New Pokemon Type idea: Wood (yes, seriously)

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

Im gonna doubt the devs think this far in, if they did, the game would be balanced. Xd

See: Gen1 Psychic type, which was overpowered under the premise "psychic is supreme" no other logic needed apparantly.

Pokmeon is pretty balanced given its number of types. It wasn't in Gen 1 by a long shot, but that's why they added Dark and Steel as balancers (still took a while for Bug to justify its existence though). The battle system for Pokemon is good, like really good. It's run into some issues over the years of mechanical bloat, but it's still better than a lot of its competitors.

2 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

They separated rock and ground just fine, im sure applying the same here isnt that difficult.

I said a reason other than "It is technically different to grass".

[Lord_Brand]

21 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The problem with Fighting and Steel sharing three advantages is, it makes them redundant. Like, if I have a Fighting-type Mon, and they have a Steel-type attack option, then I should have a reason to consider adding it to the moveset. Before Gen VI, this only happened in niche cases (i.e. Jynx, Froslass). Gen VI added Fairies, giving offensive Steel more uses (while still keeping it a rather middling offensive type IMO). Giving it another unique advantage (relative to Fighting) could help it stand out further, and make adding the move more "worth it".

So then, the more important detail is what types resist or are immune to Fighting and Steel. Objectively, Steel is safer than Fighting as no type is immune to Steel. But then there are cases where you'd prefer to use Fighting over Steel, like a Rock/Steel-type or any Pokemon that's part Fire, Water, or Electric and isn't Flying, Bug, Psychic, Fairy, or Ghost. In the case of a Wood-type, you could have, say, a Wood/Ghost type where Steel will shine over Fighting, but then a Wood/Water type like those you suggested earlier would definitely favor Fighting over Steel.

I mean, sure, on an objective level it's more important for Steel to be SE against Wood than Fighting, but to me it makes sense that both would be SE for similar reasons as Rock and Ice. Honestly, if I'm going to drop any of Fighting's existing advantages, it's going to be Ice, as Ice has plenty of weaknesses thanks to Rock, Steel, and Fire. I'm not sure why they made Ice weak to Fighting as well.

Also, I just realized Fire should be resistant to Fighting as well. And Psychic should perhaps be resistant to Fire and Ice due to the classic "mind over matter" tropes of walking on hot coals and meditating under ice-cold waterfalls.

21 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

As for Grass, I don't think it's out of line to ask that one of the worst defensive types in the game not be burdened with another weakness. Like, if Grass had immunities and a bunch more resistances, then it could probably be "balanced" even with 6 or more weaknesses. But that's not the game it inhabits.

There are ways one could balance that out, like giving some Grass-types an ability akin to Sturdy or Wonder Guard that might be broken on "better" types or type combinations. I also would intend for Grass itself to be SE against my proposed Light type due to Grass absorbing light and turning it into energy via photosynthesis, so ideally it would have that extra advantage to help balance things out. Similar to why Grass beats Water, you know?

16 hours ago, Jotari said:

Because things shouldn't be done just for the sake of doing it in game design  it needs to have a role. Megaevolutions did have a role. They were essentially new pokemon each and the limit of one per team influenced how teams were built (they also allowed older Pokemon who had been power crept to get back in on the scene). There's loads of types you could make up for pokemon. Wood, light, machine, sound, steam, space, nuclear and so on. But pokemon isn't some kind of attempt to categorize all classical elements, it's a gameplay system with each type having a defined role in that system.

Okay then. What is each type's role in the system?

Edited March 20, 2022 by Lord_Brand

[Jotari]

8 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

Okay then. What is each type's role in the system?

 

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 hour ago, Lord_Brand said:

I mean, sure, on an objective level it's more important for Steel to be SE against Wood than Fighting, but to me it makes sense that both would be SE for similar reasons as Rock and Ice. Honestly, if I'm going to drop any of Fighting's existing advantages, it's going to be Ice, as Ice has plenty of weaknesses thanks to Rock, Steel, and Fire. I'm not sure why they made Ice weak to Fighting as well.

I would be fine with such a change. Lore-wise, I think it's as simple as "Ice is brittle, so you can shatter it with a punch or kick". Still, kind of weird for, say, Cloyster to be vulnerable to Fighting-type attacks.

1 hour ago, Lord_Brand said:

There are ways one could balance that out, like giving some Grass-types an ability akin to Sturdy or Wonder Guard that might be broken on "better" types or type combinations. I also would intend for Grass itself to be SE against my proposed Light type due to Grass absorbing light and turning it into energy via photosynthesis, so ideally it would have that extra advantage to help balance things out. Similar to why Grass beats Water, you know?

Sure, and an Ice-type Mon could be defensively good with the Wonder Guard ability. That doesn't make Ice a good defensive typing, and doesn't do any favors to other Ice-types. If you don't want to change the type chart, though, Ice-types could at least get a 50% Defense boost in Hail (paralleling Rock-types SpDef boost from Sandstorm).

As for the bolded part, I won't make any statement on the merits of such a proposed addition, except to say that it would do no favors to Grass as a defensive type. To be a defensive boost, it must be enjoyed by Grass-types who run a set with no Grass-type offense, while not being accessible to non-Grass-types who run Grass-type coverage moves.

1 hour ago, Lord_Brand said:

Also, I just realized Fire should be resistant to Fighting as well. And Psychic should perhaps be resistant to Fire and Ice due to the classic "mind over matter" tropes of walking on hot coals and meditating under ice-cold waterfalls.

It seems like we're getting out into the weeds here. Ideally, a Wood-type could be worked into the type chart without any more than a handful of tweaks to existing type matchups. Such as how, when Fairy was added, Steel lost its Ghost and Dark resistances (to accomodate for its new Fairy resistance).

[Lord_Brand]

8 hours ago, Jotari said:

<snip>

That...doesn't explain it very well.

Like, okay, you feel Wood needs to play some kind of "role" to justify its addition. You pointed to Fairy being a stronger answer against Dragons. But what about the first 15 types? When the game was first being made, what was their intended roles? How about when Dark and Steel were added in Gen II?

