PDA

View Full Version : [B/W] New Types?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ChrisTom
May 16th, 2010, 03:31 PM
Alright, so I'm going to say something that I think might be on some people's mind.

It seems these games are highly focusing on Yin and Yang, White and Black, Light and Dark. This theme is shown throughout the current advertising and through Zoruak. Has anybody else realized that this would be the perfect oppurtunity to add the fan demanded Light type? I personally think that due to this theme they are exhibiting that there will be a Light type. Does anybody else agree?

Thank you for your time.

With all regards,

-ChrisTom



EDIT: PART 2


*clears throat*

Hello everybody. Sorry for not being on this thread for a bit. I swear, Pokemon Black and White Threads are spreading faster than a Bellsprout using Growth.

I want to clear a few things up and tell you my points of view on an implementation of the Light Type. But there is one thing I want to make note of first.


Originally posted by .EJ
Adding a light type is unnecessary and will probably cause imbalance in the game. That's the reason the dark and steel types were added; to balance it out. I'm sure we all remember when we played RBY and we all knew that having a Psychic type in your team meant utter obliteration to everybody else. I don't know about christom since he was around 1-2 years old when those games were out and couldn't play them haha.

Firstly, it is written as ChrisTom as I enjoy using capitalization to show professionalism. Secondly, I find that comment to be completely ageist. You're implying that due to my age I lack the ability to comprehend and understand the complex "Type Mathematics" that go into the game, as well as a lack of nostalgia for the original series. You fail to realize that I've been playing the games for quite some time(albeit not as long as you): 7 years. I've been into the grandiose wonder that is Pokemon since I was 4 and I first played at 6. My first and second Pokemon games were Gold and Red respectively. I've beaten Pokemon Red 4 times, Gold 5 times, FireRed once, Both Sapphire and Emerald once, Both Diamond and Pearl twice, and Heartgold once. I know these games back and front inside and out, so I do NOT take kindly to your comment.

Now moving on...

THE LIGHT TYPE

Keep in mind the following is entirely hypothetical.

I see several fans of the wonderous world of Pokemon intrigued about the concept of Light Type Pokemon. Most think that when I said what I did I implyed that I think that there MUST be a Light Type. I don't think that whatsoever. About 10 posters said the same thing: "I don't think a light type is neccesary". I agree. It ISN'T neccesarry, but it would be nice. I think it would be a great way to get rid of the rediculous power Dragon Types have (Ice being their only weakness is rather irritating) and to give Poison and Bug Types the power they deserve. It would obviously be effective on Dark Types.

Alot of you seem to not like the Steel type and hope that Light will destory it. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with Steel whatsoever. The type does have it's weaknesses and due to the minimal amount of Steel types I think it's ok. As Fighting Types have high Attack, and Electric Types have high Speed; Steel type has high Special Defense which is fine. Most Types work like that.

Now most of you seem concerned that the Light Type would be complicated/overpowering. This is not neccesarily true. The aforemention Poison and Bug Types as well as the Grass and Rock types would be Super-Effective, while Dark, Ghost and Water would be crippled. A very small amount of Pokemon would need to be changed (Lanturn and Ampharos specifically).

Here is what I think is the most important part of this debate: Will they even do it? I think absolutely yes. Considering the vast amount of themes involving Yin and Yang, and Light and Dark (For God's sake the games are called Black and White) that they will do it. I don't see a reason why not. It would be the perfect moment for GameFreak to add it. Fans have been wanting a new Type and have been speculating a "Light Type" since Generation II and my guess is that Satoshi Tajiri-Sensei will pull through and give the fans what they want.

If you have anymore questions about my theories and ideas about how the Light-Type would be implemented into the carefully thought out Type-Mathematics, please ask and I will get to you as soon as possible. I am looking forward to the new games and your opinions on what I have said. I wish you all good luck.


With all regards,

-ChrisTom
http://www.pokecommunity.com/images/misc/progress.gif

KaiVii
May 16th, 2010, 03:35 PM
I certainly hope so! I would love to FINALLY see the dark counterpart

JP
May 16th, 2010, 03:37 PM
Although it would be a perfect time to add this "light" type, I just don't see it as being needed. I'm not a huge fan of the idea myself.

colcolstyles
May 16th, 2010, 03:40 PM
I doubt that Game Freak would add a new type this far into the series. There wouldn't be many pokémon of that type unless they went back and changed the types of older pokémon (like with Magnemite & Magneton in G/S/C). Plus, a new type is a pretty major addition. Don't you think that we'd have heard about it by now if they were going to add it?

Still, I wouldn't rule out the possibility altogether.

Kirbychu
May 16th, 2010, 03:42 PM
Light-type?

No. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s&feature=related)

I'm against the Light-type, because it just doesn't seem necessary, and it's already represented by other types such as electric, psychic, steel, even fire. It could really mix things up, and not in a good way. We don't need anymore types.

Pityflame
May 16th, 2010, 03:42 PM
They only reason they even made steel and dark type was to balance psychic, so there is no need for a 'light' type.

Plus, it's a dumb idea.

ChrisTom
May 16th, 2010, 03:51 PM
It's not a dumb idea. It makes sense first off, and secondly it would be the perfect time to add this type. I don't care if it's "Far in the series" Pokemon is a constantly changing thing.

In fact, the Pokemon series in general is constantly Evolving...

Heh heh...

True though.

Aureol
May 16th, 2010, 03:57 PM
I think the "Light" type is already manifest in the other types, mostly Psychic, Electric and Fire. I admit, I don't really see a point either. The whole point of Dark-type was to balance Psychic, anyways.

Pityflame
May 16th, 2010, 03:59 PM
It's not a dumb idea. It makes sense first off
Yes it is, and no it does not.

Kirbychu
May 16th, 2010, 04:02 PM
It's not a dumb idea. It makes sense first off, and secondly it would be the perfect time to add this type. I don't care if it's "Far in the series" Pokemon is a constantly changing thing.

In fact, the Pokemon series in general is constantly Evolving...

Heh heh...

True though.
Light-based Pokemon could easily be made Fire, Psychic, or Electric type. It's just not necessary and will get in the way. We're fine as it is.

.EJ
May 16th, 2010, 04:05 PM
Adding a light type is unnecessary and will probably cause imbalance in the game. That's the reason the dark and steel types were added; to balance it out. I'm sure we all remember when we played RBY and we all knew that having a Psychic type in your team meant utter obliteration to everybody else. I don't know about christom since he was around 1-2 years old when those games were out and couldn't play them haha.

Volroc
May 16th, 2010, 04:06 PM
i think its a must, it would balance out dark, dragon,& steel which have become horribly imbalanced

everyone with disagree cuz they all use only pseudo-legends, and if they dont theyll give it some thought before blowin it off like its unneeded :P

after all pokemon is constantly changin, you didnt go awal when they made dark& steel, and steel is horrible over powered, it resists all but 3types, and only 2-3 types is neutral against it.

so we need at least 1new type that can even out things with steel.

so light here we come :3 lol

.EJ
May 16th, 2010, 04:09 PM
i think its a must, it would balance out dark, dragon,& steel which have become horribly imbalanced

everyone with disagree cuz they all use only pseudo-legends, and if they dont theyll give it some thought before blowin it off like its unneeded :P

after all pokemon is constantly changin, you didnt go awal when they made dark& steel, and steel is horrible over powered, it resists all but 3types, and only 2-3 types is neutral against it.

so we need at least 1new type that can even out things with steel.

so light here we come :3 lol

And why would a LIGHT type be super-effective against steel? Do you realize that most steel types are not in the OU tier?

That's like saying the electric type should be super-effective against bug. That doesn't make any sense now does it?

Kirbychu
May 16th, 2010, 04:10 PM
steel is horrible over powered, it resists all but 3types, and only 2-3 types is neutral against it.
You forget to mention how it's not that great of an offensive type and how its candidates more than often are decimated by the most common move in the metagame; Earthquake.

.EJ
May 16th, 2010, 04:13 PM
You forget to mention how it's not that great of an offensive type and how its candidates can be decimated by the most common move in the metagame; Earthquake.

Not to mention the ever-common fire attacks, and the occasional fighting move.

Haza
May 16th, 2010, 04:13 PM
I bet if there was a Light-Type, all the haters would use it all the time...

Pityflame
May 16th, 2010, 04:15 PM
People who think steel types are unbalanced/overpowered has never used a steel type.

Kirbychu
May 16th, 2010, 04:17 PM
I bet if there was a Light-Type, all the haters would use it all the time...
We're not haters, we're realists! :D

If a Light-type did appear though what would it's weaknesses even be? Poison instantly comes to mind because that type just isn't the greatest...

.EJ
May 16th, 2010, 04:19 PM
^Yep yep. Poison is among the worst types...

IF a light-type were to appear, wouldn't it have been revealed already?

Instead they gave us a new dark type family and the starters...

A Pixy
May 16th, 2010, 04:22 PM
Yeah, why aren't there new types?

There was nothing wrong when GEN II introduced Steel and Dark types. Why aren't there more? Maybe they're trying to keep the system as simple as possible. Even I have problem sometimes. >_>

But, yeah. It would be nice. But would Light be SE on Dark or vice versa? o.O

Kirbychu
May 16th, 2010, 04:33 PM
But would Light be SE on Dark or vice versa? o.O
If I were to decide, I'd have both be super-effective with each other.

Samme!
May 16th, 2010, 04:47 PM
I think the "Light" type is already manifest in the other types, mostly Psychic, Electric and Fire. I admit, I don't really see a point either. The whole point of Dark-type was to balance Psychic, anyways.

My thoughts exactly. Whenever people mention their want for a "Light" type, I immediately think about Psychic, which definitely has 'light' characteristics, in my opinion. And whenever people say that they want a Wood type, I just think of Grass Types.

Overall, I really don't think that there is a need for a new type of Pokemon this late in span of the series.

Zorua
May 16th, 2010, 04:50 PM
The light type just doesn't seem necessary to me. Just because Zorua/Zoroark just happens to be a dark type doesn't mean that there will definitely be a light-type. I don't know what kind of subliminal message you're referring to, but I would disagree with that.

They're dark types, and fighting types will be super-effective against them. That's just...how it works. If there was a light-type, it'll probably screw up the balance let alone probably the b/w metagame.

Haza
May 16th, 2010, 04:51 PM
We're not haters, we're realists! :D

If a Light-type did appear though what would it's weaknesses even be? Poison instantly comes to mind because that type just isn't the greatest...

There would be the obvious Yin-Yang effect with Dark. Poison would be also, taking away purity and giving Poison an edge since as of now it does not do much damage in the Meta Game.

Also, how does Psychic come to mind when it is based on Mind Control and Magic... :/

coconutberry
May 16th, 2010, 04:59 PM
Haha... I don't really care about a light type either way. It might be cool, but I don't even know what a light type would even be... I've always seen dark Pokemon as emo normal types, so... LOL.

Kirbychu
May 16th, 2010, 04:59 PM
Also, how does Psychic come to mind when it is based on Mind Control and Magic... :/
There's moves like Light Screen and Lunar Dance, plus most of the moves are displayed as flashes of light and light beams. At least, that's what I think of when someone mentions Light-type. :I

roccomont329
May 16th, 2010, 05:00 PM
i was wondering if maybe they didnt give you the classic fire grass and water pokemon

Legendofall
May 16th, 2010, 05:06 PM
just to hate on spiritomb, i think it should beat both ghost and dark types. and be weak to dark and bug. why bug? why bug on a dark type, who knows!

Haza
May 16th, 2010, 05:09 PM
There's moves like Light Screen and Lunar Dance, plus most of the moves are displayed as flashes of light and light beams. At least, that's what I think of when someone mentions Light-type. :I

Yeah, only Light Screen conflicts. Lunar Dance does not because the sun and Moon are very connected to Psychics and Magic. But as I recall, Light Screen was portrayed as Mr. Mimes gimmick signature in the anime and was very magic like besides the simple word light being in the name.

Esper
May 16th, 2010, 05:17 PM
No. No. No. Light wouldn't even be the opposite of Dark. Dark isn't dark. It's called aku あく in the Japanese games and it means 'bad' or 'evil' NOT 'dark' or 'shadow' or anything like that. That's why the Fighting types work against it since they're the 'good' types that fight fair.

Guy
May 16th, 2010, 05:35 PM
My thoughts exactly. Whenever people mention their want for a "Light" type, I immediately think about Psychic, which definitely has 'light' characteristics, in my opinion. And whenever people say that they want a Wood type, I just think of Grass Types.

Overall, I really don't think that there is a need for a new type of Pokemon this late in span of the series.
This, exactly.

If a Light Type was going to be introduced into the series, then it would have been done since the second generation along with the inclusion of Dark and Steel types. I think just the thought of Umbreon and Espeon counterparting each other kind of proves how Psychic represents the Light type we think about.

I personally wouldn't mind one more type, especially a Light type. However, the thought of it unbalancing the system we have now and Psychic types in a way just representing it as a whole kind of makes me think it unecessary.

Ωmega
May 16th, 2010, 05:59 PM
A Light-Type isn't necessary. First off, Psychic was overpowered in Gen. I (nothing could beat it) so in Gen II they introduced Dark and Steel (something super-effective against Dark and something Psychic-types can't take out in one hit like Gen I). I think the system we have now is fine. I was initially for the Light-type addition to games, but then I realized that there is no need for it.

IF there were to be a Light-type, it would have to counter Dark and they would both need to be super-effective against each other and Light would have to do normal damage to all other types in order for the game to remain balanced. Also, Light would need to have at least 2 resistances. That would keep the game balanced, in my opinion.

Bloothump
May 16th, 2010, 06:13 PM
Light type would only discredit Espeon and the Fighting Type advantage on Dark Types (fighting like, superhero imo)
I'm not against a new type, I'm against something that will mess up balance with the type system. Besides, we have a saying for this: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This applies here, if nowhere else at all.

Nohr
May 16th, 2010, 06:18 PM
No, there is no NEED for a light type. The game is balanced. The ONLY reason Dark and Steel were made in Gen 2 was to balance out the crazily overpowered Psychic type. Now, all the types are generally balanced, or, atleast nothing's OVER powered.

Besides, can you even TRY to make up a "Light" type pokemon that couldn't be classified as Fire, Psychic, Lightening, or even Flying?

Go ahead; try, I dare you.

Aureol
May 16th, 2010, 06:23 PM
If they made a Light type, good for them, I would use it, but I just don't see how they could. Light-type MOVES are conceivable, true, but Light-type Pokemon? What, are we going to introduce a dozen variations of sun-warriors? I can't even think of a Pokemon now that would fall under a Light category... maybe Espeon, and that doesn't really make sense other than the fact that it's Umbreon's counterpart.

BleuVII
May 16th, 2010, 06:47 PM
First, I am fully in support of some new types. Otherwise it will just be the same game as the last three. And there are two ideas that I have heard of that I think would be great:

Light and Sound

Sound seems like a type that should have been introduced in Gen III (Whimsur's line in specific). There are also tons of moves that could easily be switched to sound-type, like Uproar. Sound could have some sort of relationship with Bug and Poison.

Light is something that's needed specifically for Legendary Pokemon. We're always stuck with strange combinations for legendaries like Steel/Dragon and Water/Dragon (Dialga and Palkia) or Psychic/Flying and Fire/Flying (Lugia and Ho-Oh) so that version-exclusive legendaries don't have a type advantage over one another. Since it's likely that Zorua and Zoruark are going to be legendaries, it would be great to have a type that is just as strong and balanced as dark.

The real question would be what the strengths and weaknesses of these types would be. Maybe later tonight, I'll try to look at the existing type charts and come up with a good balance for these two new types.

BeachBoy
May 16th, 2010, 06:59 PM
I pray to kyogre that we don't see any more types, it's perfect as is. :(

shortdan1998
May 16th, 2010, 07:08 PM
I personally think that to balance the metagame for future players that there should be a new type, but perhaps not "light" for the love of psychic types. I actually think that there should be something that would make a new type triangle that would be each super effective against each other and the one that is weak to another would resist a secondary typing that would impact the games. That is what I think should be done just because of a sort of imbalance to certain Pokemon, and the fact that in a Battle Arcade run with me and my cousin, the opponent was a water-type, yet when it was paralyzed, Ice Beam was super effective.

HaloSonic
May 16th, 2010, 07:16 PM
past experience tells me there won't be a light type (despite how much I wanted it since Gen II), but then again, Colosseum and XD had the shadow type, albeit only a temporary type.

Vrai
May 16th, 2010, 07:23 PM
I pray to kyogre that we don't see any more types, it's perfect as is. :(

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

^^^^^

^

I find myself quoting other people more and more because my opinions are so much like theirs. Anyway, if there's anything that will turn me away from B&W, it would be the inclusion of a light type. Why, why, WHY would they throw off something that I've known perfectly (albeit almost perfectly - who knew Rock was neutral to Rock? D:) for the last ten years or so? That just doesn't make sense at all.

I'd imply more about why Light-type would be retarded and not make sense but everyone else's posts seem to have covered that so I'll let it go.

Waffle-San
May 16th, 2010, 07:28 PM
It's not a dumb idea. It makes sense first off, and secondly it would be the perfect time to add this type. I don't care if it's "Far in the series" Pokemon is a constantly changing thing.

In fact, the Pokemon series in general is constantly Evolving...

Heh heh...

True though.

How does it make sense?

Light-type?

No. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWaLxFIVX1s&feature=related)

I'm against the Light-type, because it just doesn't seem necessary, and it's already represented by other types such as electric, psychic, steel, even fire. It could really mix things up, and not in a good way. We don't need anymore types.


Adding a light type is unnecessary and will probably cause imbalance in the game. That's the reason the dark and steel types were added; to balance it out. I'm sure we all remember when we played RBY and we all knew that having a Psychic type in your team meant utter obliteration to everybody else. I don't know about christom since he was around 1-2 years old when those games were out and couldn't play them haha.

No, there is no NEED for a light type. The game is balanced. The ONLY reason Dark and Steel were made in Gen 2 was to balance out the crazily overpowered Psychic type. Now, all the types are generally balanced, or, atleast nothing's OVER powered.

Besides, can you even TRY to make up a "Light" type pokemon that couldn't be classified as Fire, Psychic, Lightening, or even Flying?

Go ahead; try, I dare you.

I pray to kyogre that we don't see any more types, it's perfect as is. :(

A bunch of intelligent people with intelligent posts.

And sound? Really? Think about it please. How do you categorize that? Every Pokemon that can make a noise (All of them) can make sound. It could maybe possibly work for a move but that's what we have normal for, to categorize the few things that can be seen as exceptions to other types or things that are just plain normal like sound.

colcolstyles
May 16th, 2010, 07:32 PM
And sound? Really? Think about it please. How do you categorize that? Every Pokemon that can make a noise (All of them) can make sound. It could maybe possibly work for a move but that's what we have normal for, to categorize the few things that can be seen as exceptions to other types or things that are just plain normal like sound.

Well, Coolyboyman did it (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=85340). And he won Hack of the Year for it, too.

Euonymus
May 16th, 2010, 07:34 PM
I agree with the waffle loving dude. More types would just throw a wrench in things. I feel the game is balanced as is.

Waffle-San
May 16th, 2010, 07:46 PM
Well, Coolyboyman did it (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=85340). And he won Hack of the Year for it, too.

He also added Wood (Grass...), Gas (Posion...), Abnormal (not really a type it's a classification in my opinion) and Wind (Flying though Flying is inupropriately named in my opinion).

And based on his post he won it because of the fact he created something more than just a hack of another game and he had something to sepperate him from his opponents. I haven't played his hack so I don't know how he incorporated it but in the Pokemon that I know I see absolutely no need for it.

Redrup
May 16th, 2010, 07:52 PM
People who think steel types are unbalanced/overpowered has never used a steel type.

This. ^

The majority of steel types can be found in the UU tier of competitive battling, which goes to show just how 'overpowered' they are considered by those outside of the single-player game.

OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire
May 16th, 2010, 07:55 PM
I like the Idea of a light type but it's true that there is little reason for this other than to make the type capable to slay those pesky dragons... Yeah light slays dragon makes sense since most dragons in western legends live in caves... and should be weak against the light when you think about it... much like bats are...

DXrobots
May 16th, 2010, 07:56 PM
I wanted a light type way back in Generation II I don't think I'd want anymore types

BleuVII
May 16th, 2010, 07:57 PM
Well, "sound" could be classified better as "Sonic" type, but that would sound like copyright infringement. As Colcolstyles said,

Well, Coolyboyman did it (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=85340). And he won Hack of the Year for it, too. Coolboyman gave me the idea, and I started thinking about how it could be a really interesting "abstract" type to throw in that could be whatever you wanted it to be.

As for Light type, I still stand behind it. Dark needs a parallel, because with its super-effectiveness against Ghost and its immunity to Psychic, it is really strong. The only reason it's not superpowered is because there are so few pure Dark types. Now, people are thinking of "Light" as in physical light, but maybe it would be helpful to throw in a distinguishing factor. The Japanese for "Dark" is "aku" (あく - 悪), which means "evil" when translated. I am thinking of light as a Nintendo-censorship-standards-safe way of saying "holy", which in Japanese is "Sei" (せい - 聖). That should help to distinguish it from Fire, Electric, and Psychic in peoples' minds.

The type chart could be as follows:
-=Super Effective (x2) Against
Fighting
Steel

-=Not Very Affective (x1/2) Against:
Psychic
Light
Rock

-=Immune to (x0)
Steel

-=Weak to (x2):
Ghost
Poison

-=Resistant to (x1/2):
Fighting
Light

Could non-haters check that out and see if you spot any imbalances? :)

There are only a few pokemon which I could see being re-typed as Light-types:
Blissey (and possibly Chancey)
Mawile (to make it an appropriate parallel to Sabeleye)

Hopefully that helps clarify why some of us want Light type.

Vrai
May 16th, 2010, 08:05 PM
Dark is not superpowered. It's checked by all sorts of things; you only mentioned it's strengths, which also happen to be its only ones. Sure, it has pretty good neutral coverage but that's about it. Dark doesn't need a parallel, especially when you consider why it was in there in the first place... to combat Psychic superiority, right?

Now, see, the real dominant type right now happens to be Steel. Look at any competitive battling team, and if it doesn't have a Steel-type, it's basically screwed to no end, if not for the 11 or so resistances, but for the only resistance to Dragon in the game.

Light doesn't have a reason to exist.

Waffle-San
May 16th, 2010, 08:09 PM
Well, "sound" could be classified better as "Sonic" type, but that would sound like copyright infringement. As Colcolstyles said,

Coolboyman gave me the idea, and I started thinking about how it could be a really interesting "abstract" type to throw in that could be whatever you wanted it to be.

As for Light type, I still stand behind it. Dark needs a parallel, because with its super-effectiveness against Ghost and its immunity to Psychic, it is really strong. The only reason it's not superpowered is because there are so few pure Dark types. Now, people are thinking of "Light" as in physical light, but maybe it would be helpful to throw in a distinguishing factor. The Japanese for "Dark" is "aku" (あく - 悪), which means "evil" when translated. I am thinking of light as a Nintendo-censorship-standards-safe way of saying "holy", which in Japanese is "Sei" (せい - 聖). That should help to distinguish it from Fire, Electric, and Psychic in peoples' minds.

The type chart could be as follows:
-=Super Effective (x2) Against
Fighting
Steel

-=Not Very Affective (x1/2) Against:
Psychic
Light
Rock

-=Immune to (x0)
Steel

-=Weak to (x2):
Ghost
Poison

-=Resistant to (x1/2):
Fighting
Light

Could non-haters check that out and see if you spot any imbalances? :)

There are only a few pokemon which I could see being re-typed as Light-types:
Blissey (and possibly Chancey)
Mawile (to make it an appropriate parallel to Sabeleye)

Hopefully that helps clarify why some of us want Light type.

