Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Type chart"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Notice)
Line 51: Line 51:
   
 
This second type table is still there until the release of X and Y, it will be outdated and replaced with the new one because of the Fairy type is added. Just wait for a few months. Thank you.[[User:Cinday123|Cinday123]] ([[User talk:Cinday123|talk]]) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 
This second type table is still there until the release of X and Y, it will be outdated and replaced with the new one because of the Fairy type is added. Just wait for a few months. Thank you.[[User:Cinday123|Cinday123]] ([[User talk:Cinday123|talk]]) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  +
:The current table is listed as Generation II-V. Until we actually have enough information about how it will be in Generation VI to make a table (since they may change other weaknesses/resistances like they did last time), we don't need a table for Generation VI.

Revision as of 13:22, 7 July 2013

Why are Generation I and Generation II type chart separate. Can I combined the two charts into this article? - Clarky13

Read the article. Dark and Steel! tc26 13:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
He means place the two charts in the article, not combine them. Θρtιmαtum♏Talk|Links 13:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, so instead of three different articles, we make one. - Clarky13
I was just coming to suggest putting each on their own page, for easier printing. HyperHacker 03:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon attacks not very effective against Fire in Generation I?

In the chart, it lists Dragon attacks as being not very effective against Fire Pokémon in Generation I. Has this actually been tested with an "artificial" Dragon-type move in a Generation I game? Thanks. Ultraflame 05:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dual-Type Mechanics in Generation I

IIRC, in Generation I, dual-type Pokémon's type mechanics worked differently. If you were a dual-type hit by a move that one of your types was weak against and the other resistant to, instead of balancing out like they did in later generations, they want by just your type-two stat. For example, a Zubat getting hit by Leech Life would take x2 damage because Poison is his second type, and a Bellsprout getting hit by Poison Sting would take 1/2x damage for the same reason. However, this is from pretty far back in my memory. Can anyone confirm? Schreiber 13:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it worked just like it does in current games (barring the changes to the type chart, that is). The difference was that it displayed "It's super-effective!/It's not very effective..." based on one of the two types, rather than both.--Purimpopoie 13:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
It is different in Gen I. At least in Red/Blue. My Venusaur's Razor Leaf was always ineffective against Gyarados. - unsigned comment from CitruX (talkcontribs)
No, that's only what the game says. The actual effectiveness was still calculated in the same way. In Generation I it may say that Zubat's Leech Life on another Aubat is "Super effective", but in reality Zubat's Poison and Flying types did cancel each other out. Ultraflame 17:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How the game determines what message to display is here, if you scroll down to the "The Type Message Experiment" section. As stated above, this only shows the message, not the actual calculation. Stag019 17:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

unique

so, what type variations HAVENT been done? - unsigned comment from DJLO (talkcontribs)

ElectAbuzzzz has a sub page for that. Just be aware that that page also takes order of the types into account. Werdnae (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Reorganization

Since the removal of special/physical descriptors depending on type, I think we should rearrange the charts into their official order as Nintendo puts them. --Dr. Forrester 20:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the order Nintendo puts them. The Pokedexes from BW, HGSS and Platinum all use that same order. I don't have a copy of DP to check on, but I imagine that's the same. Werdnae (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
It's also the order they are stored internally. And yes, DP Pokédex is the same, as are RSE's and FRLG's. --SnorlaxMonster 08:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Merging article with Type

So, the Type Chart article's got a header saying "The contents of this article have been suggested to be merged into the page Type." I don't know how you other people use this page, but I use the page a lot as a quick reference. It's probably the article I use the most, and it's seldom for more than a few seconds. That's why I like how it's quite a short article with the chart I need in the top of the article. No scrolling, no extra time that's wasted. Of course, it depends on how it's implemented, but I'm pretty negative to the idea of merging this article with the Type-article. That's my five cents. Laxsill (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Effectiveness Program

Using Visual Basic, I may make a program that tells you how effective an attack is against certain-typed Pokémon, just like the Pokétch app in Diamond. It'll define wether the damage is x4, x2, x1, x.5, x.25, or x0. Any thoughts? And yes, it will be inserted onto the article if allowed. - unsigned comment from -SirBunny- (talkcontribs)

That's not the kind of thing that we put into articles. You're welcome to make it for yourself, but here's not the place to put it. Werdnae (talk) 06:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Generation V and VI

Is there any change in the element type chart in generation V or VI from Generation IV?

--Ishu bagaria (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Sneaking from page to page... It's the page-editing purple ghost... Gengarzilla! 19:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, we don't know enough about Gen VI yet, so there could still be a change. --SnorlaxMonster 07:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Shouldn't we include a notice saying this is outdated now since the Fairy type is here? --HoennMaster 19:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Type chart isn't outdated yet, when X and Y is out, then it would be outdated. — Reshi643 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This second type table is still there until the release of X and Y, it will be outdated and replaced with the new one because of the Fairy type is added. Just wait for a few months. Thank you.Cinday123 (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The current table is listed as Generation II-V. Until we actually have enough information about how it will be in Generation VI to make a table (since they may change other weaknesses/resistances like they did last time), we don't need a table for Generation VI.