To me, the entire crux of the type system is that each type represents a resonant concept that the developers want to use in an engaging combat system of advantages and disadvantages. The flavor of the types came first, and the mechanical, metagame aspects followed.

I feel like you're only looking at one aspect of Pokemon types, here. In a series designed to entertain players on many different levels, there are far more purposes to consider than just "Does this help rebalance the metagame?" There's a flavor aspect that players enjoy. And each new type added to the chart can redefine the metagame thanks to the new advantages, weaknesses, resistances, and immunities they bring to the table. When designing the Wood type in the OP, I was considering ways to distinguish Wood from Grass while giving Wood its own identity as a type. To that end, I asked myself "What is wood commonly used for?" The the obvious answer to that of course was to build things. Thus, I give Wood an emphasis on building, like with the Barricade move which does something completely novel for the game, creating defensive structures that the opponent has to wear down.

In terms of combat strategy, Wood is highly defensive in a manner different from Grass. Where Grass relies on status effects and life drain to wear the opponent down, Wood instead creates obstacles to soak up damage, uses status buffs to make itself stronger and tougher, and hits hard with physical attacks. Nowadays Grass is fairly balanced in physical and special stats, while Wood leans heavily towards the physical, similar to Dark (ironic, seeing as Dark was originally classed as a special type). The difference between Grass and Wood is like the difference between a druid and a carpenter or engineer.

7 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I would be fine with such a change. Lore-wise, I think it's as simple as "Ice is brittle, so you can shatter it with a punch or kick". Still, kind of weird for, say, Cloyster to be vulnerable to Fighting-type attacks.

Sure, and an Ice-type Mon could be defensively good with the Wonder Guard ability. That doesn't make Ice a good defensive typing, and doesn't do any favors to other Ice-types. If you don't want to change the type chart, though, Ice-types could at least get a 50% Defense boost in Hail (paralleling Rock-types SpDef boost from Sandstorm).

As for the bolded part, I won't make any statement on the merits of such a proposed addition, except to say that it would do no favors to Grass as a defensive type. To be a defensive boost, it must be enjoyed by Grass-types who run a set with no Grass-type offense, while not being accessible to non-Grass-types who run Grass-type coverage moves.

It seems like we're getting out into the weeds here. Ideally, a Wood-type could be worked into the type chart without any more than a handful of tweaks to existing type matchups. Such as how, when Fairy was added, Steel lost its Ghost and Dark resistances (to accomodate for its new Fairy resistance).

I should have mentioned that I'd also intend for Grass to be resistant to Light, if not outright immune to it. Incidentally that's another area where Grass and Wood could be differentiated, as Wood probably wouldn't have such a resistance to Light.

The part about the other resistances is more of a side observation.

At the end of the day, Wood was a suggestion I made because I realized it could have very different properties from Grass while still feeling related to it, and thus potentially open new swaths of design space. And as evidenced by SP1M's ideas, I'd say adding the Wood type would allow for some fun new designs.

[Jotari]

11 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

That...doesn't explain it very well.

Like, okay, you feel Wood needs to play some kind of "role" to justify its addition. You pointed to Fairy being a stronger answer against Dragons. But what about the first 15 types? When the game was first being made, what was their intended roles? How about when Dark and Steel were added in Gen II?

To me, the entire crux of the type system is that each type represents a resonant concept that the developers want to use in an engaging combat system of advantages and disadvantages. The flavor of the types came first, and the mechanical, metagame aspects followed.

I feel like you're only looking at one aspect of Pokemon types, here. In a series designed to entertain players on many different levels, there are far more purposes to consider than just "Does this help rebalance the metagame?" There's a flavor aspect that players enjoy. And each new type added to the chart can redefine the metagame thanks to the new advantages, weaknesses, resistances, and immunities they bring to the table. When designing the Wood type in the OP, I was considering ways to distinguish Wood from Grass while giving Wood its own identity as a type. To that end, I asked myself "What is wood commonly used for?" The the obvious answer to that of course was to build things. Thus, I give Wood an emphasis on building, like with the Barricade move which does something completely novel for the game, creating defensive structures that the opponent has to wear down.

In terms of combat strategy, Wood is highly defensive in a manner different from Grass. Where Grass relies on status effects and life drain to wear the opponent down, Wood instead creates obstacles to soak up damage, uses status buffs to make itself stronger and tougher, and hits hard with physical attacks. Nowadays Grass is fairly balanced in physical and special stats, while Wood leans heavily towards the physical, similar to Dark (ironic, seeing as Dark was originally classed as a special type). The difference between Grass and Wood is like the difference between a druid and a carpenter or engineer.

And I feel like you're just inventing types for the sake of inventing them rather than looking into how they function. The issues ShantyPete has brought up (and he seems to even like the idea) are only the tip of the ice berg of problems that come with adding a new type. Like I said, Pokemon is not some kind of attempt to categorize all elemental properties, the types are there for gameplay. Is there a style aspect? Well yes, of course, but you shouldn't highlight style of substance. A type needs to have substance. Why do I need to have a wood type Pokemon or attack on my team? What am I missing out by choosing not to have it? If I have a flying type I can swap into earthquakes and spikes. If I have an earth type I can avoid electric attacks that might go for my flying type. If I have a poison type I can absorb poison spikes and deal poison damage. If I have a steel type I can resist most things, but steel has a weakness to ground encouraging me to also pack that first flying type. You could double the number of pokemon types, but then what have you actually achieved? Twice as many things to remember and a game with actually less type interaction as a result, as the more types you add the more neutral damage each type deals. Imagine Pokemon with 25 or 30 types, how is that actually better than 18?

Edited March 21, 2022 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

And I feel like you're just inventing types for the sake of inventing them rather than looking into how they function. The issues ShantyPete has brought up (and he seems to even like the idea) are only the tip of the ice berg of problems that come with adding a new type. Like I said, Pokemon is not some kind of attempt to categorize all elemental properties, the types are there for gameplay. Is there a style aspect? Well yes, of course, but you shouldn't highlight style of substance. A type needs to have substance. Why do I need to have a wood type Pokemon or attack on my team? What am I missing out by choosing not to have it? If I have a flying type I can swap into earthquakes and spikes. If I have an earth type I can avoid electric attacks that might go for my flying type. If I have a poison type I can absorb poison spikes and deal poison damage. If I have a steel type I can resist most things, but steel has a weakness to ground encouraging me to also pack that first flying type. You could double the number of pokemon types, but then what have you actually achieved? Twice as many things to remember and a game with actually less type interaction as a result, as the more types you add the more neutral damage each type deals. Imagine Pokemon with 25 or 30 types, how is that actually better than 18?