If Light is to "balance out" Dark than why isn't it super effective or resistant to Dark? And how is Light super effective on steel? I'm confused. =x

BleuVII
May 16th, 2010, 08:11 PM
Light doesn't have a reason to exist.

Except to combat stagnancy and add something NEW to the game. It's not that the game is BROKEN right now; far from it. Pokemon is one of the most-balanced games in existence, possibly losing only to Starcraft. It's just that the game hasn't really changed in a decade. People here act like adding a new type would break the game. Well, it doesn't, and Coolboyman proved that in his Pokemon Brown hack.

I made the type-chart for Light because I would honestly want a pokemon like that in my team. I don't think it's overpowered, and I think it would add something interesting for those of us who are looking for something new. The rest can just ignore it. I mean, heck, I've been ignoring Poison, Bug, and Rock types since Gen I (except for knowing how to kill them) just because they don't interest me.

If Light is to "balance out" Dark than why isn't it super effective or resistant to Dark? And how is Light super effective on steel? I'm confused. =x

It's more of a parallel to Dark. I believe I said in an earlier post that it would be nice to have two legendaries that were not effective against each other, but not have one of them be a lame type (like Ho-oh/Lugia and Dialga/Palkia). I thought about making Light/Dark MUTUALLY effective against each other... Anyway, forgive me for creating confusion. Dark doesn't need to be balanced out. It's just a really strong type that could use a parallel.

Anyway, about Light being super-effective on Steel... how is Fighting super-effective on Dark? Or how is Steel NOT weak to Psychic (especially when the Psychic-enhancing held item is a TWISTED SPOON?!) No real reason, they just needed to balance out the types. The reason Light is super-effective against steel is:
1. Because it needed to be in order to make Light an effective parallel to Dark
and
2. If you REALLY need to search, in the Japanese mindset, the "Spiritual" (light/holy type) is seen as being at odds with the "Industrial" (Steel). Just watch Princess Mononoke and you'll understand what I mean.

Waffle-San
May 16th, 2010, 08:20 PM
Except to combat stagnancy and add something NEW to the game. It's not that the game is BROKEN right now; far from it. Pokemon is one of the most-balanced games in existence, possibly losing only to Starcraft. It's just that the game hasn't really changed in a decade. People here act like adding a new type would break the game. Well, it doesn't, and Coolboyman proved that in his Pokemon Brown hack.

I made the type-chart for Light because I would honestly want a pokemon like that in my team. I don't think it's overpowered, and I think it would add something interesting for those of us who are looking for something new. The rest can just ignore it. I mean, heck, I've been ignoring Poison, Bug, and Rock types since Gen I (except for knowing how to kill them) just because they don't interest me.

Your type chart doesn't make sense unfortunately. I mean we'd all love our perfect pokemon but grass isn't super effective on Fire for a reason. They could possibly spice up types like Poison, give it something more to attack with (make it super effective on water? just an example by the way) or just keep adding type combinations. There are other more creative ways to spice up the game than adding types. I mean a Light type would probably be super effective on Dark and be weak to Dark as well. It might have some other uses and resistances. I'd argue that it'd be weak to rock though cause even if you mean in a "holy" sense people would still refer to it as the light that we see colour with. And rocks block out that light. Being super effective on steel would be nice for competitive purposes but doesn't make any sense. If you're thinking heat than that's covered by Fire.

And Coolboyman added alot of other types too, if you're going to use him as proof you have to refer to all the types and come on, wood? Grass could be renamed (as should be flying) to be plant or something but really Grass covers all flora and fauna.

Edit: You've got a point, psychic could be super effective on steel but that has more to do with the strength of the psychic attack and steel. It could go either way in my opinion.

I think having Dark and Light mutually effective against eachother makes more sense. And Fighting is seen as the "good guy" counter to Dark as its typing is associated with honour and dependability while Dark is associated with trickery and decete.

From a spiritual mindset that's true but with a name like light that will rarely be anyones first impression. If anything they'll imagine light and mirrors. =/ And while it's seen as spiritual being I guess above that of the industrial, the industrial is slowly taking over around the world. So in a sense, the spiritual is losing out to Steel.

Vrai
May 16th, 2010, 08:22 PM
Except to combat stagnancy and add something NEW to the game. It's not that the game is BROKEN right now; far from it. Pokemon is one of the most-balanced games in existence, possibly losing only to Starcraft. It's just that the game hasn't really changed in a decade. People here act like adding a new type would break the game. Well, it doesn't, and Coolboyman proved that in his Pokemon Brown hack.

I made the type-chart for Light because I would honestly want a pokemon like that in my team. I don't think it's overpowered, and I think it would add something interesting for those of us who are looking for something new. The rest can just ignore it. I mean, heck, I've been ignoring Poison, Bug, and Rock types since Gen I (except for knowing how to kill them) just because they don't interest me.

Yeah, I see your point, but I'm still not going to agree because I don't. :3 I can potentially see Sound becoming a type someday because there's sort of a basis for existence of it (soundproof, whismur, etc.) but I don't really see anything that Light can portray besides angels from the heavens, which really limits the quality of the Pokémon that can be Light type. I suppose that's one of my biggest problems with the consideration of new types; what kinds of Pokémon do you propose could actually be a Light type? There's only so many spoofs of angel-like creatures that you can get before it gets old.

Also, Bug's one of my favorite types. <3

Evee dude86
May 16th, 2010, 08:49 PM
Space types? I mean Rayquaza, Deoxys, Mew, Arceus, etc all live in space, and that's where Pkmn originally came from.

Yesh? No?

assasinn
May 16th, 2010, 08:49 PM
I wouldn't like to see a "light" type, but I would pay for a gravity type. They would look like asteroids, or suns, and be super affective against rock and ground type, but weak against types such as dragon or flying.

BleuVII
May 16th, 2010, 10:29 PM
Yeah, I see your point, but I'm still not going to agree because I don't. :3 I can potentially see Sound becoming a type someday because there's sort of a basis for existence of it (soundproof, whismur, etc.) but I don't really see anything that Light can portray besides angels from the heavens, which really limits the quality of the Pokémon that can be Light type. I suppose that's one of my biggest problems with the consideration of new types; what kinds of Pokémon do you propose could actually be a Light type? There's only so many spoofs of angel-like creatures that you can get before it gets old.

Also, Bug's one of my favorite types. <3

Fair enough. You don't need to agree. Thanks for not flaming.

I can see a lot more possibilities than just angel stuff though. That's a pretty western idea, and it's quite limited. The concept of "spiritual" or "divine" in Japanese mythos opens up a realm of creatures, from stuff made to resemble some of the bigger gods (Amaterasu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaterasu) - Fire/Light, for example) to the rabbit-making-mochi-in-the-moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_in_the_Moon#Rabbit.2Fhare) (Rock/Light or some such thing). It could even cover a pokemon that is somewhat based off of a warrior monk, since the same kanji is used in that. Granted, Meditite/Medicham kind of already do that, but I'm just throwing out examples.

Azure
May 17th, 2010, 12:23 AM
I don't know, if they did introduce a new type then surely the previous pokemon would get some of this, and to do that would take ALOT of time considering there is 493 currently then the new Pokemon for Gen V (Black & White)

curiousnathan
May 17th, 2010, 12:38 AM
I light type would be unnecissary, considering they have already released to much information at the moment and the announcement of a new type would be going over the top. However, in one case I do agree with having a 'light' type and like previous posters said; it would create a ying - yang effect which Black and White are aiming for. So there are positive and negative points of each side of discussion.
But for me it would be a no, for now at least. :cer_no:

JAK3
May 17th, 2010, 01:49 AM
I couldn't see A new type being added, all of it is already balanced, so it really doesn't need a new type. In the first Generation their was the Psychic type that had no weaknesses and nothing was good against it, but then Generation Two came, and that balanced everything out.

Storm Parakaitz
May 17th, 2010, 02:00 AM
I have supported and wanted a Light type since Dark was released.

Psychic is not Light. They're not even closely related. The only reason anyone even claims they are is Espeon. If anything, Electric is pretty close to Light.

I've thought of potential strengths and weaknesses Light can have. My own concept of a Light type in my head was weak to Poison, simply to balance out the poison type, and was resistant [but not strong against] Fighting, again to balance out the type. I don't have an opinion on its power against Dark, but I am liking the "they're supereffective against each other" concept the most. For strength, I think it could be resistant or strong against Ground to level the playing field when Earthquake is brought in. For logical strengths and weaknesses, it would be strong against Flying, but not very effective against Ice. Also, some Light type abilities could give them effectiveness during Sunny Day, perhaps?

As far as previous Pokemon being Light types are concerned, the only Pokemon that jumps out to me is Ampharos and perhaps Togepi's line. But a Light type opens up some new creative ideas, like a candle-based monster [fire/light] or an anthropomorphic strobelight that confuses foes and lowers their speed. Also, who wouldn't want a raver Pokemon?

Nintendo seems to be running low on ideas, as they're reusing concepts they've made before. A new type would open up some of these ideas and keep the games fresh.

vibratingcat
May 17th, 2010, 02:05 AM
i guess it would b cool. as long as they are both super effective to eachother im fine. light legendary would also b pretty cool.

bobandbill
May 17th, 2010, 05:04 AM
It's not a dumb idea. It makes sense first off, and secondly it would be the perfect time to add this type. I don't care if it's "Far in the series" Pokemon is a constantly changing thing.

In fact, the Pokemon series in general is constantly Evolving...

Heh heh...

True though.It's not exactly smart though in my mind, and far from necessarily (along with every other new type suggested). Firstly the system is balanced as it is - new types were only added in 2nd gen because psychic was way overpowered - there is no such problem here though nowadays, and adding a new type is rather likely to imbalance things - which is something I wouldn't want to see tbh. It's not just a matter of tossing something new in like that... Claims that it'd show that they haven't run out of ideas seems rather silly as well to me tbqh - them reusing concepts is less them out of ideas than them knowing making similar games that still sell millions of copies every few years is easier and less risky for them from a marketing sense to try something completely new with the main series (the 'new' stuff is by other companies in spin-off games).

That and it could result in a change in mechanics (like Hidden Power which relies on types and all) and potentially a change to IVs and hence the game mechanics. Last time the game mechanics changed was from 2nd to 3rd gen, and that meant one couldn't trade between 2nd and 3rd gen. Not exactly a good thing.

NA3LKER
May 17th, 2010, 08:18 AM
the psychic type is sort of the opposite to dark already. and also, if they put in a light type,
what would be strong against it? the only reason they added the dark and steel types in 2nd gen was to balance out the types.

Sammuthegreat
May 17th, 2010, 08:26 AM
I'm with the OP here. I think Light (and to a lesser extent Sound) would be great new types.

To those that are saying the game is balanced, so there's no need to change it - that's clearly not true, otherwise types like Bug, or Poison (Toxic aside), or Normal wouldn't be so scorned and underused. The only reason you're saying the game is "balanced" is because the commonly conceived "strong" types, like Ice or Fire or Dragon, are balanced against each other. But for there to be such stronger and weaker types, the game can't be totally balanced in the first place, by definition.

And to those that say the number of possibilities for Light-type Pokemon is limited - what a load of rubbish. How many fire-breathing pigs have you seen in real life? How many seals have you heard of that can spit beams of solid ice? How many creatures of ANY kind do you know of that have psychic powers?! You can't say that the Light type would be limited to only angels or candles, or else you'd have to say that Fire types would be limited to dragons - which don't even exist in the first place - and Electric types would have to be limited to lampshade- and toaster-shaped Pokemon.

Bring on Light- and Sound-type Pokemon, I say. It'll be a great way to shake up the series, and a great way to level the playing field by forcing metagamers and competitive players out of their comfort zones.

Sage Harpuia
May 17th, 2010, 08:48 AM
I think that the type chart is fine and it doesent need anything.
And for the ones saying that we need light to opposite dark I think is covered by psychic:
since genII psychic pokemon were gentle/pure looking: espeon, gardevoir line, chimeco, jirachi...So I say it is unecessary.

Omicron
May 17th, 2010, 09:57 AM
Light type would be fine.
The type chart can be arranged to put one or two new types without unbalancing the game. If you are talking about light and dark as good vs. bad, then they would be super-effective against each other, but if you are taking them as day vs. night, light should super-effective against dark, and dark not very effective against light. Darknessis the absence of light :).

Another thing I've been thinking of is that some attacks should be super effective against some pokemon, just because of what they do.
It would be like:


Bellsprout fell apart!!!
Farfetch'd used Cut ----- OR
Tangela lost half of its vines!!!

.EJ
May 17th, 2010, 10:42 AM
I think that the type chart is fine and it doesent need anything.
And for the ones saying that we need light to opposite dark I think is covered by psychic:
since genII psychic pokemon were gentle/pure looking: espeon, gardevoir line, chimeco, jirachi...So I say it is unecessary.

I agree but Gardevoir, chimecho, and jirachi are all Gen III.

: P

GlitchCity
May 17th, 2010, 12:39 PM
Unlike the 2nd generation, new types for this generation isnt needed. They could toss in some new types, but that will kinda throw off the entire balance.

Evee dude86
May 17th, 2010, 12:55 PM
Light types cud b very cool and boss IF DUN RIGHT! I can't stress that enough. Like make light super effective against dark and poison, and dark/poison average against light. Angel type light Pkmn cud b win only if....again....DUN RIGHT!

I also reiterate my space type suggestion....

JAK3
May 17th, 2010, 12:58 PM
I could see a couple older Pokemon being upgraded to a light type, such as those fire types that could be Light types, such as Ninetales, or Solrock, any of them.

Omicron
May 17th, 2010, 04:00 PM
I could see a couple older Pokemon being upgraded to a light type, such as those fire types that could be Light types, such as Ninetales, or Solrock, any of them.

Yeah, also the Togepi and Chancey lines

BeachBoy
May 17th, 2010, 04:08 PM
Is there an over-powered, broken-like type now? You could argue that dragons need another check, perhaps an immunity, thanks to the sheer power and ferocity they bring to the table with extremely powerful moves like Outrage and Draco Meteor. However, competitive players can keep dragons in check with ice beams and steel-types, so they don't reach the "I got my Alakazam out first, game over" calamity of Gen I. Besides, there are so many other items that help shutter down overpowered things anyway. Would it be interesting to see another type that scares or stuffs dragons? Not going to lie, yeah, but I don't think it's necessary is all.

When people saw the dark-type, they immediately jumped to assumptions like "they'll add more types!" Light-type was born, and we've been going on about this for years. I doubt we'll see it this time too. Also wow, people are even plugging in the overused and dried-up "running out of ideas" excuse for this topic as well? ... Sad.

The only reason it's not superpowered is because there are so few pure Dark types.Though Vrai did address this, I'd like to expand. The reason it's not super-powered is because of all of our powerful fighting-types. They'd all love the introduction of more pure dark-types, they'd close combat them to the grave before they got a chance.

What hits dark-types in the gut is their piss-poor power attacks. Best one is 80 base, not that amazing in comparison to a Draco Meteor, huh? Although pursuit and sucker punch do have great effects, I'll give them that.

Tyranitar is arguably the mascot for dark-types, since it's the most powerful pokemon with that type. However, many other facts make it great, it's the movepool, brilliant stats, sp. def boost from the sand storm, etc.

Is light-type or anything else possible? Anything is.

To those that are saying the game is balanced, so there's no need to change it - that's clearly not true, otherwise types like Bug, or Poison (Toxic aside), or Normal wouldn't be so scorned and underused. The only reason you're saying the game is "balanced" is because the commonly conceived "strong" types, like Ice or Fire or Dragon, are balanced against each other.I agree that this game can't be balanced, but it can reach a point or form of stability.

Not every type or pokemon is meant to have a strong or even place in the metagame either, some things in this game aren't even meant for competitive play. (see Dunsparce) Normal-type has delivered in cuteness; bug-types are usually weak and our game-starting types, and poison-types have a home with evil teams.

Although, to be fair: Normal does have Blissey, Snorlax, and is a pretty good defensive type. Bug-types like Yanmega, Heracross, Forretress, and the popular Scizor..., Poison-types like Roserade suck up Toxic Spikes (despite you putting toxic off, poison does have an effective entry hazard) So underused, I can give you that, but they have their highlights and bright spots, for sure.

I'd rather not see new types as I'm satisfied with our current batch, but hey, I'm not in control of what those guys do. If they add some, I'll adapt.

Waffle-San
May 17th, 2010, 04:21 PM
I'm with the OP here. I think Light (and to a lesser extent Sound) would be great new types.

To those that are saying the game is balanced, so there's no need to change it - that's clearly not true, otherwise types like Bug, or Poison (Toxic aside), or Normal wouldn't be so scorned and underused. The only reason you're saying the game is "balanced" is because the commonly conceived "strong" types, like Ice or Fire or Dragon, are balanced against each other. But for there to be such stronger and weaker types, the game can't be totally balanced in the first place, by definition.

And to those that say the number of possibilities for Light-type Pokemon is limited - what a load of rubbish. How many fire-breathing pigs have you seen in real life? How many seals have you heard of that can spit beams of solid ice? How many creatures of ANY kind do you know of that have psychic powers?! You can't say that the Light type would be limited to only angels or candles, or else you'd have to say that Fire types would be limited to dragons - which don't even exist in the first place - and Electric types would have to be limited to lampshade- and toaster-shaped Pokemon.

Bring on Light- and Sound-type Pokemon, I say. It'll be a great way to shake up the series, and a great way to level the playing field by forcing metagamers and competitive players out of their comfort zones.

Either you didn't play RBY or you haven't thought about what types mean enough...first of all Bug? Bug is a great typing! Bug type pokemon generally suck but that has more to do with stats and their type combinations (flying). The biggest thing that hurts Bug is Stealth Rock. Bug also happens to resist Grass, Fighting and Ground, two of which are fantastic resistances. Not to mention Steel is the only real reason it isn't a great attacking type. I mean it's super effective on Psychic, Grass and Dark and isn't resisted by anything that note worthy (besides Fighting) that isn't named Steel. It's pretty balanced. Steel just throws alot of things out of whack.

On first generation. The only Pokemon that could tackle Alakazam was Gengar but because of it's poison typing and inferiour speed it was also destroyed like every other pokemon as nothing, I repeat nothing resisted it. That's way more broken than anything we have now.

Now Normal, Normal is meant to be an average typing. It categorizes everything that can't categorize itself. It also has other ways of dealing with it's lack of super effective coverage.

~With 152 moves, the Normal-type has the most moves.
~There are 10 Normal-type moves with a power of 100 or more, more than any other elemental type.

This is normals purpose, to be the essence of diversity. It's lack of weaknesses and few resistances means that you can pair it with pretty much anything. Normal typed moves are often used in movesets to add ultimate coverage. It was never meant to be a high powered, or noticable typing.

And finally Poison, you have a very valid point. It's actually a fine defensive typing with only two weaknesses and four resists. The only problem is the ground weakness and the fact it has virtually nothing going for it offensively hurt it, and hurt it bad. I agree with you in the sense that Poison needs a face lift, but I'd suggest reworking the type chart to make it more effective on other things (Water maybe?) but not using a new type to fix it. Also on the quick note of Dragons, Ice types could gain a resistacne to them...

That being said as much as I'm against a light type I could live with it even though it's not prefferable. Sound on the other hand...seriously? Really? Every Pokemon can emit sound, the few moves that are sound wave focused are covered by Normal, the type that covers everything that can't be or doesn't have enough substance to cover itself. I.e. Sound.

Omicron
May 17th, 2010, 04:23 PM
A new type is not needed, and the game isn't getting boring nor old, but you've gotta admit that new types, not necessarily light type, could be a grat addition to the game.

Bloothump
May 17th, 2010, 04:51 PM
I'm with the OP here. I think Light (and to a lesser extent Sound) would be great new types.

To those that are saying the game is balanced, so there's no need to change it - that's clearly not true, otherwise types like Bug, or Poison (Toxic aside), or Normal wouldn't be so scorned and underused. The only reason you're saying the game is "balanced" is because the commonly conceived "strong" types, like Ice or Fire or Dragon, are balanced against each other. But for there to be such stronger and weaker types, the game can't be totally balanced in the first place, by definition.

And to those that say the number of possibilities for Light-type Pokemon is limited - what a load of rubbish. How many fire-breathing pigs have you seen in real life? How many seals have you heard of that can spit beams of solid ice? How many creatures of ANY kind do you know of that have psychic powers?! You can't say that the Light type would be limited to only angels or candles, or else you'd have to say that Fire types would be limited to dragons - which don't even exist in the first place - and Electric types would have to be limited to lampshade- and toaster-shaped Pokemon.

Bring on Light- and Sound-type Pokemon, I say. It'll be a great way to shake up the series, and a great way to level the playing field by forcing metagamers and competitive players out of their comfort zones.

The game is balanced. Just because types are rare does not mean they're bad. And everyone saying that poison types are underrated, well, they are, but that's not going to be fixed by adding a light type. If you want poison to be stronger, give it a few more advantages, like over water, steel(maybe its already se to steel), and fighting. But again, just because you add a light type does not mean poison's getting better. Also, bug types rock. You say they're not used because they aren't good pokemon, but I think they're not used because most don't take the time to really realize their strength. I had a Yanmega, and it was one of my strongest. And no, seals don't spit out icebeams, but they live in cold climates. Fire pigs, no, but boars are very hot-blooded and aggressive, things that are associated with fire. No, pokemon is not a realistic game, but every connection, from types, to moves, to the pokemon themselves makes a fantasy connection to our current world, which is one of the ways pokemon differs from other games. Granted, they have to compromise some, so not every single pokemon has an obvious connection to its type, but if you want our friends over at game freak to sit there and go "OMGZES GAIZ I HAD THE BEST IDEA, WHUT IF WE MICKSED A COW WITH LITE THATD B SO KEWL OMG" you're realling just asking for a drop in creativity.

MistahDude
May 17th, 2010, 05:02 PM
Alright, so I'm going to say something that I think might be on some people's mind.

It seems these games are highly focusing on Yin and Yang, White and Black, Light and Dark. This theme is shown throughout the current advertising and through Zoruak. Has anybody else realized that this would be the perfect oppurtunity to add the fan demanded Light type? I personally think that due to this theme they are exhibiting that there will be a Light type. Does anybody else agree?

Thank you for your time.

With all regards,

-ChrisTom

Sound would make a lot of sense to add, as would the Light Type.

Bunny69
May 17th, 2010, 05:02 PM
i think its a must, it would balance out dark, dragon,& steel which have become horribly imbalanced
1: Steel is hit by Fighting, Fire, and Ground type, some of the most common attacking types.
2: How is Dark out of balance?
3: Dragon types I can agree with you somewhat; But the huge prescence of Ice type attacks kind of limits dragon.




Oh yeah, Physchic is already the opposite of the Dark type, as evidenced in Umbreon and Espeon..

.EJ
May 17th, 2010, 05:22 PM
Just to add with the other guys.

The bug type, though underrated, is a fantastic type to use. They are one of the only two that hit a dark type for super-effectiveness. They also get to combat psychics nicely. Usually they're considered as garbage because of poor typing (Bug/Flying = rock overkill) but they are interesting and worth training. Every type has a crappy pokemon so don't bash the bugs for some crappy pokemon.

I still think there's no need for light types.

Evee dude86
May 17th, 2010, 05:31 PM
Just to add with the other guys.

