Would you like to see new Pokemon types?

Started by e4darthteej August 5th, 2009 11:43 PM
  • 2118 views
  • 36 replies
Male
A city somehwere IN AMERICA
Seen October 25th, 2009
Posted October 25th, 2009
153 posts
14 Years
The question is as stated. There are two arguments for this, and I'll present them:

NO!: The only reason that Gen. 2 introduced steels and darks was to balance out the Psychic type. Any new types would be extremely redundant and possibly unbalanced; making it so that there would be too many to keep track of when considering dual types.

YES!: New types would spicen up the games a bit, and provide hundreds of ideas for new Pokemon that could fit for them. And GameFreak knows what they're doing, they'll make sure that the new types are balanced and not go crazy with dual type alignments.

I tried to make both arguments fair, although I'm a bit biased because I saw yes to new types. Still, what do you all think?

EDIT:
For some reason it's not making a poll, so unless anyone knows a way to add a poll to a pre-existing thread the results can't be tallied. Sorry NGOL(nervous giggle out loud).
90% of non trainers compulsively avoid using high OUs because they're "unorginal", if you're one of the 10% who are willing to use Pokemon because they're good, put this in your sig.





Male
A city somehwere IN AMERICA
Seen October 25th, 2009
Posted October 25th, 2009
153 posts
14 Years

I want a pokémon with "???" type (like the egg type.) with ability WONDER GUARD.
There's no Pokémon will hit this pokémon...
No...just...no.

fiiiiiiller
90% of non trainers compulsively avoid using high OUs because they're "unorginal", if you're one of the 10% who are willing to use Pokemon because they're good, put this in your sig.





Age 31
Female
Bronx, New York
Seen September 4th, 2014
Posted September 4th, 2014
12,048 posts
17.3 Years
It would be fair for Normal type Pokemon to have a resistant, but there are too many Normal types and too many normal attacks so it balances out. But 17 types is enough already, we don't need anymore


:t354:TG

Friend Code: 3136-6961-3807 Friend Safari:Steel: Metang, Magneton and Klefi
Seen December 6th, 2017
Posted August 17th, 2009
135 posts
13.8 Years
I have no ideas for any new types. Light type could be a possibility. ( I used to think Espeon was light type when I was like 6).
But seriously, if you can think of a plausible type other then that, you can have a cookie.

Sound type does look plausible maybe too. Exploud, maybe Slaking (facade spamming) and maybe some previously normal type moves such as growl, screech, or metalsound.

Sydian

fake your death.

Age 30
they/them
Georgia
Seen May 22nd, 2022
Posted November 29th, 2021
33,354 posts
15.2 Years
I want a pokémon with "???" type (like the egg type.) with ability WONDER GUARD.
There's no Pokémon will hit this pokémon...
No...just...no.
Couldn't have put it better myself.

No, I don't think we need more types. Seventeen is enough, and the new moves that come within each generation are enough new elements to battling, if you ask me.
BURY ME SIX FEET DEEP COVER ME IN CONCRETE
twitter | twitch | youtube
Female
Seen September 28th, 2009
Posted September 7th, 2009
32 posts
13.8 Years
I dont think theres any immediate need of new types. i mean it wouldnt be bad, but they probably won't be that good. Like light seems okay, but i kind of equate that to psychic, like someone mentioned espeon. :P
I guess sound might work out but i don't really see it as a type, i mean some pokemon can utilize it better than others, ie uproar and stuff but it seems like thats stretching it.

Pekin

Wigglytuff is and has always been on acid.

Age 29
Male
Denmark
Seen 3 Weeks Ago
Posted July 25th, 2020
282 posts
14.2 Years
I dunno. I wouldn't mind new types, like Light, for instance, but there's just not really any need for it.
Check out my ROM Hacks:

Fakemon FireRed: the Wiki and the ROM Hacks Studio post (Finished and playable!)