I think these are valuable considerations, but I don't know that every type has a "niche" in this sense. Like, why should I carry a Bug-Type Pokemon on my team? It resists Fighting, but Ghosts are immune to Fighting. It resists Ground, but Flying-types are immune to Ground. It resists Grass, but to no greater extent than Steel-, Poison-, or Grass-types themselves. On the negative side, it shares some of Grass' common weaknesses (Fire, Flying), while also being weak to Rocks (read - Stealth Rock). As for offenses, it's rarely used for coverage: it beats Psychic and Dark, but both types (as of Gen VI) have two other weaknesses. And it beats Grass, but so do a lot of other types. You're only really likely to see Bug-type attacks as STAB or as U-Turn. I'd go as far as saying that you could remove the Bug-type, and re-type its Mons and moves, without a huge disruption to the type chart. It feels like a type that's "flavor first, mechanics second".

Anyway, we already have at least one reason for adding Wood-type coverage: it's a move that beats Electric-types without being walled by Flying-type or Levitate Mons. The only move like that in the game is Thousand Arrows, which has functionally no distribution. 

7 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

I should have mentioned that I'd also intend for Grass to be resistant to Light, if not outright immune to it. Incidentally that's another area where Grass and Wood could be differentiated, as Wood probably wouldn't have such a resistance to Light.

Well that much could help defensive Grass, sure. Still, juggling the type matchups of a newly-proposed type, and its relationship to the existing chart, is tricky enough without considering relations among yet other hypothetical types. For the Wood-type to "work", I think it be able to stand as the 19th type in a game with 19 types.

7 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

At the end of the day, Wood was a suggestion I made because I realized it could have very different properties from Grass while still feeling related to it, and thus potentially open new swaths of design space. And as evidenced by SP1M's ideas, I'd say adding the Wood type would allow for some fun new designs.

Broadly speaking, I do like the proposal. But I do think that, if it's going to be introduced, it needs to get more than a handful of Mons and moves. Make sure it's more than a mere "sideshow", and that it avoids coming across as a "subtype" of Grass, but one that can stand on its own (both thematically and mechanically).

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I think these are valuable considerations, but I don't know that every type has a "niche" in this sense. Like, why should I carry a Bug-Type Pokemon on my team? It resists Fighting, but Ghosts are immune to Fighting. It resists Ground, but Flying-types are immune to Ground. It resists Grass, but to no greater extent than Steel-, Poison-, or Grass-types themselves. On the negative side, it shares some of Grass' common weaknesses (Fire, Flying), while also being weak to Rocks (read - Stealth Rock). As for offenses, it's rarely used for coverage: it beats Psychic and Dark, but both types (as of Gen VI) have two other weaknesses. And it beats Grass, but so do a lot of other types. You're only really likely to see Bug-type attacks as STAB or as U-Turn. I'd go as far as saying that you could remove the Bug-type, and re-type its Mons and moves, without a huge disruption to the type chart. It feels like a type that's "flavor first, mechanics second".

Bugs largely play more into the single player aspect of Pokemon than the meta game, being the early game pokemon that evolve quickly. They still do function well enough at a competitive level by just making quite good bug Pokemon. But yes, you could conceivably take bug out of the game, and likewise, as I said earlier, Rock and Ground could have been merged. I wouldn't dare attempt to do that now given how deeply ingrained everything is though. Just like I wouldn't add another type without due consideration, I wouldn't remove one too.

3 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Anyway, we already have at least one reason for adding Wood-type coverage: it's a move that beats Electric-types without being walled by Flying-type or Levitate Mons. The only move like that in the game is Thousand Arrows, which has functionally no distribution. 

Well if you feel that's a dedicated enough niche, then great. I would question whether wood is the most intuitive type to do that with given the conversation on the previous page about how lightning actually interacts with trees but some kind of counter to both electric and flying would work (though likewise you could also have Rock resist electric to make it an actual more defensive type, likewise I'm not sure Grass's weakness to flying is all that justified, what is the logical reason behind that one any way?).

[Lord_Brand]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

And I feel like you're just inventing types for the sake of inventing them rather than looking into how they function.

Because I enjoy creating stuff? Because Types are one of the most interesting things you can add to Pokemon?

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

The issues ShantyPete has brought up (and he seems to even like the idea) are only the tip of the ice berg of problems that come with adding a new type. Like I said, Pokemon is not some kind of attempt to categorize all elemental properties, the types are there for gameplay.

According to you. Has anyone asked the developers about this? And even if they did, so what? The types mean different things for different people.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

Is there a style aspect? Well yes, of course, but you shouldn't highlight style of substance. A type needs to have substance. Why do I need to have a wood type Pokemon or attack on my team? What am I missing out by choosing not to have it? If I have a flying type I can swap into earthquakes and spikes. If I have an earth type I can avoid electric attacks that might go for my flying type. If I have a poison type I can absorb poison spikes and deal poison damage. If I have a steel type I can resist most things, but steel has a weakness to ground encouraging me to also pack that first flying type.

Except that style is what makes the game fun and worth playing in the first place. You could strip away all the type names and just call them Type A, Type B, Type C, Type D, Type E, Type F, Type G, Type H, Type I, Type J, Type K, Type L, Type M, Type N, Type O, Type P, Type Q, and Type R, while keeping all the type interactions intact for the sake of mechanical balance - but at that point, why would anyone care? P/C-type means nothing, but Dragon/Flying sure does. Style is just as important as substance; the interior of a car determines how well it drives, but the exterior of a car determines who wants to drive it.