The bug type, though underrated, is a fantastic type to use. They are one of the only two that hit a dark type for super-effectiveness. They also get to combat psychics nicely. Usually they're considered as garbage because of poor typing (Bug/Flying = rock overkill) but they are interesting and worth training. Every type has a crappy pokemon so don't bash the bugs for some crappy pokemon.

I still think there's no need for light types.

Whoa whoa, since when is bug effective against dark?

Bunny69
May 17th, 2010, 06:12 PM
Whoa whoa, since when is bug effective against dark?

Since Dark types were made, you can look It up.

I do agree that the Bug type is a good type, and it is very good offensivley. Though compared to every other type, the Bug type has the lowest stats, which is kind of disappointing...

ChrisTom
May 17th, 2010, 06:13 PM
*clears throat*

Hello everybody. Sorry for not being on this thread for a bit. I swear, Pokemon Black and White Threads are spreading faster than a Bellsprout using Growth.

I want to clear a few things up and tell you my points of view on an implementation of the Light Type. But there is one thing I want to make note of first.

Originally posted by .EJ
Adding a light type is unnecessary and will probably cause imbalance in the game. That's the reason the dark and steel types were added; to balance it out. I'm sure we all remember when we played RBY and we all knew that having a Psychic type in your team meant utter obliteration to everybody else. I don't know about christom since he was around 1-2 years old when those games were out and couldn't play them haha.


Firstly, it is written as ChrisTom as I enjoy using capitalization to show professionalism. Secondly, I find that comment to be completely ageist. You're implying that due to my age I lack the ability to comprehend and understand the complex "Type Mathematics" that go into the game, as well as a lack of nostalgia for the original series. You fail to realize that I've been playing the games for quite some time(albeit not as long as you): 7 years. I've been into the grandiose wonder that is Pokemon since I was 4 and I first played at 6. My first and second Pokemon games were Gold and Red respectively. I've beaten Pokemon Red 4 times, Gold 5 times, FireRed once, Both Sapphire and Emerald once, Both Diamond and Pearl twice, and Heartgold once. I know these games back and front inside and out, so I do NOT take kindly to your comment.

Now moving on...

THE LIGHT TYPE

Keep in mind the following is entirely hypothetical.

I see several fans of the wonderous world of Pokemon intrigued about the concept of Light Type Pokemon. Most think that when I said what I did I implyed that I think that there MUST be a Light Type. I don't think that whatsoever. About 10 posters said the same thing: "I don't think a light type is neccesary". I agree. It ISN'T neccesarry, but it would be nice. I think it would be a great way to get rid of the rediculous power Dragon Types have (Ice being their only weakness is rather irritating) and to give Poison and Bug Types the power they deserve. It would obviously be effective on Dark Types.

Alot of you seem to not like the Steel type and hope that Light will destory it. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with Steel whatsoever. The type does have it's weaknesses and due to the minimal amount of Steel types I think it's ok. As Fighting Types have high Attack, and Electric Types have high Speed; Steel type has high Special Defense which is fine. Most Types work like that.

Now most of you seem concerned that the Light Type would be complicated/overpowering. This is not neccesarily true. The aforemention Poison and Bug Types as well as the Grass and Rock types would be Super-Effective, while Dark, Ghost and Water would be crippled. A very small amount of Pokemon would need to be changed (Lanturn and Ampharos specifically).

Here is what I think is the most important part of this debate: Will they even do it? I think absolutely yes. Considering the vast amount of themes involving Yin and Yang, and Light and Dark (For God's sake the games are called Black and White) that they will do it. I don't see a reason why not. It would be the perfect moment for GameFreak to add it. Fans have been wanting a new Type and have been speculating a "Light Type" since Generation II and my guess is that Satoshi Tajiri-Sensei will pull through and give the fans what they want.

If you have anymore questions about my theories and ideas about how the Light-Type would be implemented into the carefully thought out Type-Mathematics, please ask and I will get to you as soon as possible. I am looking forward to the new games and your opinions on what I have said. I wish you all good luck.


With all regards,

-ChrisTom

.EJ
May 17th, 2010, 06:24 PM
Yo, not like I wanna be a grammar nazi or anything, but if you want me to capitalize your name at least make the effort to spell correctly...just sayin' since you pointed out that you like professionalism...

Also, let me go ahead and point out what I meant exactly by that post. Light types are completely unnecessary. You also said it makes sense to add a new type; no it doesn't. If they were to add new types they'd be messing with a classic formula set up as far back as Generation II. The reason I mentioned your age was to make sure you completely understand what I mean.

The only reason dark and steel types were implemented into the series were to balance out a broken system.

Hence, therefore, as a result of, ergo, consequently, <insert another> light types or any other types for that matter won't be added because there is nothing to fix or adjust. Things are fine the way they are right now.

kthxbai.

Bunny69
May 17th, 2010, 06:34 PM
Steel type has high Special Defense
o_0
Steel type has high Special Defense
o_0
Steel type has high Special Defense
*FACEPALM*
(lol try saying that about a Forretress)


I see where your getting at ChrisTom, and I see your reasoning. Black and White don't neccissarily reffering to Light and Dark; futhermore, the Light type would have the least amount of pokemon, even if they did change some of the previous pokemon types. In Gen.5 they are going to make a maximum of 135 pokemon(compared to other gens) and not every pokemon there will be Light type. Plus, I think we would've head something by now about a new type(s); because that's pretty big news, but so far; nothing. In Generation 2, it was okay to start 2 new types, there were less pokemon, and starting a new type is much more managable. When Steel types were introduced, there were only 6 pokemon of that type, or 6/252 ; Hypothetically; let's say the Steel type was introduced in gen. 5. That's 6/500+ . Yeah. That's MORE than triple the amount of pokemon in Gen. 2. Do you see where I'm going here?

ChrisTom
May 17th, 2010, 06:42 PM
Again I KNOW they are unnecessary, but they would be NICE. That's it, end of story.

.EJ
May 17th, 2010, 06:46 PM
Again I KNOW they are unnecessary, but they would be NICE. That's it, end of story.

Just as long as we understand each other bro.

Appreciate it =]

X75flames
May 17th, 2010, 06:51 PM
Light, super effective against: Dark, Ghost.
Is uneffective against: Fire, Grass, Normal
Uneffective by: Ghost, Fire, Psychic.
Super effective by: Dark.

Seems the most logical to me. Poison could be thrown anywhere in to give it a bit bigger of a role.

Cyberglass
May 17th, 2010, 07:10 PM
One thing I only saw mentioned only once here, in an aside, is the fact that there are currently two pokemon, Sableye and Spiritomb, with no weaknesses at all. I think that the fact that there is such a combination alone warrants the introduction of a new type: based on types alone, the weakness chart is still unbalanced. It would make the most sense for Light to be effective against Dark, with Dark also being effective against Light to reinforce the yin-yang symbolism. Also, Poison really does deserve another type weak to it, and adding a new type would make more sense than changing an existing one.

.EJ
May 17th, 2010, 07:18 PM
While that may be true, why is it that neither of those are OU pokemon?

Ah yes....mediocre stats...

bobandbill
May 18th, 2010, 02:58 AM
One thing I only saw mentioned only once here, in an aside, is the fact that there are currently two pokemon, Sableye and Spiritomb, with no weaknesses at all. I think that the fact that there is such a combination alone warrants the introduction of a new type: based on types alone, the weakness chart is still unbalanced. It would make the most sense for Light to be effective against Dark, with Dark also being effective against Light to reinforce the yin-yang symbolism. Also, Poison really does deserve another type weak to it, and adding a new type would make more sense than changing an existing one.As said, those two Pokemon are not much or a problem at all, for their typing is balanced (although tbh on the whole they are not strong at all, particularly Sableye =P) due to their stats and maybe movepool to a degree as well, but more so the stats. That's the more telling thing about Pokemon individually - you can have the best typing but if you're barely stronger than Sunkern it's not going to help you much.

Never mind that Dark being weak to Light would likely cause it to be nerfed way too much - it's not easy to tell the effect a new type might have on the whole game, really.

Hello everybody. Sorry for not being on this thread for a bit. I swear, Pokemon Black and White Threads are spreading faster than a Bellsprout using Growth.You expected any differently? =P
I see several fans of the wonderous world of Pokemon intrigued about the concept of Light Type Pokemon. Most think that when I said what I did I implyed that I think that there MUST be a Light Type. I don't think that whatsoever. About 10 posters said the same thing: "I don't think a light type is neccesary". I agree. It ISN'T neccesarry, but it would be nice. I think it would be a great way to get rid of the rediculous power Dragon Types have (Ice being their only weakness is rather irritating) and to give Poison and Bug Types the power they deserve. It would obviously be effective on Dark Types. Dragon are also weak to themselves, you know. =P And since were dark types overpowered? And as my previous post stated, there is many a reason why I don't think it's nice or necessary, simply due to the negative impacts it would likely/will carry.

Furthermore the 'fans think it intriguing' part doesn't make it necessarily good... when you look at a huge range of fan ideas, many of them are actually not that good in practise. I just feel that a new type lies near that point. =P
Alot of you seem to not like the Steel type and hope that Light will destory it. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with Steel whatsoever. The type does have it's weaknesses and due to the minimal amount of Steel types I think it's ok. As Fighting Types have high Attack, and Electric Types have high Speed; Steel type has high Special Defense which is fine. Most Types work like that. As stated - Steel types have high sp defense wut? Can't say I'm convinced by your claim that you've played all of those games and know everything about Pokemon tbh, just saying. =/ Some mistake here and there and all...

Now most of you seem concerned that the Light Type would be complicated/overpowering. This is not neccesarily true. The aforemention Poison and Bug Types as well as the Grass and Rock types would be Super-Effective, while Dark, Ghost and Water would be crippled. A very small amount of Pokemon would need to be changed (Lanturn and Ampharos specifically).I'm not convinced that would be the problem - my qualm is that it would, whether it is overpowered/underpowered itself or not, would cause other types to be imbalanced (as well as other stuff in my previous post). And tbh... that system there sounds complicated to me simply because it doesn't make much sense to me. =/ Why are those types strong against a light type? Rock strong against Light types...why? Or Water types? =//

The way you're advertising isn't convincing me, have to admit.

And onto another point - changing previous pokemon's types, which;d be just odd and throw people into a loop. Lanturn is no longer Water/Electric but... Water/Light? But it's been established for over 10 years that it's Water Electric! Does this mean every other electric type (seeing electricity gives off light) becomes a Light type as well? As said, it was ok to change a few into Steel types (namely Magnemite) in 2nd gen because the games were relatively new, but now it's more a problem of 'it's too late without screwing up the well-established canon'.

Here is what I think is the most important part of this debate: Will they even do it? I think absolutely yes. Considering the vast amount of themes involving Yin and Yang, and Light and Dark (For God's sake the games are called Black and White) that they will do it. I don't see a reason why not. It would be the perfect moment for GameFreak to add it. Fans have been wanting a new Type and have been speculating a "Light Type" since Generation II and my guess is that Satoshi Tajiri-Sensei will pull through and give the fans what they want.Nope, doesn't mean they will by a long shot. Black and White can just refer to good and evil, or ying and yang, and doesn't 'need' a new type to have such themes. Believe me, people were saying that they would for 4th gen as well, and it didn't happen - vague title names don't make it far more likely now either.

Storm Parakaitz
May 18th, 2010, 04:25 AM
Some of you guys are crazy. Pokemon? Balanced? It never has been, it never will be. Try picking up another game and you'll see what balance is.

In order to balance out Pokemon, creatures would have to be removed, and others would need serious tweaking. And I'm not even started on the typing system yet. That would need a complete overhaul.

Don't say things like "the game is perfectly balanced" because it's not.

That's all I'm gonna say on that subject, don't try to get a tl;dr out of me.

Thorns
May 18th, 2010, 04:32 AM
I'm pretty sure Game Freak said some time back that they ARE NOT considering new types in any new games as it would mess up the types that already exist and make the game more confusing type wise.

Ketchumall
May 18th, 2010, 05:10 AM
A light type makes plenty of sense and it's a great idea, they don't have to go back and fix old Pokemon, just give them separate evolution chains that can be activated via certain actions, like Eevee. Just take the Magnemite and give it the ability to evolve into something with a light type instead of electric. (to use somebodies example earlier). Though there could be some balancing issues (ChrisTom seems to have a pretty good hypothetical on this) I think it could work well. If the Pokemon in the game evolve why is it the game cant? lat (laugh at that).

Note to some of you just being plain obsessive with the word "need" Chris never said that they NEED a new type, in fact he states in his update that your right, they don't NEED a new type, but being good vs evil, Yin vs Yang, what two elements do those correspond to? Dark and LIGHT, for all we know the light type could include only one Pokemon, a legendary.

Dragon are also weak to themselves, you know.

who says you can not do that with light. . . or even better make dark effective against light AND vice versa, xD sorry just had to throw that in there.

but I did some research, so far the light type entering in does not seem like it is gonna happen.

LordDarkrai
May 18th, 2010, 05:17 AM
I'm very interested and want to see a new type like Light type that others said.

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 05:20 AM
@ketchumail: that sounds absurd man. I'm not gonna argue how unnecessary that is since I already did so. I interpret it more as what bobandbill said, good and evil...

Some of you guys are crazy. Pokemon? Balanced? It never has been, it never will be. Try picking up another game and you'll see what balance is.

In order to balance out Pokemon, creatures would have to be removed, and others would need serious tweaking. And I'm not even started on the typing system yet. That would need a complete overhaul.

Don't say things like "the game is perfectly balanced" because it's not.

That's all I'm gonna say on that subject, don't try to get a tl;dr out of me.


In my case when I mentioned balance I was referring to stability. Just clarifying =]

bobandbill
May 18th, 2010, 05:22 AM
Some of you guys are crazy. Pokemon? Balanced? It never has been, it never will be. Try picking up another game and you'll see what balance is.

In order to balance out Pokemon, creatures would have to be removed, and others would need serious tweaking. And I'm not even started on the typing system yet. That would need a complete overhaul.

Don't say things like "the game is perfectly balanced" because it's not.

That's all I'm gonna say on that subject, don't try to get a tl;dr out of me.
Obviously it's not perfectly balenced, and it's rare to ver see a system that is (and potentially such ones would run the risk of being somewhat boring). But certainly it's more or less stable and certainly far more than in 1st gen.

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 06:05 AM
The only thing I can't comprehend is the idea that it would make sense for new additions. We've already established that they are unnecessary and that it would ruin the stability of the canon already set up in Generation II.

We also explained WHY they would add a new type by using the Psychic type of Gen 1 as an example. It's only necessary and sensible to add one to make it fairer. I understand complete balance is impossible to achieve but we can get relatively close (scratch that...we are close.)

Hiroshi Sotomura
May 18th, 2010, 06:30 AM
The only thing I can't comprehend is the idea that it would make sense for new additions. We've already established that they are unnecessary and that it would ruin the stability of the canon already set up in Generation II.

We also explained WHY they would add a new type by using the Psychic type of Gen 1 as an example. It's only necessary and sensible to add one to make it fairer. I understand complete balance is impossible to achieve but we can get relatively close (scratch that...we are close.)
This post sums my thoughts up. Most of them.

People who expect "new types" expect too much, I believe. It may have happened once, but like visiting a secondary region, this was probably one-off and only to add to the game in some meaningful way. I mean, Psychic pounded every other type, so there needed to be some balance, but don't we have some balance now?

Honestly, if there's anything worth looking into, it's Abilities that work as heavy game-changers. We've already seen abilities like Levitate and Lightningrod; this generation could probably add so many more. Or, it could have some even bigger gameplay mechanic; one so extensive we'd never have thought it up ourselves.

TheNewRocketMovement
May 18th, 2010, 07:28 AM
I'd love to see a light type, it'd be a great chance to have light and dark type legendaries as the "mascot" legends for black and white.

Storm Parakaitz
May 18th, 2010, 07:34 AM
In my case when I mentioned balance I was referring to stability. Just clarifying =]
Good thing I didn't mention any names. XD

However, I don't see a problem with trying out a new type. If GameFreak can bring in a new type, they can remove it if it doesn't work.

Obviously it's not perfectly balenced, and it's rare to ver see a system that is (and potentially such ones would run the risk of being somewhat boring). But certainly it's more or less stable and certainly far more than in 1st gen.
Of course, of course. 1st gen had terrible balance, and with each generation it's been getting better.

Sage Harpuia
May 18th, 2010, 08:39 AM
I agree but Gardevoir, chimecho, and jirachi are all Gen III.

: P

Ah, sorry maybe I expressed myself wrong(I'm not English).
I was tryng to say that only genI, when Dark-type didn't exist, Psichic pokemon were "evil" (mewtwo isnt capable of have feelings except rage, Hypno *cough*rape child*chough*) but he became more "gentle" in the others.
Also Light type is also covered by fight and fire-type.

Evee dude86
May 18th, 2010, 08:51 AM
Since Dark types were made, you can look It up.

I do agree that the Bug type is a good type, and it is very good offensivley. Though compared to every other type, the Bug type has the lowest stats, which is kind of disappointing...

Damn lol how'd I miss that?

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 09:07 AM
^Its all good bro. I didn't know rock is neutral against rock. Lol

@Sage harpuia: Oh don't worry about it; I was just correcting what you said. You mentioned them as part of Gen II. =]

BleuVII
May 18th, 2010, 09:22 AM
The great thing about Pokemon's system is that it can handle additions without becoming unstable or imbalanced. Someone brought up Sableye and Spiritomb. That is a great point. To have a type combination that leaves one with zero weaknesses shows that the system, while stable and established, is not perfect. A new type would definitely help that.

Sage Harpuia
May 18th, 2010, 09:25 AM
Well spiritomb and sableye are awesome for this XD.


@Sage harpuia: Oh don't worry about it; I was just correcting what you said. You mentioned them as part of Gen II. =]

I know, it was a language-using error(my bad); I hope that my english teacher is not viewing this:P

Mew~
May 18th, 2010, 09:41 AM
I think a light type would be a good idea... somthing to bring down dark types with :D Maybe the ledgendery for white! Or it could be somthing like phychic/fire or somthing...

ChrisTom
May 18th, 2010, 10:06 AM
Firstly,

Just as long as we understand each other bro.

Appreciate it =]

Thank you. I just wanted us to be on the same page here. It is not neccesary, but nice.

Now onto bobandbill:


And since were dark types overpowered?


I JUST SAID THEY WEREN'T. Dark types have NEVER been overpowered. NEVER. Fighting destroys them, they destroy Psychic.


And onto another point - changing previous pokemon's types, which;d be just odd and throw people into a loop. Lanturn is no longer Water/Electric but... Water/Light? But it's been established for over 10 years that it's Water Electric! Does this mean every other electric type (seeing electricity gives off light) becomes a Light type as well? As said, it was ok to change a few into Steel types (namely Magnemite) in 2nd gen because the games were relatively new, but now it's more a problem of 'it's too late without screwing up the well-established canon'.


*rubs temples in frustration*

Okay, I'm sorry, but that's stupid. I'm not trying to flame, I'm not saying that YOU are stupid, I'm saying that Idea is stupid. Why would I suggest changing all Electric Types to Light? That's like changing all Ice Types to Snow or changing Ghost Types to Dark. I picked those Pokemon specifically for the fact that they have been referred to as Beacon like. For god's sake, an Ampharos lives in a Lighthouse and provides LIGHT for the LIGHTHOUSE!!!

I appreciate your constructive criticism, I really do. And I understand if you don't want a Light Type. But that was rediculous.


Can't say I'm convinced by your claim that you've played all of those games and know everything about Pokemon tbh, just saying. =/ Some mistake here and there and all...


I never said I knew everything about Pokemon. Hell, that's mentally impossible even for Satoshi-Sensei. But I do know a great deal about the principles and precise Type-Mathematics that go into it.


And tbh... that system there sounds complicated to me simply because it doesn't make much sense to me. =/ Why are those types strong against a light type? Rock strong against Light types...why? Or Water types? =//


I figured in the strange Rock/Paper/Scissors system of Pokemon that Rock would cover Light, and Light would pass through Water (Well now that I think about it, that would give Water immunity to Light).


Another thing bobandbill: How many smileys do you have to use?!? I saw seven in that one post!

Anyways, you asked questions and I answered.

I hope that cleared things up for you.

With all regards,

-ChrisTom

abnegation
May 18th, 2010, 10:39 AM
To be honest, I don't think we need any more types. As far as I'm concerned, Steel and Dark types put the bow on the type package, sealed it, and sent it away to never be touched again. I feel that the implementation of more types could just cnofuse things greatly.

In saying that you could contradict the statement by saying that Johto/GSC implemented new types. However, since GSC we've had two more regions and Isshu being the 4th. It'd be a little late in the game to be adding more things. I doubt that Gamefreak would change the gameplay, the look, the feel of a pokemon RPG and change the mechanics. It'd be very risky and I can imagine some complaints shooting their way if there were to be an implementation of the new types.

I'm not just being cynical and shooting down the possibility though, I just really cannot see it happening nor do I want it to to be honest. Light type would be a little cheesy and a little obvious, every type has it's own counterpart as it stands, i don't think we need to throw something in to upset the balance. Not to mention all the new moves that would make it even more complicated to trade with the 4th Gen -which I think is going to be possible iirc-.

Bunny69
May 18th, 2010, 12:14 PM
Light, super effective against: Dark, Ghost.
Is uneffective against: Fire, Grass, Normal
Uneffective by: Ghost, Fire, Psychic.
Super effective by: Dark.

Seems the most logical to me. Poison could be thrown anywhere in to give it a bit bigger of a role.

Here's what I think:

Types super effective on Light: Grass, Rock
Types that Light resist: Light, Water, Dark, Ghost , Bug
Types Light is Super Effective on: Dark, Ghost, Water ,Ice
Types Light is Not Very effective on: Fire, Light, Dragon, Rock, Ground
Types That Are Immune to Light: Grass


Makes sense, sonsidering Grass absorbs Light and uses it for energy..

bobandbill
May 18th, 2010, 12:56 PM
I JUST SAID THEY WEREN'T. Dark types have NEVER been overpowered. NEVER. Fighting destroys them, they destroy Psychic.
Then what is the benefit to the game to have Dark type weak to something else>


*rubs temples in frustration*

Okay, I'm sorry, but that's stupid. I'm not trying to flame, I'm not saying that YOU are stupid, I'm saying that Idea is stupid. Why would I suggest changing all Electric Types to Light? That's like changing all Ice Types to Snow or changing Ghost Types to Dark. I picked those Pokemon specifically for the fact that they have been referred to as Beacon like. For god's sake, an Ampharos lives in a Lighthouse and provides LIGHT for the LIGHTHOUSE!!!That's good you think it ridiculous - so do I. =P But that's th point I am driving at - which electric types would everyone believe would deserve to become a Light type? Looking at things, Ampharos could have been another Pokemon (say Electrbuzz) and would fit just fine in a lighthouse, and so could every other Pokemon. At best the decision of what becomes what would be a Light type wouldn't make sense for many people. (Personally I don't agree that Ampharos should become one just because in a game it sat in a lighthouse... does that mean that Rhydon which learns Surf in GSC by the guy who gave you that HM should be a Water type? Silly idea, but in essence it's similar to what you are saying with Ampharos!)

That and there's the whole 'changing canon after 4 generations' thing in changing old Pokemon to a new one.

