• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Pokemon with three types?

Status
Not open for further replies.
7
Posts
12
Years
    • Seen Aug 6, 2012
    So the new triple battle feature got me thinking... What would happen if they decided to give some pokemon three types? Would this cause the pokemon's design to become more flashy than they already are? Would this harm the balance of pokemon battles?

    Would you like Pokemon to implement three types to one single pokemon?
     

    Oryx

    CoquettishCat
    13,184
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Age 31
    • Seen Jan 30, 2015
    Nonono, I would hate this. I mean, imagine a Flying/Grass/Dragon Pokemon with an 8x weakness to Ice. Any kind of 8x weakness is just ridiculous.
     

    Aura Vitae

    Down, Sword Hand!
    352
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Dec 23, 2019
    This could easily make some pokemon ridiculously broken powerful or ridiculously weak.
     

    2Cool4Mewtwo

    Pwning in Ubers since 1996.
    1,182
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • So the new triple battle feature got me thinking... What would happen if they decided to give some pokemon three types? Would this cause the pokemon's design to become more flashy than they already are? Would this harm the balance of pokemon battles?

    Would you like Pokemon to implement three types to one single pokemon?
    That'd ruin the fun for me IMO (also imagine the nostalgia freaks going all crazy). Having 289 different possible type variations is way more than enough for me. Some pokemon would be made ridiculously overpowered if they did this (Imagine 3 STABs and 8x resistances, that's absolutely unimaginably broken)
     

    PlatinumDude

    Nyeh?
    12,964
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • The concept sounds cool, but calculating how much damage the Pokemon receives would sound too complicated.
     

    JimJams

    Giggles at the Ghosties
    194
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • It would definitely overcomplicate things.

    but a fire/grass/water type would be a total bamf. :P
     

    Dark343

    Do not trust The Matrix.
    6
    Posts
    12
    Years
  • As mentioned before, incredibly game-breaking.
    Not to mention the design of a Pokemon involving three types would be very... catastrophic. Some of the mono types and dual types are bad, imagine an improperly done three types...
    And the effect that it would have on the competitive battlers... That'd be a nice way to troll them though. :\
     

    *Latias

    It's so cool.
    55
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jun 26, 2012
    No way. Their design would be worse than the actual one, and how would you remember all the types of each pok?? It'd drive people crazy.
     

    Kenshin5

    Wanderer
    4,391
    Posts
    15
    Years
  • Certain pokemon could either be broken, or have too many weakness against them. It would just be a big mess if they added Triple Typing. The pokemon would probably look weird cause I'd think their appearance would have to meet up with their typing attribute, so if they have three types that pokemon will just look strange. I would see new types before I would see this.
     
    10,769
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • It would be fun... for a day. I'd actually really like to see a bunch of designs for 3x typed pokemon because I'm sure some really strange and fun ideas could come out of it, but like everyone's said: it would overcomplicate and unbalance the game.
     

    shengar

    ♥ Mikan Enthusiast ♥
    667
    Posts
    13
    Years
    • Seen Jun 25, 2013
    Its too cool to the point it will break the meta-game, and make some pokemon uberly strong while it will make some pokemon pretty much useless. It's also will needless overcomplicating the game and over complicating the designs of future pokemons
     
    Last edited:
    1
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Feb 17, 2016
    I think it is a good idea
    Yes calculation would get a lot more more confusing but adding a few new rules when it comes to damage would change that
    i was working on one solution and i think im pretty close
     

    Powerserge

    The Imminent Victor
    461
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • This is one of the most outrageous Pokemon-related things I've ever heard, haha! I would seriously like to see a chart for these triple-typings! Can you imagine? I sure can, and it's catastrophic from a damage calculation standpoint. The day this happens is the day I throw my hands up and leave this silliness forever.
     
    8,571
    Posts
    14
    Years
  • I think triple type combinations would make things way too difficult. As it is, we've already got 136 dual types plus 17 more single types, but with triple types you'd have to add on an extra 680 combinations, which would make figuring out all of the weakness/resistances needlessly confusing. Sure, it could make for some interesting combos, but there are still plenty of dual-types we haven't seen yet. Maybe once those have been exhausted, I'd be a little more receptive of triple-type Pokemon.
     
    17
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Seen Jul 9, 2013
    Dosen't that already exist?
    Referring to Castform
    1200438-castform.png
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top