To that end, I come up with types that I think would add a new creative element to the game that could thus excite players. The nitty-gritty of type interactions can be figured out for any type, but the type has to look fun to be worth adding. And when players see what the Wood-type offers, like cool boats, toys, etc. (thanks again, SP1M) not to mention concepts like defensive structures or an additional answer to Electric, they could be delighted by the unusual yet functional addition to the game. Wood can function on a multitude of levels beyond just the competitive scene.

As I frequently had to bring up during my MtG days, the game does not begin and end with the competitive metagame. It's really easy to forget that if it's all you care about, but the hard truth is that there are many players who don't give a damn about the metagame; they just want to play Light-type angels and maybe Wood-type dragon boats, and have those types interact the way they expect them to.

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

You could double the number of pokemon types, but then what have you actually achieved? Twice as many things to remember and a game with actually less type interaction as a result, as the more types you add the more neutral damage each type deals. Imagine Pokemon with 25 or 30 types, how is that actually better than 18?

So, Dark, Steel, and Fairy all made the game worse by increasing the number of types? Or were their additions justified in your eyes because they served some kind of metagame purpose?

I find it interesting that you seem to be assuming I'm completely unaware of the game's more nitty-gritty details because I happen to talk about the more fun and interesting flavor-based aspects. And yet I've sat down to figure out stat builds and movesets for Pokemon I've designed while keeping a multitude of factors in mind including the approximate level at which you'd find the Pokemon as well as the environment in which you'd find it, including what other kinds of Pokemon you might be expected to battle, just as I've sat down to figure out how best to optimize my mana curve within the colors I've chosen to play for the next FNM, or weighed the various cards I've pulled in drafts for prereleases, or considered a fair mana cost for cards I've designed for my own custom Magic sets. I get it.

The honest truth is, I haven't been part of the Pokemon metagame, ever. I stopped actively playing the games after Sapphire, which was back when Wi-fi wasn't a thing and I had little to no reason to care about the metagame. If I got back into the games today, chances are I still wouldn't care a great deal about the metagame (as much because I would have to sacrifice the creative element that I've always enjoyed for the sake of doing so). I am aware that it exists, and I am aware that there are imbalances among the types due to radically asymmetric numbers of advantages, resistances, and weaknesses (as much because you guys made sure of that), but at the end of the day, my top priority is coming up with a fun new addition to the type chart that captures tropes people will care about, based on creative elements that I've identified within the series.

Not every player will care if Fighting has six advantages instead of five, they just want to karate chop a dragon boat with their martial artist and have it deal the kind of damage they'd expect it to based on what's resonant about the type tropes. If you tell the player that Type A beats Type B and they're like "yeah, that make sense", mission accomplished. I'm sorry if my type idea doesn't fit into your ultra-mechanical metagame balance correction plan, but quite frankly, it wasn't designed to. It was designed to capture what being Wood-type means for Pokemon and their moves, and why it shouldn't just be mixed in with the Grass-type (any more than Rock should be with Ground, or Ice with Water).

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. Game Freak isn't going to look at my topic and be like "Yeah, that's a good idea. We'll use it!" and mess up the metagame with a type that doesn't fit your standards. They legally can't. What's going to happen is that this topic will eventually die and I'll move on to some other creative spark that I decide to share to help pass what precious little time I have to spend between work days in my life. I was hoping to see some fun suggestions for Wood-type Pokemon and moves like what SH1M offered, and I at least got that much.

If you want to see the metagame rebalanced in a manner that pleases you, why not make a topic about that? You and SP1M both seem to have a keener sense of the metagame than I do, so I'm sure you can hold some thought-provoking debates about how to best balance out the sheer number of offense and defense advantages Fighting and Steel currently have as well as how to mitigate Grass and Ice's defensive weaknesses. Maybe you'll come up with new types, maybe you'll rewrite the type charts. If a 31(soon to be 32)-year old ex-player can write up a topic about wooden Pokemon and moves as a hobby, you can come up with ideas for how to fix the metagame's flaws and how to make the next Pokemon generation more gratifying on a competitive level.

Also, you never answered my question: If Rock and Ground were combined into one type like you said they should have been, how would they interact with other types? Rock beats Flying, Flying is immune to Ground. Ground beats Steel, Steel beats Rock. Ground beats and is immune to Electric, while Rock is mutually neutral to Electric. How do you reconcile that with your proposed "Rock and Ground" type?

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Because I enjoy creating stuff? Because Types are one of the most interesting things you can add to Pokemon?

I'm not saying you can't. I like creating stuff too. I mean, have you seen my branching class three? That shit is insane. There are practical realities about trying to implement this stuff though, and for a lot of your ideas you don't seem to consider things much beyond "Oh wouldn't this be cool?" I'm not here to just shit on all your ideas. But if you're going to put something out there, people are going to have opinions on it, and this is mine. The fact that you're creative is great, but there is no ideas man in a video game company. How things interact with established elements is a critical part of the game design process.

Quote

According to you. Has anyone asked the developers about this? And even if they did, so what? The types mean different things for different people.

Go ahead and ask them, if you can get a hold of them. Their perspective on the matter would surely be interesting. Though I reckon if they had your mind set we would have seen a new type each generation instead of one addition in the past twenty years.

Quote

Except that style is what makes the game fun and worth playing in the first place. You could strip away all the type names and just call them Type A, Type B, Type C, Type D, Type E, Type F, Type G, Type H, Type I, Type J, Type K, Type L, Type M, Type N, Type O, Type P, Type Q, and Type R, while keeping all the type interactions intact for the sake of mechanical balance - but at that point, why would anyone care? P/C-type means nothing, but Dragon/Flying sure does. Style is just as important as substance; the interior of a car determines how well it drives, but the exterior of a car determines who wants to drive it.

To that end, I come up with types that I think would add a new creative element to the game that could thus excite players. The nitty-gritty of type interactions can be figured out for any type, but the type has to look fun to be worth adding. And when players see what the Wood-type offers, like cool boats, toys, etc. (thanks again, SP1M) not to mention concepts like defensive structures or an additional answer to Electric, they could be delighted by the unusual yet functional addition to the game. Wood can function on a multitude of levels beyond just the competitive scene.

