What types are currently bad?

>I think Grass and Bug are underpowered because they have lots of weaknesses and few super effective hits and lots of types resist their STAB.
That's a pretty common assessment of the situation. It's also WRONG. To understand why, you have to think about how a Pokémon can be balanced.

There are several characteristics about a Pokémon which can be good or bad, that is, several ways in which it can be buffed or nerfed. Specifically, there are its typing, stats, ability and movepool. For in-game balance, there is also availability, difficutly to catch and difficulty to evolve, but let's ignore those aspects for now.

I mention this because to understand type balance, you have to understand that balanced types do not mean that all types are equally strong. In fact, there should be weak types that can be used to balance out Pokémon with good stats, movepools and abilities. What good balance in Pokémon should be understood to mean is that there are worthwhile Pokémon of every type.

Now take a look at Grass and Bug types. Grass types in general have very strong move pools, with things like Leech Seed, Powder moves, Synthesis, Aromatherapy, and Giga Drain. As such, their support movepool is often stellar. Grass types also work well in the most common core, Fire/Water/Grass, due to their resistances. Bug types also get a number of good moves like U-Turn and Quiver Dance, but often have well distributed stats (pretty much all the Bug Megas) and good abilities (Speed Boost, Aerilate, Techinician, Skill Link, Moxie...) as well. The type also pairs well with Steel because of its key resistances. Because of this, even though the two types are weak, they feature a lot of worthwhile Pokémon and work well as they currently are.

Let's move on to types that actually need attention.

Currently very good offensive types are: Dark, Ghost and Flying
Currently very good defensive types are: Water, Fairy and Steel
Curently bad types are: Poison, Ice and Rock

>But Dark, Ghost and Flying don't hit many things super effectively, and Ice and Rock do! Clearly those are the types that are actually good offensively!
WRONG AGAIN. A type with many super effective hits is a good coverage type, not necessarily a good offensive type.

Good offensive types need strong neutral coverage, the ability to switch in, and strong attacking moves.

But why is that? In general, a sweeper will want to come in on a resisted hit or after one of your Pokémon faints, set up one stats raising move (Sword Dance, Nasty Plot, Dragon Dance...) and KO the remaining Pokémon on the opponent's side with its strong STAB moves. If they are actually worthwhile sweepers, they can do this with neutral hits. Since it is much easier to get perfect neutral coverage than perfect SE coverage on a Pokémon (you can do it in as little as two moves), good neutral coverage in its STABs is the desired trait for a sweeper.

Look at what Pokémon were good sweepers in the past: You will see that Psychic types were good in Gen I, even though they only hit two types super effectively, because they were unresisted except for Psychic itself, which, if anything, buffs the type more. In Gen II-V, Dragons were the best sweepers. And they had all the traits I listed above: Strong neutral coverage (only resisted by Steel), enough common resistances to switch in safely, and powerful STAB moves (Outrage).

There is one thing I neglected to mention that can severely nerf an offensive type: If another type is immune to it, a type becomes much less effective offensively, both for sweeping and wall breaking. Psychic stopped being a stand out offensive type when Dark was introduced, as did Dragon with Fairy. Similarly, Normal, Ground and Electric were never overpoweringly strong. You will notice that the types that I identified initially as good offensive types all don't have types that are immune to them.

So what about types with many super effective hits? Those are the types of which you want a move on your offensive Pokémon to cover those types that resist your STAB. As established above, a good offensive Pokémon should be able to KO opponents neutrally with its STAB moves after setting up. If there are any types for which it can't, you will want to give it a move to hit those types super effectively, since even the Pokémon with the highest offensive stats will not likely be able to KO opponents from (nearly) full health with a non-STAB move. Because of this, Rock, Ice, Ground and Fighting are popular as coverage moves, but these types feature few good sweepers themselves due to their poor neutral coverage (with the exception of Ground).

Now, with all this out of the way, what about the good offensive types of this generation? Ghost, to me, seems good, but balanced. There are not any Ghost types I can name that are overpowered due to their offensive potential (Aegislash and Mega Gengar are too strong due to their abilities, primarily). There also already exists an immunity to Ghost type in Normal type. So, if they become a problem, it would be in my opinion the best course of action to buff Normal.