And no need to act all angry in posts either... e..g 'I'm angry and you're not stupid the idea is'. There had been sarcasm there which was why the idea was stupid as it was a deliberate exaggeration. =P
I never said I knew everything about Pokemon. Hell, that's mentally impossible even for Satoshi-Sensei. But I do know a great deal about the principles and precise Type-Mathematics that go into it.And yet you sai Dragon types were only weak to Ice and Steel types had high special defence, and you did boast earlier about all the games you played implying that you kow your stuff (not neceessarily all, but a lot, which I would hav assumed meant knowing those things...). And tbh knowing precise type-mathematics... as really little to do with this topic anyway. =/
I figured in the strange Rock/Paper/Scissors system of Pokemon that Rock would cover Light, and Light would pass through Water (Well now that I think about it, that would give Water immunity to Light)....tbh I don't quite follow-why Rock and not other types then? Steel reflects light, no? And the other types mentioned?
Another thing bobandbill: How many smileys do you have to use?!? I saw seven in that one post! A lot. =P
Anyways, you asked questions and I answered.

I hope that cleared things up for you.Not exactly - there's still a lot in my post you didn't actually acknowledge at all. =/ But I gtg now so this post shall be hurried.

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 01:03 PM
Here's what I think

Light Type:
Strong against:None
Weak against:None
Why? It's nonexistent and will remain so.

;)

ChrisTom
May 18th, 2010, 01:23 PM
^ ^ ^

Thank you. I prefer that saying of "I don't like it/don't think it'll be in the games" then what bobandbill has done. You were straight, simple and to the point.

Dillon_68
May 18th, 2010, 01:47 PM
No more type, please. And if you must make a new type Nintendo, please don't let it be Light. Can you say electric, which equals electricty, which makes things light up?

Charizard632
May 18th, 2010, 02:05 PM
I've got a new type!

Hero Type

Great Against- Dark, Dragon, Poision
Bad Against- Hero, Fighting, Steel, Ghost, Psychic
Super Effective- Fighting, Bug
Not Very Effective- Ghost, Flying, Dragon

Usual Traits

HP- Moderete
Attack- Low
Defense- High
Special Attack- Medium-High
Special Defense- Medium-High
Speed- High

PalkiaSpace
May 18th, 2010, 02:11 PM
In just about EVERYBODY's post I've seen the same, thing; "The ONLY reason Dark and Steel were made in Gen 2 was to balance out the crazily overpowered Psychic type." We get that, but Dragon types Dominate the OU, so a Light-Type that can counter thoses pesky dragons can balance them out. I believe dark=light. so Dark type is super effective on light, and light is super effective on dark. even. ghost, psycic, and fighting just do normal damage, like water to Psychic.Light would be week to poison and bug, and I've also seen people go against that by saying this: "But that makes no sence, like saying electric should be super effective on bug!" but seriously, do half the type matchups even make sence? why would a caterpie be super effective on a umbreon? bug>dark is the matchup that makes no sence. So it wouldnt matter. it would give 2 lower tier types a chance in at least UU! light can be super effective on steel JUST BECAUSE lol. Like others have said, it does make sence to introduce it now, dark vs light, hello, the games are black and white! ying yang!

Sorry for the rant and some improper spellings, i typed this up while cooking lol

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 02:15 PM
While I can see the point you're trying to make I still have to disagree. Dragons don't dominate the OU. They are among the strongest (there's no doubt about that) but by no means do they alone dominate the OU. Because by your standards then I guess Scizor, Metagross, Tyranitar, Blissey, etc, etc. are all dragons right?

PalkiaSpace
May 18th, 2010, 02:18 PM
While I can see the point you're trying to make I still have to disagree. Dragons don't dominate the OU. They are among the strongest (there's no doubt about that) but by no means do they alone dominate the OU. Because by your standards then I guess Scizor, Metagross, Tyranitar, Blissey, etc, etc. are all dragons right?


Oh, wow, I completely wasn't thinking. You're right, i wasn't thinking of any of them xD Sorry 'bout that.

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 02:21 PM
Nah it's okay, but let's not forget about those ever-common ice attacks either. All dragons (except for Kingdra, Latios, Latias, etc.) are 4x weak to ice so yeah. They're amazing and all but suffer from that nasty ice type xD

ChrisTom
May 18th, 2010, 02:33 PM
I think the way PalkiaSpace described it makes lots of sense though...

Waffle-San
May 18th, 2010, 03:29 PM
^ ^ ^

Thank you. I prefer that saying of "I don't like it/don't think it'll be in the games" then what bobandbill has done. You were straight, simple and to the point.

Yeah I hate it when I'm proved wrong too.

In just about EVERYBODY's post I've seen the same, thing; "The ONLY reason Dark and Steel were made in Gen 2 was to balance out the crazily overpowered Psychic type." We get that, but Dragon types Dominate the OU, so a Light-Type that can counter thoses pesky dragons can balance them out. I believe dark=light. so Dark type is super effective on light, and light is super effective on dark. even. ghost, psycic, and fighting just do normal damage, like water to Psychic.Light would be week to poison and bug, and I've also seen people go against that by saying this: "But that makes no sence, like saying electric should be super effective on bug!" but seriously, do half the type matchups even make sence? why would a caterpie be super effective on a umbreon? bug>dark is the matchup that makes no sence. So it wouldnt matter. it would give 2 lower tier types a chance in at least UU! light can be super effective on steel JUST BECAUSE lol. Like others have said, it does make sence to introduce it now, dark vs light, hello, the games are black and white! ying yang!

Sorry for the rant and some improper spellings, i typed this up while cooking lol


Though really, Dragons aren't dominant because of their typing, it's more because of their stats (and access to moves like Dragon Dance, Outrage and Draco Meteor.) I mean, from bulbapedia, "The Dragon-type is statistically the best type, as its average fully evolved stat never goes below base 95." The averages are

HP: 98.38

Attack: 111.08

Defense: 95.00

Sp.Atk: 111.15

Sp.Def: 101.15

Speed: 95.77

That's pretty freaking strong. And the tiers are fan made and really not very pokemon was meant to be good. That's why you can catch caterpie's early on but not Larvitar.

Also ChrisTom, light refracts in water but it doesn't dissapear it just slows down. It's only at deep depths of the ocean can the human eye not see light. Also light is such an easily manipulated thing, I assume you're talking about visible light but using all different types of objects and materials you can get light to do what you want; Whether it be sepperate into the rainbow, appear larger/smaller to the human eye, flip or reverse an image, create an image, speed up or slow down. Light is really in the eye of the beholder, I mean a Pokemon can just close there eyes in some cases and the light attack would be useless.
If you want to argue for a light type I suggest you take the route of BleuVII since his definition (though I still don't like it) is actually plausible. Your defintion could work as an ability though.

.EJ
May 18th, 2010, 03:35 PM
Yeah I hate it when I'm proved wrong too.




Though really, Dragons aren't dominant because of their typing, it's more because of their stats (and access to moves like Dragon Dance, Outrage and Draco Meteor.) I mean, from bulbapedia, "The Dragon-type is statistically the best type, as its average fully evolved stat never goes below base 95." The averages are

HP: 98.38

Attack: 111.08

Defense: 95.00

Sp.Atk: 111.15

Sp.Def: 101.15

Speed: 95.77

That's pretty freaking strong. And the tiers are fan made and really not very pokemon was meant to be good. That's why you can catch caterpie's early on but not Larvitar.

Also ChrisTom, light refracts in water but it doesn't dissapear it just slows down. It's only at deep depths of the ocean can the human eye not see light. Also light is such an easily manipulated thing, I assume you're talking about visible light but using all different types of objects and materials you can get light to do what you want; Whether it be sepperate into the rainbow, appear larger/smaller to the human eye, flip or reverse an image, create an image, speed up or slow down. Light is really in the eye of the beholder, I mean a Pokemon can just close there eyes in some cases and the light attack would be useless.
If you want to argue for a light type I suggest you take the route of BleuVII since his definition (though I still don't like it) is actually plausible. Your defintion could work as an ability though.

Oh snap!

Anyhoo, I was actually wondering about the way light would react in real life with other elements. That clarifies it a tad.

BleuVII
May 18th, 2010, 03:39 PM
Umm.... thanks Waffle-san? :)

Yeah, "Light" as in a beam of light would be a bad idea for a new type, as it's already covered by Electric, Fire, and Psychic. But I stand by my original idea of Light being a "Holy" type in opposition to Dark being an "Evil" type. I think there is tons of potential there, and since I am new to the discussion of Light type (heard about it for the first time a month ago), that has always been the definition in my mind. I can see lots of creative potential for it.

Thunderpunch
May 18th, 2010, 04:20 PM
They added Dark in GSC (along with Steel) and haven't added anything since. Do you think we'll see a Light type added in Black and White?


edit: pls move this to Black/White forum

dooxer
May 18th, 2010, 05:57 PM
I remember when i used to trade pokemon cards like crazy, holos, ex, and other kinds which i dont even remember...
but I do remember two special classes of cards, light and dark pokemon

I had a light Arcanine card, and though beat up i knew it was rare. So I think that instead of a new element in the game, there will be a whole new thing to keep track of: a pokemon's phase, similar to the idea of shadow pokemon in Colosseum and XD.

Think; special bosses with light/dark phase pokemon, giving extra stats and a sort of pre-battle animation like for shinies... breeding with a special light/dark pokemon, giving a chance to have any pokemon light/dark... this would be a incredible thing to add! imagine trying to get every pokemon in the pokedex light and dark form :knockedou

dooxer
May 18th, 2010, 06:02 PM
sorry for double post, adding pictures of what i mean...

abluesman100
May 18th, 2010, 06:33 PM
No, dark charizard is the equivalent of shiny charizard in the cards

Yamikarasu
May 18th, 2010, 06:38 PM
No, dark charizard is the equivalent of shiny charizard in the cards

Um, no... this is the equivalent of shiny Charizard (http://pokebeach.com/scans/neo-destiny/107-shining-charizard.jpg).

I doubt Game Freak would make such a drastic leap like that, at least in a main game. Colosseum and XD were more like spinoffs, so that kind of difference was alright.

Ausaudriel
May 18th, 2010, 08:10 PM
Merged dooxer's dark/light type thread into the existing type thread.

Sora
May 18th, 2010, 10:13 PM
I think we're fine with the current types that we have. For fifth gen, I want them to focus on more type combos, rather than a new type. That, and what would the new type be?

>Feelings<
May 18th, 2010, 11:13 PM
I have always wanted only one more type, and no more than that.
That type is the Light type.

But the problem is that a lot of Fire, Steel, and Psychic type Pokemon and attacks are already more suited to be the Light type, and introducing the Light type would mess up most of those things. Too bad.

An example of a Pokemon that would have the light type is Ho-oh, but the problem is that it would have three types that way, so it's a bad idea. Otherwise, it would be great.
An example of a move that begs to be of the light type is Flash Cannon. It's a burst of light.

Timbjerr
May 19th, 2010, 12:21 AM
I just sat here and read through the entire Light-type debate...because I was bored.

I've been fairly neutral to it for the past ten years, leaning towards the "if it ain't broke, don't' fix it" argument, but BleuVII is perhaps the first person I've seen support the light-type through its implications as a holy or spiritual type as a counterpart to the evil and sneaky dark-type. While I made this connection years ago, most people nowadays just associate light with...light...like a lightbulb light...a boring and rather limited concept indeed. >_>

While I like the idea of light-type as representative of holy energy...occupied by angels, fairies, and miscellaneous heavenly beings, and I'd love to see poison have better type-coverage, I still lean towards the issue of balance. The type chart is perfectly fine as is. Steel and Dragon are moderately dominant in OU, but the common presence of Earthquake, Flamethrower, and Ice Beam keep them in check.

Like I said, I'm not completely opposed to it, but GameFreak has to be rather meticulous when it comes to the game's balance before just throwing in the light-type due to fan demand and risk mucking up the relative stability of our metagame. This may involve adding another type in alongside light.

Aurafire
May 19th, 2010, 08:32 AM
Dunno if there is already a discussion for this but I guess I'll move it to B&W.

ILoveDragonite
May 19th, 2010, 08:45 AM
I don't think so and i certainly hope not.

PiPVoda
May 19th, 2010, 09:07 AM
Light type...hmm, well I wouldn't mind there being one but it really wouldn't make much sense to me. We already have fire and electric so what would light's purpose be? Use of some energy from within or when light is out to control the sky? As in determine where light reaches thus being the difference between life and death? If this were the case, then it would make for a fine storyline in black & white.

BleuVII
May 19th, 2010, 09:32 AM
There is actually a 6-page long discussion of this already. My suggestion over there was that rather than having "Light" mean physical light, make it more along the lines of "Holy." In Japanese, Dark is "Aku" which means evil. In the same way, make it "Sei" (holy) and translate it to "Light" in English.

Cherrim
May 19th, 2010, 10:05 AM
They added Dark in GSC (along with Steel) and haven't added anything since. Do you think we'll see a Light type added in Black and White?


edit: pls move this to Black/White forum
Merged your thread in with the existing types thread.

ChrisTom
May 19th, 2010, 10:42 AM
I really liked Timbjerr's outlook. I think that was a good way to argue it and for the most part I agree.

And BleuVII you make a good point as well. But if they were to write it as "Holy" that would cause controversy. Several sprites were banned in GSC due to the fact they had religous references, which Nintendo does NOT like.

DarcyBangBang
May 19th, 2010, 11:19 AM
I think a Light type would be pushing it >.< Like really how many of them can you make? Proble not many

BeachBoy
May 19th, 2010, 03:39 PM
The great thing about Pokemon's system is that it can handle additions without becoming unstable or imbalanced. Someone brought up Sableye and Spiritomb. That is a great point. To have a type combination that leaves one with zero weaknesses shows that the system, while stable and established, is not perfect. A new type would definitely help that.It's not perfectly adaptive, no. (if it was we wouldn't be banning pokemon, anyway)

Or, if you're just talking about types, what proof from our games backs up your point there, BleuVII? They've never added types to this current system. Even then, there can be additions that overpower the system, we could get yet another type with beautiful pokemon that simply can't be overcome often enough. Although it might not be likely with over 600 pokemon, you never know, the checks to possible new pokemon of new types might already be banned or simply not viable. (see: MUHAHAHA, I have Lightadon, 600 BST and full of special attack, it's only counter? ... Mantine.) Well folks, that's just game over right there if that's the case.

It's really about how conscious enough gamefreak is to make sure it's balanced, and with so many factors involved, that's no easy task. So no, there can certainly be additions that throw off the system, but it really all depends. I mean sometimes (regarding pokemon), we have to take things into our own hands and remove them from competitive play.

Also, as it was so eloquently put earlier, sableye and spiritomb aren't really good points of imperfection/need for a new type because whenever something has those kinds of positives, they're shut down in another aspect or two, such as terrible stats or weak movepool as our current two show. We don't need the introduction of a new type because we have bad non-super-effective-weak pokemon running around. Just because something can't take super-effective hits doesn't mean it's invincible. (otherwise Sableye, a very, very infrequent addition to competitive teams, would be everywhere.) Nor does it really appear as a flaw thanks to all the other circumstances. And say Nintendo produced something else with that type combination, and extremely powerful with little to no flaws, well, let's just say it'd probably go up for a ban to uber anyway. As we all know, they introduced types due to the game-breaking Alakazam and psychic-types, Sableye and Spiritomb are far from game-breaking thanks to their typing.

By the way, you all keep going on and on about Yin Yang, well, who was the opposite to Darkrai, the only dark-type legendary? Cresselia. So the opposite to another, possible game mascot, dark-type could certainly be psychic-type yet again. Who knows.

BleuVII
May 19th, 2010, 08:13 PM
I've been going back and forth about whether or not to even bother responding to you, BeachBoy; you're all over the map. Asking for proof of a situation working and then saying it has never happened before; talking about how certain pokemon have been banned from competitive play and then turning around and praising Game Freak's meticulousness. My favorite comment is this:

the checks to possible new pokemon of new types might already be banned or simply not viable. (see: MUHAHAHA, I have Lightadon, 600 BST and full of special attack, it's only counter? ... Mantine.) Well folks, that's just game over right there if that's the case.

You're killing me. That says nothing about adding a new type; that's just an example of bad game design, and we all trust Game Freak to be better than that.

You asked for my proof of why a new type would work. Here it is:

http://db.gamefaqs.com/portable/ds/file/pokemon_hg_ss_type.png

It's a chart. The beauty of it is that you can add another row and another column and not change the rows and columns that came before it. All that you have to do is make sure that the new row/column has the same average number of characteristics as the one that came before it. It's really not that hard. And another column is not game breaking.

I bring up Sableye and Spiritomb not because they are great pokemon, but because there exists a dual-type combination that has no weaknesses. That right there, in my opinion, warrants the creation of a new type so that there is at least one weakness.

My proposed Light type was strong against Fighting, Steel, and later, Dark; weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; Immune to Steel; weak to Ghost, Poison, and Dark; and resistant to Flying and Light. In my opinion, that seems like it not only balances itself, but also does two needed things: makes Poison more useful and gives Steel another weakness.

Now, I can understand if you don't want the addition of a Light type, but it's simply not a good argument to say that it would throw the game out of balance or break it to add another type. It wouldn't. As long as the type has strengths and weaknesses and can't combine with another type in order to have no weakness, it won't break the game.

AuraGaurdian
May 20th, 2010, 01:34 AM
Look in my oppinion the other types have light covered in fact theres one move that specifically refers to light i.e. flash cannon
(Duh)
So I agree with the many people who have said this already LIGHT TYPES ARE A BAD IDEA SO GET OVER IT.

seriously

chinkeeyong
May 20th, 2010, 01:43 AM
The Psychic type seems to fill the niche of Light in Pokémon already. Espeon/Umbreon and Cresselia/Darkrai have already been mentioned, but I'd like to throw in Mew, Celebi, Jirachi, the Gardevoir line and the Chimecho line. These Pokémon would be shoo-ins for the Light type if it existed, but Game Freak chose to give them the Psychic type instead. This, in my opinion, proves Game Freak's stance on this issue.

Ninja Caterpie
May 20th, 2010, 02:08 AM
See, one of the problems with the Light type is Pokemon that would fit in it. Ones that already exist, I mean.

I highly doubt they'll change the typing of those guys any time soon. If they did, some Pokemon do raise the question - what type to replace?

Swift!
May 20th, 2010, 07:16 AM
Right now there are only two new types that I'd like to see, those being Light and Virtual. Light simply to balance out Dark and Virtual for the Porygon family, change them all to the Virtual-type and add a few more in there.

Alexeon
May 20th, 2010, 07:47 AM
With regards to Pokémon, I've always seen the Dark-type not as an evil/demonic power, but more of the darkness that can corrupt/cloud our minds. That plays heavily into why Psychic and Ghost-types are weak to Dark, and why Dark is immune to Psychic.

If Light is to be introduced as a new type, I don't think they will go the spiritual/holy route, since this comes very close to touching the concept of religion. Also, if Light does make it in, it would have to make sense with the various checks and balances, and not just have weaknesses/strengths just to cover other types.

My proposed Light type was strong against Fighting, Steel, and later, Dark; weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; Immune to Steel; weak to Ghost, Poison, and Dark; and resistant to Flying and Light. In my opinion, that seems like it not only balances itself, but also does two needed things: makes Poison more useful and gives Steel another weakness.

If you can explain why Light is weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; why Steel has no effect on Light; why Flying is resistant to Light; and why all other Light-type match-ups are sensible as a reference to real-world concepts, then this would be fine. But the typing system the Pokémon franchise uses isn't just about balance, but also logic, and that can't be ignored.

Aureol
May 20th, 2010, 08:58 AM
With regards to Pokémon, I've always seen the Dark-type not as an evil/demonic power, but more of the darkness that can corrupt/cloud our minds. That plays heavily into why Psychic and Ghost-types are weak to Dark, and why Dark is immune to Psychic.

If Light is to be introduced as a new type, I don't think they will go the spiritual/holy route, since this comes very close to touching the concept of religion. Also, if Light does make it in, it would have to make sense with the various checks and balances, and not just have weaknesses/strengths just to cover other types.

You cover it pretty well. The entire reason Dark, along with Steel, was brought in was to counter the highly imbalanced Psychic. Dark isn't an "evil" type: it's a corruption or cloudy type. Also, Light wouldn't be holy mostly because, like you said, it would be controversial if it went the holy route, and if it went by the more physical description of Light, most Pokemon that would be considered Light-type could be easily placed in Fire, Electric or Psychic.

There's nothing wrong with the set-up right now. While I wouldn't mind another Steel-type check, anything made to fix it would be very difficult to pull off, and Steel-type is already pretty good as is.

.EJ
May 20th, 2010, 09:01 AM
^Trust me they don't care as to why they added steel and dark types. Lots of us have tried explaining it. Lol =/

Alexeon beat me to the punch xD

You could say it would not throw the balance/stability off, however the type advantages and disadvantages (immunities as well) wouldn't make any sense.

Therefore that would throw off stability because then the system doesn't add up. Light and rock aren't even related...

Garland
May 20th, 2010, 09:15 AM
Another day, another speculator kid doing his speculatin'. When will it ever end?

There's already enough types, and seeing as B&W are likely to have backwards compatibility (i.e. trading with D/P/P/HG/SS) it wouldn't be practical.

BleuVII
May 20th, 2010, 12:57 PM
If you can explain why Light is weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; why Steel has no effect on Light; why Flying is resistant to Light; and why all other Light-type match-ups are sensible as a reference to real-world concepts, then this would be fine. But the typing system the Pokémon franchise uses isn't just about balance, but also logic, and that can't be ignored.

Yes, which is why martial arts masters cower at the sight of birds (Flying>Fighting), why Psychics can't bend metal spoons (Steel>Psychic), and why rocks magically squelch fires (Rock>Fire). :\

Anyway, before I start explaining the type matchups and their real-world equivalents, keep in mind that I am doing these from a Japanese world-view, which includes kami (beings with a spiritual essence), not from a Western world-view of angels and demons. (edit: and I feel justified in doing so since I am a Cultural Anthropologist who lives in Japan)

Light is not weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; it's ineffective. There's a difference. We already have Psychic types that represent purity, so a holy type wouldn't really be too effective on them. Light being ineffective against Light is kind of ontological (it is because it is). Also, there are innumerable rocks that are seen as being kami in Japan, and many have shrines dedicated to them. So a holy/Light type would be ineffective against them.

Shrines in Japan are almost always surrounded by trees, bamboo, grass, etc. even if they're in the middle of a city. Heck, I even saw a shrine in the middle of a shopping mall that was open-air and had bamboo. It's like you can build with iron and concrete all around it, but it never touches the shrine. Hence, steel is ineffective.

Light is weak to Ghost/Poison because those are all corrupting influences. It is mutually effective against Dark because they are opposite sides of the coin. It is strong against fighting and resistant to fighting simply to balance out the fighting/dark/psychic triangle.

There's your explanations for why I chose those things. Believe me, I thought about it, trying to keep real-world equivalents while still making it a balanced type gameplay-wise. I understand the game and how it works.

As for ignoring people saying that Dark and Steel were only added to balance out the uber Psychic type, well, yes. I'm ignoring that. I think it's related to the discussion of new types, but I don't think that them having a specific reason for adding types in the past has any bearing on adding new types now. It's when game companies get stuck in development inertia (we're doing it because that's how we did it in the past) that they stagnate.

.EJ
May 20th, 2010, 01:18 PM
Light is not weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; it's ineffective. There's a difference. We already have Psychic types that represent purity, so a holy type wouldn't really be too effective on them. Light being ineffective against Light is kind of ontological (it is because it is). Also, there are innumerable rocks that are seen as being kami in Japan, and many have shrines dedicated to them. So a holy/Light type would be ineffective against them.

