Would you like to see triple types?

X

xXMelanie_HimeXx

追放されたバカ
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
382
Reaction score
1
Would you like to see triple types in the next gen?

I think it would be really cool if the Rotom forms were part ghost again but kept their electric and secondary type!
 
I've always wondered about a Grass/Fire/Water legendary, so maybe it'd be cool to see. In the end, though, I just think it would muddy up the metagame even more.
 
Wouldn't happen. For one, it'd be too complex and limited, can you think of many ideas that could work for 3 types? Second, they'd have too many weaknesses and could be destroyed by half of the type chart.
 
It would probably make things too complicated. It's good the way it is, and I'd like to stay simple enough that some basic memorization and reasoning is all that's needed to quickly assess a type matchup.
 
I doubt such a thing would happen. It could easily make a Pokémon an absolute joke or an absolute game breaker. Plus, do we really need 8x weaknesses?
 
It is already possible to simulate triple typing in the current games by using Forest's Curse -- with appropriately deadly results should the target already have a double weakness (Scizor: 8x Fire; Garchomp: 8x Ice; Heracross: 8x Flying; Malamar: 8x Bug).

If triple types are going to be a thing, this would probably require rethinking the entire weakness/resistance system and that would have a larger impact on the game than anything ever before it.
 
Bolt the Cat said:
Wouldn't happen. For one, it'd be too complex and limited, can you think of many ideas that could work for 3 types? Second, they'd have too many weaknesses and could be destroyed by half of the type chart.
Click to expand...

Its too complex for fans, not too complex for a computer program to keep track of. Saying they'd have too many weaknesses also ignores that they'd have extra resistances, and certain combinations will simply neutralize each other defensively, while still buffering its offenses with a third STAB.

It could work if thought out carefully, but I'd only like to see it in a limited capacity (e.g., the box legends of a new generation or an event legendary).

Some Pokemon that I could theoretically see being three types is Kyurem's original dragon form. Kyurem's ice is supposed to represent the lack of energy created by purging Reshiram and Zekrom, so I'd imagine the Original Dragon being Dragon/Fire/Electric (or pure Dragon with Fire/Electric/Ice STABs). Another that I've recently speculated about is a Mega Genesect who takes on the type of its current drive.

PaulTheProtist said:
I doubt such a thing would happen. It could easily make a Pokémon an absolute joke or an absolute game breaker. Plus, do we really need 8x weaknesses?
Click to expand...

8x weaknesses already exist for certain Pokemon (e.g., Dry Skin Parasect), but just because a Pokemon has three types doesn't mean it will have a 8x weakness (or resistance), nor does it mean that we'll have all 4896 triple type combinations existing.

I honestly don't get why people are also arguing against this because of a x8 weakness as if having three types makes you unviable. I'd be more worried about a broken type combination.

Being a Steel/Psychic/Fairy would be a massive defensive and offensive boost. Fairy and Psychic cover each other offensively well while having STAB that hits the most common types in the game (i.e., Fighting, Dark, Dragon, and Fairy). Adding Fairy to Steel/Psychic removes a Dark weakness and grants a Bug resistance as well while adding no additional weaknesses (Steel neutralizes Poison and Steel weaknesses)

tl;dr
Rather than blindly saying its a bad idea because "its too complicated" or "things will have a x8 weakness", how about we look at when it could be used? Game Freak's already dabbled with triple types with Gourgeist and Trevanent's signature moves and if handled well, it could provide a pretty well balanced Pokemon.
 
Last edited:
The Outrage said:
I honestly don't get why people are also arguing against this because of a x8 weakness as if having three types makes you unviable. I'd be more worried about a broken type combination.

Being a Steel/Psychic/Fairy would be a massive defensive and offensive boost. Fairy and Psychic cover each other offensively well while having STAB that hits the most common types in the game (i.e., Fighting, Dark, Dragon, and Fairy). Adding Fairy to Steel/Psychic removes a Dark weakness and grants a Bug resistance as well while adding no additional weaknesses (Steel neutralizes Poison and Steel weaknesses)
Click to expand...

That's just it though, it opens up the potential for some Pokemon to be broken. You can have x8 weaknesses that make a Pokemon completely fragile and a x8 resistance that makes Pokemon near invincible. Yeah, technically you could just avoid the more broken type combinations, but then you'll have people wondering why they don't exist yet. It's best to just not even open that can of worms.
 
Bolt the Cat said:
That's just it though, it opens up the potential for some Pokemon to be broken.
Click to expand...
So did Wonder Guard, yet the only Pokemon that's on is functionally useless in the current metagame. Just because there's a potential to make something broken, doesn't mean that the potential would be reached. Of course, we're talking in a post-ORAS era where Mega Rayquaza exists with an ability that neutralizes some of its weaknesses and can hold items, but that was obviously made to be intentionally broken since it is the Legendary progenitor of all Mega Evolutions.

