. Have you NEVER burned a leaf or an ant with a magnifying glass? But it doesn't matter. That whole line of thinking means nothing in terms of the justification of Light being added as a new type. Light also helps create Grass, and Ground creates Rock. What's your point?

Zorua
June 27th, 2008, 01:23 PM
As I suspected, you missed the entire point of my post. Your argument this whole time was that Light should not be added because Light is solely the product of electricity and fire. I just disproved that. You no longer have an argument.

I'm not getting scientific for the promotion of Light itself. All the above stuff such as LED and Stimulated Emission and all that is not my idea for the a new type. It was all to refute your arguments, which has been done. Seems to me that you resorted to saying that it's too scientific for pokemon to mask the fact that every single argument you've used against adding Light, I have shot it down using logic.

Reread my first post (plus the revisions made through talking with Gymnotide). THOSE are the ideas for the Light type, and those are not at ALL too scientific for little kids.

Here's some addition to that first post, some actual moves (which also use the ideas already mentioned such as Blind).

Offensive (damage-dealing) Moves:

Bug Light
Base - Physical (not sure about that though)
Power - 50
Accuracy - 100
PP - 20
Description - The attack's power doubles if used against a bug pokemon.
Ideas - I'm thinking of a couple different things here, possibly making it usable outside of battle to attract bug pokemon, and when they enter the battle the bug opponent is dealt damage to start. Reason I'm doubting that one is there's enough bug pokemon all over to not need to be attracted. I dunno.

Why would anyone want to attract bug pokemon? Illuminate, and other abilities exist that already have this effect of attracting wild pokemon. No need to get specific. And why start damage already? That would be...sort of unusual. But hey, that's you.




Light Sword
Base - Physical
Power - 80
Accuracy - 100
PP - 20
Description - The user slashes the opponent with a sword crafted from light energy.

Actually WHO would learn this move? No way in hell there would be a Light-type pokemon. I don't see any pokemon learning this, aside from Scyther only that could actually slash, and maybe Scizor, but aside from those, no.

Eye Laser
Base - Special
Power - 90
Accuracy - 90
PP - 15
Description - The user shoots a laser from its eyes that damages the opponent and may cause Blindness.

Mud Shot(or Mud Ball or some attack of that sort) and Muddy Water ftw.





Frenzy Flash
Base - Special
Power - 20
Accuracy - 100
PP - 20
Description - The user flashes light at the opponent to hit 2-5 times. May cause Confusion.

These repetitive attacks are getting quite old now. Besides, If I'm correct, there's an attack similar to this, minus the repetition of hits.

Gamma Beam
Base - Special
Power - 140
Accuracy - 80
PP - 5
Description - Hits the opponent with a huge blast of high-energy light, but sharply lowers Defense.

Good Lord. And here I thought Signal Beam was enough. And Bug Buzz? What about that? I highly doubt another "Close combat" is needed.


Defensive (non-damage dealing) Moves:

Brighten (could probably use a better name)
Base - Special (hard to say with moves like this)
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 15
Description - Absorb light to increase the user's Special Attack and Special Defense.

Calm mind is there for a reason.

Light Shield (the partner to Light Sword)
Base - Physical
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 10
Description - Create a shield of light to sharply boost the user's Defense.

What about Acid Armor?

Refract
Base - Special
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 10
Description - The user takes the next hit and then doubles the damage back on the opponent. Only works with Special Attacks.

Uh, you're forgetting mirror coat.

Foglight
Base - Special (not sure though)
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 20
Description - The user creates a strong beam of light which causes the opponent to flinch. May cause Blindness. (Fails if used in succession)
Ideas - I'm thinking maybe have it usable outside of battle in fog, but not like defog which gets rid of it. Instead, it will create more of a tunnel vision through the fog.

First of all, no blindness, since craploads of things would be changed. Second of all, defog and this attack are basically similar. Why you create clones of existing attacks/defensive moves are beyond me.