Light is weak to Ghost/Poison because those are all corrupting influences. It is mutually effective against Dark because they are opposite sides of the coin. It is strong against fighting and resistant to fighting simply to balance out the fighting/dark/psychic triangle.

Now it actually makes sense. On your last post you didn't really specify and clarify on what was effective and what wasn't. Your theory is interesting and logical however, as most people following this thread know, I still deem a new type unnecessary (nothing personal).

Even then, I doubt Gamefreak would dare ruin compatibility with Generation IV games; especially when Black & White are coming out on the exact same handheld system.

Sammuthegreat
May 20th, 2010, 01:33 PM
Yes, which is why martial arts masters cower at the sight of birds (Flying>Fighting), why Psychics can't bend metal spoons (Steel>Psychic), and why rocks magically squelch fires (Rock>Fire). :\

...

As for ignoring people saying that Dark and Steel were only added to balance out the uber Psychic type, well, yes. I'm ignoring that. I think it's related to the discussion of new types, but I don't think that them having a specific reason for adding types in the past has any bearing on adding new types now. It's when game companies get stuck in development inertia (we're doing it because that's how we did it in the past) that they stagnate.


I am literally 100% behind everything you've said. Those that don't want this can only be metagamers who are afraid of change, despite the fact change A) would probably improve the current formula and B) doesn't really need an explanation, either in the real world or in the Pokemon world.

Further to what you said, how are dragons super-effective against dragons? In fact, how are dragons super-effective against anything? Dragons don't even exist! How is ground super-effective against steel? Earth would do absolutely nothing against metal.

If we're basing the type matchups on real-world physics and chemistry, then fire and rock would be super-effective against everything, and the game would suck.

pokemongarnet
May 20th, 2010, 03:12 PM
I don't think they'll make new types. Maybe Light if it had the exact same resistances and weaknesses as dark and dark and it ar supereffective on one another.

Kingler5
May 20th, 2010, 03:15 PM
I say they should make a crystal type. I dunno...they've been using a lot of gem names 4 their games, so Why not?

Alexeon
May 20th, 2010, 03:24 PM
(scroll down to the blue paragraphs to avoid my opinions and get to actual points) xD

Yes, which is why martial arts masters cower at the sight of birds (Flying>Fighting), why Psychics can't bend metal spoons (Steel>Psychic), and why rocks magically squelch fires (Rock>Fire). :\

The Flying-type has an aerial advantage that makes the concept of fighting one hand-to-hand less sensible.

Psychics can bend and dent metal spoons through telekinesis, but so can rocks and my very much Normal-type Bend-and-Twist attack. The true brunt of damage from Psychic-type moves is implied to be mental, and the heavily-armored Steel Pokémon cannot be so easily reached.

And rocks beating fire is very much possible...I'd hope that smothering flames would be common knowledge.

Anyway, before I start explaining the type matchups and their real-world equivalents, keep in mind that I am doing these from a Japanese world-view, which includes kami (beings with a spiritual essence), not from a Western world-view of angels and demons. (edit: and I feel justified in doing so since I am a Cultural Anthropologist who lives in Japan)

That goes into cultural issues that Nintendo/Game Freak know well enough to avoid, seeing as this is an international franchise. They heavily take from various cultures, not just Japanese, in order to create their Pokémon, and therefore, they need to stay with a less centralized way of thought.

Light is not weak against Psychic, Rock, and Light; it's ineffective. There's a difference.

Choice of words made that unclear, sorry about that one.

We already have Psychic types that represent purity, so a holy type wouldn't really be too effective on them.

Psychic doesn't represent purity. It simply refers to the power garnered through mental prowess.

Also, there are innumerable rocks that are seen as being kami in Japan, and many have shrines dedicated to them. So a holy/Light type would be ineffective against them.

Wouldn't that just be the same as designating a Rock/Light type? Not all rocks have shrines, so not all rocks would be resistant to spiritual forces.

Shrines in Japan are almost always surrounded by trees, bamboo, grass, etc. even if they're in the middle of a city. Heck, I even saw a shrine in the middle of a shopping mall that was open-air and had bamboo. It's like you can build with iron and concrete all around it, but it never touches the shrine. Hence, steel is ineffective.

This seems like a heavy stretch...but at least I understand your train of thought now.

It is strong against fighting and resistant to fighting simply to balance out the fighting/dark/psychic triangle.

Which is a problem, but I suppose if we're unable to agree upon the logic presented by other typing match-ups, this won't really change either.

-----

I have no doubts you put thought into what you came up with, but your views on what seems logical are heavily based on your background, rather than an understanding of more universal concepts. I'll agree that a lot of what Pokémon presents can be deemed a stretch as well, but at the very least, they don't stay bound to concepts only certain cultures/groups of people would agree upon. This further adds to why a holy/spiritual type of Light would less likely be the way they would go about this.

-----

Further to what you said, how are dragons super-effective against dragons? In fact, how are dragons super-effective against anything? Dragons don't even exist! How is ground super-effective against steel? Earth would do absolutely nothing against metal.

If we're basing the type matchups on real-world physics and chemistry, then fire and rock would be super-effective against everything, and the game would suck.

Dragons being mystical...beings...they go by different rules that people will just have to accept. The way I see it, dragons beating dragons wouldn't be unheard of, if dragons are seen as superior beings that could only rival each other.

Ground beating steel is seen from the concept of taking down the mightiest of defenses by taking the ground beneath them.

Those that don't want this can only be metagamers who are afraid of change, despite the fact change A) would probably improve the current formula and B) doesn't really need an explanation, either in the real world or in the Pokemon world.

Even as a metagamer, I welcome change, and do see a great need for change considering the way the current metagame plays out. All I'm arguing about is the logic behind a Light-type, especially as a holy/spiritual type in a game that has, for the most part, avoided going down the routes of religion/spirituality.

-----

Gah, I heavily debated posting this and my previous post, since I knew it'd only get me into a debate that wouldn't result in much of anything. That said, even if we can't all agree on what would work, or even what needs to work, we can at least say that Light is a definite possibility that just needs to be tweaked to satisfy all fronts. The final decision Game Freak goes with may likely shape a new future for not only the mechanics of the game, but also the tone of the Pokémon franchise as a whole. Of course, the compatibility with the current generation is the biggest hurdle that needs to be explored first...

BleuVII
May 20th, 2010, 03:35 PM
I say they should make a crystal type. I dunno...they've been using a lot of gem names 4 their games, so Why not?

OMG!!! How cud U even suggest that?!!1!!one! It wud throw the whole game outta balance!

;)

That is an interesting one that I haven't heard before. What kind of properties would it have? I can see a lot of things related to prisms and geometry.

Now it actually makes sense. On your last post you didn't really specify and clarify on what was effective and what wasn't. Your theory is interesting and logical however, as most people following this thread know, I still deem a new type unnecessary (nothing personal).

Even then, I doubt Gamefreak would dare ruin compatibility with Generation IV games; especially when Black & White are coming out on the exact same handheld system.

Oh, I'm not taking it personally. You have consistently listened and consistently disagreed, and that's cool. It's better than those who still assume, after 7 pages, that I'm talking about photons when I say "Light Type". :tired:

And I'm not convinced on the Gen IV/ Gen V compatibility. It would be quite tricky to pull this off.

.EJ
May 20th, 2010, 03:40 PM
OMG!!! How cud U even suggest that?!!1!!one! It wud throw the whole game outta balance!

;)

That is an interesting one that I haven't heard before. What kind of properties would it have? I can see a lot of things related to prisms and geometry.



Oh, I'm not taking it personally. You have consistently listened and consistently disagreed, and that's cool. It's better than those who still assume, after 7 pages, that I'm talking about photons when I say "Light Type". :tired:

And I'm not convinced on the Gen IV/ Gen V compatibility. It would be quite tricky to pull this off.


There's one thing I try to do and that's to not be ignorant haha. Although I gotta side with Alexeon; the shrine idea is a little farfetch'd <--pun intended. I'm a little concerned about the compability though =/

Aureol
May 20th, 2010, 03:49 PM
OMG!!! How cud U even suggest that?!!1!!one! It wud throw the whole game outta balance!

;)

Nah ur rong letz throw in wood iron n oil types! :D

Ok, seriously though, my biggest worry about a new type is variety. Let's say "light" refers to the scientific idea: I can't think of anything that would be "light" type that wouldn't fit better into Fire or Electricity. If "light" refers to the more spiritual idea of it, honestly, most of them are perfectly at home in Psychic. There would be Cresselia, Espeon... I can't think of anything else that we have now that could even be suggested as Light-typed. Sure, there's always new Pokemon we can add, but what are we going to do, throw in a dozen variations of Sun warriors? Remember, there's also religious controversy, so we can't go too far down this path.

BleuVII
May 20th, 2010, 03:59 PM
Alexeon, I'm all for not getting into heavy debates about trivial matters. I'm just trying to point out the ridiculous lengths people will go to in order to explain the current type match-ups, and then turn around and denounce other peoples' theoretical types because the thought didn't occur to them first. I once questioned someone on this board about why Fighting is supereffective against Dark, and they replied that the "noble" warrior defeats the evil "dark" pokemon. Um... that's stretching quite a bit too. So I feel like I can stretch a bit with my definitions. It's not like I'm willing my type into existence or anything. The best I can hope for is that a hacker reads this thread, thinks it's a good idea, and implements it into their hack.

Now, about the religious controversy thing. Yeah, I can see that point. That's why I chose the Japanese concept, rather than angels and demons. "Holy" beings are seen in a much more neutral light. It's really not too far-fetched for people from other regions either, as long as it's not called "Holy" (hence the word "Light"). However, don't forget that the Japanese word for "Dark" type literally means "evil." The word is Aku, and I'm copying and pasting this from a dictionary:

悪 あく
(n) evil; wickedness; (P)
悪 わる
(n) bad thing; bad person

So if they can get away with "evil" pokemon simply by rebranding them "dark," I see no reason that would stop them from "holy." Just my 2 cents.

Waki Tobaye
May 20th, 2010, 03:59 PM
Light type? meh...

I think, as others have said, they should add types that have not already been represented by others *coughcoughpsychicelectricfireandlightcoughcough*
Or, a "holy light" type would be a good adition, too.

An idea I had for a hack-rom was to add a Plasm type. It's cool.
Or maybe a Virtual type too?
As someone stated, Crystal sounds interesting =D

Zorua
May 20th, 2010, 04:53 PM
I am literally 100% behind everything you've said. Those that don't want this can only be metagamers who are afraid of change, despite the fact change A) would probably improve the current formula and B) doesn't really need an explanation, either in the real world or in the Pokemon world.

Further to what you said, how are dragons super-effective against dragons? In fact, how are dragons super-effective against anything? Dragons don't even exist! How is ground super-effective against steel? Earth would do absolutely nothing against metal.

If we're basing the type matchups on real-world physics and chemistry, then fire and rock would be super-effective against everything, and the game would suck.

You're combining Pokemon with logic there, y'know, something you should never do.

And thats what always, always happens during light-type debates. Most people who support it try to use logic to back up their reasoning but this is Pokemon, logic fails to back anyone up in any form and fashion whatsoever.

And you do have to take into consideration how this would affect the competitive metagame as well. Would it be completely altered or would it be balanced? You would have types that would be weak to light, and then you would have types that would be resistant to light in addition to having light attacks, and along with that you would have to have types that are immune to light, if any.

I think it's too much of a drastic change to make, and it's really not worth it, to be honest.

loliwin
May 20th, 2010, 11:50 PM
I'd rather not put any new types at all. It could possibly ruin strategies etc. or possibly ruin the whole gameplay.

and lets not try to mix up pokemon with logic. Gameplay beats logic people.

0m3GA ARS3NAL
May 21st, 2010, 01:10 AM
I'd laugh if light types DON'T end up being created and this was all for naught,

A light type comes with some ups and downs.
I read a post a page or 2 back suggesting Lanturn as a light type... Water Electric makes more sense.

And now up to date...
Light Type Machups IMO would be...
Super Effective: Dark, Bug, Ghost
Regular Damage: Normal, Fighting, Ice, Dragon, Flying, Fire, Water, Psychic, Poison
Not Very Effective: Grass, Steel, Light, Electric, Ground, Rock
No Effect: N/A

Having a Super Effective against Dark/Ghost would certainly rape it's way through anyone thinking that a hacked WonderGuard Spiritomb/Sableye is a good idea.

The downside to this terribly tragic idea for an addition to the Pokemon world would be this...
Unless the Light Type Pokemon data is already stored in the current Gen IV Games, one of 2 things would happen.
Either A:
You would NOT be able to trade to/from Gen V to Gen IV, because the date would not exist. (Much like the Time Machine From Pokemon G/S/C, you couldn't trade backwards Pokemon that did not exist in Gen I (Like trying to trade a Ho-Oh to Red version, Not-Going-To-Happen.)(Even if the Steel type data didn't exist in R/B/Y/G, you could still trade Magnemite/Magneton back and forth between Gen I and Gen II. This is because the data for Magnemite and Mageton ALREADY existed in Gen I, the Steel Type Byte was just replaced with a big fat NOTHING, and those 2 Pokemon reverted to pure electric types.

Scenario B is much more... dynamic I could say... or horrendous, if you look at it from MY point of View.
B would require anyone wishing to trade back/forth from Gen V with Gen IV, to get a Mystery Gift Patch from the Nintendo Wi-Fi Mystery Gift Service, that would patch the cart much like how R/S needed a patch to fix the time system that eventually glitches and stops working. (The problem with this is, that that fix one only a mere byte, installing data for over (Probably) 100 new Pokemon would be ABSURD, as well as all new attack data, ability data, New Possible Poke-Balls, location data, Pokedex Entries on ALL of them, New Graphics for ALL of them (As GameFreak has been known to have designers draw different poses for EVERY pokemon for every new game release. (Or Duo Release as Pokemon loves to do.))
They would need to patch new attack data, new trainer sprites (NOT OW's) and cries for each one.


Either that or.... D/P/Pt wont have connectivity, but HG/SS will, as those were finished DURING B/W's creation, if they decided on a Light Type, it would probably already be hackable in HG/SS, as well as graphics and Dex Data for EVERY SINGLE ONE of Gen V.
Doubt it, but if some AR Code maker decides to make a code for HG/SS that forces wild pokemon PAST Arceus, and it works, good on you, you just defeated the whole purpose of Nintendo's revealing of these Pokemon, and you will forever be known as the jerk who ruined Pokemon.
I'm done with my $3.50

I'd rather not put any new types at all. It could possibly ruin strategies etc. or possibly ruin the whole gameplay.

and lets not try to mix up pokemon with logic. Gameplay beats logic people.

Logic? You wanna talk about logistics, people here have Pokemon down to a science.
If you think logic isn't a part of Pokemon you've been posting in the WROOOONG forum.

Aureol
May 21st, 2010, 07:53 AM
Another issue though is the necessity of this. I'm worried about whether we could implement a new type due to variety of Pokemon and whatnot (especially something as narrow as Light-type), but there's also complexity. We're already at 17 types, and that's a lot. We might be able to add in another type, but there's no real reason to. In the least, I'm not arguing that Light would imbalance the game (although that is quite likely), but I am saying that this would add a whole lot of complexity that we don't need.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Most of this time we've been arguing whether it could be included or not, but we need to ask why it'd be included. There are no pressing needs to balance anything, nothing's dying for a re-type, and, at least in Light's case, there aren't enough ideas for Pokemon to justify a whole redesign of the element system.

Sammuthegreat
May 21st, 2010, 08:52 AM
Dragons being mystical...beings...they go by different rules that people will just have to accept. The way I see it, dragons beating dragons wouldn't be unheard of, if dragons are seen as superior beings that could only rival each other.

Ground beating steel is seen from the concept of taking down the mightiest of defenses by taking the ground beneath them.



Even as a metagamer, I welcome change, and do see a great need for change considering the way the current metagame plays out. All I'm arguing about is the logic behind a Light-type, especially as a holy/spiritual type in a game that has, for the most part, avoided going down the routes of religion/spirituality.

-----

]

Fair enough Alexeon, at least you understand where we're coming from when we advocate the inclusion of a Light-type, and hey, what's the point in being on a messageboard if it's not to engage in some healthy debate.

But to clarify my own personal ideas about the potential Light-type, it's that it doesn't need to represent what is already represented by the Psychic type, and it doesn't need to skirt with controversy by representing holiness. Personally, I would want the Light type to be simply a counterpart to the Dark type. I know the Dark type was originally introduced to counter the Psychic type, but there are enough conceptual differences between Dark and Psychic that the two aren't, and never have been, true counterparts.

In the same way that Dark doesn't exactly represent "evil" or anything "unholy", the Light type doesn't need to represent "good" or "holiness." It could simply represent purity, honesty, and the associated presence of physical light (so yes, it does correlate to photons in part). The conceptual differences between this and Psychic are plain to see, in the same way that the differences between Rock and Ground aren't too difficult to conceive.

Maybe a good way to look at it is the way Jade Empire treated morality - the way of the open palm (Light) against the way of the closed fist (Dark). The open palm advocates thought, open-mindedness and avoids ideas like vengeance, whereas the closed fist is the idea that the end justifies the means. Neither is simply "good" or "evil"; all people in all walks of life employ both sides of that particular coin in their everyday lives.


You're combining Pokemon with logic there, y'know, something you should never do.

And thats what always, always happens during light-type debates. Most people who support it try to use logic to back up their reasoning but this is Pokemon, logic fails to back anyone up in any form and fashion whatsoever.

I think you may have missed my point, which was essentially in agreement with you. I was trying to point out the absurdity in applying real-world logic to the Pokemon type matchups as they are now, and by association pointing out how pointless it was and is to require real-world explanations for why a possible Light type would be super-effective against certain types and ineffective against others.

Type matchups don't need to be real-world-logical. They are how they are, because it balances the game.


And you do have to take into consideration how this would affect the competitive metagame as well. Would it be completely altered or would it be balanced? You would have types that would be weak to light, and then you would have types that would be resistant to light in addition to having light attacks, and along with that you would have to have types that are immune to light, if any.

I think it's too much of a drastic change to make, and it's really not worth it, to be honest.

This is what I meant when I said that those who opposed the introduction of new types must be metagamers who were afraid of losing their competitive advantage by being forced to learn some new type matchups. I for one am all in favour of shaking up the status quo; even though I am not a competitive battler myself, I can't imagine that some fresh blood could ever be a bad thing.

Furthermore (and finally, you'll be glad to know if you've ploughed through this wall of text), why does everyone assume that a new type would unbalance the game? Who's to say it wouldn't further balance it? Remember that more types doesn't equate to more imbalance - Generation I had 15 types, and was horribly unbalanced, whereas Generation II-onwards had 17, and was all the better for the extra two...

EDIT: Messed up the quote formatting...

Porygon Z
May 21st, 2010, 08:56 AM
...Maybe a Wood Type?

Or a Light Type, as supposed by the White version.

BleuVII
May 21st, 2010, 09:03 AM
Doubt it, but if some AR Code maker decides to make a code for HG/SS that forces wild pokemon PAST Arceus, and it works, good on you, you just defeated the whole purpose of Nintendo's revealing of these Pokemon, and you will forever be known as the jerk who ruined Pokemon.

That code has already been created. And re-created. There exists no data beyond Arceus. HG/SS were programmed on the D/P/Pt engine, and show no attempt at being forwards-compatible.

Honestly, I doubt Gen IV and Gen V will have compatibility beyond a time-capsule or pal park type thing. The logistics of doing anything else are just crazy.

0m3GA ARS3NAL
May 21st, 2010, 09:35 AM
Honestly, I doubt Gen IV and Gen V will have compatibility beyond a time-capsule or pal park type thing. The logistics of doing anything else are just crazy.

Agreed
The Time Capsule Idea was a good one back in the days of G/S/C, and it worked.
It kept the pokemon out that it wanted out, and it let pokemon in that it wanted in.

JakeyBoy
May 21st, 2010, 09:45 AM
Yes, which is why martial arts masters cower at the sight of birds (Flying>Fighting)Can't beat what you can't reach, hon. ;D

Surely the reason new types weren't added in the last two generations was because the typing is as good as it needs to be now. Steel was added to great an absurdly defensive type, and Dark is there knock Ghosts and Psychics off their pedestal. Though I wouldn't be totally against new additions, Light seems like it could apply to too many existing Pokemon, especially legendaries.

fenyx4
May 21st, 2010, 09:59 AM
Personally, I'd be fine with the types if Light-type was the last one added. Aside from counterparting Dark (as many have seen, 'counterparting' is a big thing in the Pokemon games, which I enjoy as well), it could introduce newer concepts for Pokemon (just look at Incensire in Pokemon Garnet Version being developed in the Showcase thread here on PC). Furthermore, new moves could be played off of this type (the thing that bugs me is that moves like Flash Cannon, Doom Desire, and Luster Purge already reference light, so adding Light-type would possibly mean changing the types of those moves of well, which as of now, I'm not entirely in favor of)...

And though I'm not an expert in the supposed "Pokemon metagame", I am sick and tired of people stating that the Dark and Steel-types were added simply for "balance" . What if Satoshi Tajiri and the game developers just added them for the sake of Pokemon diversity? Yes, balance could have played a part in adding the types, but it is not the sole reason for the addition of the types. Pokemon wasn't created simply for the metagame; there are a plethora of other enjoyable aspects of the franchise, which includes all the stories, legends, and so forth...

And I agree, a game needs balance, but that doesn't mean that new types are banned in Pokemon forever...sheesh. Let's just be a bit more open-minded...

And lastly, adding a new type hasn't been done since the days of GSC (barring Colosseum and XD's Shadow-type, which doesn't really count because it is unusable in the main series games anyway). Generation V needs some form of innovation, and the battle system, IMO, is running out of ideas...

Light-type FTW (with balance in mind)!

0m3GA ARS3NAL
May 21st, 2010, 10:28 AM
Can't beat what you can't reach, hon. ;D

Then why do pokemon created in the darkness cower at the sight of a bug?

Juu-Chan
May 21st, 2010, 10:58 AM
I agree with all the confusion Light types would bring. But I'm mostly for, anyway. Although Pokemon would begin to seem a lot like Yugioh then :s

I want an Irish type dammit! ><

Esmas
May 21st, 2010, 12:03 PM
I'd love to see a Light-type. Though it may be considered 'unnecessary', I think the Pokémon world needs another 'legendary' or 'sacred' type, such as Dragon.

But there are other type possibilities out there as well. I've seen fan games with types such as Virus.

Cyberglass
May 21st, 2010, 12:56 PM
One type I thought of while trying to design fakemon was Glass type, since it doesn't seem to fit into any of the previous type designations. It would be weak to ground and rock, and resistant to fire, water, and electric.

Xanatos13
May 21st, 2010, 06:08 PM
To me Psychic is the Dark equivalent. ^_^ But I would like to get Light Pokemon, something that can take down Houndoom and Weavile easily.

Zorua
May 21st, 2010, 06:40 PM
I think you may have missed my point, which was essentially in agreement with you. I was trying to point out the absurdity in applying real-world logic to the Pokemon type matchups as they are now, and by associationpointing out how pointless it was and is to require real-world explanations for why a possible Light type would be super-effective against certain types and ineffective against others.


Yes, but in addition I'm just going to use the old "Psychic is already here in place of the light type" argument, because y'know, it's actually pretty true, if you really think about it. Psychic, Light screen, Psybeam, Reflect, all of these attacks have something to do with utilizing light in some form to either an offensive or a defensive advantage. Now consider if the light-type were to be added. What kind of attacks would the light-type that would make it stand out so much from the Psychic-type?