Oh no, stripping them of their names and aesthetic would be atrocious. I said we shouldn't value style of substance, but style is obviously still important. Knowing fire is weak to water is a benefit from the style that your simply wouldn't get by giving them generic variable names. Trying to memorize all type interactions in Pokemon is challenging enough as it is for a new player, it'd be virtually impossible if there wasn't an aesthetic to go along with it.

Quote

As I frequently had to bring up during my MtG days, the game does not begin and end with the competitive metagame. It's really easy to forget that if it's all you care about, but the hard truth is that there are many players who don't give a damn about the metagame; they just want to play Light-type angels and maybe Wood-type dragon boats, and have those types interact the way they expect them to.

So, Dark, Steel, and Fairy all made the game worse by increasing the number of types? Or were their additions justified in your eyes because they served some kind of metagame purpose?

I've already given my thoughts on that. I don't know how people seem to keep missing them. The answer is yes, those additions did have a purpose and a reason to be in the games.

Quote

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter. Game Freak isn't going to look at my topic and be like "Yeah, that's a good idea. We'll use it!" and mess up the metagame with a type that doesn't fit your standards. They legally can't. What's going to happen is that this topic will eventually die and I'll move on to some other creative spark that I decide to share to help pass what precious little time I have to spend between work days in my life. I was hoping to see some fun suggestions for Wood-type Pokemon and moves like what SH1M offered, and I at least got that much.

I'm actually not so sure about that. It is their property you're talking about to begin with.

Quote

Also, you never answered my question: If Rock and Ground were combined into one type like you said they should have been, how would they interact with other types? Rock beats Flying, Flying is immune to Ground. Ground beats Steel, Steel beats Rock. Ground beats and is immune to Electric, while Rock is mutually neutral to Electric. How do you reconcile that with your proposed "Rock and Ground" type?

Well as I've already said, I wouldn't dream of decoupling them now given how integrated both are into the system. But generally speaking I would probably just eliminate Rock. It's meant to be a sturdy defensive type, but its number of weakness make it kind of bad at accomplishing that job. Meanwhile it's a surprisingly good offensive type because it can deal damage to flying, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense (best I can come up with is the adage of killing two birds with one stone). I'd probably call the combined type to Earth, as that would better cover both mons like Sandslash and Aerodactyl.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by Jotari

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

20 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well if you feel that's a dedicated enough niche, then great. I would question whether wood is the most intuitive type to do that with given the conversation on the previous page about how lightning actually interacts with trees but some kind of counter to both electric and flying would work (though likewise you could also have Rock resist electric to make it an actual more defensive type, likewise I'm not sure Grass's weakness to flying is all that justified, what is the logical reason behind that one any way?).

Personally, I think so. If I'm going for a lategame sweep on a Choiced Mon, and the opponent has a Raichu and a Fearow, then I can't lock myself into Earthquake, but a Wood-type move would be a good choice. Ground would still be the better offensive type overall (beating Steel, Fire, Poison, etc.), but Wood would at least be situationally considerable.

As to "Flying > Grass", there are a few ways to interpret this. Wind can knock down trees, while blowing leaves off of smaller plants as well. Birds are also known to eat seeds, nuts, and fruits, with some of them drilling into trunks or branches of trees.

11 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Not every player will care if Fighting has six advantages instead of five, they just want to karate chop a dragon boat with their martial artist and have it deal the kind of damage they'd expect it to based on what's resonant about the type tropes. If you tell the player that Type A beats Type B and they're like "yeah, that make sense", mission accomplished. I'm sorry if my type idea doesn't fit into your ultra-mechanical metagame balance correction plan, but quite frankly, it wasn't designed to. It was designed to capture what being Wood-type means for Pokemon and their moves, and why it shouldn't just be mixed in with the Grass-type (any more than Rock should be with Ground, or Ice with Water).

We can be doing both. There's a conceivable "lore rationale" for just about any conceivable matchup:

"Water should beat Steel, because metals sink and rust."

"Steel should resist Water, because boats float and are waterproof."

"Flying should beat Fire, because wind can snuff out flames."

"Fire should resist Flying, because wind can carry flames."

"Ghost should beat Psychic, because people fear ghosts."

"Psychic should resist Ghost, because reason and evidence tell us that ghosts don't exist."

My point is, while a lore rationale is nice to have, I personally think it should follow mechanical balance. I think a Wood type can be introduced in a manner that preserves (or even enhances) balance, while still carrying its own unique stylistic flavor. That's what I would strive for.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

"Water should beat Steel, because metals sink and rust."

I think that's genuine logic they used when making Steel type, only they didn't want Steel to outright have a water weakness. Water is like the only type that's normal against Steel, so there has to be a reason for that.

[Lightcosmo]

On 3/20/2022 at 4:19 PM, Jotari said:

Pokmeon is pretty balanced given its number of types. It wasn't in Gen 1 by a long shot

 

On 3/20/2022 at 4:19 PM, Jotari said:

but that's why they added Dark and Steel as balancers

This didnt fix hardly anything. The BST difference was way to high to consider the game "balanced" 

Like in Gen II, Dunsparce is shit, i dont care how you look at that thing. Adding types didnt "help" it any, cause it cant stand on its own in the first place.

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, lightcosmo said:

 

This didnt fix hardly anything. The BST difference was way to high to consider the game "balanced" 

Like in Gen II, Dunsparce is shit, i dont care how you look at that thing. Adding types didnt "help" it any, cause it cant stand on its own in the first place.

No, it wasn't an instant fix for Gen II's balance, but little could have been given Gen 1's horrendous balance. It was a significant step towards balancing the system though.

Dunsparce is still shit though. But that's not really a blemish on balance. It's not meant to be a good Pokemon.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Jotari

[Lord_Brand]

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

Go ahead and ask them, if you can get a hold of them. Their perspective on the matter would surely be interesting. Though I reckon if they had your mind set we would have seen a new type each generation instead of one addition in the past twenty years.

Once I have the notoriety to get an interview with them, I just might. Though I'm not really the journalist type. More likely I'd gain the information while collabing with them on a project.

