2
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Assuming these types use the hex values for types after the "official" types, you could use a GameShark to change the types of Pokémon to glitch types. This could help find out more info. about the types. However, when you change a type with a GameShark, it doesn't actually tell you what the type is (it simply has the effects of that type.) As most glitch types are very similar, they could be hard to differentiate without already knowing which hex value corresponds to which type. Is there any way this could be found out? [[User:Mattiuscn|Mattiuscn]] 13:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | Assuming these types use the hex values for types after the "official" types, you could use a GameShark to change the types of Pokémon to glitch types. This could help find out more info. about the types. However, when you change a type with a GameShark, it doesn't actually tell you what the type is (it simply has the effects of that type.) As most glitch types are very similar, they could be hard to differentiate without already knowing which hex value corresponds to which type. Is there any way this could be found out? [[User:Mattiuscn|Mattiuscn]] 13:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Same-type attack bonus == | |||
The "'l) m) ZM" section says "Functionally, it is identical to the Steel type.", but wouldn't it differ functionally by not having Steel's (or it's own) [[Same-type attack bonus]]], since it tecnly isn't Steel type, and that there are no l)m)ZM moves? Wouldn't a better wording be ""Functionally, it is otherwise identical to the Steel type, but does not receive any [[Same-type attack bonus]]] as it is teacnly not a Steel type and there are no l) m) ZM moves" | |||
Scene all glitch types (except lmZM) have the same type effectiveness wouldn't the glitch types without moves be functionally identical (due to the lack of STAB), i.e. do the types have any difference other then the name, are they just duplicates of the same type? If those moveless glitch types are literally the same type in all but name, is there a point in having different sections for them? It seems to me that the current system has two downsides. First of all, it clutters the page, and makes it harder to find the functionally different types in the mess of duplicate types. Secondly, it splits Pokemon of effectively the same type into multiple lists. Wouldn't be better to a single list of moveless glitch type Pokemon? | |||
Mind you I've never played the games before and I don't know much about them, so it's quite possible that I'm just missing something here. [[User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman|Emmette Hernandez Coleman]] ([[User talk:Emmette Hernandez Coleman|talk]]) 04:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC) |
edits