Illuminate
Base - Special
Power -
Accuracy -
PP - 5
Description - Cast a shower of pure light which eliminates all status and stat changes.

Haze is there for a reason.


So there's 10 moves. I'll keep thinking about more of them, and anyone else who wants can think of some too.


PS - Regarding the last thing you said. First of all, it's false, and second of all, it proves exactly what I said, that ice and water are chemically the same and fire/electricity and light aren't. But light can create fire. Have you NEVER burned a leaf or an ant with a magnifying glass? But it doesn't matter. That whole line of thinking means nothing in terms of the justification of Light being added as a new type. Light also helps create Grass, and Ground creates Rock. What's your point?


My points are stated in bold. Your attacks, therefore, are rendered moot, are clones of existing attacks, and aren't needed.

And that's an old topic. We're getting to the point now, with the attacks. Stop reflecting on old things to try and damage my arguments, when basically, it's been over with. Last one's a rotten egg!

My 8-year old cousin wouldn't get this kind of stuff. Don't make Pokemon look like Yu-gi-oh, now.

GKS
June 27th, 2008, 01:46 PM
Some of this makes good sense, but I doubt it will be put into the games.

YOOM-TAH
June 27th, 2008, 02:51 PM
My points are stated in bold. Your attacks, therefore, are rendered moot, are clones of existing attacks, and aren't needed.

And that's an old topic. We're getting to the point now, with the attacks. Stop reflecting on old things to try and damage my arguments, when basically, it's been over with. Last one's a rotten egg!

My 8-year old cousin wouldn't get this kind of stuff. Don't make Pokemon look like Yu-gi-oh, now.

You see to not know much about Pokemon. I won't bother going through it all, you can look up yourself how many different moves there already are that do the same thing.

Here's a few.

Tail Whip and Leer
Protect, Detect
Harden and Withdraw

That's only a few even in their respective effects. There are TONS of moves that are duplicates already. The difference is in Type. Not every type of pokemon can learn, say, Detect, so they also have Protect for other types.

As for the other argument, I guess that's your way of saying I'm right. Thanks I guess.

And no offense but maybe you're not giving your cousin enough credit. I have plenty of friends with little siblings. In fact my friend's 10-year old brother gave me some of the ideas mentioned in this topic. It's not rocket science. I only used Chemistry to refute your argument because my simple but just as revealing logic apparently couldn't get through to you. The actual Light type is not overly complicated.

If you don't like the type, then so be it. Stop trying to come up with ridiculous arguments with no backbone and just leave it be.

Zorua
June 27th, 2008, 06:18 PM
You see to not know much about Pokemon. I won't bother going through it all, you can look up yourself how many different moves there already are that do the same thing.

Here's a few.

Tail Whip and Leer
Protect, Detect
Harden and Withdraw

That's only a few even in their respective effects. There are TONS of moves that are duplicates already. The difference is in Type. Not every type of pokemon can learn, say, Detect, so they also have Protect for other types.

As for the other argument, I guess that's your way of saying I'm right. Thanks I guess.

And no offense but maybe you're not giving your cousin enough credit. I have plenty of friends with little siblings. In fact my friend's 10-year old brother gave me some of the ideas mentioned in this topic. It's not rocket science. I only used Chemistry to refute your argument because my simple but just as revealing logic apparently couldn't get through to you. The actual Light type is not overly complicated.

If you don't like the type, then so be it. Stop trying to come up with ridiculous arguments with no backbone and just leave it be.

Your entire post has gone up in flames because of ridiculous bashing statements. You aren't right, my good sir. You're just obsessed with putting something that came out of some nub's imagination into a Pocket Monster's game, therefore screwing everything to hell.

You do know, that your friend's 10-year old brother does not represent the millions of other children out there who wouldn't get the idea. So don't get cocky with me just because he says it. Just think about the other children. Or not, become a selfish person. I don't really care. All I know is that it's not going to be included, because it's not needed, and it's stupid. :|

Ha, I've been in the pokemon franchise for literally ALL of my life, and you call me inexperienced? Says the person that suggests an ridiculous type to be put in an all important strategy game.