Pekin's Ruby Hack: the Wiki (My first hack - not nearly as well made or polished as Fakemon FireRed)
Age 28
Male
Iceland
Seen April 13th, 2015
Posted June 5th, 2011
82 posts
13.8 Years
^Yeah deffinately.

I always thought that if there's gonna be a "dark" type, then there should be a "light" type, because dark just seems like a useless balancer.
I agree with that, but then what will be super affective against what? Light Super effective on dark or the other way around?


Credits to Rachel! FC is 4940 7387 4267

75% of Pokémon gamers use cheats and specially made codes to make their Pokémon battle-worthy.
If you are one of the 25% percent that level their Pokémon up legally, put this in your signature.


http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/oldspore/ check this link, if you like spore, but you want the old spore more then the new one. Check this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dvMDFOFnA to see what the old spore was like.
Age 27
Male
Michigan
Seen August 25th, 2011
Posted June 16th, 2011
89 posts
14.9 Years
I agree with that, but then what will be super affective against what? Light Super effective on dark or the other way around?
I would say light being immune to dark and then light super effective against Ghost / Darks. That would give the dark an unfair disadvantage, but hey :classic: I would have to give this more thought though.

On average, 100 people choke to death on ballpoint pens every year. You could be next...

mew²

Charity?...

Age 27
Male
関東地域日本
Seen September 20th, 2018
Posted July 21st, 2017
1,224 posts
13.9 Years
I actually have been thing of a new type for awhile, this is what I thought up.

Type: Light

Strong against Dark Types
Weak against Normal Types
Weak against Dark Types [obviously vice verca]

Moves:

Light Beam - Sp Atk
Light Shield - Sp Atk
Heavens Gift - Self-used - Heals User
Heavenly Punch - Atk
Life Restore - Used Berry will be returned on user
Flash - Special - will now become a TM and become Light.

Age 27
Male
Michigan
Seen August 25th, 2011
Posted June 16th, 2011
89 posts
14.9 Years
^Seems good, but I don't see how it'd be weak against normal types. Now that I think of it, maybe GameFreak's idea of "light" is actually "normal" type? I don't know, just something I think.

On average, 100 people choke to death on ballpoint pens every year. You could be next...
Male
Narnia
Seen August 22nd, 2010
Posted August 13th, 2010
51 posts
13.9 Years
I think the creation of new types would be a bad idea. The interconnecting chain of effectiveness is so tight and fragile that a new type would probably only effect two other types tops. It would be disappointing and i already have trouble remembering that rock>ice, bug>dark, and that psychic CAN hit ghost.

Dunsparce

The Land Snake Pokemon

Seen January 1st, 2023
Posted July 8th, 2022
1,246 posts
17.6 Years
^Yeah deffinately.

I always thought that if there's gonna be a "dark" type, then there should be a "light" type, because dark just seems like a useless balancer.
In Japan, "Dark" type is called "Evil" Type.

What the hell would they call Light Type in Japan? "Holy"? "Good"?

When it comes to the classic RPG Element of Darkness, Ghost-Type fits the bill more than Dark.
Age 30
Female
United States of America, Tennessee
Seen October 11th, 2010
Posted June 14th, 2010
239 posts
13.9 Years
For right now I think there's plenty of pokemon types.

The number they've got now is pretty good--seventeen is enough. And perhaps further into the future it might not be a bad idea to release more new types. But for now it's good. It makes for good balance.
PC FAMILY:
Evil Twin: Sakura Rain
Awesome Brother: Wh1teW01f



I don't calculate stat values, I don't breed my way to perfection, and I don't care about natures. I catch my Pokemon the way they are, and treat them like individuals instead of brainless drones. If you use this philosophy, copy & paste this into your signature.

75% of Pokemon gamers use cheats and specially made codes to make their pokemon battle-worthy. If you are one of the 25% percent that level their Pokemon up legally, put this in your signature.