Dark is very good right now, with Knock Off, Dark Pulse, Foul Play and Sucker Punch all being very useful moves. Of those, Knock Off seems to be the bigges problem, since it is very strong and removes items. However, not overpowered Dark-type sweeper currently exists. There is a danger that Dark will be too strong in the future, and I'd recommend making Knock Off worse or introducing a Dark immunity to balance the type. If a Dark immunity is introduced, Dark would probably appreciate a small buff as well, though (another resist or SE hit).

Flying is very strong on paper, but not yet too strong in practice. Talonflame shows the potential the type has to become overpowered, but since there are few good Flying type moves right now (Brave Bird, Acrobatics and Hurricane all have massive drawbacks) not many good Flying sweepers exist. However, Flying is already a good defensive type due to its immunity to Ground and access to Roost. My prediction is that if a widely available 90BP Flying type move were to be introduced, Flying would be the next overpowered sweeping type.

On to the defensive side:

Steel is good defensively, but weak to many very common coverage types. The type was already nerfed in this generation. It is fine was it is, right now.

Water is a good type that has been strong since generation I. While I would say it is mostly balanced, it would still be fine after a few nerfs.

Fairy is currently one of the best defensive types, since its only weaknesses are uncommon as coverage. If your Fairy type is bulky enough, it will be able to eat neutral hits all day and heal back up with one of the reliable recovery moves Fairies get. It is certainly one of the types with the least drawbacks right now. A cautious nerf would probably be appropriate.

And to the bad types:

There is little reason to run an Ice type, defensively or offensively. They are too much work for the benefit they usually provide. Having no resists is probably the main reason why they are so bad. The type definitely needs a buff defensively.

Rock types are a strange case. The fact that many of the fossil Pokémon are good, but niche shows that they have the potential to be good. I believe this type mainly needs better moves and stats to be useful. It does not work as a mainly slow and bulky type, as it is currently designed. Possibly removing one of its many weaknesses would be appropriate, too.

Poison is a type with a lot of potential. It could be a very useful defensive type, and competent offensive type, but as it is there are few worthwhile Poison type Pokémon. Poison types have the movepool and stats to be good, but so a type buff would help them.

After all this, those are balance changes I'd consider appropriate:

>Ice resists Flying and Water. Using Ice-type moves now cures Burn (or else the Water resist does not mean much due to Scald, and it has the added effect to nerf Burn in general).

>Poison-type moves are super effective on Water types. A move that can hit Steel types neutrally is introduced, mostly exclusive to Poison types.

>Rock-type is no longer weak to Ground and Grass (and gets a few better moves and better stat distributions in the future).

>Fairy is weak to Grass.

>Knock Off is now 75 BP all the time (no more *1.5 damage when removing an item). A 90 BP physical Dark-type move with good distribution is introduced to compensate.

>If a Dark-type immunity is necessary still, let it go to Bug.

>Stealth Rock is fine as it is, and in fact helps balance Flying and Fire types.

>>26138639
>Stealth Rock is fine as it is, and in fact helps balance Flying and Fire types.
If by "balance" you mean drop them down two tiers by default and invalidate a whole bunch of them for the sake of balancing two types that were never really that powerful to begin with

>>26138756
Way to pick out the one point I didn't write a huge wall of text on.

>>26138832
Sorry, I just hate Stealth Rock and find it's existence undefendable

>>26138832
Nobody is going to read all that shit, let's be honest.

>>26138864
I guess you have a wall of text coming your way, then. Give me some time, though, I need to finish some actually important stuff first.

>>26138883
Well, maybe one guy will. It's not important. I just wrote this up after being frustrated about the level of game knowledge in type chart threads, might as well post it.

>>26138887
And I won't read it because if it's defending Stealth Rock it's by default bullshit

>but types have well distributed stats
>look at megas

Megas don't count. Most bug types have unfortunate stats. Almost all are frail, and the ones with good defenses have low HP or no recovery move, or some horrible defensive typing like bug/flying.

