314
edits
Talk:Type: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
m (→"Typeless": forgot colons) |
No edit summary |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1,135: | Line 1,135: | ||
:::How do we know that a pure flying in gen 4 becomes typeless as the rosost article states rather than ??? ? Why would they manually program it become normal in gen 5 if the games could handle "typeless"? (i checked, it still happens in gen 7 so it must be a manual programming decision rather than normal being the default type, as we now know burn up can leave you with a truely typeless pokemon). My guess is that before gen 7, all pokemon/moves needed a type in the code and so ??? was created as the default typeless type. In gen 5 they got rid of ??? because it was too situational, so they programmed roost to become normal rather than ??? on pure flying types. In gen 7, they invented burn up and made it so a pokemon/move can be without a type and not crash the game. I think the only functional difference between ??? and typeless is that ??? RD probably would have received stab, if ??? was still around and that's what type burned up fire types got. [[User:Jmvb|JMVB - I don't what to put here.]] ([[User talk:Jmvb|talk]]) 13:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | :::How do we know that a pure flying in gen 4 becomes typeless as the rosost article states rather than ??? ? Why would they manually program it become normal in gen 5 if the games could handle "typeless"? (i checked, it still happens in gen 7 so it must be a manual programming decision rather than normal being the default type, as we now know burn up can leave you with a truely typeless pokemon). My guess is that before gen 7, all pokemon/moves needed a type in the code and so ??? was created as the default typeless type. In gen 5 they got rid of ??? because it was too situational, so they programmed roost to become normal rather than ??? on pure flying types. In gen 7, they invented burn up and made it so a pokemon/move can be without a type and not crash the game. I think the only functional difference between ??? and typeless is that ??? RD probably would have received stab, if ??? was still around and that's what type burned up fire types got. [[User:Jmvb|JMVB - I don't what to put here.]] ([[User talk:Jmvb|talk]]) 13:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | ||
::::Thanks for all your considerations. I just want to say explicitly that I totally understand why you added this section. I just don't think "typeless" is a (common) type; instead, I believe it should be fairly evident what it means whenever it is used elsewhere and/or should be explained there. For the properties argument, I think there isn't an actual lack of type, but just something that's supposed to look and feel like it. I'm not aware of any move or Pokémon that can be type''less''; I think they are Normal/???/whatever-type, just (are supposed to) behave as if they had no type. (I still assume this is the case for Revelation Dance, even if it turns out that you cannot ever observe that difference via {{a|Color Change}} or any other means. In case there technically really is an actual - placeholder - typeless-type now, I guess that's something that has changed; placeholder data usually has an index of 0, and that's what Normal-type has.) | |||
::::As for Roost, our article says it becomes ???-type in Gen IV (and Normal-type starting Gen V, in which ??? has been removed entirely), not typeless. And as far as I know, there has never been STAB for ???. My personal suggestion for why they didn't make Roost users truely "typeless" (but Normal-type) is that that's actually more work, and they didn't care. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 14:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::: Apologies, it's actually the {{t|???}} article that states "In Generation IV, if a pure Flying-type Pokémon uses Roost, it becomes typeless[citation needed] until the end of the turn, effectively behaving as if it were ???-type. ". So there's a bit of inconsistency on the site then that can only be resolved by looking at the code. I'd be interested to see what happens to colour change Kecleon when hit with typeless RD, I'd be happy to try that with someone over wifi when Bank is released [[User:Jmvb|JMVB - I don't what to put here.]] ([[User talk:Jmvb|talk]]) 15:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::: In regards to whether damage can have a type, I think it is probably useful to think of it as if it can, since moves like Judgment or Hidden Power are normal-type, but the damage they deal is affected by type matchups as if it was a different type. I think it's just a matter of how you choose to think about it, more than anything else. I think the wording of the page was clearer when it used the idea of damage being typeless, but that's just my thoughts on the matter. [[User:Xolroc|Xolroc]] ([[User talk:Xolroc|talk]]) 22:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{indent}}Alright, I guess we're now at a point where it is really helpful to explain in more (lengthy) detail why I'm pushing real hard (by my standards) to avoid saying damage has a type: | |||
#It does not seem to be supported by official wording. I didn't exhaustively search for it yesterday, but from what I found, no in-game description seems to say that. In fact, they might even ''avoid'' that wording delibarately: e.g., {{m|Hidden Power}} "varies in type" (the move, not the damage it deals), and {{cat|damage-reducing Berries|type-resist Berries}} weaken "damage taken from supereffective X-type attacks" (not just "supereffective X-type damage"). | |||
