Video Game Types Versus TCG Types

[Otaku]

Since I've been practically derailing another thread (perhaps even more than one) with the topic, I decided to see if there is enough interest to justify a thread for it.

So the topic and hand is three fold:

1) Should there be more Types in the TCG? What reasons are there for and what reasons are there against such a change?

2) How would you group the video game types into the existing TCG Types, and why?

3) Other options?

Though it might make the game feel a bit crowded (especially at first), the biggest hurdle I can think of for the first point is that the color spectrum the game already uses can't really handle 17 distinct colors. There certainly are that many, but Basic Energy cards often use two or three shades of a color, and that really hurts when trying to expand. There are also some colors that might be more appropriate on a Type other than what they currently belong to (I would associate brown better with Ground than Fighting).

Other than that, I think it might actually improve things. The Weakness/Resistance cycle for the TCG is partially wonky because it is an incomplete copy of the video game's Weakness/Resistance cycle. Weakness and Resistance itself are put into better perspective if we have that many Types; they still matter, but for much more specific match-ups.

Point two is what we know even TPC has reconsidered: how Types should be matched-up. A full discourse will have to come later, but as a single example, I wonder if Poison-Type Pokemon and/or Ghost Type Pokemon should be switched to the (TCG) Darkness-Type?

On the Defending side of things, it is easy enough to represent: hypothetical Darkness (Poison) Type Pokemon would be Psychic Weak instead of Resistant, while a Darkness (Ghost) Type would be Weak to Darkness-Types. I'd worry about Resistance (to the hypothetical Types) but they already a) don't pay much attention to it with the real cards and b) face "contradictions" as is.

For Pokemon that would be weak to Poison or Ghost-Types in the video games, Poison only hits Grass and Ghost only hits both Ghost and Psychic-Type Pokemon for double damage. No problem there and for a note of flavor, it almost makes sense for Darkness and Ghost to hurt Grass (absence of sunlight/death aura and all).

Option three is sort of a catch-all. I included it with the idea that perhaps it isn't all Types that need a counterpart but just a few, along with some reshuffling. This would also be the best point to respond to if you want to say "just leave things alone". I suspect that will be the majority opinion, but due try to support it, and with more than a "...because it is the simplest option".

So... thoughts on the subject?

 

[Victory Bell]

Interesting question. I'd say to leave things alone.

I agree that the TCG's weakness and resistance are messed up pretty bad. A Psychic type Muk shouldn't be doing double damage to a Psychic type Metagross (which would be immune to poison in the games). Yet, people have to realize that the card game is separate and different than the video game. In actuality, the Pokemon on the cards are just an aesthetic. I don't care what character is using Set Up as long as I'm drawing cards until I have seven in my hand. Nintendo (or whatever company is ultimately in charge of our beloved TCG) could theoretically take the Pokemon "skin" off the cards we play with and just slap a new franchise on it. With no respect to collecting values that is. In my opinion, it doesn't matter if the type match ups are in sync with the video game as long as I can play an awesome and balanced TCG.

But I digress. Point is, the 17 types in the video game is a good thing there. Not so much in a card game. Having that many or slightly less than that many types would make deck building a chore. Competitive players currently tech certain Pokemon that help out in many matchups. Terrakion or Tornadus for example. There use to be many more in older formats that are better examples though. That's just a current one. Anyway, say we had a Flying type Tornadus with weakness to Lightning and resistance to Fighting. That would be awfully redundant to what we have now. The only thing that could change about that card is energy types. Adding Flying energy would just kill its usefulness as a "colorless" tech. Having 17 types each with one weakness and resistance would make teching difficult. Most of the prominent Pokemon right now have weaknesses consistent with their types in the video game and consistent with a healthy card game. What if we had a Rock type Terrakion? What would the Metagame look like now? If Mewtwo wasn't weak to itself what good NATURAL psychic types (Gardevoir, Mew -Not Gengar, for example) would exist to counter it?

