Do you think Pokemon freaks are biased?

[DarkFighter15]

I strongly believe that the Pokemon makers are biased.

First of all, they didn't make all types equally. Though each type has a role that only it could fulfill, in general some types are better while others are not so much. Like grass and ice types. In ubers there are only 2 pokes - arceus(grass) and shaymin(sky) - both of which I haven't encountered even a single time in Pokemon showdown. 

 

Same with ice. Only 2 ice types in ubers - both of which are seen once in a blue moon. Though ice types moves are used by other pokemons, ice types themselves are very rare.

 

There are rarely 5% teams having these types in ubers.

 

Now if you see types like steel, fire, water types you will find 99% of the teams have them.

 

In the lower tiers there is more usage of grass and ice types in competitive (like ferrothorn, who play their part with efficiency) but still very less as compared to other 'superior' types. 

 

In gen 6 they introduced mega evolutions but not for all Pokemon. Only a few (maybe 25-30?) were given megas not all. (Not even the starters except ash-greninja)

 

In gen 7 again only a few were given specific z crystals.

 

I strongly believe they should have made it more equitable for each Pokemon and not for a few chosen ones. These are my opinions and you are free to share your opinions whether you think Pokemon freaks are biased or not

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by DarkFighter15

[GenEric]

Its more like people flock to smogon for advice and found out certain types makes you win easier

So they just use those pokemon instead of the pokes they want to use

[Zargerth]

Showdown is a poor measurement: the Monotype council, for example, has explicitly stated that all types should not be viable.

 

When it comes to balancing, there is no real way of achieving "true balance", meaning all types, characters or whatever it is that's competing against one another, would be equal in power or viability - especially in regards of competitive play. With that said, I believe there is some degree of bias in terms of Pokemon design: quite a lot of Legendary and Mythical mons are either Psychic or Dragon-type. I don't know for sure how often typings stem from whatever inspired the design: for example, Solgaleo could be based on the lion that eats the sun, which in turn is related to alchemy. With this point of view in mind, one can ask how much sense it would make for Solgaleo to be part Fire-type - or Steel, which it actually is.

[Octavius]

I got a good laugh when I saw this. I can't help but feel responsible for you starting this topic, darkfighter15. 
but yeah, absolutely everyone is biased in some way or another. like zargerth said, there can be no perfect system. that's the case with anything; it's the state of mankind and can't be changed. so whomever tries to come up with their own system is going to have their own faults or preconceived notions influencing their decisions. Ideally, you'd have multiple (and very different but also open-minded) people working together to achieve the best possible result. But that doesn't ever really work in practice (see U.S. Government), so you try to shoot for some series of guidelines that are objectively good and true and hope things fall into line based off of those guidelines.
Now since this is again on the topic of types, there absolutely should be types that are stronger and types that are weaker. that doesn't mean that every mon within each type is going to be good or bad strictly because of their typing, though. with game mechanics, moves, abilities, stats, etc., any number of mons within each type can fill out a specific niche. which is why you really do need to balance on the individual pokemon level so that each mon can have its own niche (at least one) and have some use in some tier in some way. and that's what it means for each mon to be equitable as opposed to only having a few chosen mons be amazing and strictly outclass every other mon that tries to do the same thing.
you're inevitably going to have mons within each type that are weaker than others, but this is a good and necessary thing. it's even better when the weaker mons have something they can do that the better mons can't--so that in some way, the weaker mons are still useful and even better than the stronger mon.

[Wolfox]

the perfect system: there is non.

Where there is "balance" for one thing, there will be unbalance for another

[Ojama Yellow]

I see what youre trying to say, but the last time I saw someone attempt to balance everything in mons, fire red balanced edition was created and

 

yeah.

 

please dont play that ever, its not good for you.

 

the idea is there but im afraid that in practise you wont be able to actually perfectly balance something ever. though I do agree that some types coughice get shafted a lot compared to steel or fairy or smth, but what can you do.