Offensively they aren't the best either. Usually they have some balance between attack and defense with only special attacking moves or vice versa.

>>26138639
>Stealth Rock is fine as it is, and in fact helps balance Flying and Fire types.

50% health is bullshit. No fucking frills about it

>B-B-BUT TALONFLAME!
Maybe they shouldn't have created a bullshit priority ability.

>>26138901
Hey OP, good read. You have an impressive attention span.

I'm interested to see someone actually stick up for sneaky pebbles. You ready to outrun the mob?

>>26139009
>I'm interested to see someone actually stick up for sneaky pebbles. You ready to outrun the mob?

People have been doing it for years.
>muh volcarona balance
>muh talonflame balance
I don't even remember what scapegoat they were using in gen 4 to say that stealth rocks were needed

How about Weather buffing more than just Water and Fire types?

For example, Ghost types gain a buff in the rain and nerf in the sun. Flying types gain a buff in the sun and nerf in the rain. And Grass types could gain a buff in both weather conditions. And Hail obviously gives a buff to Ice.

Weather buffs could go a long way in helping out types.

>>26138955
>Megas don't count
That's arbitrary. The fact is, there are a good number of viable Bug types: Scizor (base and Mega), Pinsir (Mega), Beedrill (Mega), Heracross (mostly Mega, but base does OK), Volcarona, Scolipede, Forretress and Shuckle are all perfectly viable in OU.

>Most bug types have unfortunate stats. Almost all are frail, and the ones with good defenses have low HP or no recovery move, or some horrible defensive typing like bug/flying.

This is because of how Pokémon is not just balanced for PvP, but also for in game. All the early game Bugs are there to give players a Pokémon that they can catch and evolve early to and that has moderate power for that point of the game. The early game Normal and Flying types used to be the same. Game Freak showed that they can make those viable competitively (Diggersby, Talonflame) while still preserving their role in game, and I hope they do this for Bugs in the future as well. They tried with Vivillon, but fell short. I won't argue the likes of Butterfree are good, but make no mistake: No amount of buffs to the Bug type will make them worthwhile without making Scizor, Volcarona and Scolipede and the like OP. I am hoping for updates in the future in the form of Megas and slight stat buffs.

>>26138967
>>26139009
>>26139044

I will get back to you in a few minutes.

>>26139044
Oh yeah, I've seen that but I figured he'd have something a little more sentient to add.

Something better than a move existing to fuck a handful of specific mons to prevent them from being broken, which is just awful reasoning in so many ways.

>>26139048
Why does Ice still not get a buff of some kind in hail the way Rock does in sand?

>>26139067
>The early game Normal and Flying types used to be the same. Game Freak showed that they can make those viable competitively (Diggersby, Talonflame) while still preserving their role in game, and I hope they do this for Bugs in the future as well. They tried with Vivillon, but fell short
For discussions sake, how should one go about making a competitively viable early game Pokemon?

>>26139190

By giving them a broken HA. That's about it, and it's the lazy/easy way. Either that or a really good move that's only at a really high level.

>>26139190
>>26139201
If Talonflame is any indication, that is certainly how it is done.

Other ways include giving them good egg moves and giving them moves that are bad in game, but good in PvP (entry hazards, Pursuit...).

>>26138639
In an ideal world, I could see this working in a sense. However, I think a few things are a little "radical" consider they lack testing.

Fairy being weak to grass is unnecessary -- I would say make grass resist it. Honestly, from my experience, Fairy just falls apart when anything Fire, Steel, Psychic, or a mix of them is switched in. Most fairies at the moment have a very shallow move pool from what I'm aware (I'm only semi-immersed in the 'competitive' scene) and/or rely on a second typing to cover those things. Mainly fairy has access to itself, grass, psychic, normal, and maybe ghost? Point is, almost none of them (so far) have anything that challenges the types they're resisted by/weak to and thus rely on being a defensive support/cleric/setup type. I think the main reason for the Fairy hype is that dark and fighting and dragon were SO strong until fairies came around. People got used to it.