My whole point is, adding more types naturally makes the game harder to keep in check. And at this point, I don't think the game is very in check at all -It hasn't been for several years. I think keeping the number of types small in a format where super powerful cards checked only by their weaknesses (Mewtwo, Darkrai) helps even things out and allow decks like Quad-Terrakion to exist.

As to how I'd group the current types? I think they work pretty well in contrast to the video game, but as a player, I don't care all that much personally. Poison types should be Grass again in my opinion as Grass types are commonly also Poison, or associated with Poison types. More so that psychic or Ghost that is. I also think getting Dragon types out of Colorless is good for the game. I especially like how the energy set up for Dragons is going to be.

 

[signofzeta]

I think poison moved from grass to poison was because:

1. Poison types have purple skin, and not green skin, stupid I know.

2. There are more pokemon that use the energy with the leaf on it and fewer pokemon using the energy with the eye on it, thus balancing things out.

I agree with what you said, but would would having all 17 types, but using the same 8 energy be bad for the game? For example, if ghost types had a darker purple color frame, with its own ghost symbol under the weakness of psychic cards, and under the resistance of colorless (normal) cards, and has that symbol near the HP on the upper right, but used psychic energy like it always have, that is, the symbols near the attacks are combination of the psychic and colorless symbol, be a good thing, or a bad thing? I don't know.

I only started talking about how TPCi could handle having all 17 types in the TCG was because it all started as "what if dragon types used its own energy for its attack costs, rather than using the combination of existing energy. My argument of not adding to gameplay was really the mindset you use when you construct dragon decks. When you have 2 types, and both are mono decks, you basically don't think differently when you build both those decks when it comes to energy requirements. The current dragons makes you think differently, although you could technically add blend energies.

Also, I don't want a 9th basic energy, and I feel 8 is the magic number, because even in the games, there are 8 gym badges, and even if they are unrelated, they are based off the number 8.

I heard arguments about nothing bad will happen to the game if there were 15 or more basic energy types. I personally don't want to have the game ruined, but if TPCi listens to these people about having 15 basic energy, and the game is ultimately ruined, because of the overcomplication, or the dilution of a certain type, because less of one type has to be printed to make way for 8 more types, and the fact that if you create another basic energy, you are in essence dividing a certain type in half. Normally, people don't use a Grass type in a deck that uses fire energy, it would be stupid, so similarly, if ghost and psychic were split, and they use ghost and psychic energy respectively, people can't find combinations or strategies between ghost and psychic like they have now, because they use different energy, compared to the current same energy. If these "people" feel that the game sucks because of these factors, they only have themselves to blame, for not looking at what might happen if there were a basic energy for each of the video games' types, except normal.

I prefer the TCG to be not overly complicated and each type having a big enough representation in a 100 card set, rather than having the amount of types to be true to the video games. The mechanics of the TCG and the video games work differently, and the video games can have so many types, because it doesn't draw cards, or have card probabilities. In the TCG, you build a deck based off one or two types. In the video games, you team consists of multiple types to compliment each other, so if one is weak against a certain type, you have another that would be strong against the opponent.

I also have an argument about how if there are 16 basic energy types, that as I said, everything would be so diluted that it is hard to pull a certain type for your one type or two type deck, because you can't use grass energy on bug type pokemon, if there were 16 energy types. I heard counter arguments that buying booster packs aren't the way to go, therefore it wouldn't matter, and that buying singles, which gives TPCi no money, or buying full boxes, which makes you lose $100ish, is the solution. I don't know about them, is the reason why I refuse to buy singles is because I don't want control over what particular cards I want, although I want each type be in a each pack frequently, compared to if I have to buy 5 or 10 boosters just to pull a certain type from a 100 card set, because there are less of each type per set. The second thing is that, if you spend all your cash on one set, you would have no cash on newer sets. I'd rather not spend too much on one set at all. I bought 9 or 10 booster of one set, and I started to get repeats of 5 or more commons, so buying a box for me is a bad idea.