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Now that you mention it, I am intrigued by the thought of what new types they could have added in Gens III, IV, V, VII, and VIII. Light could have been a good one for Sun and Moon since both are luminaries and Necrozma is themed on light as a scientific phenomenon. But honestly, new types are so exciting that it's not something I'd do every generation, in order to make it more exciting when new types do show up (and to keep from there being a mandatory new type or two every generation to avoid complexity creep; see, I care about this stuff too!).

I do believe however that if a new type does show up, they should show it off with one of the Starters. Gen II missed a big opportunity to work Dark and Steel into the starter lineup, as did Gen VI with Fairy (why wasn't Delphox Fire/Fairy type instead of Fire/Psychic?). That being said, in whatever generation I'd introduce my types, I'd make sure one of the Starters has it by their third stage. For example, my Wood-type would probably be coupled with the Grass starter, making it a Grass/Wood type (ouch, double Bug and Fire weaknesses). My Beast type, created for my Greece-inspired Theos region, would probably be paired with Grass or Fire. My Light type would probably be paired with the Fire starter. Mage could be any one of them.

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

I'm actually not so sure about that. It is their property you're talking about to begin with.

But the laws of copyright would mean that they aren't allowed to use things I came up with unless they have my permission to do so. On the other hand, they do have ways of gauging player interest; if enough players asked for a Wood-type, no doubt they'd hear those requests and look at implementing such a type. But the difference is that it's a whole vocal community of fans asking for such a thing, as opposed to just one guy.

14 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well as I've already said, I wouldn't dream of decoupling them now given how integrated both are into the system. But generally speaking I would probably just eliminate Rock. It's meant to be a sturdy defensive type, but its number of weakness make it kind of bad at accomplishing that job. Meanwhile it's a surprisingly good offensive type because it can deal damage to flying, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense (best I can come up with is the adage of killing two birds with one stone). I'd probably call the combined type to Earth, as that would better cover both mons like Sandslash and Aerodactyl.

Incidentally, "Earth" was my proposed name for a Rock/Ground composite type. Of course, I haven't forgotten how that idea fared.

5 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

"Water should beat Steel, because metals sink and rust."

Funny thing is, certain kinds of steel are in fact rustproof. So I get why Steel isn't weak to Water, per se. Neutral works fine there.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

9 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

But the laws of copyright would mean that they aren't allowed to use things I came up with unless they have my permission to do so. On the other hand, they do have ways of gauging player interest; if enough players asked for a Wood-type, no doubt they'd hear those requests and look at implementing such a type. But the difference is that it's a whole vocal community of fans asking for such a thing, as opposed to just one guy.

As a practical matter, you'd need to convince a judge, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Game Freak saw your idea and implemented it without your permission. It'd be very difficult to prove that they didn't come up with a "Wood" type independently, or that the inspiration came from you rather than any of the countless other fans who've made such a suggestion. It's not impossible, but it is a tall order.

13 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

Funny thing is, certain kinds of steel are in fact rustproof. So I get why Steel isn't weak to Water, per se. Neutral works fine there.

I agree that "Water <> Steel" is fine for lore and balance. My point was to illustrate that any potential relationship between types can be justified, with enough creativity. "Carnivorous plants eat insects, so Grass > Bug!" "Birds can comfortably sit on power lines, so Electric << Flying!" It's not sufficient to say "This is what the relationship should be, because of the lore reason I'm suggesting." Rather, you need to justify the proposed type mechanically, in the same way that Fairy justified itself by giving defensive and offensive Dragon a much-needed nerf (and, to a lesser extent, adding offensive niches to Steel and Poison).

19 minutes ago, Lord_Brand said:

I do believe however that if a new type does show up, they should show it off with one of the Starters. Gen II missed a big opportunity to work Dark and Steel into the starter lineup, as did Gen VI with Fairy (why wasn't Delphox Fire/Fairy type instead of Fire/Psychic?). That being said, in whatever generation I'd introduce my types, I'd make sure one of the Starters has it by their third stage. For example, my Wood-type would probably be coupled with the Grass starter, making it a Grass/Wood type (ouch, double Bug and Fire weaknesses). My Beast type, created for my Greece-inspired Theos region, would probably be paired with Grass or Fire. My Light type would probably be paired with the Fire starter. Mage could be any one of them.

Re: Delphox, could've been a favoritism concern. "If we give one starter the brand new type, then it'll overshadow the other two!" Instead, they used Sylveon to showcase the new type. It's fine if it overshadows the other Eeveelutions, because they had their own previous games to shine. Then again, they did make one of the version legendaries a Fairy type, but Yveltal is cool too so I'll let 'em slide.

[Morgan--Grandmaster]

I will admit, I laughed at first, but the more I thought about it, I've kind of warmed up to it. As for Pokémon,

• Exeggcute line 
• Hisuan Voltorb line
• Seedot line
• Phantump line
• Rillaboom

Okay, 10 might not seem like that big of a number, but with a new generation comes new Pokémon, which I'm sure would help a lot to legitimize it. At the very least, it'd be a good excuse for Chainsaw Rotom to be a thing.

[Lord_Brand]

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

As a practical matter, you'd need to convince a judge, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Game Freak saw your idea and implemented it without your permission. It'd be very difficult to prove that they didn't come up with a "Wood" type independently, or that the inspiration came from you rather than any of the countless other fans who've made such a suggestion. It's not impossible, but it is a tall order.

I also know that many companies have policies expressly forbidding their employees from looking at fan sites where unsolicited content may be posted (Wizards of the Coast being one example), precisely so they can reasonably claim incidental convergence. Many years ago, SEGA got caught having accidentally included fan art in one of their games and had to remove it to avoid copyright infringement. It was fan art of Sonia from Sonic Underground, which an employee had apparently mistaken for art of Amy Rose.

The thing with fanmade content is, neither you nor the company are allowed to use it for financial gain unless both parties agree. The IP owner can issue a C&D to stop you from making fan content, but they in turn can't use anything you create unless you agreed to license it to them or the rights were transferred to them as part of the agreement (see the Ken Penders mess with Archie comics). The company owns the IP, but you own the individual work you created.