Of course, I can be contradicting myself because Rock and Ground are so similar, but when I think of rock, I think of mountainous creatures, and when I think of ground, I think of creatures that, of course, live underground.

The Light type would have to involve some sort of...force behind it, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be a psychic force or something of that sort? Isn't that what the Psychic-type is there for?

Type matchups don't need to be real-world-logical. They are how they are, because it balances the game.



This is what I meant when I said that those who opposed the introduction of new types must be metagamers who were afraid of losing their competitive advantage by being forced to learn some new type matchups. I for one am all in favour of shaking up the status quo; even though I am not a competitive battler myself, I can't imagine that some fresh blood could ever be a bad thing.

Furthermore (and finally, you'll be glad to know if you've ploughed through this wall of text), why does everyone assume that a new type would unbalance the game? Who's to say it wouldn't further balance it? Remember that more types doesn't equate to more imbalance - Generation I had 15 types, and was horribly unbalanced, whereas Generation II-onwards had 17, and was all the better for the extra two...

EDIT: Messed up the quote formatting...

I don't know about that. I mean, if you've ever been to S&M before or ever took a sneak peak into some competitive discussions, you would see how screwed up the modern metagame is already with what Platinum introduced. I'm not part of the competitive battling community by any means, but just take into consideration how perhaps unbalanced it may be. Cause like I said, there would have to be moves(attack/defense/status or otherwise) then there would have to be weaknesses and immunities. Why be an entire copy of Psychic if Psychic is already there?

typhlosionLV80
May 21st, 2010, 07:09 PM
Although it would be a perfect time to add this "light" type, I just don't see it as being needed. I'm not a huge fan of the idea myself.

"needed" no, probably not. fun to have, yes, defiantly. the only thing i wouldnt get would be weaknesses, obviously Dark types, but what else? i take no side in the debate over weather it is needed or not, but i do in weather it would be fun or not. i say it would be fun.

Sammuthegreat
May 22nd, 2010, 04:13 AM
Yes, but in addition I'm just going to use the old "Psychic is already here in place of the light type" argument, because y'know, it's actually pretty true, if you really think about it. Psychic, Light screen, Psybeam, Reflect, all of these attacks have something to do with utilizing light in some form to either an offensive or a defensive advantage. Now consider if the light-type were to be added. What kind of attacks would the light-type that would make it stand out so much from the Psychic-type?

...


The Light type would have to involve some sort of...force behind it, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it be a psychic force or something of that sort? Isn't that what the Psychic-type is there for?

...

Why be an entire copy of Psychic if Psychic is already there?



I get what you mean, and I'm glad that this is an actual discussion rather than just two people berating each other for having different views.

It seems to me that the principal difference in our viewpoints is that you consider Light and Psychic to be (near enough) the same thing, whereas I do not. There's nothing wrong with either of our points of view, and I won't be disappointed if Gamefreak don't introduce the Light type, even if I would see it as an opportunity missed.

But with reference to the moves you mentioned, Psychic (for me) doesn't reference any actual light. It's more a mental attack, which doesn't really have anything to do with light; in fact, if I were to visualise the move Psychic being used, it would have no visible manifestation. It would take the shape of either a telekinetic attack, or it would be an invisible, "internal", mental attack.

Also, Light Screen and Reflect could potentially be re-typed, as Bite was in Generation II.

I think there are lots of potential Light-type moves, although I don't have the time to list them now (I may well do later!). Also, to the person who suggested the Glass-type: I think that's a great idea, and think it's definitely worth thinking about.

Waffle-San
May 22nd, 2010, 06:32 PM
I think there are lots of potential Light-type moves, although I don't have the time to list them now (I may well do later!). Also, to the person who suggested the Glass-type: I think that's a great idea, and think it's definitely worth thinking about.

Glass is created from Sand (generally Silica) which is covered by Ground. If you go further with it though and start looking at grass crystalization than rock now covers glass just fine. And finally steel can represent it's shinyness as well as the fact that the Steel type is generally there to represent man made and industrial objects. So, to me, I think it's clear that glass makes about as much sense as a wood type (>.<) unless I understood you guys wrong.

.EJ
May 22nd, 2010, 06:52 PM
Another issue though is the necessity of this. I'm worried about whether we could implement a new type due to variety of Pokemon and whatnot (especially something as narrow as Light-type), but there's also complexity. We're already at 17 types, and that's a lot. We might be able to add in another type, but there's no real reason to. In the least, I'm not arguing that Light would imbalance the game (although that is quite likely), but I am saying that this would add a whole lot of complexity that we don't need.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Most of this time we've been arguing whether it could be included or not, but we need to ask why it'd be included. There are no pressing needs to balance anything, nothing's dying for a re-type, and, at least in Light's case, there aren't enough ideas for Pokemon to justify a whole redesign of the element system.

Now see I agree with you because this is something I've argued throughout the entire thread. Any new type is simply unnecessary as there is nothing that warrants it.

But then again most people arguing that light types should exist don't realize the point I'm trying to make.

Strudel
May 22nd, 2010, 07:59 PM
i like the idea but i agree with the inbalance, sorry, but who would light be hurt by? dark vs light wouldnt work cos things already hurt dark yet only dark would hurt light. also, if there was a light type, it would screw up my artwork on eevee drawings. there are 7 existent (umbreon, espeon, etc) and 7 nonexistent i drew, so that would be an inbalance in my artwork ^_^

Zorua
May 22nd, 2010, 08:12 PM
But with reference to the moves you mentioned, Psychic (for me) doesn't reference any actual light. It's more a mental attack, which doesn't really have anything to do with light; in fact, if I were to visualise the move Psychic being used, it would have no visible manifestation. It would take the shape of either a telekinetic attack, or it would be an invisible, "internal", mental attack.Psychic was used in the anime. In the anime, Psychic is seen as purple light covering the opponent and then slamming them here and there and wherever, I guess.



Also, Light Screen and Reflect could potentially be re-typed, as Bite was in Generation II.There's the possibility, but it's really unlikely that both moves would be re-typed unless they had the psychic-types that originally had the capabilities to learn these moves(also, you have to keep in mind that certain pokemon that aren't psychic-type can learn both moves. Torterra, for example. What does Torterra have to do with light, yet it learns both reflect and light screen?) re-learn these moves with the only exception that these moves are light-type.

I think there are lots of potential Light-type moves, although I don't have the time to list them now (I may well do later!). Also, to the person who suggested the Glass-type: I think that's a great idea, and think it's definitely worth thinking about.And keep in mind if you're suggesting these moves, it has to pass through a lot of factors before it goes through with a certain pokemon. Physical capability, Special capability, type capability, things of that nature.

pieguy259
May 22nd, 2010, 10:11 PM
And why would a LIGHT type be super-effective against steel? Do you realize that most steel types are not in the OU tier?

That's like saying the electric type should be super-effective against bug. That doesn't make any sense now does it?

Well, there are bug zappers...

BleuVII
May 22nd, 2010, 10:29 PM
Glass is created from Sand (generally Silica) which is covered by Ground. If you go further with it though and start looking at grass crystalization than rock now covers glass just fine. And finally steel can represent it's shinyness as well as the fact that the Steel type is generally there to represent man made and industrial objects. So, to me, I think it's clear that glass makes about as much sense as a wood type (>.<) unless I understood you guys wrong.

Well, fire is created from sparks, which are caused by electricity--a type we already have. Water is simply melted ice, which we also have covered. So, by your logic, 2/3rds of the starters don't make sense.

Anyway, glass has some intriguing possibilities. I could see it having ridiculously high Special Defense in exchange for next to no Physical Defense. I could also see it being resistant to just as many types as Steel, really only being weak to Fighting, Rock, and Steel. Just my 1am musings.

I wonder if there would be a way to combine the ideas of Glass type and Crystal type......

Kanto_Johto
May 23rd, 2010, 05:24 AM
I was laughing my head of after hearing about Light, thinking "wow, these guys are complete idiots". Then I saw Sound.

Seriously guys?

Cyberglass
May 23rd, 2010, 09:02 AM
Anyway, glass has some intriguing possibilities. I could see it having ridiculously high Special Defense in exchange for next to no Physical Defense. I could also see it being resistant to just as many types as Steel, really only being weak to Fighting, Rock, and Steel. Just my 1am musings.

I wonder if there would be a way to combine the ideas of Glass type and Crystal type......

You forget about the Ground-type weakness, since glass shatters when you drop it. I really like the idea of the strong Special Defense; that would make Glass sort of the Special equivalent to Steel (although its weaknesses to Physical-oriented types would make it a bit, well, fragile).

.EJ
May 23rd, 2010, 09:35 AM
Well, there are bug zappers...

Well the point I was trying to convey in that case was how dumbfounding it is to relate two unrelated types in the games. I should have said bug and water since I forgot about bug zappers. Really good point though, I completely forgot about that.

BleuVII
May 23rd, 2010, 10:28 AM
You forget about the Ground-type weakness, since glass shatters when you drop it. I really like the idea of the strong Special Defense; that would make Glass sort of the Special equivalent to Steel (although its weaknesses to Physical-oriented types would make it a bit, well, fragile).

Well, I see ground as more sand and mud, which don't shatter glass. Plus, as a counterpart to Steel, I think it would need to be resistant to ground. But it MUST be super-effective against flying type! I don't know HOW many birds have flown into my picture window JUST THIS YEAR. :D

Waffle-San
May 23rd, 2010, 11:42 AM
Well, fire is created from sparks, which are caused by electricity--a type we already have. Water is simply melted ice, which we also have covered. So, by your logic, 2/3rds of the starters don't make sense.


Wait, what? Fire can be created by electric sparks but that's certainly not the only way to start a fire. Plus there's a difference, electricity and fire are still two very sepperate thing, fire when created with the help of electricity is not created from that electricity but as a result of that electricity and another flammable material meeting. You need sand to create glass and you can directly trace glass back to having sand it in unlike fire and electricity.

I would put it the other way saying that ice is frozen water, which it is. You've got me there, I won't deny it, having an ice type and a water type make little sense and if we didn't have an ice type I'd certainly argue against it's inclusion. One thing Ice does have going for it though is that it can be used to represent "cold" since most ice types have little to do with water and tend to have cold bodies or live in a cold climate. But just because a type that makes little sense was created in generation I doesn't mean we should be making any (or multiple) ones now that Pokemon is in it's fifth generation and has sold 193 million worldwide copies. When you've got a world wide audience as big as Pokemon does adding a new type that makes little to no sense like Glass would certainly anger more people than the ones it pleases. I mean Mijumaru is judged for having a sea shell on it's chest I don't even want to imagine the firestorm if a glass type was added. I can't believe I'm saying this, but please stick to the light type idea. >.<

Kid Ghandi
May 23rd, 2010, 02:48 PM
Rainbow type, not super effective to anything, and not weak against anything.

BleuVII
May 23rd, 2010, 06:42 PM
But just because a type that makes little sense was created in generation I doesn't mean we should be making any (or multiple) ones now that Pokemon is in it's fifth generation and has sold 193 million worldwide copies. When you've got a world wide audience as big as Pokemon does adding a new type that makes little to no sense like Glass would certainly anger more people than the ones it pleases. I mean Mijumaru is judged for having a sea shell on it's chest I don't even want to imagine the firestorm if a glass type was added. I can't believe I'm saying this, but please stick to the light type idea. >.<

But this thread is the "New Types?" thread. It is for people that want new types to discuss possible new types. Honestly, I had never thought about Glass type before, but on the surface it sounds like an even cooler type than Light. I mean, glass is actually REALLY strong, and it'd be really neat to have another type like Steel which focuses on Sp.Defense instead of Defense. I mean, Sp.Defense didn't really exist back when the types were set up.

Anyway, I've noticed something in my few months on these forums, and that is this: when Game Freak makes a change, people will alter their perceptions to explain why it is a good idea. When fans suggest a change, people verbally beat them down into oblivion. Trust me, if Game Freak suddenly came out with an announcement saying, "There will now be 19 types, with the addition of Light and Glass," people would grumble about it for a month and then start altering their own reality to defend to outsiders why it is a good idea. Maybe 10% of the fans would really truly hate it. I'm guessing that you are in that 10%.

Sagiri
May 23rd, 2010, 06:56 PM
Short answer: No!

Long answer: The Dark type is dark as in evil or "darker and edgier". Not as in nighttime or absence of light. A Light type would make no sense. If anything, a counterpart would be a "Holy" type, but Nintendo would never go for that. Too many controversies. Plus, the types are balanced now. Why change anything?

Waffle-San
May 23rd, 2010, 08:47 PM
But this thread is the "New Types?" thread. It is for people that want new types to discuss possible new types. Honestly, I had never thought about Glass type before, but on the surface it sounds like an even cooler type than Light. I mean, glass is actually REALLY strong, and it'd be really neat to have another type like Steel which focuses on Sp.Defense instead of Defense. I mean, Sp.Defense didn't really exist back when the types were set up.


Well technically by definition of the first post:

Has anybody else realized that this would be the perfect oppurtunity to add the fan demanded Light type? I personally think that due to this theme they are exhibiting that there will be a Light type. Does anybody else agree?


It's a thread for people to discuss the possibility of new types as well as defend ones belief against new types. On the surface it sounds cool but I stand by my belief that it isn't needed and doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I've noticed something in my few months on these forums, and that is this: when Game Freak makes a change, people will alter their perceptions to explain why it is a good idea. When fans suggest a change, people verbally beat them down into oblivion. Trust me, if Game Freak suddenly came out with an announcement saying, "There will now be 19 types, with the addition of Light and Glass," people would grumble about it for a month and then start altering their own reality to defend to outsiders why it is a good idea. Maybe 10% of the fans would really truly hate it. I'm guessing that you are in that 10%.

I agree 100%. Frankly I wouldn't want to waste time grumbling with it and just focus on adapting. There'd be nothing I could do about it and my love of Pokemon would drag me back anyways. Hey, if GF implemented it and it worked out great for the game and for the franchise with notable improvement due to the types evident, I'd eat my words and admit I was wrong. But if no improvement was noted and/or their inclusion continued to frustrate me I would be forced to suck it up and deal with like I deal with the Flying type being named, "Flying."
I think when GF does make changes it just forces people to see a new indsight, I'd argue that only people like us who really discuss give themselves a chance to see different possibilities before hand. Though, one can get so caught up in defending their own point, one can get to the point where their just being plain stubborn but I'll admit I've opened up to a "holy" rendition of the light type but at the moment I see no reason to desire or believe in a Glass type. =/

Sam_Sam
May 24th, 2010, 12:01 AM
I dont know why, i just felt that gamefreak will not add any more type to the current 17 since they are very much balance now.

Meegz0
May 24th, 2010, 12:41 AM
I would absolutely LOVE a light type! And see all the new pokemon that are going to be light :> I can't wait!

Myles
May 24th, 2010, 12:54 AM
Note: to me, Light = Good = Aether/Holy.

I don't see how "It isn't needed to balance the types." is a correct counter to "Wouldn't it be fun to add a Light-type?" Maybe if it was "It might unbalance the types." or if the orginal argument was "We need a Light-type to balance the types."

I also fail to see even a slight similarity between Light and Psychic by any stretch of the imagination. Neither how Psychic is the opposite of Dark. Normal would be closer.

Light is also not an unusual type to have. The six most popular elements in RPGs are probably fire, water/ice, nature, electricity, dark and light. Aether (a.k.a. holy) is also a base elemental type in Japanese media. So like how Dark is Bad/Evil in Japan, Light would be Aether/Holy.

Anyway, I would like to see Light, but it's not a big deal if it isn't there. Although if it is, it's probably a better idea to accidently slip into underpowered rather than overpowered.

Sammuthegreat
May 24th, 2010, 03:08 AM
Note: to me, Light = Good = Aether/Holy.

I don't see how "It isn't needed to balance the types." is a correct counter to "Wouldn't it be fun to add a Light-type?" Maybe if it was "It might unbalance the types." or if the orginal argument was "We need a Light-type to balance the types."

I also fail to see even a slight similarity between Light and Psychic by any stretch of the imagination. Neither how Psychic is the opposite of Dark. Normal would be closer.

Light is also not an unusual type to have. The six most popular elements in RPGs are probably fire, water/ice, nature, electricity, dark and light. Aether (a.k.a. holy) is also a base elemental type in Japanese media. So like how Dark is Bad/Evil in Japan, Light would be Aether/Holy.

Anyway, I would like to see Light, but it's not a big deal if it isn't there. Although if it is, it's probably a better idea to accidently slip into underpowered rather than overpowered.


My thoughts (near enough) exactly. I can't get my head around the argument that "the types are balanced now so there's no need for a new type." Why does anyone assume that a new type would ruin the metagame? Do they not have any faith in Gamefreak's ability to make a change while keeping the balance of the game intact?

Also, the only argument in favour of Psychic being a counterpart to Dark is that it was introduced to make Psychic less overpowered. That fact means that Dark was introduced to knock Psychic down a peg or two, but by no means does it mean that they're opposites. It just doesn't flow logically.

Also, if the metagame is so balanced, why is it that Poison is so underpowered? Or grass? Admittedly I'm not a metagamer myself but it stands to reason as far as I'm concerned that a balanced game would have all 17 types being (as near as possible) equally useful. I know for a fact that isn't the case, which just leads me further to believe that those who oppose new types are simply worried about possibly having to learn a few new type combinations and losing their competitive advantage.

Droidz
May 24th, 2010, 03:12 AM
It would be cool to see them add a new Type so I'm all for it.

Sammuthegreat
May 24th, 2010, 03:13 AM
Furthermore, if no-one likes the "holy" connotations of the Light type (which I completely understand), how about calling it the "Aura" type? That for me implies more of what I would consider the Light-type to be like. Sort of the spiritual, pure essence of warriorhood, as opposed to the close-minded, sneaky essence of the Dark-type.

P.S. Sorry for double post...

.EJ
May 24th, 2010, 03:39 AM
Yes, pokemon like espeon (evolves in the DAY), among other similar psychic types are not related to Light right? Moves like LIGHT SCREEN or REFLECT don't exist either right? How about psybeam? Yeah you see what I'm getting at...

An-chan
May 24th, 2010, 05:25 AM
I think what most people are trying to get at when they say "no thanks" to a light type or any other new type is this:

1) While the idea might be interesting, it's a bit far-fetched to add such a drastic change when the canon is already so established. Yes, you can change stuff and add stuff at this point, but many would think it's a bit troublesome to adapt to a change like that, so they don't want a new type. Sure, this is only an opinion and not a real argument per se, but if enough people think like that, it can be a problem for GF and the new type, too.

2) While the idea is fun to speculate and could be fun in the games, it could also not be all that fun. Adding a new type wouldn't really add all that much to the games. Strategy-wise, it might take you a moment to adapt, but then it'd be just a type among the other types, which brings us absolutely nothing new. Personally I would prefer for Game Freak to concentrate on adding things that actually make a difference rather than expanding on the already large selection of types available. I don't see the addition of a new type being all that "fun".

3) While the idea itself is fairly simple and the type advantages, disadvantages, weaknesses, and resistances could be easily backed up with arguments, it would be unnecessarily complicated game-wise. It would wreck some of the compatibility between 4th and 5th generations, and we might only be able to trade Pokémon one way because of that. Moreover, keeping track of all the 17 types and their gameplay features is already quite a task in itself, especially for players new to Pokémon, and adding new types would further complicate the system and make learning it harder. As the target audience of the game generally is rather young - even if the new protagonists are older, I doubt the game is directly marketed towards older teens, but rather younger teens and older children -, I assume adding more complexity to the system would be something Game Freak wants to avoid.

4) In the past, when types were last added, they were added to fix an imbalanced system. Because of this, most fans probably don't expect to see new types being introduced unless they are introduced to further fix the system. However, the system is fairly balanced as it is, so a lot of us are inclined to think there won't be any new types. Sure, we might be wrong, but what's happened in the past is all we have to go on, as none of us have any inside connections to Game Freak.

5) Adding in a new type would cause imbalance in the number of Pokémon representing that type. All other types have at least three generations of new Pokémon added, so unless some of the older ones get their types changed or they add a lot of Pokémon with the new type in the 5th gen, there will be a miserably small amount of them in existence. The best choice in that case would probably be to change the types of some of the older Pokémon, but that could cause situations in which someone's favourite Pokémon loses its charm for them, or a Pokémon is changed in a way that robs it of a really useful STAB, or so forth. That's generally something fans wouldn't like to see happening, and hence they say "no thank you" to adding a new type at this point.

I hope that makes it a bit clearer why so many people are against this. Some of the people who want new types seem to misunderstand people's arguments, so I thought I'd make a list of valid reasons to be against adding a new type at this point.

So, yes, while I think the idea is certainly interesting, I wouldn't want to see this happen in the games. I just fail to see the point of adding something new, because I can't see it being very fun at all, just complicated.

Silverman
May 24th, 2010, 06:56 AM
I always thought Dark was the Psychic counterpart... oh, wait, that's BUG... how stupid I am.

Post Office Buddy
May 24th, 2010, 08:41 AM
I always thought Dark was the Psychic counterpart... oh, wait, that's BUG... how stupid I am.
Considering that the Bug type was in the first generation and Psychics still destroyed everything, it obviously wasn't a very effective counterpart. When the second generation was released, the Dark type was introduced to limit the power Psychics had in battle, giving the Psychic type its first true counter in the metagame. The Bug type didn't get very many tweaks to make it more effective against Psychic types, and it still hasn't to this day. Therefore, I must disagree with a majority of your post.

On the subject of other types, I think it's much too late to add any new ones to the game. If you consider that many existing Pokemon would have to be re-typed to maintain a respectable number of that type, many Pokemon that may be involved in the re-typing would lose STAB bonuses and whatnot for certain attacks. That's not to mention re-typing Pokemon that already have two types. I think I saw someone argue that Lanturn could be re-typed to water/light. I think this is a preposterous idea, considering 1.) It's prevolution, Chinchou, has positive signs on its eyes, 2.) It can have the ability Volt Absorb, and 3.) it uses attacks based around electricity, not light. And children, light =/= electricity. The same argument can be applied to nearly every new type that has been proposed in this thread.

yomamathecableguy
May 24th, 2010, 08:55 AM
God.. that would just be an awful idea. Light type? Come on.. for one, it was fine when they added Steel and Dark types in the second gen because that was only the second series of games - this is 5 generations in. It's completely different. You can't go through 493 Pokemon and then say 'wait a sec! there's a new type in these new 1__ Pokemon that for some odd reason we never saw in any of the other nearly 500 Pokemon!'

Not to be a pessimist or anything, I just personally disgust the idea. I'd rather stick with the types we have now.. what's the point of adding another? And what exactly would a Light type attack consist of, anyways? Holy Grail Smash?

Plus, you have to realize that these games are going to be linked via Wi-Fi to D/P/Pt/HG/SS. How would that work? It's just going to magically change types when it trades over?

Myles
May 24th, 2010, 09:12 AM
Yes, pokemon like espeon (evolves in the DAY), among other similar psychic types are not related to Light right?
One Psychic evolving during the day doesn't really say much. Fighting or Steel (a.k.a. Lucario) don't have anything to do with the morning. And I see Light as meaning 'good' rather than physical light; as with how Dark has very few connections to the night, is called Bad in Japan and most of the connections to do with darkness would probably be just because 'badness' is associated with that.

1) While the idea might be interesting, it's a bit far-fetched to add such a drastic change when the canon is already so established. Yes, you can change stuff and add stuff at this point, but many would think it's a bit troublesome to adapt to a change like that, so they don't want a new type. Sure, this is only an opinion and not a real argument per se, but if enough people think like that, it can be a problem for GF and the new type, too.