A second suggestion on how to have enough cards per type represented is to have specific types be in specific packs. I think that is a pretty dumb idea. First of all, you only need to look at theme decks. Green tornado is a shelf warmer. Red Frenzy flies like hotcakes. Now, if there was one type that is underplayed, then those packs of that type would not even sell. It's a simple fact. If every single type is randomly packed in a particular booster, then people would buy it, because there may be a chance that they can pull a card of a certain type. If there are 16 basic energies, and its associated types that have to use those energies, then it would be a lesser chance of pulling a card of a particular type, unless you buy singles or blow your savings on a booster box, just so you can have enough cards of a certain type, and thus have no cash for the next set.

The 8 energy system is PERFECT the way it is, and nothing should be added or removed. If TPC does add one more basic energy, would it ruin the game? No, but it would be one step closer.

I mean, look at world of warcraft TCG. You can't combine factions in your decks, and you can't combine classes. You have to have cards of the same faction and class as your hero, and there are 20 different faction class combinations, making deckbuilding hard, so at one point, they have to make 19 card boosters. Now they have 15 card boosters, so I don't know how anyone could get enough cards of a specific faction and class solely from boosters, as that is how a beginner usually starts building his deck.

 

[Otaku]

Interesting question. I'd say to leave things alone.

...and you wrote a good, thorough response. Not to sound paranoid, but I was afraid I'd get some barely 17 long character response stating that with like one less "thank you" than views the thread has, so I am relieved. :lol:

I would like to address some of what you brought up (and one of signofzeta's points), however.

• The TCG is based off the video games; you can "reskin" pretty much any game, but when you must adhere to source materials, it does create extra constraints (such as the TCG not being able to "invent" completely new Pokemon).
• Greater numbers don't always make for greater complexity; a lot of work goes into "conversion".
• "The way things are" would unlikely be the way they are if the current card pool had been designed with a different Type system; so a Flying Type Tornadus might instead of anchored a Flying-Type deck, and hopefully if Lightning-Types were meant to be this powerful a ground Type would have emerged to counteract them instead of Terrakion.
• A well balanced format is definitely important; when we have one I consider it to be "in spite of" the current Type system, based on the problems I perceive in the current system.
• Designing multi-Type decks shouldn't be that much harder; one shouldn't be able to create The One Deck That Rules Them All And In The Darkness Binds Them.
• It may actually make Type-matching less important; if the format is balanced and the player-base doesn't favor one Type (or even Pokemon) over another, a metagame accounting for more Types should be less prone to Type-matching.
• If other Types were added, they need not be added all at once, and some could end up as Dragons are, an "Energy-less" Type.

 

[[R]Visitor]

It's fine having the TCG stay the way it is.

Since the TCG is an extremely simplified version of the video game, the TCG can be considered an "easy mode" for beginners, while the video game is the route you go for true competition.

That's how I look at it, anyway.

 

[signofzeta]

...and you wrote a good, thorough response. Not to sound paranoid, but I was afraid I'd get some barely 17 long character response stating that with like one less "thank you" than views the thread has, so I am relieved. :lol:

I would like to address some of what you brought up (and one of signofzeta's points), however.

• The TCG is based off the video games; you can "reskin" pretty much any game, but when you must adhere to source materials, it does create extra constraints (such as the TCG not being able to "invent" completely new Pokemon).
• Greater numbers don't always make for greater complexity; a lot of work goes into "conversion".
• "The way things are" would unlikely be the way they are if the current card pool had been designed with a different Type system; so a Flying Type Tornadus might instead of anchored a Flying-Type deck, and hopefully if Lightning-Types were meant to be this powerful a ground Type would have emerged to counteract them instead of Terrakion.
• A well balanced format is definitely important; when we have one I consider it to be "in spite of" the current Type system, based on the problems I perceive in the current system.
• Designing multi-Type decks shouldn't be that much harder; one shouldn't be able to create The One Deck That Rules Them All And In The Darkness Binds Them.
• It may actually make Type-matching less important; if the format is balanced and the player-base doesn't favor one Type (or even Pokemon) over another, a metagame accounting for more Types should be less prone to Type-matching.
• If other Types were added, they need not be added all at once, and some could end up as Dragons are, an "Energy-less" Type.

