New Type: Light

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

Plus a poll here was quite similar.

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

 

[Azonic]

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

 

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

 

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

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

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

 

[YOOM-TAH]

And it doesn't matter. The chemical FACT is that electric and light are not the same thing. The FACT is that they are no more similar than ice and water or rock and ground.

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

 

[Azonic]

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

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

 

[Bishopk]

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

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

 

[Bishopk]

The logic you're using is that since water doesn't form ice, ice is different. That can be applied to light as well.

 

[Bishopk]

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

Oh and water doesn't FORM Ice.

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

 

[Bishopk]

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

 

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Azonic]

Likewise, when there is a fire, the fire itself is not the light. The fire gives off particles called photons which itself are light.

And without the fire, there are no photons, and thus no light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[YOOM-TAH]

And without the fire, there are no photons, and thus no light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Offensive (damage-dealing) Moves:

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

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

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

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

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


Defensive (non-damage dealing) Moves:

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

 

[GKS]

Some of this makes good sense, but I doubt it will be put into the games.

 

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

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

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

Here's a few.

Tail Whip and Leer
Protect, Detect
Harden and Withdraw

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

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

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

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

 

[Jabunks]

This type is a very good idea, It mainly fits legendaries though...

To many psychic ledgends :(

 

[.emerald]

i would actually agree about light types(if there are any...) i thought that eletric, fire, & psychic were light types.... but since the metagame.... nah!!!

 

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anti]

wow I can't believe I missed this thread since I strongly oppose the creation of a light type.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[YOOM-TAH]

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

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

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

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