You can have x8 weaknesses that make a Pokemon completely fragile and a x8 resistance that makes Pokemon near invincible. Yeah, technically you could just avoid the more broken type combinations, but then you'll have people wondering why they don't exist yet. It's best to just not even open that can of worms.
Click to expand...

Going back to the point, unless you are throwing darts at the type chart, it would be very intentional (as is the case with Mega Rayquaza) to have something that weak or that strong.

Let's take the point of a x8 resistant Pokemon--that's a x8 resistance to one type. We have Ghost Pokemon who are literally immune to two types, and Gengar, with its ability, immune to three. Yet the prospect of a x8 resistant Pokemon is somehow game breaking? I would assume that this argument is looking at that x8 resistance and thinking "what a big number" without actually extrapolating further to what it really means. Its a x8 resistance on maybe one or two types--yet we have entire types immune to each other and it isn't considered broken.

The same could be said about a x8 weakness. That will be a x8 weakness to one or two types, not the entire spectrum. Functionally, it may not even matter. Viable Pokemon who have x4 weaknesses can be knocked down with a single hit when that weakness is exploited (e.g., Dragon's weakness to ice). If most Pokemon already can't survive a x4 hit, then making the weakness x8 or x1000 won't matter in the end calculation where their HP is reduced to 0.

Now that we've gotten the logistics of how a x8 resistance is nowhere near as good as an immunity or how a x8 weakness is functionally no different than a x4 weakness in most cases, we can look at stats. Let's say a Pokemon has the magic combination of types that maximizes x8 resistances and minimizes weaknesses to a handful x2 at most. Again, unless Game Freak is making a very conscious choice like Mega Rayquaza, they'll probably balance the Pokemon out with low defensive stats or no recovery move.

I don't know why the counter arguments for this is acting like there isn't a person behind the Pokemon that consciously makes these decisions to ensure that nothing is too game breaking. Unless you're Rayquaza. and like I said, a triple type would probably only be added to a small selection of "special" Pokemon like legendaries to limit their numbers
 
This seems like a very complex and rather annoying thing to implement. It could work, technologically speaking, and there are even Pokemon that I think would actually make sense with a third type. Drapion lost its bug type, yet still is totally a bug. Beedrill, dustox, venomoth, all could totally be part flying. Heck, some more oddball ones could exist, with gourgeist maybe adding a fire type given that it's a jack-o-lantern. As much as these might make sense, though, I would hate having to figure out what types to use based on three types.

Something I could see, though, is having a third "attribute" type. Drapion could be "like" a bug type, but not actually weak to fire/flying/etc. however, it could get STAB from its own bug moves or something like that.

All in all, though, I would say... No...
 
BigBadButterfree said:
This seems like a very complex and rather annoying thing to implement. I
Click to expand...

I think I'm going to challenge the idea of complexity here. Yes, there are three types, and a possibility of 4896 unique combinations (not including mono and dual types). However, with dual types, there's already 306 combinations (not including mono types) to contend with and there's no way that we memorize the weakness and resistance of all these types.

I think the underlying assumption of complexity here is that because there are three types, there is a much larger number of possibilities we have to keep in mind. However, our brains do more complex mental calculations in our daily lives, and we've been playing Pokemon for so long that knowing the type chart is intrinsic. In terms of information processing (at least from a sample size of just me), when I face a new Pokemon and I choose a move, my mental calculations don't bring up the full array of possible type combinations--just those that are relevant to the situation, and even then its more simplified. For instance, take this example of Dragalge vs Heatran:

Dragalge knows Dragon Pulse, Sludge Bomb, Surf, and Return. What moves do I use?

In my head, I'd calculate how each move fairs against each type (basically a two step process for each move)

Dragon is neutral against Fire, resisted by Steel. Poison is neutral to fire, Steel is immune. Return is neutral to fire, but resisted by Steel. Water is SE to fire, and for the life of me, I can't remember its match up against Steel, but I choose water because it has the best match up to one of its types.

Written down, it seems like a long process, but its just a simple "yes" or "no" question for each type match up. All we have to do now for a third type is add another step and then compare to each other. We aren't remembering the type effectiveness of 4896, but the type effectiveness of 18 and then our brains just do simple calculations of effectiveness (for instance "X is weak to Z, but Y is resistant to Z, so Z is neutral" is as simple as "1 - 1 = 0").

If anything, what Game Freak did this generation by adding Fairy, retroactively tweaking a few Pokemon's types, and also changing the effectiveness of a few types relative to each other would cause a bigger cognitive strain since the old type chart is so ingrained that we get caught off guard by these changes even though we consciously know about them. In contrast, a third type doesn't compete with previous knowledge, you just apply the existing knowledge to a greater extent.
 
The Outrage said:
Going back to the point, unless you are throwing darts at the type chart, it would be very intentional (as is the case with Mega Rayquaza) to have something that weak or that strong.