Like I said, don't make pokemon into Yu-gi-oh. You want Light? There are Light Monsters in Yu-Gi-oh. Have fun with em.

The Light attacks/defenses aren't needed, it doesn't matter. They're of the light type. The only pokemon type remotely capable of even learning this complete nonsense, is the psychic type, for obvious reasons. Cause we all know the power of the mind. I only said scyther and probably scizor, just going by the name.

You need to study up on some more pokemon types, moves, and effects before ever posting again. I've been into pokemon a lot longer than you think I have, so don't even diss my knowledge towards Pokemon, cause if I wanted to, I could write books and books and books, literally pouring info from my head into a piece of paper in more speed than you more water into a glass. Don't doubt me.

You wouldn't like it if someone dissed your knowledge, so don't do the same to me. This is exactly what I meant by you try to come up with whatever excuse to make this idiotic type sound reasonable, when in fact it's just, most likely, going to screw with everyone's minds.

Your argument therefore doesn't even have Ribs let alone a spine. So don't act high and mighty and tell me my argument was nothing, when yours, clearly, doesn't even have ribs, and that's sad.

Jabunks
June 27th, 2008, 07:07 PM
This type is a very good idea, It mainly fits legendaries though...

To many psychic ledgends :(

.emerald
June 27th, 2008, 07:16 PM
i would actually agree about light types(if there are any...) i thought that eletric, fire, & psychic were light types.... but since the metagame.... nah!!!

YOOM-TAH
June 27th, 2008, 11:23 PM
Your entire post has gone up in flames because of ridiculous bashing statements. You aren't right, my good sir. You're just obsessed with putting something that came out of some nub's imagination into a Pocket Monster's game, therefore screwing everything to hell.

You do know, that your friend's 10-year old brother does not represent the millions of other children out there who wouldn't get the idea. So don't get cocky with me just because he says it. Just think about the other children. Or not, become a selfish person. I don't really care. All I know is that it's not going to be included, because it's not needed, and it's stupid. :|

Ha, I've been in the pokemon franchise for literally ALL of my life, and you call me inexperienced? Says the person that suggests an ridiculous type to be put in an all important strategy game.

Like I said, don't make pokemon into Yu-gi-oh. You want Light? There are Light Monsters in Yu-Gi-oh. Have fun with em.

The Light attacks/defenses aren't needed, it doesn't matter. They're of the light type. The only pokemon type remotely capable of even learning this complete nonsense, is the psychic type, for obvious reasons. Cause we all know the power of the mind. I only said scyther and probably scizor, just going by the name.

You need to study up on some more pokemon types, moves, and effects before ever posting again. I've been into pokemon a lot longer than you think I have, so don't even diss my knowledge towards Pokemon, cause if I wanted to, I could write books and books and books, literally pouring info from my head into a piece of paper in more speed than you more water into a glass. Don't doubt me.

You wouldn't like it if someone dissed your knowledge, so don't do the same to me. This is exactly what I meant by you try to come up with whatever excuse to make this idiotic type sound reasonable, when in fact it's just, most likely, going to screw with everyone's minds.

Your argument therefore doesn't even have Ribs let alone a spine. So don't act high and mighty and tell me my argument was nothing, when yours, clearly, doesn't even have ribs, and that's sad.

I read your post, and then I looked at your age, and now it all makes sense. I'll leave it at that. Everyone else can come to their own conclusion.

But if you honestly think the concept of Light is beyond the comprehension of little kids, you seriously don't give much credit to people.

Anti
June 27th, 2008, 11:51 PM
wow I can't believe I missed this thread since I strongly oppose the creation of a light type.