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I agree that "Water <> Steel" is fine for lore and balance. My point was to illustrate that any potential relationship between types can be justified, with enough creativity. "Carnivorous plants eat insects, so Grass > Bug!" "Birds can comfortably sit on power lines, so Electric << Flying!" It's not sufficient to say "This is what the relationship should be, because of the lore reason I'm suggesting." Rather, you need to justify the proposed type mechanically, in the same way that Fairy justified itself by giving defensive and offensive Dragon a much-needed nerf (and, to a lesser extent, adding offensive niches to Steel and Poison).

I'd argue the case with carnivorous plants is moreso the acids they use to digest the insects (ergo Poison) than plant-based matter itself. Power lines are insulated, keeping the birds from being shocked. The birds are not themselves resistant to electricity.

So, what was the purpose of Fairy resisting Bug? Not like Bug needed to be nerfed or anything.

2 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Re: Delphox, could've been a favoritism concern. "If we give one starter the brand new type, then it'll overshadow the other two!" Instead, they used Sylveon to showcase the new type. It's fine if it overshadows the other Eeveelutions, because they had their own previous games to shine. Then again, they did make one of the version legendaries a Fairy type, but Yveltal is cool too so I'll let 'em slide.

Not like certain Starters don't end up being favored anyway. :P They could reinforce the cycle by giving the Water-type (in this case, Greninja) a Poison type to beat Delphox's Fairy type, though that would mess with the double trio they had going on before (Fighting > Dark > Psychic > Fighting). I mean, sure, Chesnaught could still have been Fighting, but then its second type wouldn't beat Greninja's. Plus Greninja as a Poison type would no longer be weak to Grass. So, maybe a Water/Steel type would have been a better choice...oh wait, Delphox wouldn't have been weak to that because it's part Fire-type. Well, I guess now I see why Delphox wasn't part Fairy, though they weren't so concerned about the secondary type cycle in Gen IV.

2 hours ago, Morgan--Grandmaster said:

I will admit, I laughed at first, but the more I thought about it, I've kind of warmed up to it. As for Pokémon,

• Exeggcute line 
• Hisuan Voltorb line
• Seedot line
• Phantump line
• Rillaboom

Okay, 10 might not seem like that big of a number, but with a new generation comes new Pokémon, which I'm sure would help a lot to legitimize it. At the very least, it'd be a good excuse for Chainsaw Rotom to be a thing.

Not to mention possible regional variants with the Wood type like SP1M's suggestion of Ducklett and Swanna as Wood/Water "wooden mallards" and "swan boats".

I used to think a Pokemon based on tiki torches could be Grass/Fire, but now Wood/Fire seems more apt. Though since Wood is less likely to become a type than Light, we might still see a Grass/Fire tiki for the time being. I'm amazed they didn't do that for Alola, honestly.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Lord_Brand

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

2 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

I'd argue the case with carnivorous plants is moreso the acids they use to digest the insects (ergo Poison) than plant-based matter itself. Power lines are insulated, keeping the birds from being shocked. The birds are not themselves resistant to electricity.

Well, that's true of birds, but it's not as though mammals or insects are resilient against electricity. So, maybe Normal and Bug should be weak to Electric as well? Except they don't, because that would make Electric too strong an offensive type. That's why we can't make everything weak to Fighting, even though nobody wants to take a punch.

2 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

So, what was the purpose of Fairy resisting Bug? Not like Bug needed to be nerfed or anything.

Shrug. Bug is in a weird place as typings go, as I was conversing with Jotari. Maybe they specifically wanted to buff Gardevoir, Mr. Mime, and Whimsicott? I dunno, Bug's not a great offensive type, so I don't think "Bug < Fairy" is a needed relationship. 

[Jotari]

10 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

I do believe however that if a new type does show up, they should show it off with one of the Starters. Gen II missed a big opportunity to work Dark and Steel into the starter lineup, as did Gen VI with Fairy (why wasn't Delphox Fire/Fairy type instead of Fire/Psychic?). That being said, in whatever generation I'd introduce my types, I'd make sure one of the Starters has it by their third stage. For example, my Wood-type would probably be coupled with the Grass starter, making it a Grass/Wood type (ouch, double Bug and Fire weaknesses). My Beast type, created for my Greece-inspired Theos region, would probably be paired with Grass or Fire. My Light type would probably be paired with the Fire starter. Mage could be any one of them.

I can't help but think that getting a steel type at the very beginning of the game would be pretty busted. Unless it's just kind of weak over all, but then you lose access to a capable starter late game.

10 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

But the laws of copyright would mean that they aren't allowed to use things I came up with unless they have my permission to do so. On the other hand, they do have ways of gauging player interest; if enough players asked for a Wood-type, no doubt they'd hear those requests and look at implementing such a type. But the difference is that it's a whole vocal community of fans asking for such a thing, as opposed to just one guy.

But it's their IP you're talking about. You can't have an idea about someone else's work and block their creativity of that work. Like the guy who had the idea to make AM2R couldn't sue Nintendo for making Samus Returns, since Samus was always Nintendo's property. Besides, you haven't actually trade marked any of your ideas, and if you did try to Trade Mark anything openly connected to Pokemon then you'd be receiving a cease and desist letter fairly quickly.

[Lord_Brand]

8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Well, that's true of birds, but it's not as though mammals or insects are resilient against electricity. So, maybe Normal and Bug should be weak to Electric as well? Except they don't, because that would make Electric too strong an offensive type. That's why we can't make everything weak to Fighting, even though nobody wants to take a punch.

Bug being weak to Electric, I could actually get behind. Bug lamps are a thing, after all. But if that requires Electric getting another weakness to balance it out, how about Rock?

8 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Shrug. Bug is in a weird place as typings go, as I was conversing with Jotari. Maybe they specifically wanted to buff Gardevoir, Mr. Mime, and Whimsicott? I dunno, Bug's not a great offensive type, so I don't think "Bug < Fairy" is a needed relationship. 

And Fairies resisting Bugs isn't even that resonant, either. Same for Fairy resisting Fire. Neither of those makes me go "Ah, that makes sense." They just leave me scratching my head.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Lord_Brand

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Bug being weak to Electric, I could actually get behind. Bug lamps are a thing, after all. But if that requires Electric getting another weakness to balance it out, how about Rock?