They could add all the types of the colors of the world, and every element, such as mechanical type, or civil type, or computer type, or whatever, and it wouldn't hurt the game, as long as it used the existing 8 basic energy. The problem stems from adding more basic energies, which is what I was talking about in the other thread. "Will dragon energy exist". Basically having 16 basic energy types would force multitype decks, and as I try to pursuade people to play multitype that is, decks that utilizes 2 or more basic energies, it never worked,as you prefer to play decks using one type of basic energy, and having too may basic energy types would ruin that.

Basically what I meant by having the dragon type use its own basic energy rather than combinations of existing energy, and not adding to gameplay (well it is technically adding more to gameplay, but just adding the same stuff), is that there is no difference in how you approach this dragon type deck with basic dragon energy, than if you approached a fire type deck. Both have you setting up the ace pokemon in the same way. The current dragon type makes you approach things differently, that is, you are now using 2 energy types, or you are using special energies, instead of having all of the same basic energy.

If all 17 types were represented, but they still used the same energy as they do now, that is ghosts using psychic energy, then all this does is rearrange the weakness and resistance of each type. This I feel changes gameplay, but does not add to it. The reasoning is that, a grass type once weak to fire, is now weak to poison, or flying, is no different in how you approach a fire deck, a flying deck, or a poison deck.

 

[Shino Bug Master]

On one hand, i agree completely that if each type had its own representation then it would be reciculously hard to build decks with so few options. Look at sets now that will have only 3 or 4 electric Pokemon, or Steel Pokemon. If we had as many types as the actual Pokemon games, there would either be a limit of 4 ish per set or set sizae would have to drastically increase. Dragon is one of the types unique enough where i am glad they gave it its own typing. I never agreed with Ambipom G hitting Garchomp C super effectively.

And that brings me to my one complaint. What i would liek to see done is a more careful attention to weakness/resistance. For instance, Drapion Lv.X. A Dark type Pokemon in the cards and in the game, who ended up weak to Psychic. This hampered his plability fairly, but more than anythign just seems lazy. Drapion is immune to Psychic and resists both Ghost and Poison, all three types represented by it. That's why Drapion TM resists it. An astetic that i see that is really off is the haphazard slapping of Fighting resistance on Flying types. Most of them don't even resist Fighting, and are weka to Rock and only Ground out of the three is represented. Other things are the lack of Grass resistance Pokemon despite Grass being one of the most resisted types and inconsitant resistances like electric's Metal resist Ghost's Normal resist and Ground's Electric resisit. It's not a game breaking situation, but i do feel it shouldn't be that difficult to find a balance of things and bring more type characteristics to life like they are with Dragons.

But, on the subject of Dragons, couldn't they do pretty well the same thing they are doing with that to other types? Adding the types to the cards, weaknesses and resistances without making new energy types. Poison/Gohst and Psychic Pokemon could all co-exsist and share the same Psychic energy symbol as they do now without much effect. They could even share the same exact color, just adding new symbols. This would change some card effects that target per se a Grass Pokemon like Sunflora, who wouldn't be able to grab a Heracross now, but it could be either an excepted change or the whole type mechanic could be altered to fit the new types. This would add a lot of diversity in type chart options, making it easier to find a Psychic type Pokemon not weak to Mewtwo for example, without making so many energy types you cant possibly keep up.