You're right that Nintendo doesn't care about competitive battling so I'm going to leave that out. At the same time, I also doubt they care about the scientific things that have been mentioned in this thread. Moves and their types constantly ignore science. Example? Eruption, if it was purely scientific, should be rock type seeing as the lava is just molten rock and not fire. Everything is very general with Nintendo's classifications of these moves.

My main thing here is that adding a light type wouldn't help Nintendo make money. Honestly I think it would detract some players who play pokemon strictly for competitive purposes, who would not like where the metagame would go. I would be one of those people. I just don't see how complicating typing things further would really benefit Nintendo's profits, not to mention that making and adding several new moves as well as the new game mechanics they add every generation would be quite a huge workload.

There's just no need for light type or any type that could be added if I'm being honest. I always wonder why this idea is so popular when to (from what I can tell) the majority is against the idea.

Also, I must add that most of the light moves you posted honestly seemed rather forced. Pokemon designs for light types would most likely be rather forced, as getting a pokemon to look "light-like" or "light-ish" would be pretty hard, and not worth Nintendo's time, money, or resources if you ask me.

Honestly it comes down to "why fix something that isn't broken?" for me. There just isn't a good reason to add a light type. To many it is uninspiring...

But honestly is there really a need to argue science about a game that defies science anyways?

EDIT: That post wasn't necessarily aimed to kill anybody like some of the others have been (yes it's an exaggeration). I'm mostly responding to the thread starter but yeah :P

But really I doubt Nintendo does scientific research to be sure what the have in the games is up to par with science. It's just a (very successful) RPG aimed at young people.

YOOM-TAH
June 28th, 2008, 12:08 AM
Your reasoning is fair, but it is also just speculation. You could very well be right that it doesn't help their profits. It could just as well be that they don't lose any profits. Reason being, they lose consumers every single time they make a new generation, just to people who lose interest. But at the same time they bring in plenty of new people who are old enough for their parents to buy them a DS and Pokemon and for them to even understand it. I think losing the few people who care that much about their precious metagame (I have serious issues with that) would be fairly negligible.

However, like I said, it's only speculation both ways. What I want to know is why are you so opposed to change? How hard do you think it would be to adapt to a bit of change in the metagame? I don't think it would take that long. And honestly, I think change would be a good thing. I played NetBattle and honestly, it's boring. Everything is the same thing. Substitutes and Focus Punches and Hidden Powers and all that, it's so boring. It all just comes down to anticipation and tweaked EV distribution. I think change would be great, make it fresh and give people something new to figure out how to incorporate.

Plus, like I said before about that, how much more would adding a new type change the metagame than adding new pokemon/moves/items/abilities? I don't think you're opposed to that are you?

But anyway your point about money is taken, but like I said it's speculation. I think Nintendo has a track record of placing innovation and change as a top priority.

Anti
June 28th, 2008, 12:37 AM
Your reasoning is fair, but it is also just speculation. You could very well be right that it doesn't help their profits. It could just as well be that they don't lose any profits. Reason being, they lose consumers every single time they make a new generation, just to people who lose interest. But at the same time they bring in plenty of new people who are old enough for their parents to buy them a DS and Pokemon and for them to even understand it.

Yes, but Light type also won't bring in new consumers, therefore having no real benefit.

I think losing the few people who care that much about their precious metagame (I have serious issues with that) would be fairly negligible.

Now wait a minute. Competitive battling is a way to enjoy pokemon just like the anime or buying the games just to beat the Elite Four. It would be very unwise for Nintendo to practically cut out the people who play pokemon for competitive purposes, and I honestly don't see why you have serious issues with competitive play.

Our metagame was screwed around with enough in DP, and the result was chaos. Uber/OU discussions raged on and continue to rage on and everything is a total mess. I don't necessarily expect you to understand this though. (That isn't a shot at your intelligence, you just don't seem interested in that aspect of things.

However, like I said, it's only speculation both ways. What I want to know is why are you so opposed to change? How hard do you think it would be to adapt to a bit of change in the metagame? I don't think it would take that long.