#If we assign a type to damage, we're running into many issues. What ''type'' of damage does {{weather|hail}} deal, or [[recoil]]? Even if we restrict it to attacks only, what ''type'' of damage does {{m|Flying Press}} deal? Or {{m|Seismic Toss}}? | |||
#There's no need to do that. I admit, it is a very convenient shortcut to have in mind in many cases. But in my opinion, everything is just as clear when we say things like "The type of Judgment depends on..."; it's even ''more'' correct and precise, because the type really actually changes, and things like {{a|Color Change}} and item boosts depend on the actual type of a move. | |||
Unrelated to all that, I seem to sense that there's no agreement on removing the Typeless section here. If that's the case, that's totally fine, and I'll happily drop that. My opinion isn't more important than anyone else's, and Jmbv at least seems to thinks it's helpful (and they're not missing some important argument from what I can tell); the only reasonable consensus then seems to be to not remove it. | |||
For Roost in Generation IV, I think there might actually be no way to tell the difference in-game (or in other words, it doesn't matter ''how'' it is typeless). I ''might'' be personally trying to pursue it further at some point, and I have some opinions on what it might be; so if you want to know what I think and why, please feel free to open a discussion at Roost's talk page (which I'm watching). I think it's a largely independent discussion. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 08:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
:The problem with the way you're looking at it is you see "typeless" as another type. Yes, this isn't stated anywhere in the games. It's not to be treated as a type. What typeless is is lack of a type. And this is how it should be seen. And there are things in the game that can lack a type. Struggle and recoil damage are both lacking in type as no Pokemon gains STAB from them. Certain Pokemon can become typeless under certain circumstances (i.e. Arcanine and Typhlosion after using Burn Up). This means they don't gain STAB from anything and have no weaknesses. The fact these are in the game proves that "Typeless" is a thing. It's not a type like Water or Dragon, but it's the lack of a type. And it should be seen that way. ☆<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span>☆ 09:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
::The game does indeed state if a pokemon has no types. If you have a pure fire type use burn up and check the battle summary, no types are listed. [[User:Jmvb|JMVB - I don't what to put here.]] ([[User talk:Jmvb|talk]]) 12:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, but what Nescientist seems to think is that if a Pokemon has no types, it gains a new type called "Typeless". And if that's not what they think, it comes across like that. A Pokemon can be typeless so there needs to be a section of this article talking about that. ☆<span style="font-family:Algerian">[[User:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:green">The</span>]] [[User talk:Solar Dragon|<span style="color:red">Solar</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Solar Dragon|<span style="color:blue">Dragon</span>]]</span>☆ 13:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::Interesting that you got that from what they said; what I get from reading Nescientist's stuff is the exact opposite. The way I see it, Typelessness is not a type in the same way water or fire is a type. In some of the older games, this may have been implemented using the ??? type, but since gen 5 that's not how it's done. Not sure how it actually is done--I haven't seen the games' code, of course--but it acts like the pokemon has no type. Or the move, in some cases. Honestly, at this point, I've kind of forgotten just what this whole debate was about at this point, so I'll let you all figure it out. I don't think I have anything else useful to add.{{unsigned|Xolroc}} | |||
:::::What Xolroc said. | |||
:::::Jmvb, would you like to add a line (or parentheses) for no type being displayed in that case, then? I guess that is something that should be somewhere on Bulbapedia. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 13:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::Do we want the documentation of typeless here to give the idea, or to be exhaustive? [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
== type percentage == | |||
i created [[User:Pokeant/List of type by abundance|this page]] for my own tracking, but feel free to edit to fit into mainspace if it is useful. -[[User:Pokeant|Pokeant]] ([[User talk:Pokeant|talk]]) 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
== "Typeless" Type == | |||
I was just wondering if anyone has plans to add the "Typeless" type that exists, for example, when a pure Fire type like Typhlosion uses the move Burn Up. The key features of this "type", if I'm not mistaken, is that you hit all Pokemon with normal (1x) effectiveness, and all Pokemon also hit you with normal effectiveness, and that you don't get STAB on any moves, right?--[[User:Rithvikkiran|Rithvikkiran]] ([[User talk:Rithvikkiran|talk]]) 02:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
:There is no typeless type exactly, just that Pokémon can now have no type. See two talk page sections up for the discussion of the "Typeless" section that is already on the page. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 03:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