 

[signofzeta]

On one hand, i agree completely that if each type had its own representation then it would be reciculously hard to build decks with so few options. Look at sets now that will have only 3 or 4 electric Pokemon, or Steel Pokemon. If we had as many types as the actual Pokemon games, there would either be a limit of 4 ish per set or set sizae would have to drastically increase. Dragon is one of the types unique enough where i am glad they gave it its own typing. I never agreed with Ambipom G hitting Garchomp C super effectively.

And that brings me to my one complaint. What i would liek to see done is a more careful attention to weakness/resistance. For instance, Drapion Lv.X. A Dark type Pokemon in the cards and in the game, who ended up weak to Psychic. This hampered his plability fairly, but more than anythign just seems lazy. Drapion is immune to Psychic and resists both Ghost and Poison, all three types represented by it. That's why Drapion TM resists it. An astetic that i see that is really off is the haphazard slapping of Fighting resistance on Flying types. Most of them don't even resist Fighting, and are weka to Rock and only Ground out of the three is represented. Other things are the lack of Grass resistance Pokemon despite Grass being one of the most resisted types and inconsitant resistances like electric's Metal resist Ghost's Normal resist and Ground's Electric resisit. It's not a game breaking situation, but i do feel it shouldn't be that difficult to find a balance of things and bring more type characteristics to life like they are with Dragons.

But, on the subject of Dragons, couldn't they do pretty well the same thing they are doing with that to other types? Adding the types to the cards, weaknesses and resistances without making new energy types. Poison/Gohst and Psychic Pokemon could all co-exsist and share the same Psychic energy symbol as they do now without much effect. They could even share the same exact color, just adding new symbols. This would change some card effects that target per se a Grass Pokemon like Sunflora, who wouldn't be able to grab a Heracross now, but it could be either an excepted change or the whole type mechanic could be altered to fit the new types. This would add a lot of diversity in type chart options, making it easier to find a Psychic type Pokemon not weak to Mewtwo for example, without making so many energy types you cant possibly keep up.

There are really 3 options:

1. Keep it the way things are
2. Have 17 types, but 8 basic energy types
3. Have each of the 16 types, dragon included, have their own basic energy, and attacks that use their own basic energy.

I have no comment on choice one, as it is happening now. Choice 2 is a decent idea, but I am in no rush. Choice 3 would ruin the game.

If you look at ghost, psychic, and poison, you mentioned having the same colored frame. I think the color of the frame should be different to be able to tell them apart, but same enough to show that they use the same energy. Poison could be dark purple, Ghost, a lighter purple, and Psychic a bright purple. Both are different colors, but are all still purple, if you know what I mean, and all 3 would use the same background pattern. If you look at the water type and put it beside the fire type, you would see the background patterns are different, and are not simply recolors of one another, although grass and fire seem to have the same background pattern, or that I couldn't see any differences.

But to make the game simple, you basically can't copy the games one for one. That is impossible. If this game were copied one for one, then TCG players would use multi type decks, with 4 or more types, or video game players have teams consisting of one, two, or three types, rather than having a balanced lineup.

 

[Human Destroyer]

My opinion on different types? Make one universal type of Energy, BUT make it so that different types of energy actually do special things.

SO any deck can be powered by using only this "Basic Energy", but these other types of Energy help out a lot.

 

[signofzeta]

There is another thing I forgot to mention about VG vs TCG types. The attacks. In the VG, one certain attack has the same type, no matter what pokemon it is on. In the TCG, that one attack changes type depending on which pokemon it is on. To make it similar to the VG, it would have to overcomplicate the TCG, and sometimes compromises must be made, such as the whole Drapion Level X thing.

 

[Shino Bug Master]

There is another thing I forgot to mention about VG vs TCG types. The attacks. In the VG, one certain attack has the same type, no matter what pokemon it is on. In the TCG, that one attack changes type depending on which pokemon it is on. To make it similar to the VG, it would have to overcomplicate the TCG, and sometimes compromises must be made, such as the whole Drapion Level X thing.