Definitely agree on the Ice-type bit. There also needs to be some kind of speed decrease in hail/snow, as is hail's just like "lol here's a random niche speed boost and some damage I guess". I dunno about ice-moes curing burn--maybe--but I think something more like Ice types being unable to be burned in the first place would make more sense maybe? Are they immune to freezing? I dunno.

Also imagine if they buffed freeze chances by even just a tiny bit. Ice would get so good.

I don't see them adding a whole new weakness to one of the starter types, referring to Poison > water. I think that's another case of "make poison resist water".

Rock type -- agreed as fuck. Please let's make it different from ground finally.

Even if you have a decent point about Bug type, I still think they ought to be offensively better if anything. Less of a support type and more of a "we're gonna overwhelm you until you swat us with one of our many weaknesses" kinda thing. I think it'd be awesome to have bugs immune to dark. I mean, bugs thrive at night and in darkness, so why not?

>>26139241
I like the idea of bug being immune to Dark because it basically means bugs are too dumb to fool. Dark is all about fighting dirty, and what good is that against something as singleminded as an insect?
It also means they get harder to kill the craftier you are at fighting (normal > fighting > dark). Just tickles my fancy for some reason.

>>26139355
Except fighting is not "crafty" in the sense that they are using tricks. They are the opposite side of spectrum of dark

>>26139360
Yeah, not the best word for it, but you get what I mean. You have to drop all the technique and just smash them with a rock.

>Stealth Rocks are OP, losing half of your HP on switch in is bullshit!

It is bullshit, but the game is still better of with Stealth Rocks than without them.

Stealth Rocks as an entry hazard has three primary purposes:
It breaks Focus Sash and Sturdy, it secures OHKOs and 2HKOs, and it puts a tax on switching.

All of those functions are desirable, because they make matches faster. Focus Sash is an incredibly good tool for revenge killers and sweepers, since it very nearly guarantees getting out one attack/setting up one boost. Securing KOs gives a player the option to play more proactively and playing according to their own plan instead of playing reactively according to the opponent's moves. Putting a tax on switching makes it so that the game gets more offensive, since it is harder to avoid damage. People often underestimate how crucial the option to switch is in Pokémon, but consider VoltTurn, Shadow Tag, Magnet Pull, Arena Trap, Regenerator and Baton Pass: All of these are extremely good in Pokémon, because if you can switch freely and the opponent can't, or you can switch at a benefit, you are in a markedly better position than your opponent. This is why it is good to give players an option to weaken the choice of switching for their opponents in Stealth Rock.

Now, let's look at what types are affected by Rocks. Those types are Ice, Bug, Flying and Fire. Bug has, in U-Turn, one of the best moves in the game, since it is free damage on a switch that nothing is immune to. It makes sense to offer a defense to this in Rocks. Ice is, as I said in my posts above, a weak type right now. The types characteristics are not good, as are its Pokémon. There is not much reason for Rocks to make them worse, however, nerfing Rocks or removing them will also not make them the type more viable as a whole.

Moving on to the two types that in my opinion justify Stealth Rocks. For Flying type, I already mentioned the types great neutral coverage, and how it is on the cusp of becoming the next overpowered offensive type if it gets a no-drawback 90 BP move. But Flying is also a good type defensively because it resists the common coverage types of Rock and Ground. The Ground-type immunity is especially useful, because it means that Flying gets an essentially free upgrade when paired with Electric, and makes for the best type to pair with Steel, which is already the best defensive type. It makes sense to have Flying weak to an entry hazard considering this, especially since it is immune to all other hazards in the game.

Finally, Fire. Fire has been becoming a tremendously good type as of late. Fire was always a good coverage type, especially since it hits Steel super effectively. When paired with a good secondary STAB, it makes for a good sweeping type as well. But one thing a lot of people don't realize is that Fire is also the type with the second most resistances in the game, with six. I would put Fire into the top 5 of both offensive and defensive types currently. That alone justifies a weakness to a common element of play to me. But let's also not forget that there are a lot of Fire types with good stats, moves and abilities. Fire really is a type that has everything going for it.