Yeah, but the adaptations aren't always the best for the metagame. For example, Stealth Rock made use adapt by always carrying a spinner with Moltres or just not using Moltres at all. Moltres would otherwise be very useful. You're right that it's speculation, but if a light type does anything close to what DP's new additions did, there will be no metagame.

And honestly, I think change would be a good thing. I played NetBattle and honestly, it's boring. Everything is the same thing. Substitutes and Focus Punches and Hidden Powers and all that, it's so boring. It all just comes down to anticipation and tweaked EV distribution. I think change would be great, make it fresh and give people something new to figure out how to incorporate.

That's very much an opinion and I couldn't disagree more. I understand why you might not like Advance battling, as the generation is fairly balanced and can get very stallish (something most people don't find fun). Everything might seem calculated and precise, but a lot of people like that. Those who like these aspects of the game don't want them to be changed a whole lot. People like you who don't necessarily like Netbattle and competitive battling in general (which is perfectly okay) can just enjoy a different aspect of pokemon, and that's what is so great about the franchise.

Plus, like I said before about that, how much more would adding a new type change the metagame than adding new pokemon/moves/items/abilities? I don't think you're opposed to that are you?

It might sound crazy, but I am. I'll just give you some examples of changes in DP:

- Physical/Special attack split gives a lot more power to sweepers

- Stealth Rock enhances both offensive and defensive strategies, while at the same time practically making some pokemon obsolete (like Moltres and Articuno, as well as non-leading Yanmega).

- More powerful attacks in Stone Edge, Close Combat, and a beefed up Outraged (resisted only by steels might I add), which granted sweepers even MORE power over their defense-oriented counterparts.

DP took a lot of prediction and to a lesser extent skill out of the game (though you have to be good to win still).

Adding these new "improvements" has only worsened the metagame. It's fast-paced, something that Little Cup and ubers are for. Some of these changes have erupted in chaos and has made competitive battling a real mess, something that will only magnify if changes like those in DP keep coming. (In case you haven't noticed, I'm no fan of DP.)

But anyway your point about money is taken, but like I said it's speculation. I think Nintendo has a track record of placing innovation and change as a top priority.

I really disagree with the innovation part of that. They change a few things each generation, but keep most things the same (with the possible exception of DP, and the results for that weren't exactly fantastic for competitive battling). Nintendo (smartly) sticks to the same formula that has worked for years. Most of the small gameplay mechanics changes affect competitive battling the most, which is probably why most competitive players such as myself are opposed to the idea of a light type. Adding a few new types worked in GSC when the game was simple, lacking EVs, natures, physical/special splits, and all that jazz. Things are too complicated and a light type would really mess things up.

Before I post my response I must say I appreciate that this has more thought than the "Light is teh opp0site of teh dark type we need it in teh pogeymanz world nao!!!!" "argument" I see a lot. That one just really bugs me >_<

Anyways...

You're right, this is all speculation, and it would largely be speculation on Nintendo's part, so why take the risk of throwing things off for a fairly large portion of the RPG games' audience? Nintendo might not care about competitive battling, but they must surely recognize that it does exist.

From what I've read the people at Nintendo don't like competitive stuff at all with pokemon, so maybe they want to destroy the metagame lol. If that's the case Light type will exist.

Regardless of if the Light Type is ever implemented into the games, I am against it. It would further complicate things that are already a mess (especially in competitive battling) and the idea of a light type itself is uninspiring and generally dull to a very large portion of pokemon's general audience (not just the competitive battlers).

Azonic
June 28th, 2008, 03:23 AM
I read your post, and then I looked at your age, and now it all makes sense. I'll leave it at that. Everyone else can come to their own conclusion.

But if you honestly think the concept of Light is beyond the comprehension of little kids, you seriously don't give much credit to people.Judging one's knowledge and and theories upon one's age can be called a desperate call for help. Honestly, age has nothing to do with this matter, especially when it's Pokemon. And Caerus here is a former Moderator. I wouldn't mess with him and call him inexperienced. ;< -shot'd-

The Light type won't exactly attract more Pokemon fans. So many of the Pokemon fans are on the border of love and hate towards Pokemon, and Nintendo wouldn't exactly risk this just to install an unneeded type in the game.