This makes no sense whatsoever. Every type in the game has its own type, via its attack cost. The only exception being 0 energy attacks, and those are obviously very different from most other attacks int he game. Additionally,t his has nothing to do with the complaint posed to Drpaion Lv.X, because no attack type of Psychic/Ghost/Poison would deal super effective damage to it.

Additionally, i never proposed copying the games one for one. However, keeping consitancy between things under the umbrella of Pokemonmakes sense, and the card game completely piggyback's the video game type charts. So you would think they could do so more effectively in some cases, or as the second propsal suggets, as effectively as possible without completely ruining the game.

 

[StormFront]

In the VG, one certain attack has the same type, no matter what pokemon it is on. In the TCG, that one attack changes type depending on which pokemon it is on. To make it similar to the VG, it would have to overcomplicate the TCG, and sometimes compromises must be made

I could see how this would be a fun element to add to the game. However, I feel this would be way too complicated for all but seasoned competitors to understand. Maybe in future there might be some kind of way to implement it, but currently we're still in the dumbing down phase of the game.

 

[signofzeta]

This makes no sense whatsoever. Every type in the game has its own type, via its attack cost. The only exception being 0 energy attacks, and those are obviously very different from most other attacks int he game. Additionally,t his has nothing to do with the complaint posed to Drpaion Lv.X, because no attack type of Psychic/Ghost/Poison would deal super effective damage to it.

Additionally, i never proposed copying the games one for one. However, keeping consitancy between things under the umbrella of Pokemonmakes sense, and the card game completely piggyback's the video game type charts. So you would think they could do so more effectively in some cases, or as the second propsal suggets, as effectively as possible without completely ruining the game.

You only have to look at twin needle, or in the TCG, twinneedle. Same thing basically. Twin needle in the VG is a bug type move, and was always a bug type move, and is strong against grass type, but if you use the TCG's Escavalier's twinneedle, it is not strong against grass type, nor does it have any bug type properties.

Likewise, look at slash. Slash is a normal type move, and does normal type damage, and it doesn't matter what pokemon learns this move. In the TCG, if slash is on a water type card, it does water type damage, therefore strong against fire. If fire types have a weakness to water, a normal type move like Slash would still deal more damage to fire type cards just because the pokemon itself is water type, and not the move itself. The problem was fixed with Drapion 4 from Rising Rivals, and Drapion from HS triumphant, both being weak against fighting, and resistant against psychic to represent the Dark aspect of it, and not the Poison aspect of it.

My point is, sacrifices must be made in order to keep the TCG not overly complicated. Simply giving Drapion Level X a purple frame and using psychic energy to make it be represented as a poison type would have fixed the problem. Or changing the weakness symbol to fighting, to represent that dark types are weak against fighting, and Drapion itself is weak against ground, which is part of the fighting category.

If you look at the many printings of sandile, you see the fighting, or ground type sandile, and the darkness type sandile. This time, they had it correct. In the TCG, you can never have a card that has 2 types at once. The Emerging Powers Sandile is weak against water to represent the ground aspect of the pokemon. The Dark Explorers sandile is weak against fighting, to represent the Dark aspect, but in the games, Sandile is weak against both.

If you look at Palpitoad, a water and ground type, it is weak against grass. Most water types in the TCG are weak against lightning, and most ground types weak against water, but palpitoad is an exception, because lightning doesn't work on palpitaod's ground aspect, although the card shows it as a water type, so in some ways that is staying true to the games.

Another thing that isn't true to the games is that most types are resistant to its own attack. Dragons being the exception, and some other types. If you use a fire pokemon agaisnt a fire pokemon, it still does normal damage in the TCG. In the video games, fire type moves are ineffective against fire type pokemon.