Gen IV gave us the Physical-Special split. That affects the game a lot more. Gen III gave us abilities which also would. Seriously, if some major battle mechanic doesn't change in this game, it's going to be boring.


2) While the idea is fun to speculate and could be fun in the games, it could also not be all that fun. Adding a new type wouldn't really add all that much to the games. Strategy-wise, it might take you a moment to adapt, but then it'd be just a type among the other types, which brings us absolutely nothing new. Personally I would prefer for Game Freak to concentrate on adding things that actually make a difference rather than expanding on the already large selection of types available. I don't see the addition of a new type being all that "fun".


So adding new type combos isn't interesting either? If we keep going with the same types, we're running out of non-Dragon, non-Ghost related type combos that are interesting. Light would open up another 18 type combos. The same repeated type combos over and over isn't the best. I mean just imagine Gen VI...


3) While the idea itself is fairly simple and the type advantages, disadvantages, weaknesses, and resistances could be easily backed up with arguments, it would be unnecessarily complicated game-wise. It would wreck some of the compatibility between 4th and 5th generations, and we might only be able to trade Pokémon one way because of that. Moreover, keeping track of all the 17 types and their gameplay features is already quite a task in itself, especially for players new to Pokémon, and adding new types would further complicate the system and make learning it harder. As the target audience of the game generally is rather young - even if the new protagonists are older, I doubt the game is directly marketed towards older teens, but rather younger teens and older children -, I assume adding more complexity to the system would be something Game Freak wants to avoid.


It shouldn't affect backwards compatibility. Either way, I doubt there will be trading backwards. And all the complex type combos aren't very important for beginning players. I know I went a few years without knowing any but the basic ones for a while.


4) In the past, when types were last added, they were added to fix an imbalanced system. Because of this, most fans probably don't expect to see new types being introduced unless they are introduced to further fix the system. However, the system is fairly balanced as it is, so a lot of us are inclined to think there won't be any new types. Sure, we might be wrong, but what's happened in the past is all we have to go on, as none of us have any inside connections to Game Freak.


But the precedent for adding types is still there. Sure, it woud be a different reason this time, but there's nothing saying they can't have more than one reason. It still shows that if they want, they're not afraid of adding more types. It really makes it more likely that they will then if they hadn't added any at all.


5) Adding in a new type would cause imbalance in the number of Pokémon representing that type. All other types have at least three generations of new Pokémon added, so unless some of the older ones get their types changed or they add a lot of Pokémon with the new type in the 5th gen, there will be a miserably small amount of them in existence. The best choice in that case would probably be to change the types of some of the older Pokémon, but that could cause situations in which someone's favourite Pokémon loses its charm for them, or a Pokémon is changed in a way that robs it of a really useful STAB, or so forth. That's generally something fans wouldn't like to see happening, and hence they say "no thank you" to adding a new type at this point.


I don't think the imbalance should be that much of an issue. There sure was a huge imbalance of Ghost, Dragon, Ice, Dark, Steel, etc. back in the day. It just made those types more interesting.

Considering that the Bug type was in the first generation and Psychics still destroyed everything, it obviously wasn't a very effective counterpart. When the second generation was released, the Dark type was introduced to limit the power Psychics had in battle, giving the Psychic type its first true counter in the metagame. The Bug type didn't get very many tweaks to make it more effective against Psychic types, and it still hasn't to this day. Therefore, I must disagree with a majority of your post.

Bug did get (a bit) more power with Bug moves that are actually, real bug moves. And Heracross, finally a competent Bug. Ghost and Steel were also made as counters to Psychic in Gen II. Just goes to show how overpowered Psychic was.

yomamathecableguy
May 24th, 2010, 09:42 AM
Gen IV gave us the Physical-Special split. That affects the game a lot more. Gen III gave us abilities which also would. Seriously, if some major battle mechanic doesn't change in this game, it's going to be boring.

I'm wondering what exactly you mean by the Physical-Special split.. Physical and Special attacks have been around since the first generation. They've always been split between Physical and Special, just like Defense is and has been. Abilities weren't like adding a new type. Abilities are beneficial to every Pokemon, and are like using a permanent attack before the battle starts. (i.e. Blaze) How would a new type benefit anything? I mean what would even be the reasoning behind it? I'm sure some major game mechanic will change in this game. In fact, it's nearly impossible that it won't. But why would you seriously add another type?

So adding new type combos isn't interesting either? If we keep going with the same types, we're running out of non-Dragon, non-Ghost related type combos that are interesting. Light would open up another 18 type combos. The same repeated type combos over and over isn't the best. I mean just imagine Gen VI...

Alright, yes, adding new type combos may be interesting. But honestly, Light? You're kidding me. What would Light even do? At least Dark has a physical representation in ghosts and such.. you can't really make God or angels a Pokemon. While I agree another 18 possible combos would be spiffy, I am completely against using LIGHT as the type that adds this to the game.

It shouldn't affect backwards compatibility. Either way, I doubt there will be trading backwards. And all the complex type combos aren't very important for beginning players. I know I went a few years without knowing any but the basic ones for a while.

How would that not effect backwards compatibility? I seriously doubt they're going to add a new type in the first place, but even more so because of the fact that trading should not magically change your Pokemon's type. Sure, this happened when you traded from G/S/C to R/B/Y, but as I said in my first post, that was the 2nd gen, not the 5th and almost 500 Pokemon in. I think in B/W there will be some type of time machine that functions like G/S/C's... and if this is the case, why would they add a new type? As for the beginning players not paying attention to the complex type combos.. speak for yourself. The only reason I got into the Pokemon games was because of the deep mechanics that went on behind the scenes. I would sit there for HOURS and disect each little part. This is why I became obsessed with the G/S/C breeding system. And I know for a fact I'm not the only one like that.

But the precedent for adding types is still there. Sure, it woud be a different reason this time, but there's nothing saying they can't have more than one reason. It still shows that if they want, they're not afraid of adding more types. It really makes it more likely that they will then if they hadn't added any at all.

..so because they made a fix to the series, the precedent is still there? That's hardly what I would call a precedent. As .EJ said, balancing things out was the ONLY reason they were added. You can't just say that they would do it for a completely different reason this time around, just because they want. That's like saying the U.S. could nuke Europe, even though the only other time they did it was against Japan, but now they have different reasons and they just want to do it. Game Freak doesn't need to prove that they can do something without being afraid. Why would they? Why do you think they would add a type to show that they're not afraid of adding things that they want to add?

I don't think the imbalance should be that much of an issue. There sure was a huge imbalance of Ghost, Dragon, Ice, Dark, Steel, etc. back in the day. It just made those types more interesting.

Probably the only thing you've said that I partially agree with. I agree that back then, I was quite allured to Steel, Ice, and Dragon types myself, merely because their uniqueness. If another type was added, sure, I'd probably be more interested in the new type, if it wasn't Light. But regardless, I don't think another type should be added.


Grrr PokePolitics. >.> XD

An-chan
May 24th, 2010, 09:54 AM
First of all, way to quote my entire post under someone else's name. =/ Edit: Oh, sorry, you fixed that now. Thanks. :3

Gen IV gave us the Physical-Special split. That affects the game a lot more. Gen III gave us abilities which also would. Seriously, if some major battle mechanic doesn't change in this game, it's going to be boring.

Like I just said, it's not that big of a change. It really changes nothing in a very drastic or interesting way. Now, the physical-special split actually affects things and makes battling more interesting, as do abilities. A new type does not alter battle mechanics or add new depth to the game. It's just a new type. It's stalling. It's not a real change. It just makes things more difficult.

So adding new type combos isn't interesting either? If we keep going with the same types, we're running out of non-Dragon, non-Ghost related type combos that are interesting. Light would open up another 18 type combos. The same repeated type combos over and over isn't the best. I mean just imagine Gen VI...

There are plenty of interesting non-dragon, non-ghost type combos that haven't been touched yet. Fighting/Flying is one, as is Grass/Steel, Water/Fire, Ice/Rock, Ground/Electric, Electric/Grass, Electric/Dark... If you think all interesting combos have already been done, then you should probably take another look at the double types currently in existence. Light-type is really not necessary for that. Besides, it only offers 17 new combos, so.

It shouldn't affect backwards compatibility. Either way, I doubt there will be trading backwards. And all the complex type combos aren't very important for beginning players. I know I went a few years without knowing any but the basic ones for a while.

Of course it affects backwards compatibility. You need to change things that DPPt, at the very least, did not foresee changing, and you wouldn't be able to trade between those games anymore. Also, see, you are proving my point about the too complex type charts. The type features are important to assure you that you do well in battles, yet beginning players keep to the basics because it's really complicated to remember it all. A new type does not help with that. And I really doubt it makes things more interesting competitive-wise. New, innovative moves are more important for that part of the fandom.

But the precedent for adding types is still there. Sure, it woud be a different reason this time, but there's nothing saying they can't have more than one reason. It still shows that if they want, they're not afraid of adding more types. It really makes it more likely that they will then if they hadn't added any at all.

I don't think it shows that at all. Back then, they simply had no choice; they had to either add some new types or overhaul the features of the existing ones entirely. It was easier to add new types, so they did. With most big game franchises, the company who makes them is very vary of any bigger changes they want to make on the games, because the fanbase usually resists any changes. They can change the game mechanics, but they can't change the canon, and types are an integral part of the canon just as much as they are a part of the game mechanics.

I don't think the imbalance should be that much of an issue. There sure was a huge imbalance of Ghost, Dragon, Ice, Dark, Steel, etc. back in the day. It just made those types more interesting.

But if they only make a few light-types, then what is the point in the whole thing? If there were only a couple of light-types, they would have to be overpowered to compensate for their lack in numbers. That, or the new type would be a tiny bunch of relatively pathetic but neat new Pokémon, much like many ghost-types are (which saddens me, because ghost is my favourite type). Neither of those choices seem all that cool to me.

Myles
May 24th, 2010, 11:23 AM
I'm wondering what exactly you mean by the Physical-Special split.. Physical and Special attacks have been around since the first generation. They've always been split between Physical and Special, just like Defense is and has been. Abilities weren't like adding a new type. Abilities are beneficial to every Pokemon, and are like using a permanent attack before the battle starts. (i.e. Blaze) How would a new type benefit anything? I mean what would even be the reasoning behind it? I'm sure some major game mechanic will change in this game. In fact, it's nearly impossible that it won't. But why would you seriously add another type?


I'm pretty sure that's what people usually call the split of physical-special from the types. That is that Firepunch is now physical and Hyper Beam is now special, despite being Fire and Normal.


Alright, yes, adding new type combos may be interesting. But honestly, Light? You're kidding me. What would Light even do? At least Dark has a physical representation in ghosts and such.. you can't really make God or angels a Pokemon. While I agree another 18 possible combos would be spiffy, I am completely against using LIGHT as the type that adds this to the game.


Energy blasts, healing moves, physics-distorting moves, etc.


How would that not effect backwards compatibility? I seriously doubt they're going to add a new type in the first place, but even more so because of the fact that trading should not magically change your Pokemon's type. Sure, this happened when you traded from G/S/C to R/B/Y, but as I said in my first post, that was the 2nd gen, not the 5th and almost 500 Pokemon in. I think in B/W there will be some type of time machine that functions like G/S/C's... and if this is the case, why would they add a new type?


They don't necessarily have to change old Pokemon's types. And since you wouldnt be able to trade back new Pokemon anyway... But anyway, Magnemite and Magneton changed types when traded. And I might be remembering wrong, but Pokemon even changed stats when traded between RG and Blue, didn't they?


As for the beginning players not paying attention to the complex type combos.. speak for yourself. The only reason I got into the Pokemon games was because of the deep mechanics that went on behind the scenes. I would sit there for HOURS and disect each little part. This is why I became obsessed with the G/S/C breeding system. And I know for a fact I'm not the only one like that.


I mean for the start not needing for it. Knowing how all the types work isn't really needed to beat the Pokemon League or enjoy the game. Later they can learn more. ANyway for the people who like working it all out, complexity just makes it more fun. And seriously with all of those mechanics, an extra type is nothing.


..so because they made a fix to the series, the precedent is still there? That's hardly what I would call a precedent. As .EJ said, balancing things out was the ONLY reason they were added. You can't just say that they would do it for a completely different reason this time around, just because they want. That's like saying the U.S. could nuke Europe, even though the only other time they did it was against Japan, but now they have different reasons and they just want to do it. Game Freak doesn't need to prove that they can do something without being afraid. Why would they? Why do you think they would add a type to show that they're not afraid of adding things that they want to add?


I wasn't saying that they'd do it just because they're 'not afarid to', but I was just saying that the existence of Steel and Dark don't make Light less likely. And there still is a precedent. Them deciding to do it for reason X doesn't mean they won't be willing to do it for reason Y or Z.


Like I just said, it's not that big of a change. It really changes nothing in a very drastic or interesting way. Now, the physical-special split actually affects things and makes battling more interesting, as do abilities. A new type does not alter battle mechanics or add new depth to the game. It's just a new type. It's stalling. It's not a real change. It just makes things more difficult.


Many abilities have made the difference between OU, Uber and UU. The physical-special split changed around movesets completely.


There are plenty of interesting non-dragon, non-ghost type combos that haven't been touched yet. Fighting/Flying is one, as is Grass/Steel, Water/Fire, Ice/Rock, Ground/Electric, Electric/Grass, Electric/Dark... If you think all interesting combos have already been done, then you should probably take another look at the double types currently in existence. Light-type is really not necessary for that. Besides, it only offers 17 new combos, so.


I didn't say there are none. But still a lot of them are a bit arkward. Like Grass/Steel doesn't really fit into much, you'd really just have to grab some random animal and apply those two types to it without the animal having relation to them. Or be very creative. There is some crab thing that wouold work with Fire/Water, but still otherwise a bit illogical. Ice/Rock, Ground/Electric and Electric/Ice would be roughly the same. I'm not saying they couldn't be done well, but there's a reason they were left to last.


Of course it affects backwards compatibility. You need to change things that DPPt, at the very least, did not foresee changing, and you wouldn't be able to trade between those games anymore. Also, see, you are proving my point about the too complex type charts. The type features are important to assure you that you do well in battles, yet beginning players keep to the basics because it's really complicated to remember it all. A new type does not help with that. And I really doubt it makes things more interesting competitive-wise. New, innovative moves are more important for that part of the fandom.


See above.


But if they only make a few light-types, then what is the point in the whole thing? If there were only a couple of light-types, they would have to be overpowered to compensate for their lack in numbers. That, or the new type would be a tiny bunch of relatively pathetic but neat new Pokémon, much like many ghost-types are (which saddens me, because ghost is my favourite type). Neither of those choices seem all that cool to me.


They wouldn't have to be weak. But a legendary could be Light, a pseudo-legendary could be dual type with it and then maybe a couple more other ones. And maybe even change a couple old Pokemon (e.g. Togepi), if they want to go that way. Arceus, Kecleon, Porygon, etc. could also make use of it. :P

.EJ
May 24th, 2010, 11:24 AM
@an-chan: Yeah, I was about to say "I didn't post any of that..."

One Psychic evolving during the day doesn't really say much. Fighting or Steel (a.k.a. Lucario) don't have anything to do with the morning. And I see Light as meaning 'good' rather than physical light; as with how Dark has very few connections to the night, is called Bad in Japan and most of the connections to do with darkness would probably be just because 'badness' is associated with that.

Oh I'm sorry you must be under the impression that I was only referring to one pokemon, however I did mention related pokemon.

How about solrock? lunatone? cresselia?

Hmm, yeah...IF you also see light as good then I guess Mew (a psychic type) should be a light type right?

JAK3
May 24th, 2010, 11:37 AM
Where did the Light type thought come from, Wasn't it fan-made in a hack? I think it would be a cool Idea, but it just would unbalance everything out.

Myles
May 24th, 2010, 11:39 AM
Oh, well, if you were going with Light = physical light, Solrock would fit, but only in that Lunatone should then get Dark instead of Psychic. But really the Psychic on Solrock isn't to do with the fact it's a sun imo.

Cresselia would make a good Light, in the 'good' sense. After all, it is the counterpart to Darkrai. But I'd say Cresselia's Psychic is more because that's the default state of legendaries... for some reason.

.EJ
May 24th, 2010, 11:49 AM
Good, good we're understanding each other.

However I'm leaning towards the idea that Cresselia is Psychic because Darkrai is Dark. Essentially I'm stating that psychic types already cover the light type bases. Light screen, reflect, etc. Also there was one thing in particular you said that caught my attention: "Energy blasts, healing moves, physics-distorting moves, etc" are all seen in the psychic type...

BleuVII
May 24th, 2010, 12:02 PM
@An-chan

Thanks for the detailed post. I can respect opinions that are stated without attacking someone. And I think all of your points are valid. Good job on that post.

I do want to address a few things though.

First, I can agree that Dark was made to balance out Psychic, but where did Steel come from? I think they added it just to give some variety. The only type it even resembles is Rock, but not even that so much.

Second, there was an imbalance in representative pokemon when those two types came out too. When Dark was introduced, the only dark pokemon were Umbreon, Murkrow, and Tyranitar. Neither of those evolved further.

Then take Steel: it had two new pokemon (Forretres and Skarmory [version exlusive]), two re-typed pokemon (Magnemite and Magneton), and two cross-evolutions with the same stats but different types (Steelix and Scizor). The only non pseudo-legendary or legendary that was introduced in the next generation was Mawile. That means most of our Steel types come from Gen IV.

So adding a Light type (or a Glass/Crystal type, which is an idea that grows on me hourly) wouldn't mean that most of the new pokemon would have to be light. You would really only have to re-type a couple of pokemon, add in an evolution or two, add one or two new pokemon (like a counterpart to Zorua and Zoroark), and possibly add in a light-type legendary. That's 7-8 pokemon total, and only 5-6 that would be new. That's doable.

Kipher
May 24th, 2010, 12:45 PM
Blahpsemy, the Rock-Paper-Scissor routine is a routine that will not be changed. Final.

Sammuthegreat
May 24th, 2010, 01:21 PM
@An-chan

Thanks for the detailed post. I can respect opinions that are stated without attacking someone. And I think all of your points are valid. Good job on that post.

I do want to address a few things though.

First, I can agree that Dark was made to balance out Psychic, but where did Steel come from? I think they added it just to give some variety. The only type it even resembles is Rock, but not even that so much.

Second, there was an imbalance in representative pokemon when those two types came out too. When Dark was introduced, the only dark pokemon were Umbreon, Murkrow, and Tyranitar. Neither of those evolved further.

Then take Steel: it had two new pokemon (Forretres and Skarmory [version exlusive]), two re-typed pokemon (Magnemite and Magneton), and two cross-evolutions with the same stats but different types (Steelix and Scizor). The only non pseudo-legendary or legendary that was introduced in the next generation was Mawile. That means most of our Steel types come from Gen IV.

So adding a Light type (or a Glass/Crystal type, which is an idea that grows on me hourly) wouldn't mean that most of the new pokemon would have to be light. You would really only have to re-type a couple of pokemon, add in an evolution or two, add one or two new pokemon (like a counterpart to Zorua and Zoroark), and possibly add in a light-type legendary. That's 7-8 pokemon total, and only 5-6 that would be new. That's doable.

I agree with most if not all of what you've said, except I thought I should point out that Houndour and Houndoom were Gen.II as well. Just getting in before that is used as a counter-argument.

What we're all disagreeing on is the idea of "Light", meaning "Holy", being a valid counterpart to Dark. Which is why I suggested the "Aura-type" as a more accurate name for what I would consider the Light-type.

When it comes to the idea of re-typing, or introducing a whole swathe of over- or under-powered Light-type Pokemon, I think we can all agree that it's pretty unlikely Gamefreak would be so clumsy, especially given that the Steel- and Dark-types were far from overly abundant when first introduced. And as for unbalancing the metagame... I know a lot of the more verbose anti-Light-type posters have stopped arguing this, but the idea that a new type would unbalance the metagame is simply ridiculous. Gamefreak are better than that.

Post Office Buddy
May 24th, 2010, 01:55 PM
Everyone always forgets Sneasel. ;_; It was a second generation dark type, too.

But anyway, it doesn't really matter. You can say that GameFreak wouldn't create an imbalance in the metagame all you want, but what it boils down to is how the players of the game use the new Pokemon and the new combinations available. It isn't "simply ridiculous" to think that it's possible. It's perfectly feasible to think so. They did it in the first generation with the Psychic type. It won't necessarily happen if they do add in a new type, but it's a definite possibility. Also, don't bother trying to tell me that the first generation is completely different, that GameFreak couldn't foresee how dominant Psychic types would be in the first generation, because I can easily apply the same argument to this case.

BleuVII
May 24th, 2010, 02:33 PM
I agree with most if not all of what you've said, except I thought I should point out that Houndour and Houndoom were Gen.II as well. Just getting in before that is used as a counter-argument.

What we're all disagreeing on is the idea of "Light", meaning "Holy", being a valid counterpart to Dark. Which is why I suggested the "Aura-type" as a more accurate name for what I would consider the Light-type.

When it comes to the idea of re-typing, or introducing a whole swathe of over- or under-powered Light-type Pokemon, I think we can all agree that it's pretty unlikely Gamefreak would be so clumsy, especially given that the Steel- and Dark-types were far from overly abundant when first introduced. And as for unbalancing the metagame... I know a lot of the more verbose anti-Light-type posters have stopped arguing this, but the idea that a new type would unbalance the metagame is simply ridiculous. Gamefreak are better than that.

I think we've been in agreement for a couple of pages. Actually, I really like the sound of "Aura" type. The only thing people would argue there is that "Aura Pokemon" is the name of Lucario, who is Fighting/Steel. At least referring to it by "Aura" instead of "Light" would cut down on the number of people who read the first post and then post their opinions on why light-type sucks at the end.

And Houndour, Houndoom, and Sneasel... how did I forget those?! Well, I know how I did. I never played Gen II, and I was going by National Pokedex number. For some reason, I momentarily forgot that Gen 3 started at 252, not 202.

ichuesther
May 24th, 2010, 03:46 PM
I think adding a light type would be fine.
Could be kind of confusing at first, but people will catch on.

Azzurra
May 24th, 2010, 10:43 PM
I'm sure a concrete type would be interesting.

Myles
May 24th, 2010, 11:13 PM
Also there was one thing in particular you said that caught my attention: "Energy blasts, healing moves, physics-distorting moves, etc" are all seen in the psychic type...

There in a lot of other types too. Healing moves are in Water, Normal, Grass, etc. Physics-distorting is in Normal and probably others. And energy blasts are in everything.

But anyway, it doesn't really matter. You can say that GameFreak wouldn't create an imbalance in the metagame all you want, but what it boils down to is how the players of the game use the new Pokemon and the new combinations available. It isn't "simply ridiculous" to think that it's possible. It's perfectly feasible to think so. They did it in the first generation with the Psychic type. It won't necessarily happen if they do add in a new type, but it's a definite possibility. Also, don't bother trying to tell me that the first generation is completely different, that GameFreak couldn't foresee how dominant Psychic types would be in the first generation, because I can easily apply the same argument to this case.

It certainly isn't a solid argument either. Every change to the game could cause an imbalance, especially major ones. Revolutionary new moves, abilities, the physical-special split, etc. Psychic may have been imbalanced then, but I'm pretty sure they had a lot smaller team, a lower budget and a harder system to program for. This shows in the large amount of glitches, the severe underpowering of the Bug and Fighting types, the fact that Ghost was accidently not super-effective to Psychic, etc. They haven't made any major mistakes since. I'm sure it's unlikely for it to go wrong again.