I think Rock being super effective to Electric would step on the toes of Ground a bit too much. They're already similar enough to the extent that we've said they could be the same. And I kind of like that electric only has one weakness. It doesn't resist much either so it's not like it's an overly defensive type already.

2 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

And Fairies resisting Bugs isn't even that resonant, either. Same for Fairy resisting Fire. Neither of those makes me go "Ah, that makes sense." They just leave me scratching my head.

Fairy is another one of those goes either way kind of things. One hand fairies are magic, fire can't hurt magic. ON the other hand they're like little butterfly woodland creatures who will burn right up. In reality everything but water and a vacuum is weak to fire XD (huh, maybe that vacuum thing is part of it as Clefairy is a fairy and also an alien, most fairies don't have an alien association though). But yeah, as to why Fairy resists fire I would say that comes down to mechanic balancing too, as fire is also a pretty strong offensive type. It's not like fairies being immune to freaking dragons makes a whole lot of sense either.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Fairy is another one of those goes either way kind of things. One hand fairies are magic, fire can't hurt magic. ON the other hand they're like little butterfly woodland creatures who will burn right up. In reality everything but water and a vacuum is weak to fire XD (huh, maybe that vacuum thing is part of it as Clefairy is a fairy and also an alien, most fairies don't have an alien association though). But yeah, as to why Fairy resists fire I would say that comes down to mechanic balancing too, as fire is also a pretty strong offensive type. It's not like fairies being immune to freaking dragons makes a whole lot of sense either.

@Lord_Brand worded this wrong. Fire-type Pokemon resist Fairy-type attacks. However, Fairy-type Pokemon take neutral damage from Fire-type attacks. Also the "Fairy > Dragon" is presumably based of Dragons being the traditional villains of "Fairy tales", who are inevitably slain by the virtuous hero.

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

Fairy is another one of those goes either way kind of things. One hand fairies are magic, fire can't hurt magic. ON the other hand they're like little butterfly woodland creatures who will burn right up. In reality everything but water and a vacuum is weak to fire XD (huh, maybe that vacuum thing is part of it as Clefairy is a fairy and also an alien, most fairies don't have an alien association though). But yeah, as to why Fairy resists fire I would say that comes down to mechanic balancing too, as fire is also a pretty strong offensive type. It's not like fairies being immune to freaking dragons makes a whole lot of sense either.

Y'all really out here pretending like Eelektross, Rotom-Wash, and Rotom-Heat don't exist.

Anyway, I'd say Electric is among the better defensive types. Resists Electric, Steel, and Flying. Only weak to Ground. There's a weird argument that only having one weakness actually hurts it. By Electric only having one weakness, Ground becomes a better offensive type, meaning everymon who can run Earthquake or Earth Power is going to. If Ground loses its monopoly on "super-effective against Electric-types", then it'll become slightly less common as an offensive type.

That said, I'm not a fan of "Rock > Electric" either. Rock is already a very good offensive type, with Stealth Rock being a metagame-defining threat. Hell, Stealth Rock is so strong that Gen VIII invented a held item specifically to counter Stealth Rock, and people actually use it! (Yes I know Heavy-Duty Boots blocks other hazards, but is anyone running it on Mons who aren't Rock-weak?) I'd rather give Electric a weakness to a less popular offensive type, like a hypothetical Wood-type, or perhaps Psychic-type.

EDIT before submitting: Wait, or did @Lord_Brand mean "make Rock resist Electric" (Electric < Rock)? That's a completely different equation. I'm largely for making Rock a better defensive type, although it would create near-overlap with defensive Ground-type.

[Lord_Brand]

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

@Lord_Brand worded this wrong. Fire-type Pokemon resist Fairy-type attacks. However, Fairy-type Pokemon take neutral damage from Fire-type attacks. Also the "Fairy > Dragon" is presumably based of Dragons being the traditional villains of "Fairy tales", who are inevitably slain by the virtuous hero.

Oh, you're right. Doy! Though that makes even less sense. Why is Fire specifically resistant to Fairies?

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Anyway, I'd say Electric is among the better defensive types. Resists Electric, Steel, and Flying. Only weak to Ground. There's a weird argument that only having one weakness actually hurts it. By Electric only having one weakness, Ground becomes a better offensive type, meaning everymon who can run Earthquake or Earth Power is going to. If Ground loses its monopoly on "super-effective against Electric-types", then it'll become slightly less common as an offensive type.

That said, I'm not a fan of "Rock > Electric" either. Rock is already a very good offensive type, with Stealth Rock being a metagame-defining threat. Hell, Stealth Rock is so strong that Gen VIII invented a held item specifically to counter Stealth Rock, and people actually use it! (Yes I know Heavy-Duty Boots blocks other hazards, but is anyone running it on Mons who aren't Rock-weak?) I'd rather give Electric a weakness to a less popular offensive type, like a hypothetical Wood-type, or perhaps Psychic-type.

EDIT before submitting: Wait, or did @Lord_Brand mean "make Rock resist Electric" (Electric < Rock)? That's a completely different equation. I'm largely for making Rock a better defensive type, although it would create near-overlap with defensive Ground-type.

Well, both would make sense. But I acknowledge that Ground and Rock already have a lot in common, what with them both being SE against Fire and SE by Grass and Water. Their interactions with Ice and Steel are completely opposite, though, which is a really cool parallel now that I think about it. That's the kind of parallelism I want Grass and Wood to have; they can share certain strengths and weaknesses, but be opposites to each other with certain other interactions. Like, Grass is strong against Rock, but maybe Wood is resisted by it? Grass is SE against Water, but Wood and Water could resist each other (though depending on who you ask, I guess one could argue a case for Wood being weak to Water? Seems kinda silly for a theoretical boat Pokemon to be weak to water, though).

What if Rock also became resistant to Dragon? I mean, think about it: the two types Dragon has the most overlap with are Fire and Flying, both of which Rock resists. Steel resists Dragon, so why not Rock?

Perhaps we should make a topic for discussing the type chart as is and possible alterations to it?