In the VG, you basically have to memorize weakness and resistances, and pick one of 4 moves depending on strategy. In the TCG, it is much different. There is the card drawing and card probability aspect as well, and having the weaknesses and resistances match one for one would overcomplicate things. Although they screwed up Drapion Level X's weakness and resistance, they only need to change one thing to alleviate the problem, either by changing the card to a psychic type, or changing the weakness to fighting. The problem with Drapion Level X is that they took the Poison aspect of the pokemon, that is, it being weak against psychic, and rather than making the card type poison, or should I say psychic, they made its other type, darkness instead. Fortunately, for subsequent printings, they fixed the problem. I think the reason why Drapion level X was the way it was, was because it tried to give it both the poison and dark properties. First, on offense, it uses the dark type property alone, thus making it strong against fighting types, while on defense, it is weak against psychic types, is because it uses its poison type property alone. Now, they whatever the card frame is, has the property of that type in both offense and defense, to make it more simpler.

Another thing about games vs TCG is, for Drapion, it is a poison type, therefore resistant against fighting, but a dark type, therefore weak against fighting. In the games, these things cancel each other out, so fighting attacks deal normal damage. In the TCG, it is different. Each card can only have one type. You either are strong against fighting, or weak agaisnt fighting, and not neutral against it, depending on if Drapion decides to be a Poison(Psychic) type, or a Darkness type.

The common thing about the Poison and Psychic type is that they both share fighting resistance, so perhaps that is a reason why poisons became purple.

In the latest few card sets, give me a card that you think has the wrong weakness, and I will try to explain it. If I can't, then it probably has the wrong weakness or resistance.

 

[Tash]

I kind of miss the early Dark/Steel "special energy only" mechanic. I wish they'd bring it back in some form. (how about Ghost? That's a pretty special typing)

Poison probably should have just split off into it's own thing at some point instead of moving it to psychic, but I don't think anyone cares all that much about the type. I'd like to see bug or ice become it's own thing, but it's not hurting anyone where it is.

 

[Regis_Neo]

I like the way the types are set up for the most part, some make sense (like Water and Ice sharing), others are a bit of a stretch (Fighting also encompassing Ground and Rock doesn't have much similarity except all 3 involving some sort of physical thing going on), and some make no sense at all (like Poison and Psychic). To make matters even worse for Poison, half of the family is split into Grass and the other half into Psychic. So some Pokemon like Nidoking have been represented by 3 different types total in the TCG (Nidoking being part Ground as well, meaning we've had Grass, Psychic, and Fighting Nidokings at varying times), which of course makes no sense in terms of continuity. But I mean, adding more types overall just makes it more unnecessarily complex, we already have more Energy types than MTG does for Land types, and we don't need to go into the whole subset system like YGO uses for Monster Attribute and Family/type, as then you have some very under-supported mechanics.

Now what I would personally like to see is them better match up Weaknesses and Resistances, as some of them get pretty weird; granted, this is mostly in cases where a Pokemon has dual typing, but even then no Bronzong should be weak to Psychic, heck it has a quad resistance to it normally since it's Psychic/Metal. In fact, the whole Psychic being weak unto itself is an oddity, consider Bug was the only original thing super effective against them way way back and they were rolled into Grass, for whatever reason they didn't make any Psychic Pokemon weak to that subtype in the TCG. Poison too really should be reworked, though I'm not sure if moving it completely out of Psychic and into Grass would make it that much better logically...

So yeah, if anything that's my only real complaint about the current system in that it can make some really weird Weaknesses that makes no sense from a videogames; if they improved on that a bit it would be cool. I think one Sableye from a long while back even had a Weakness, though of course Sableye is one of 3 Pokemon lines with no Weaknesses (one of 2 if you discount Abilities and go purely by typing). But at the same time it allows for fun as well, like all the Holon sets just throwing everything out of the water, which made it a very fun block regardless of the Holon engine.