Also remember that Psychic had one weakness, Bug, and that type sucked and had very few actual Bug-type moves. As long as Light is given enough weaknesses, the only risk would Light itself being underpowered.

.EJ
May 25th, 2010, 04:19 AM
There in a lot of other types too. Healing moves are in Water, Normal, Grass, etc. Physics-distorting is in Normal and probably others. And energy blasts are in everything.

So if these moves already exist in other types then I suppose a light type is unlikely? ; )

Myles
May 25th, 2010, 04:23 AM
Light-type versions of them though. There's basically a Water-type version of most Fire moves and vice versa. Dragon moves all have their non-Dragon counterparts (e.g. Twister = Gust, Dragon Breath = Flamethrower), etc.

Post Office Buddy
May 25th, 2010, 07:32 AM
It certainly isn't a solid argument either. Every change to the game could cause an imbalance, especially major ones. Revolutionary new moves, abilities, the physical-special split, etc. Psychic may have been imbalanced then, but I'm pretty sure they had a lot smaller team, a lower budget and a harder system to program for. This shows in the large amount of glitches, the severe underpowering of the Bug and Fighting types, the fact that Ghost was accidently not super-effective to Psychic, etc. They haven't made any major mistakes since. I'm sure it's unlikely for it to go wrong again.
You only reinforce my argument when you say that every change to the game can create an imbalance. Also, please be sure to read what I said in the correct context. I did say that it won't necessarily happen again, but it's still a possibility.

The first generation wasn't the only generation to have a large amount of glitches in it. The second generation had quite a few of its own, and at that point they definitely had a larger team and budget to work with. Also, the bug type is still severely underpowered, granted not as much as before, but still. It can't really compete with the big dogs, as the saying goes.

It's true that they haven't made any mistakes since, but lets look at each generation separately.

In the first generation, Psychics were dominant because they lacked any opponents that could keep them in check.

When the second generation came out, the Dark type was introduced to balance out the metagame, preventing Psychic types from destroying anything and everything they battled. The Steel type was also introduced, which was resistant to Psychic, thereby limiting Psychic's powers even more. Some new attacks were introduced as well, giving types that were previously underpowered more variety and usefulness.

Now, onto the third generation. Abilities were introduced, which made battles more interesting, both in-game and competitively. Natures were also introduced, which made a Pokemon's stats have a wider min/max range. IV's were changed from ranging from 0-15 to 0-31, and EV's were limited to only 510 total per Pokemon. All of these changes were major changes, but they only made the metagame more interesting. There was more effort involved in creating the perfect team than there was in any previous generation.

The fourth generation didn't really introduce anything new aside from some new abilities, new attacks, and a few new type combinations. There were no huge changes to the metagame, which discounts the statement someone asserted earlier that the metagame would need a major change every generation to stay interesting.

Now, why did I feel the need to list all of the changes from each generation? Because I feel it's necessary to point out that the only time in the history of the game that a type was added, it was to correct a problem. I also felt it was important to point out that the metagame needs no major changes to stay interesting.

I imagine it's much easier to add in a new type to fix a problem than it is to add in a new type because "omg it r awsum", don't you? Also much easier to justify, I imagine.

Also remember that Psychic had one weakness, Bug, and that type sucked and had very few actual Bug-type moves. As long as Light is given enough weaknesses, the only risk would Light itself being underpowered.
I mentioned in an earlier post of mine, which is actually on this page, that the Bug type sucked and wasn't an adequate counter for Psychic. Also, if the Light type, or any other type for that matter, were released as underpowered, then that would defeat the whole point of releasing it, wouldn't you think? That in itself would create an imbalance. I think it's much more important to balance out what's already there, such as the Bug type, before adding in a new "awsum" type. But that's just my opinion.

Cyberglass
May 25th, 2010, 07:51 AM
The fourth generation didn't really introduce anything new aside from some new abilities, new attacks, and a few new type combinations. There were no huge changes to the metagame, which discounts the statement someone asserted earlier that the metagame would need a major change every generation to stay interesting.


Actually, the fourth generation DID introduce a major change: the split between Physical and Special by move instead of by type. For example, Hyper Beam became a Special attack, and Leaf Blade, Crunch, and Fire Punch became Physical attacks. This allowed many pokemon to shine who were previously crippled by their reliance on a type that didn't match their offensive strengths, and also weakened Pokemon like Sceptile, which has a high Special Attack but had its best moves changed into Physical attacks. Weaknesses were also flipped upside down, because Pokemon that were weak only to (previously) Special or Physical types could no longer rely on the appropriate Defense stat for protection. I can't see any way this DIDN'T greatly impact the metagame.

Myles
May 25th, 2010, 07:52 AM
The fourth generation didn't really introduce anything new aside from some new abilities, new attacks, and a few new type combinations. There were no huge changes to the metagame, which discounts the statement someone asserted earlier that the metagame would need a major change every generation to stay interesting.

Now, why did I feel the need to list all of the changes from each generation? Because I feel it's necessary to point out that the only time in the history of the game that a type was added, it was to correct a problem. I also felt it was important to point out that the metagame needs no major changes to stay interesting.

Gen IV added the special-physical split which affected the metagame even more than abilities. But the point is, every change they make could backfire and yet none have (Psychic started backfired, so not technically a change).

Also the fact that they haven't added any types except to fix the overpowered Psychics doesn't discount the Light type. A better argument would be that they haven't added any new types ever, but that isn't true.

I mentioned in an earlier post of mine, which is actually on this page, that the Bug type sucked and wasn't an adequate counter for Psychic. Also, if the Light type, or any other type for that matter, were released as underpowered, then that would defeat the whole point of releasing it, wouldn't you think? That in itself would create an imbalance. I think it's much more important to balance out what's already there, such as the Bug type, before adding in a new "awsum" type. But that's just my opinion.

Yes, but chances are it won't be underpowered, but even if it was, it wouldn't ruin the game, since there would only be a few Light types that could otherwise be ignore. Even if they were underpowered anyway, if there's a legenary one, it should still have some power. And they could always further balance it out in the next generation. Although I severely doubt it would be unbalance.

I think Psychic was intentionally more powrful than the others, just they didn't expect how much (not to mention the whole Ghost thing).

And I wouldn't object to Bug getting evened out as well. But I think its intetionally underpowered, since they don't seem to be wanting to give them more power. And balancing Bug wouldn't be as interesting as a new type anyway.

Edit: ninja'd.

Post Office Buddy
May 25th, 2010, 09:51 AM
Actually, the fourth generation DID introduce a major change: the split between Physical and Special by move instead of by type. For example, Hyper Beam became a Special attack, and Leaf Blade, Crunch, and Fire Punch became Physical attacks. This allowed many pokemon to shine who were previously crippled by their reliance on a type that didn't match their offensive strengths, and also weakened Pokemon like Sceptile, which has a high Special Attack but had its best moves changed into Physical attacks. Weaknesses were also flipped upside down, because Pokemon that were weak only to (previously) Special or Physical types could no longer rely on the appropriate Defense stat for protection. I can't see any way this DIDN'T greatly impact the metagame.
Bah, I forgot about the physical/special split. However, I stand by my assertion that the metagame doesn't need a major change to be interesting. Any new attack/ability combinations that are released in the fifth generation will make it interesting enough.

Also the fact that they haven't added any types except to fix the overpowered Psychics doesn't discount the Light type. A better argument would be that they haven't added any new types ever, but that isn't true.
It doesn't, but as that's the only time new types have been added, I find it unlikely that a new type would be added this late in the series. Also, I somehow find a false argument weaker than that which is true, so I don't think saying they haven't added any new types ever would be a better argument.

Yes, but chances are it won't be underpowered, but even if it was, it wouldn't ruin the game, since there would only be a few Light types that could otherwise be ignore. Even if they were underpowered anyway, if there's a legenary one, it should still have some power. And they could always further balance it out in the next generation. Although I severely doubt it would be unbalance.
It would still be a pointless addition to the game. Also, it would be difficult to ignore them if some previous Pokemon were re-typed to Light/Whatever, which would most likely happen should the Light type be introduced, or any type for that matter. If light is underpowered, then the re-typing would hurt the metagame a lot.

On the subject of a Light type legendary, or any new type for that matter, if the new type has too many weaknesses and the type itself is underpowered, then the legendary will be underpowered as well, no matter its BST. Also, the point is that the balance should be maintained in the fifth generation, not the sixth. This game will have wifi capabilities, so the utmost care should be taken to make sure the metagame stays balanced. Plus, it doesn't matter if you severely doubt that a new type will create an imbalance. I think that there are going to be several problems with adding a new type. It's obvious by the way I post. Your opinion is obvious by the way that you post. Neither of us have need of blatantly stating it once per post.

I think Psychic was intentionally more powrful than the others, just they didn't expect how much (not to mention the whole Ghost thing).
So you think that Gamefreak purposely created an imbalance in the metagame from the start, yet you insist that they would never imbalance the metagame. For some reason, that doesn't make sense to me. I think that Gamefreak thought they limited Psychic types enough by giving them poor Defense and HP and decided that they didn't need too many weaknesses. Instead, it turned out that Psychics dominated with their high Special stat.

And I wouldn't object to Bug getting evened out as well. But I think its intetionally underpowered, since they don't seem to be wanting to give them more power. And balancing Bug wouldn't be as interesting as a new type anyway.
They have been gradually increasing the power of bugs through the years. However, bugs don't fare well in the metagame because many of their weaknesses are common in the higher tiers. They just need to multi-type bugs with something that can negate one of its weaknesses to balance it out a bit more, as well as add a few stronger attacks. It doesn't really matter if it's as interesting as a new type, either. It's already in the games, which is something this "new type" doesn't have the benefit of, and hopefully never will.

Myles
May 25th, 2010, 10:26 AM
Bah, I forgot about the physical/special split. However, I stand by my assertion that the metagame doesn't need a major change to be interesting. Any new attack/ability combinations that are released in the fifth generation will make it interesting enough.


If there isn't a major change than the two generations' metagames would be very similar. So it would be just like playing the same metagame for twice as long as usual with only small changes in the middle. It could even use Shoddy for the most part, just a few edits for the new moves.


It doesn't, but as that's the only time new types have been added, I find it unlikely that a new type would be added this late in the series. Also, I somehow find a false argument weaker than that which is true, so I don't think saying they haven't added any new types ever would be a better argument.


The 'would' was used as a conditional, as in 'if that were true'. Basically meaning that the very existence of dark and Steel make a better case for Light than if they didn't exist at all, since the anti-side would have a better case if they didn't. :P

I don't see how the length of the series comes into it though. You don't see people saying no new features can be added to other game series because 'it's too late in the series'.


On the subject of a Light type legendary, or any new type for that matter, if the new type has too many weaknesses and the type itself is underpowered, then the legendary will be underpowered as well, no matter its BST. Also, the point is that the balance should be maintained in the fifth generation, not the sixth. This game will have wifi capabilities, so the utmost care should be taken to make sure the metagame stays balanced. Plus, it doesn't matter if you severely doubt that a new type will create an imbalance. I think that there are going to be several problems with adding a new type. It's obvious by the way I post. Your opinion is obvious by the way that you post. Neither of us have need of blatantly stating it once per post.


Yes, but based on people's replies it seemed like it was coming off as me saying that it probably will be underpowered. But really in Gen II GameFreak managed to balance out five types (Steel, dark, Fighting, Bug and Psychic) at a time, while not unbalancing other types. That would be harder than balancing just Light while not affecting the others.


So you think that Gamefreak purposely created an imbalance in the metagame from the start, yet you insist that they would never imbalance the metagame. For some reason, that doesn't make sense to me. I think that Gamefreak thought they limited Psychic types enough by giving them poor Defense and HP and decided that they didn't need too many weaknesses. Instead, it turned out that Psychics dominated with their high Special stat.


There wasn't a metagame at the start. Psychic Pokemon were just suppose to be really powerful. And they obviously didn't intend it to be as bad as it was and didn't have much foresight. But with the ridiculous stats and low amount of weaknesses (even with Ghost included). It's hard to not think they wanted them to be more powerful than other types.
[/QUOTE]

An-chan
May 25th, 2010, 11:02 AM
If there isn't a major change than the two generations' metagames would be very similar. So it would be just like playing the same metagame for twice as long as usual with only small changes in the middle. It could even use Shoddy for the most part, just a few edits for the new moves.

I still think adding one type doesn't really effect the metagame that much. It doesn't alter the mechanics, it doesn't make anything more interesting. All it does is to expand on an already existing system and force people to adapt to a new kind of strategy in certain cases. The fun and interest that comes from that is shortlived. After that, it's just one more type among the abundance of available types.

See, abilities actually changed something. Physical-special split changed something. Changing the IV system was also a drastical change. Overhauling several types was major. Adding a single type is just adding a single type. It's not very interesting, and the fun coming from it will be shortlived.

I don't see how the length of the series comes into it though. You don't see people saying no new features can be added to other game series because 'it's too late in the series'.

Do you even follow other canons? Fans resist most dramatical changes of the canon or gameplay features, especially so if the series has been around for a long time already. When FF changed to semi-realtime battling, a lot of people were outraged. When it turned out the new Ace Attorney game would not have Phoenix Wright in it, people were extremely sceptical. If Nintendo wanted to add gunpowder-using weaponry to Zelda, people would resist it.

See, people are used to the way it is now, and changing it would mean learning new things, adapting to new strategies, and so forth. The canon would have to somehow explain why this type was never found before, despite the series having gone on for so long, and that explanation might not be satisfactory for all. People might have to face seeing their favourite Pokémon become useless as its type changes and it loses the awesome moveset and/or the STAB it used to get. People would have to remember the changes to the type chart.

It's troublesome. Ergo, people resist change.

Yes, but based on people's replies it seemed like it was coming off as me saying that it probably will be underpowered. But really in Gen II GameFreak managed to balance out five types (Steel, dark, Fighting, Bug and Psychic) at a time, while not unbalancing other types. That would be harder than balancing just Light while not affecting the others.

Imagine a scale. There are 17 different-sized little rocks on that scale. At first, the scale was terribly unbalanced because the rocks were put carelessly on it. After much little tweaking, adding to this rock and taking a bit away from this one and moving them around, the scale is finally almost balanced.

And then you throw a new rock on it.

It will be extremely hard to get it to stay in balance with all the 17 already existing types. You have to push the rocks around again, add to them, take away from them, just a teeny tiny bit to every rock, but it amounts to a lot when combined. Just that you can't necessarily actually see if the scale is back in balance or not, not before you release the game. And, y'know, if it turns out to be unbalanced, you have a problem.

Myles
May 25th, 2010, 11:15 AM
Do you even follow other canons? Fans resist most dramatical changes of the canon or gameplay features, especially so if the series has been around for a long time already. When FF changed to semi-realtime battling, a lot of people were outraged. When it turned out the new Ace Attorney game would not have Phoenix Wright in it, people were extremely sceptical. If Nintendo wanted to add gunpowder-using weaponry to Zelda, people would resist it.

Changing to 'semi-real-time' is a genre shift, changing Zelda to have guns would also be a genre shift and as for Ace Attorney, well it's a different protagonist. Regardless, keeping the game the same for people who don't like change is a very bad idea, which is why no one does it.

Most people will accept the change in little time as they see it's not that bad, some (a much smaller percentage) will hate it because of nostalgia or 'cos they just think its cool to hate stuff and an even smaller percentage will just generally not like the change. Whereas if you keep the game the same, everyone, everyone is going to complain that it's just a mission pack sequel.

And I don't see how that rock analogy works anyway. They've shown they can carefully do it while adding two types. So it probably won't be that hard for four. Anyway, as it is now, offensive Ground is slightly overpowered and Bug and Fighting are slightly underpowered, just for a start.

BleuVII
May 25th, 2010, 12:56 PM
Imagine a scale. There are 17 different-sized little rocks on that scale. At first, the scale was terribly unbalanced because the rocks were put carelessly on it. After much little tweaking, adding to this rock and taking a bit away from this one and moving them around, the scale is finally almost balanced.

And then you throw a new rock on it.

This analogy... doesn't work. It's a logical fallacy. You are suggesting that each rock only influences one side of the scale, whereas types in pokemon affect every other type all at once.

Really, honestly, from the depths of my heart... I trust that Game Freak can add in a new type to the game that they created and still have it be balanced. They are professionals. If you don't think types are that interesting compared to abilities and the physical/special split, that's cool. I would see it as one change among a list, not as the only change. I just think it would add a new element into things.

Aether
May 25th, 2010, 01:04 PM
I don't think Pokemon needs any more types. I would like to see some more creative type combinations though, or some things to modify existing types (Poison seriously needs another type to be supereffective against).

cystar
May 25th, 2010, 01:06 PM
I dont want any new types unless and this would be very slim they make a type thats super effective aginst ghost type but thats it

umbreon_4_life
May 28th, 2010, 11:45 AM
No. I just don't like the idea. I think it'll just make all the other types unbalanced. Although, it would be cool to have another type, I don't think it'll happen.

Haza
May 28th, 2010, 12:21 PM
With the new Legendary Pokemon revealed I feel as if the Light Type will be added finally... but you can't be too sure.

killet513
May 28th, 2010, 09:47 PM
I could totally see a light type come in! If you all are thinking that the only thing that light could be are angelic figures, but I see lots of stuff. I mean come on use your imagination really. For example three step evo of a white wolf. The first would be a puppy, second, an adolecent wolf, the third, an alpha wolf. That could even be light-ice. You could think of alot of stuff if you just use your imagination. Another could be an angel yes, but thats not the only thing you can use out of that catagory.

Do I hope they come out with light YES, and sound woudn't be to bad either. You guys need to stop beating this guy down just because he has hopes of Gamefreak coming out with a light type. Drag me down if you will I don't care, so talk bad about me quote me and beat it down, but don't kill the kid I mean it seriously gosh guys. You all know that you had the same idea at first, but you wussies were to scared to say anything about it.

All in all, light, I hope so; sound, not such a bad idea.

Yours Truely,
Killet513 *winks and walks away*

PiPVoda
May 28th, 2010, 09:55 PM
With the revealing of Zekrom and Reshiram I bet that Zekrom will be dark/dragon (introducing a mix not seen before...I think). If Reshiram is say a light/dragon type then that would be a new type and a new mixture.

Rei Shingetsu
May 28th, 2010, 09:56 PM
I don't think I'd like a new type, but for me, anything goes!

Waffle-San
May 28th, 2010, 11:03 PM
I could totally see a light type come in! If you all are thinking that the only thing that light could be are angelic figures, but I see lots of stuff. I mean come on use your imagination really. For example three step evo of a white wolf. The first would be a puppy, second, an adolecent wolf, the third, an alpha wolf. That could even be light-ice. You could think of alot of stuff if you just use your imagination. Another could be an angel yes, but thats not the only thing you can use out of that catagory.

Do I hope they come out with light YES, and sound woudn't be to bad either. You guys need to stop beating this guy down just because he has hopes of Gamefreak coming out with a light type. Drag me down if you will I don't care, so talk bad about me quote me and beat it down, but don't kill the kid I mean it seriously gosh guys. You all know that you had the same idea at first, but you wussies were to scared to say anything about it.

All in all, light, I hope so; sound, not such a bad idea.

Yours Truely,
Killet513 *winks and walks away*

What? Logical and constructive debate isn't beating anyone down. I for one was completely against light as a type but because of this thread I'm much more open to light and reversely much more against sound type which makes little sense and doesn't have the depth to be a full on type. In my opinion at least.

Timbjerr
May 28th, 2010, 11:21 PM
Like I said before, the biggest argument against a light-type in the past was the lack of necessity. With the revelation of Reshiram , it looks like we may indeed get our light-type. I'm just hoping Gamefreak balances it pretty well.

Looking through this thread, I think the general concensus for light-types matchups were something like this:
Defensively weak to Poison, Dark, and Ghost
Defensively resistant to Bug and Fighting
Offensively effective against Dark, Steel, and Fighting
Offensively ineffective against Ghost and Psychic

...maybe throw Dragon in there somewhere. >_>

>Feelings<
May 28th, 2010, 11:32 PM
Yep... Reshiram... I think there's a great chance for Light type to be introduced now.
I, for one, would like a light type.

Hibaru
May 28th, 2010, 11:35 PM
For what I think Zekrom would be Dragon/Dark type or Dragon/Steel type maybe...

Saphie
May 29th, 2010, 12:00 AM
If they do add a light type, I think maybe it would go something like this:
Dark beats Psychic, Psychic beats Light, Light beats Dark.

And, respectivly, because Dark is immune to Psychic, Psychic would be immune to Light, and Light would be immune to Dark.

I do doubt they'll bring in a new type now, but it could happen.

Haza
May 29th, 2010, 12:02 AM
I'm getting really excited... we now know that both Reshiram and Zekrom are both part Dragon but the second type is being kept under wraps... why? BECAUSE RESHIRAM IS A DAMN LIGHT/DRAGON! - speculation gets be all worked up... sawwy

also, you can kind of think of Psychic as somewhere in between Light and Dark...

Hibaru
May 29th, 2010, 12:47 AM
Man! I don't really like a New Type such as Light type! Its not good to me!

blueguy
May 29th, 2010, 01:07 AM
Meh... I don't really care either way. A new type could be introduced without messing things up too badly. Things might just have to be tweaked a little bit. According to some things I've heard, B/W are supposed to change things up a bit, which they need to. Adding a new type would open up a lot of new possibilities. "Psychic" really doesn't cut it for representing a yin to the yang that is the Dark-type, so this is why a Light-type would be good. At this point, I see it as pretty inevitable.

shengar
May 29th, 2010, 04:26 AM
They can give us more and more types as long as they increase the maximum moves of pokemon can have and party member from six to seven

Azure
May 29th, 2010, 04:47 AM
The new legendarys are FULL Dragon type.



Sorce; http://www.serebii.net/blackwhite/pokemon.shtml

Ger Japa
May 29th, 2010, 06:36 AM
I think light type is psychic type :)

Porygon-Z
May 29th, 2010, 06:45 AM
If they introduced light as a type I would insist upon givng the following pokemon light as their second type:

Clefairy
Clefable
Ampharos
Guardevoir
Illumise
Lumineon

Azure
May 29th, 2010, 06:47 AM
I'm sure if they were going to introduce a new type, they would have by now, there's been 3 generations since Steel & Dark was introduced and that was to balance it out and when Pokemon was getting started.

Ger Japa
May 29th, 2010, 06:50 AM
If new style, make it sound type, pokemon who fights with loud noise, that sounds great...

BleuVII
May 29th, 2010, 08:45 AM
What? Logical and constructive debate isn't beating anyone down. I for one was completely against light as a type but because of this thread I'm much more open to light and reversely much more against sound type which makes little sense and doesn't have the depth to be a full on type. In my opinion at least.

Yeah, I agree with Waffle-san. We don't agree on whether or not to include new types, but the only people that have been disrespectful are the ones who don't read the thread and post about stuff we already talked about long ago. Waffle-san has brought up some really good points.

Anyway, I am STILL intrigued by a Glass/Crystal type as a Sp.Def parallel to Steel. You know, weak to Rock, Steel, and one other, but resistant to a whole lot of other types. I haven't sat down and made a type chart for it, but I have awesome ideas in my head for Glass/Crystal type pokemon designs, including parallel evos for Pokemon traded holding a "crystal coat." A glass/crystal onix (Crystix) and a glass/crystal Pinsir are at the top of my list.

................. and I'm not a kid. I'm 26 ................