[Commander]

I'm going to be that guy here, but this honestly is a weak argument that I just don't get. First off, there's no point in diving into competitive when talking about Pokemon bias because that's a system built on bias opinions. I team of NU or even PU could topple a team of OU if one was built just right. In fact even in OU when I played competitively I did run mons of lower tiers just for better synergy as they were better suited for my needs. So just throw tiers at the window because it's not a fair perspective to compare.

 

With experience you'll learn that a balanced game is a bad game. Game Freak knows what they are doing when making certain mons very strong while others super weak. It is intentionally designed that way so that most mons can be different and even unique. We've hit 700 something mons and the thing is that most really stand out as different from even similar Pokemon. And they still continue to do that. And as for the Mega Evolutions and Z-moves, of course they are going to show bias to certain mons. They want to make money so what's going to make more money: a badass evolution of the fan favorite Charizard or a new form of Luvdisc. I'm just happy that they go beyond that sometimes and show love for the forgotten mons such as Mawile.

 

Is the format perfect? Oh hell no. There's a lot of faults with this system and Game Freak even knew that which is why changes happened over time. It was a very faulty system to begin with, but it is one if not the only system to last as long as it did, especially at a time where games were trying to find themselves. A very scary thought is that the entire gaming industry could be entirely different if it were not for the original Generation 1 being released where it did. You really can't blame the creators for being fond of their very first game as it got them off the ground and gave many of them very successful and lifetime careers.

 

Which brings us around back to full circle. So in return I have to ask: what's your point? The devs not having any kind of bias for their work probably means they don't even care. I have bias for liking certain characters I designed more than others, but that's a natural thing. Most of the fanbase isn't even into the competitive aspect, but enough was to address and make changes and greatly improve competitive play. I suggest those who try answering this think very carefully what they are about to say as most answers can be torn to shreds effortlessly.

[FairFamily]

Personally I think type-(in)balance is very important because it is a part of the pokemon design space. Stats, looks ,typing , moves, abilities and lore are what makes up a pokemon and are the tools developper has to create pokemon.The combination of these elements is the design space and a pokemon takes up a spot of the design space. Each player has requirements from said design space. Some people want to play the game with cute pokemon, some want to play with strong pkmn,... . The requirements are vast and varied and competivity is part of it.  Game freak wants to satisfy as much of these requirements as possible.

 

A good typing (in)balance allows for a bit more flexibility on the other design elements and broadens the design space which is good. However it can also hinder design space. I think Ice is actually very restrictive typing in that regard. I think there is potential for a lot of cool or cute ice pokemon but simply won't have the mileage to keep me interested.

 

That being said you don't have to change the typing to broaden your design space. Good usage of moves and abilties are also a way to broaden design space. I think moves like freeze-dry, aurora veil and abilities like slush rush have been an efforts to expand the design space for ice types. So no I don't think they are biased towards types. 

 

For gen 1 bias, I think that it is natural since they want to reach a broader audience and most people have a connection for gen 1. 

[DarkFighter15]

Thx for sharing your views everyone

 

Though I still think they could have balanced the type chart better. I m not saying perfectly, but a little better like making ice resistant to fairy/dragon and water, poison super effective on water, and ice beating steel/fairy instead of grass and maybe something for bugs too to increase their coverage as bug defeat grass, psykick and dark - everyone keeps fairy so dark is covered, grass have plenty of weaknesses to be covered with and for psychic dark is a much better choice.

 

While making a team it wouldn't matter if you don't keep any bug poke or bug attack but not keeping ground or fairy will make you struggle a bit against electric and dragon respectively.

 

For the gen 1 bias I understand now. Didn't think of it that way before. 

 

And for the megas and zs I still think they should given a form to at least all the starters. I understand a mega evolution of luvdisc won't attract anyone but pokes like infernape have a lot of fans, at least more than venusaur. 

[GenEric]

mods better lock this before it turns into a flame war

[DarkFighter15]

Lol it won't reach till there.