Now, the main complaint about Stealth Rocks is that it makes certain Pokémon unviable by cutting their HP in half upon switch in. But which Pokémon would that be? Talonflame, Charizard and Volcarona already do very well. Most early game Bug/Flying types would not be viable even without Rocks. Articuno has little going for it, as does Moltres. So what Pokémon would actually be viable if it were not for Rocks? As of now, I can't think of a good answer.

I would like to close my thoughts on this by pointing out that it is easily possible to deal with Stealth Rocks currently. Rapid Spin, Defog, Taunt, Magic Bounce and Magic Coat exist and are available widely enough. If you don't like having to bring hazard removal, play a hyper offense team. You are not forced to use Stealth Rocks or removal, they are just a very strong option that will help you deal with some major threats a little easier.

>>26139406
>For Flying type, I already mentioned the types great neutral coverage, and how it is on the cusp of becoming the next overpowered offensive type if it gets a no-drawback 90 BP move
Many types have high BP moves with no drawback. We've had Surf and Earthquake, both of which are even higher in terms of BP with no accuracy drawbacks, and they never broke their respective types.

>one layer of stealth rocks does half of current damage
>two layers does full damage
how does /vp/ feel about this

>>26139447
I wrote about this in my initial posts. Ground has a very prevalent immunity and Water has common resist as well as immunities through abilities. Flying has no immunity at all, and Rock is not a common type to have on a team. Steel is good of course, but I am not claiming that Flying is too strong yet, only that it could be if it had better distributed strong moves.

>>26139406
Am I missing something or did you say that Flying is good defensively because it resists Rock?

Aside from that, you've got some good points, but here's what I object to.

U-turn being bug-type is not a justification for further shitting on the type when most of the mons that can learn it aren't even bug.

The fact that removing rocks wouldn't make certain mons viable in the meta isn't doesn't mean making life harder for them is okay. That's just mean.

Checking flying types for what they could potentially be isn't a road you should go down when balancing.

Personally, I think entry hazards are kinda fun. I've loved toxic spikes since I found out about them and I have an appreciation for that kind of early game investment. The problem with rocks is that they only take one turn of setup to get full effectiveness, have nothing that can inherently clear them by switching in like toxic spikes, and allow for passive super effective hits on types that are all over the board in terms of viability, but none of which are actually broken.

Moreover, they hit a bunch of specific mons unfairly hard, which even if it isn't enough to knock them completely out of being viable does have a major impact on their usability.

That's too much for too little, especially compared to the other entry hazards, and especially for such a widely available move.

You mentioned that you think the game is better with them than without them, but I'm just not seeing it.

Hey Smogon shitter, all bugs are either raped or crippled by Talonflame

>>26139224
>>26139190
You can do it without making them absurdly broken a la Talonflame though, Staraptor and Swellow were both quite good early birds in their generations, Ninjask was a strong early bug back in DP. Linoone had some niche uses too with Belly Drum.

>>26139605
>Am I missing something or did you say that Flying is good defensively because it resists Rock?
I meant Fighting, not Rock. My mistake.

>The fact that removing rocks wouldn't make certain mons viable in the meta isn't doesn't mean making life harder for them is okay. That's just mean.

It is clear that there is no way all mons will ever be similarly good. In my opinion, there is no reason to warnt Rock-weak mons to be made stronger in general, and Rock-resistant mons weaker. You end up with some Pokémon being stronger than others in either case, and I can see no evidence that a game with better Rock-weak Pokémon would be more enjoyable. It might be, but there is little to suggest it will.

>Checking flying types for what they could potentially be isn't a road you should go down when balancing.

I find it more sensible to keep a type that I could forsee being too strong in check with mechanics that already exist than to want to nerf a mechanic that works OK even though there is no chance of it becoming worse for the game over time. Flying might well get better, but Stealth Rocks will never be more of a 'problem' than it is now. More likely, it will get easier to manage as new moves and abilities are introduced.

>You mentioned that you think the game is better with them than without them, but I'm just not seeing it.

It's fine if the arguments don't convince you as long as you acknowledge their existence.

Pretty good posts OP. I agree with almost everything, most notable exceptions being the Water and Fairy nerf. Also it would be nice seeing Rock having its own weaknesses and not sharing them with Ground, as someone said before me, but I don't know how it would work.