The problem with change is that they've gone through so much with the exact same types and still have a balanced and stable metagame with trainers experiencing the thrill of having and battling one. Installing such a big change in the game will alter many things, and it will be hard to figure out if it truly would work or if it will mess up. The other two types were added for a reason, the addition of a Light type was just brought up randomly because of the Dark type. With that said, the Light type will not attract any new fans, but just to please a portion of them. With a large portion of fans opposing the creation of a Light type, the Pokemon fandom population will shrink in its size. So many Pokemon have to change, so many movepools will be altered, so many type matchups will be changed just to cause confusion with type matchups and all for one unneeded type.

:x

BeachBoy
June 28th, 2008, 03:41 AM
Whoa now, let's not get hasty here people, respect someone's opinion no matter what. Respectfully disagree comes to mind here. ;D

I agree with the others on this one. Countless reasons already provided. And for those people that claim Light should be added to become the opposite to Dark, Fighting type says hi. o/ I just find it unnecessary, we're "stable" with the types we already have. "If it aint broke, don't fix it" in other words. Also, one of the reasons you found it to improve the game was Grass gets a much needed strength, (or something like that) Grass has a super effective on the most abundant type in the game. And if that weren't enough, in competitive play, they are just up there like everyone else. Grass has great strengths, against water, which is a huge plus. Unless you can tell me how Light is needed or really necessary, I oppose such an addition. I was going to post like... a five page reply to this thread the other night, but my computer was taken away. :/ Oh well. I'm pretty much in complete agreement with Anti. (I swear he can read my mind)

Have a nice day. :D

Walrein
June 28th, 2008, 04:40 AM
Good to see you adopted my idea of lights beeing fire-immune.
Electric and light resisting themslefs? WHat's the problem with that? Fighting and bug already resist one another.

Aquilae
June 28th, 2008, 05:24 AM
Being a competitive player by nature, I could not disagree more with a Light Type. My sentiments are the same as Anti, minus the hate on DP.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This has come up in this debate umpteen times, and I too agree that making a Light type would not increase Nintendo's pool of consumers and might actually detract them from buying and playing the game, and buying the related merchandise. It would be a waste of time and effort on Nintendo's part to consider making a Light type further stirring up the game and also making it more confusing. I just noticed that Bug resisted Bug, something I had neglected to check in my whole experiences in Pokemon. This adds another point to my statement, the Light type would needlessly complicate things.

You have had bad experiences from netbattle but I doubt you can make statements about the competitive metagame being unimportant. As much as Nintendo neglects the whole metagame it has made a conscious effort not to neglect those playing there, as evidenced by WiFi, the Stadium games (and PBR), and also the battle towers and frontier. I reiterate, Nintendo would not create a new type to detract consumers from pokemon, also considering the majority of older fans are attracted because of the competitive metagame. Seeing as Nintendo does not wish to neglect this portion of its fanbase as evidenced by Pokemon 151, it would not consider making a Light type.

YOOM-TAH
June 28th, 2008, 01:52 PM
This argument seems to have reached less of a "fact against fact" thing and is more just opinions on either side, so there's not much to say.

I just happen to think that no matter what is added, the metagame can adapt. Pokemon isn't the only game that has competitive styles, and every franchise that is similar has always introduced change that has been molded and made to fit people's competitive style. And the more balanced things are in terms of more pokemon being useful in competitive battles, the better IMO.

I am related in this discussion of SSB. I take you all are the type who would play Melee over Brawl.

.
June 28th, 2008, 02:11 PM
Psychic, to me, seems like a 'Light' type. It shares a lot of characteristics with the concept of light.

