What would some of your opinions be if a new trio-type was introduced? Personally, I think it may make the game a little too confusing, but others may enjoy the new strategy brought to the game.
BW/BW2 What would you think if trio-types were introduced?
- Thread starter pokedude101
- Start date
Honestly, this is one change I can't see working out well. Three types on a single Pokémon adds unnecessary layer of complexity over the type system, and even then, I'm not certain how the math works out. Does a Rock/Steel/Electric Pokémon take x6 (x2 + x2 + x2) or x8 (x2 * x2 *x2) damage? Conversely, does a Ground/Rock/Ghost-Type take 1/6x or 1/8x damage from a Poison attack? How about a Poison/Fighting/Dark Pokémon? Is it immune to Psychic attacks due to its Dark-Type or does the double weakness of the other two types to Psychic cancel it out? What sort of monstrosity would a Steel/Dragon/Ghost be?
Lol it doesn't complicate. for triple weaknesses the math would be 2 x 2 x 2 or 2^3 which is 8 and in case a type have an immunity it would be 2 x 2 x 0 = 0, in other words, the immunity prevails.
No. Also think about competitive battling. It would suck. Imagine if Tyranitar or Scizor got 3 different STABs. Everything would have ridiculous type coverage and be completely overpowered. It's also just a terrible idea.
Yeah, I agree, but what if neither Tyranitar nor Scizor got another type and they stayed dual-type? Then another pokemon might be given an extra type that could help counter both of those sets.6-Dimension said:
Having three types on one pokemon would destroy the universe. It simply cannot be done properly.
Of course it can be done! There's no reason they shouldn't! (Of course, there's no reason they should...)
Although I will say, Pokemon is unique in that way as every other game with elements either has 0/1 per character or as many as necessary.
Although I will say, Pokemon is unique in that way as every other game with elements either has 0/1 per character or as many as necessary.
I still think that, if we're going to end up with Triple typed pokemon, Nintendo should have at least 3+ pokemon of every possible type combination.
And could you clarify with your second statement, Pokemaniac? I don't follow.
And could you clarify with your second statement, Pokemaniac? I don't follow.
Carrottime said:
Sure. In most games, each character either only has 1 element(type) or none at all, or there is no limit on the number of types, allowing for like rainbow creatures and stuff. Nothing too important.
Well at least it would solve the Charizard problem of not being Dragon type, that seems to be brought up a lot.
it would make pokemon either way too overpowered or way too underpowered.
CyndaquilMaster said:
The reason Charizard is not a dragon-type is because it's a starter. It would give people way too much incentive to choose him and the other two would be neglected. Chances are we'd never get a dragon starter unless all three were dragons, which would really mess up the whole triangle thing.
Gyarados on the other hand, I could totally see being dragon. Kingdra's had the monopoly on water/dragon far too long.
Personally I think it would make my brain hurt to try to figure stuff out at x6 or x8 (Good news is pretty much anything would be a OHKO at that point) but I'm sure I'd get used to it eventually.