Let's take the point of a x8 resistant Pokemon--that's a x8 resistance to one type. We have Ghost Pokemon who are literally immune to two types, and Gengar, with its ability, immune to three. Yet the prospect of a x8 resistant Pokemon is somehow game breaking? I would assume that this argument is looking at that x8 resistance and thinking "what a big number" without actually extrapolating further to what it really means. Its a x8 resistance on maybe one or two types--yet we have entire types immune to each other and it isn't considered broken.

The same could be said about a x8 weakness. That will be a x8 weakness to one or two types, not the entire spectrum. Functionally, it may not even matter. Viable Pokemon who have x4 weaknesses can be knocked down with a single hit when that weakness is exploited (e.g., Dragon's weakness to ice). If most Pokemon already can't survive a x4 hit, then making the weakness x8 or x1000 won't matter in the end calculation where their HP is reduced to 0.
Click to expand...

It doesn't just affect one type advantage though, it affects several. You'll also be gaining a bunch of x2 and x4 weaknesses and resistances, so you have even more types that could be OHKO'd instead of just one. You'll get type combinations like Grass/Dark/Fighting and Grass/Bug/Flying which have 3 or 4 x4 weaknesses and several other x2 which would be a lot more devastating, or something like Poison/Dragon/Steel which has 1 x8 resist and a few x4 resists.
 
Bolt the Cat said:
It doesn't just affect one type advantage though, it affects several. You'll also be gaining a bunch of x2 and x4 weaknesses and resistances, so you have even more types that could be OHKO'd instead of just one. You'll get type combinations like Grass/Dark/Fighting and Grass/Bug/Flying which have 3 or 4 x4 weaknesses and several other x2 which would be a lot more devastating, or something like Poison/Dragon/Steel which has 1 x8 resist and a few x4 resists.
Click to expand...

"It affects several" goes back to the point of good construction. As a game developer who actually cares about balance (obviously they didn't with Mega Rayquaza, but its not like regular Rayquaza was allowed for VGC standards anyway) you'd take that into account, so I don't see how this is a counter-argument other than being an alarmist "there's a lot of big numbers!" point that's been reiterated multiple times.

I've given an example of a type that I thought would confer the best possible offensive and defensive advantage. Let's stick with that example:

Steel/Psychic/Fairy (as compared to Steel/Psychic)

Resistance: +1 (Bug)
Neutral: +1 (Dark)
Weakness: 0
Immunity: +1 (Dragon)

That's a net change of 3. Now let's look at the changes when you go from a mono-Steel to a dual Steel/Psychic:

Steel/Psychic

Resistance: +1 (Psychic x4), -1 (Bug)
Neutral: +1 (Bug), -1 (Dark)
Weakness: +1 (Ghost)
Immunity: 0

All in all, changing from a mono type to a dual type actually resulted in more shuffling.

So what's the point of this illustration? How much type match ups change will depend on the types you are adding. So you could be alarmist about it or you could be more practical. Yes, you could have a Pokemon with four x4 weaknesses. Yes, that potential certainly exists but the question again is will it? Do you honestly think that Game Freak make Pokemon by throwing darts at the type chart? I'm going to assume "yes" if the responses following this continue to be "but there's potential for it to be massively broken" which isn't much of a counterpoint when by the same token "there's potential for it to be balanced"
 
That would bring massive changes to the game all around. Personally, I wouldn't mind to see it done as it could bring some nice possibilities and a fresh coat of paint to the games, but I don't see Game Freak doing it. Two types is not only something familiar, it also has a nice limitation that keeps thing simple.
 
Triple typing sounds cool but there would be issues with the weakness of many pokemon. Maybe only a few pokemon could have it but it is unlikely.
 
I... think I would be okay with it, at least in some limited capacity. As The Outrage stated, they have already dabbled in them somewhat with this Generation (as well as dual-typed moves, with Flying Press, and everybody used to think that that would never work either). Maybe for now, it could be tied to a certain Ability. But adding an actual third type bar to the status screen? Eh... I don't think that they should bust the lid on it just yet.
 
I think 3 types all together would be way to confusing and intense to understand.

I like the idea of Pokemon being the same type twice. Ie Fire/Fire type. Fire moves would receive 2 same type attack bonuses but a water or ground type for example would do 4x damage
 
The problem, like with only 4 move slots and 6 Pokemon per party is when do they stop? Once you do a 3 type would GF think about a 4 type?

It would be cool in some instances but if it is ever done there should be a reasonable amount who are triple type.
 
Azuro said:
I think 3 types all together would be way to confusing and intense to understand.

I like the idea of Pokemon being the same type twice. Ie Fire/Fire type. Fire moves would receive 2 same type attack bonuses but a water or ground type for example would do 4x damage
Click to expand...
no to come off as rude, but triple typing is confusing but double of one type isn't? to me, that comes off more confusing than triple typing.
 
Please note: The thread is from 10 years ago.
Please take the age of this thread into consideration in writing your reply. Depending on what exactly you wanted to say, you may want to consider if it would be better to post a new thread instead.
Back
Top Bottom