:There's a lengthy discussion on this two sections up. Perhaps read that and put in your two cents! [[User:Xolroc|Xolroc]] ([[User talk:Xolroc|talk]]) 03:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Revelation Dance and favoring primary type == | |||
Hello, | |||
just wondering if Revelation Dance is the first mechanic in the games to actually favor one type over the other and "unequalize" the primary and secondary types? | |||
I thought that all game mechanics before this considered first and second types equal; thus Water/Rock was the same as Rock/Water. However, with Revelation Dance that isn't the case. [[User:SeireeniKeni|SeireeniKeni]] ([[User talk:SeireeniKeni|talk]]) 02:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Yes, I believe this is the only mechanical difference. There are instances in which there are visual differences (such as the Pokémon League victory backgrounds in some games), but never mechanical differences. --[[User:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#A70000">'''Snorlax'''</span>]][[User talk:SnorlaxMonster|<span style="color:#0000A7">'''Monster'''</span>]] 02:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Should this be mentioned in the article, since while limited to one move, it is in principle quite a big change? (As a sidenote: I think the background colors in at least Gen V and Gen VI pick one type at random. At least in X and O-Ruby the background is chosen at random for two-typed Pokémon. Always thought it was a nice touch.) [[User:SeireeniKeni|SeireeniKeni]] ([[User talk:SeireeniKeni|talk]]) 02:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::I can think of {{DL|List of glitches in Generation I|Dual-type damage misinformation}} in Generation I, and {{m|Present}} in Gold and Silver. Not exactly the same, but still. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::...and that misinformation is apparently irrelevant in this context. (But I can also think of ice cream, pink unicorns, ...) [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 11:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
== Confusion damage in Generation II == | |||
(It should be easy to test, if someone has a save file.) In Generation II, confusion damage apparently never assigns a type before calculating confusion damage (and it skips type effectiveness routines etc.), but it also runs through the type item modifier routines, and tries to check against the move's type (which has not been set for confusion damage). What I want to know is whether there may still be a type left in that variable (from the previously used move, I guess), so that confusion damage can actually be increased by type items. So, is someone able to do two battles with Normal-type moves only, one with an equipped Pink/Polkadot Bow, one without (or similar with another type)? If it can be increased, confusion damage should be different by ~10%. It'd be pretty cool if someone could. [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
: I've just tested this, and Pink Bow does do this. Specifically it boosts confusion damage when the pokemon fails to use a normal move. I had my pokemon hold mystic water and confusion damage was boosted when it failed at a water move. I think this is more a glitch than a property of type though. | |||
: I tested this in a link battle and noticed another oddity. The random factor of the damage calculation seems to be fixed when you go into a link battle. The first time I did it was fixed at the top damage roll, which was very useful because confusion damage is so low and type enhancing items are so bad that you need a high/low damage rolls to confirm if they've been boosted. I went back in to the link battle with mystic water, and this time the damage roll was not at the top but it was fixed on another value. This damage roll thing could well be an emulator error (I was using bgb), or it could be intentionally fixed at the start of each battle by GF to prevent desyncs. Can anyone confirm whether or not this is a thing? [[User:Jmvb|JMVB - literally it doesn't stand for anything]] ([[User talk:Jmvb|talk]]) 17:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
::So it's what's selected this turn (not last turn, nor by the opponent)? Good to know, thanks. :) | |||
::Confusion damage isn't varied at all, [[User:Nescientist/Confusion (status condition)|as far as I know]] (it's always the "top" roll, so to say). For all other damage, I'd believe it is varied normally/randomly, but of course they'll make sure to synchronize the PRNGs ({{DL|List of glitches in Generation I|Psywave desynchronization|or at least, they try}}). [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::Hm. I just realized that I cannot really rule out that confusion damage is influenced by held items ''in every generation''{{tt|*|although I'm quite sure for Gen I...}}. Or rather, by some of them. (I read some more Gen II code, and found out that Cubone's confusion damage is apparently independent of whether it holds a [[Thick Club]].) I guess I'm just gonna leave it there. (But if anyone wants to test every item in every game, I will gladly hear their results.) Although I believe this is really one of the most interesting and astonishing facts/findings on Pokémon mechanics, I see no way to reasonably include that findings anywhere, not even on a confusion page. :( ... [[User:Nescientist|Nescientist]] ([[User talk:Nescientist|talk]]) 00:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::Allow me to recommend our [[BP:SPADING|spading]] page. It's a page for pretty much precisely this sort of thing. [[User:Xolroc|Xolroc]] ([[User talk:Xolroc|talk]]) 02:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||