Ice should do neutral damage against fire. Ice types have been too under powered since gen 2 with the introduction of steel. Fire just got a resist to fairy, so ice should revert back to neutral damage. Almost no one plays ice types head to head because of their horrible defensive typing, but it makes sense because of their glass canon nature, therefore they should be more offensive. It also just makes no fucking sense that ice melts into water and does low damage to fire types.
Pokemon really isn't that great of a competitive game, and Game Freak is never going to change this because they live in their own world (they can't even make half decent single player experiences any more). In competitive pokemon you always see the same 30 pokemon, with the same move pool, and the same stat spread, it gets old fast.
Blaze black was flawed, but a good step in the right direction. Pokemon would be a better game if we balanced the pokemon better, changed abilities, increased move pools, boosted stats, etc... but their are so many purists that think this is a bad idea, solely because they would have to change their team that they got from googling "best showdown team".
Also, why is pokemon still so focused on single battles? Don't get me wrong, they have their place, but triples always fall to the wayside when they are fundamentally much more tactical. Single battles can be interesting in a hack like blaze black, but competitively the meta game for singles is too narrow and limited.
Game freak needs to stop letting their children write the dialogue and story for pokemon. Compare the dialogue and story to Mother 2 or Chrono Trigger, or really most other jrpg's out there and you'll notice how grating it is. Everyone is tired of the same magma/galaxy/plasma bullshit, the story of you overcoming your own challenges and going to the pokemon league are always more interesting. If they had some better writers I would allow it, but currently i've read soup labels more interesting.
>>24601102
>increased move pools, boosted stats
>not decreased move pools
>not decreases stats
>>24601185
>I don't know how to green text
Same difference for stats, increase/decrease doesn't matter, they just need to be balanced.
Maybe a few pokemon need decreased move pools, like legendaries and psuedo's and ubers, but Legendaries as a whole are pretty awful and IMHO they could be removed, but there are bigger fish to fry.
The majority of pokemon could use an increase more than a decrease. Fighting/flying farfetched with sacred sword would be better than taking knock off from a few OU pokemon.
>>24601224
Move pools need to be decreased in total size though so that pokemon of the same type with similar BSTs have something to differentiate them.
Instead of pretty much every water type getting scald and ice beam, there should be more of a distinction between which ones get ice beam and which ones get scald, if either.
Farfetch'd could still get Sacred Sword (that'd make a lot of sense) but there should be way less moves that pokemon get.
>>24601340
This argument makes sense, the problem was I forgot a point.
Yes, it would be a good idea to remove a few moves and to differentiate, but what we also need is to rebalance the moves and improve the ones that are currently useless.
The one thing i liked about gen 6 was the new moves they added to the equation. Blaze black changes the function/power/typing of something like 60 moves, and it doubles the amount of viable moves on a pokemon, like making strength a rock type move or increasing the power of signal beam.
>>24601340
Scratch that, signal beam is the same power.
A better example would be making all the fang moves 75 power.
>>24601529
Kinda yes, kinda no. There still have to be moves like Tackle and Ember for in game reasons.
Make your own Pokemon game, anon.
No, seriously, do it. Whining about an unbalanced game that will never be balanced, because kids don't care, won't do a thing.
>>24601582
Yes, not every move has to be viable, just more of them. I understand the need for pre evolution moves.
>>24601630
This is an uncritical way of thinking, I don't have the power to fix everything I find flawed. My main goal is to stop the notion that pokemon is perfect the way it is, because it's not.
I'm not implying gamefreak should change anything, i'm saying that as a community we should seperate ourselves from their standards and rebalance pokemon showdown, PO, and the likes.
You're basically saying no one has the right to be critical.
>>24602200
>rebalance pokemon showdown, PO, and the likes
That's pretty much making your own Pokémon game like he said.
>>24602215
That would be the main end goal, currently the biggest problem is that people are ok with the current system of pokemon when they shouldn't just accept whatever dirt gets thrown at them.
>>24602215
Making my own game would do nothing if the community believes there's nothing wrong with pokemon currently.
>>24601102
>glass canon nature
Kinda reminds me of how shitty this game has become. Crazy that something with 180 defense is useless for tanking amd is better used as a sweeper.
>Ice should do neutral damage against fire
Just do this
>>24598700
Stop with your terrible fucking ideas
>Ice should resist ground/dragon/flying/grass/fire/poison/steel/rock/ghost!
>Bug should be 4x effective against everything!
>Ice needs to be equally as defensive of a type as Steel!
>Poison should be SE against Water or vice-versa!
garbage trash
>It also just makes no fucking sense that ice melts into water and does low damage to fire types.
Ice attacks are generally:
- coldness based, which would be countered by something good at heating itself
- just lobbing ice chunks or whatever at the opponent. The attack is based off the pretense that it will be solid; a Fire being would partially melt the solid structure of it before it hits. Also Ice is less dense than water, so a chunk of ice would get smaller the hotter it gets.
>>24601102
>Ice should do neutral damage against fire. Ice types have been too under powered
What the fuck are you talking about, retard? Ice offensively is one of the fucking best. Giving it some resistances/etc. is what it needs.
>>24602298
Wow. You are seriously bristling at even the insinuation that pokemon isn't perfect.
>>24602345
I'm saying OP and people like him have shit ideas for type rebalance, and I linked to my own which is a change from what's there already. You seriously misunderstand my position here, I hope to someday make it to Harvard and receive your lectures on Quantum Shitposting
>>24602311
I know it's offensively the best for moves on other pokemon. Few people use ice type pokemon. Only ones that come to mind that gets used competitively are Weavile and Kyurem.
>>24602365
I suggested one type change and said many other things in my post, no need to shit your pants.
Your logic on ice vs fire supports my opinion better than yours... Water does 2x, so less water should do 1x, it's still a good amount moving at a high velocity, it makes sense.
>>24602365
>>24601102
>Ice should do neutral damage against fire.
Stopped reading right there
>>24601102
If we're actually talking realism ice and fire should be se against each other.
>>24601102
>giving ice an offensive buff
stopped reading right there
>>24602951
As it currently stands, fire is equal for offensive type match ups, and has better resistance. Fire types have better attack and SA stats on average.
Ice is supposed to be a glass canon class, but they're outdone defensively and offensively by fire currently.
So yeah, i think they should get a minor offensive buff.
>>24602967
>class instead of type
What the fuck was I thinking.
>>24601102
Thanks for the new copypasta, mate.
>>24601102
All I read is Ice should do neutral damage to fire .... no. Ice is a fantastic OFFENSIVE type. Find me a team that is packing multiple Ice Beams or Icy Winds. Making Ice a better offensive type != making ice types better.
More complaints: Making Ice a better offensive typing won't make Ice types better or more playable, it will make Ice type MOVES better or more playable. It would essentially be an indirect buff to bulky water types.
Singles ISN'T Nintendos preferred battle style, doubles is. Singles is Smogons preferred battle style. VGC is a great format, relatively. Doubles is like a puzzle, singles is like a piss match to see who can set up and sweep first.