Anyway, that "resistence/strength" chart makes no sense. Why would Ice and Grass be effective against it? I also feel if light were to have any strengths, it would be effective against: Dark and Ghost. And it would be ineffective against: Electric/Ground/Steel/Rock.

Still, the concept of Light this far into Pokemon would complicate things for sure.

Anti
June 28th, 2008, 02:21 PM
This argument seems to have reached less of a "fact against fact" thing and is more just opinions on either side, so there's not much to say.

I just happen to think that no matter what is added, the metagame can adapt. Pokemon isn't the only game that has competitive styles, and every franchise that is similar has always introduced change that has been molded and made to fit people's competitive style. And the more balanced things are in terms of more pokemon being useful in competitive battles, the better IMO.

I am related in this discussion of SSB. I take you all are the type who would play Melee over Brawl.

Now I disagree a lot with that second paragraph. This isn't meant in an insulting way, but I don't think you'd really know what it would do to the metagame seeing as you don't play competitively and aren't really too familiar with just how things operate now. (They're a lot different than Netbattle, which was RSE's metagame, as DP really threw things off.)

You know how we adapted to Stealth Rock? We stopped using Moltres, Articuno, and friends and really hurt other otherwise-insane pokemon like Yanmega, Gyarados, and Salamence. You know how we adapted to Outrage? We carry a steel on every team, which really threw things off.

Here's the one I want to stress - You know how we adapted to Sand Veil on the most frightening sweeper in OUs? We didn't, because would couldn't. You just have to hope your Ice Beams don't miss or you're toast, so the only "adaptation" some feel we can make is to ban it to Ubers. That's what one ability on the right pokemon can do to the metagame - essentially throw it into chaos (with the help of Wobbuffet and to a lesser extent Deoxys-S of course).

Now imagine that on a larger scale. When Dark and Steel types were added in GSC, they didn't have a groundbreaking effect. they did bring down the overpowered Psychics from RBY, and steels just gave us some more walls and threw the game into heavy stall (which is why many liked that metagame). Now we have about twice as many pokemon, a lot more moves and a more complicated game with the physical/special split, natures, EVs, IVs, and about all the other game mechanics we care about.

A Light type would SEVERELY alter the metagame. Think about what GSC did, and multiply its effect. It could throw the game into heavy stall again, or make offense so powerful it would be like little cup, or make a lot of pokemon unusable while making others more powerful than perhaps the ubers of this generation. That last one is what I fear the most, since it would make the metagame unplayable. You said it yourself - Nintendo doesn't care about the metagame, so if Light type were to be added, I doubt they'd really try to nerf it much (just look at the still-powerful dragons who rule).

As for the Melee/Brawl analogy, that isn't really a good analogy. Melee was more of a DP style game while Brawl is more of an Advance style game (judging on speed of the game alone). ADV transitioning to DP didn't destroy the metagame (and the other way around wouldn't either). Light type could. That's why most people don't want it and that's why it wouldn't be wise for Nintendo to make one.

And as I've mentioned several times before, most people oppose it just because the idea is uninspiring to many people and what would come out of light type would be less than stellar to those people (not in the context of competitive battling either).

That, and...

I don't see any good reason for Nintendo to make a light type. To them, I doubt they saw adding steels and darks as a way to make money. Light type is unnecessary and I just don't see why Nintendo would add it.

And Aquilae, I am very proud of my DP hate :P

.
June 28th, 2008, 02:32 PM
Well, Anti, I do know one thing: Blissey will not be affected much by the addition of Light :D

YOOM-TAH
June 28th, 2008, 09:11 PM
We just think differently. All that stuff about what you said to DP's changes and how you adapted...you know why mental response was as I was reading it? It was "Good." Because honestly I think it's way more fun now. I don't expect you to agree with that in any way whatsoever, and if you completely disagree which I know you do, I'm fine with that.

I wish I could get more suggestions from people who would like the game to actually not remain the same thing over and over and over, but it seems not many people like that exist here. Oh well. I guess this topic is done.