How about giving Ground a weakness to Bug?

>>26139695
The thing is removing rocks wouldn't actually make rock-resistant types weaker. If they were chosen to be on a team specifically for their resistance to stealth rock and stealth rock ate a nerf (or was removed, for the sake of argument) then yeah, they wouldn't be valued for that any more, but that isn't the same as being weaker in the sense that losing 25%-50% of your health on switch in is. When the trade off is that you see increased play from mons that were previously caught picking stones out of their ass, it seems like a good deal. I would always prefer to see a more diverse roster in rotation, but that's just opinion.

I think you're overestimating Gamefreak here. If they had the foresight to see Flying-types becoming overpowered then you would expect them to just refrain from adding in your wide distribution no catch 90BP move and call it a day. Instead the case seems to be that they threw rocks into the game for no better reason than that it occurred to them to make it, as opposed to it being a real shot at balancing something. Even so, relying on a single move to bring an otherwise overpowered type into line seems like bad design, but hell, who am I to say.

>It's fine if the arguments don't convince you as long as you acknowledge their existence.
Yup, no problem. It's nice to see a good discussion about gameplay on /vp/, as opposed to everything else going on at the moment. I don't even play competitively, I'm just commenting on what I've seen from other people's games.

>>26139918
I personally prefer giving buffs to giving nerfs as a general tool when balancing, but as far as the type chart is concerned only buffing things is difficult. I also don't think any types really need a defensive nerf, but if you want to give Poison and Grass an offensive buff, Fairy and Water are the types that probably can manage the best even with a nerf. Steel is another option, maybe.

Water seriously needs to get nerfed. That's all I care about. I'm so fucking tired of this typing getting away unscathed every gen:

>70% of the dex is water
>most are bulky shits that learn Scald
>still only weak to Electric and Grass, and Grass is uncommon in fights
>cancer like Rotom Wash exists
>water pollution exists but Poison doesn't do shit

Poison needs to be super effective againt Water. There is literally no excuse

>>26140029
I see Poison as a Dark's type little brother. It has some high damaging moves but also some "tricky", interesting on the paper moves like Blech or Venomshock, not good enough, but showing how to build Poison type in next gens. It is also a good type on the defensive side. I don't see it as a bad type overall specially when you pair it with other defensive types. I would balance it like GF balances bugs, working outside the chart.

>>26138545
So basically Bug types in the past have been made good DESPITE their subpar typing
Bug had shit for moves in gens 1-3, so since gen 4 increasingly useful (if not strong, although I wouldn't want to use that word because of Bug's type matchup chart. And people don't use U-Turn for the purpose of inflicting severe damage anyway) moves have been introduced. Bug has shit for resists, so it's been successfully paired up with types better in that regard (Steel). Offensively, Bug hits only one of your "good types" list super effectively (Dark) and the other two are far less relevant (Psychic has fallen far from grace since gen 1, and is another type that might be worth looking at for *minor* buffs. Grass is Grass and weak to plenty of other types). It's resisted by seven types, meaning it doesn't fall into the "good coverage" category either. This all just tells me that a good Bug is good DESPITE its typing.

>>26140100
Poison might do better if it was given more odd trick moves such as causing 20BP special damage whenever hit by a contact move.

It's something unique that makes sense and would improve the type without having to retcon the type chart.

>>26140194
Exactly. That and maybe some objects for them, ala black sludge.

I've said it before, but I still do not believe any power should be inherently stronger or weaker than any other.

>>26140190
That is the point exactly. It is fine if bad types exist as long as they are used to balance out other good points about Pokémon generally. I feel this is what Bug is used for currently.

>>26140247
Do you also believe that no Pokémon should have better stats than another?
Or that no Pokémon should have a better move pool than another?
Or that no Pokémon should have a better ability than another?

If you don't believe any of these you will have to ask yourself what makes types so special that they can't be better or worse than other types.

>>26139371
This wording just cemented the idea in my mind too. I love it.

>>26140623
"Special"?

>>>/tumblr/