 

[dark wobbuffet]

adding new types brings problems. when the first types were made they had weakness so as each type had stuff that was weak to it but if you added a new type nothing would be weak or resistant to it. I supppose this could be avoided if you added several new types at once. I do not think the current types are bad anyway, people complain about a load of things but the current types isnt really one.

 

[Otaku]

adding new types brings problems. when the first types were made they had weakness so as each type had stuff that was weak to it but if you added a new type nothing would be weak or resistant to it. I supppose this could be avoided if you added several new types at once. I do not think the current types are bad anyway, people complain about a load of things but the current types isnt really one.

They chose to do that with Darkness/Metal-Type Pokemon when they were introduced.

Nothing stops the game's designers, should a new-Type be created, from releasing it in a set of Pokemon that largely are Weak or Resistant to it. Considering how rare some Weakness/Resistances are in the game (especially the latter), a single set focused on this would in many cases even things out between the Types. At worst, for the short term the new Type would be the odd one out, but that is true with all new mechanics; eventually it's normalized.

I am warming up to the idea of maintaining the core eight basic Energy Types but then including at least some of the other Pokemon Types... that is, not unlike what they have done with the coming Dragon-Type.

 

[NoDice]

As far as fixing weakness and resistance is concerned I think it could work if they did something like this-

Assuming they would separate and add in Poison type, Ice type, Ground type, Rock type, and Bug type cards bringing us up to 14 types.

Grass- W: FIRE R: WATER
Electric- W: GROUND R: Itself
Water- W: GRASS R: FIRE
Rock*- W: FIGHTING or STEEL R: COLORLESS or FIRE
Fighting- W: PSYCHIC R: ROCK
Psychic(and Ghost) W: DARK R: POISON
Bug*- W: ROCK R: PSYCHIC
Fire- W:WATER R: GRASS
Steel- W: FIGHTING or FIRE R: PSYCHIC or COLORLESS
Dark- W: BUG R: PSYCHIC
Poison*- W: GROUND or PSYCHIC R: GRASS or BUG
Ice*- W: STEEL R: Itself
Ground*- W: ICE R: ELECTRIC

And I think if we added in the last type- Ghost- we could create a balanced chart of each type having one advantage or disadvantage to each type.

Dual typed Pokemon could be handled based on which type of card they were printed EG: Water/Ice- Water would hold the Grass weakness while if it was printed as an Ice type it would have Steel. Not perfect and this could certainly use some work, but it would be a start. I tried to keep the WATER/GRASS/FIRE trinity intact, but I think a balance could be achieved with the other types as well.

 

[TRAINER HEZ]

Moving the energy types around wouldn't have much of an effect on Modified, but I think Sealed formats in Pokemon need a lot of work. If you could redistribute the VG types more evenly into the TCG types it'd be easier to design sets with equal numbers of Pokemon in each type, rather than for example, pulling a stack of Water and Grass and a couple of Elec and Fire. Encouraging Drafting seems like a good business plan!

Some TCG types have far too many Pokemon:
Grass (grass and bug)
Water (water and ice)
Psychic (psy, ghost, poison)
Fighting (ground, rock, fighting)
Colorless (normal, flying, current dragons)

Whereas some have just 1 and they're small types anyway!:
Fire, Lightning, Steel and Dark. These 4 types could do with an extra VG types moving into them. How would you do it?

Maybe:
Fire (Fire, Dragon)
Lightning (Electric, Flying)
Steel (Steel, Rock)
Dark (Dark, Ghost)

Water and Grass would still be huge, but it'd be a little better.

 

[Regis_Neo]

Flying and Electric would be too awkward, considering the bulk of Flying types are weak to Electric; keeping them in Colorless with Normal makes more sense as again, the bulk of Flying types also are part normal anyways.

Moving Dragon into Fire is a bit meh, but could be done. Though as they now have their own type (just lacking formal energy), it's not needed really. Steel and Rock would make some sense, while moving Ghost into Dark would as well.