Do you think that some pokemon types are unnecessary?

[Mitja]

Every of the 17 types is justified and combined they cover anything one can imagine quite nicely.

I used to think 17 was such a weird and random number.. but actually, if you look at normal as the "default" type, you're left with a nice 16 (4+4+4+4, 2*2*2*2)

Anyhow. In my view, right now the type chart consists of 3 categories:
-Elements
-Techniques
-Species

The first are the basic stuff anyone would come up with when they think of types, attributes, elements etc.
Fire, Water, Electric, Ice, Grass, Ground

Furthermore, I see 2 groups here, ones being processes/reactions and the others plain aspects of nature
Energy:
-Fire
-Electric
-Ice
Nature:
-Water
-Grass
-Ground

Techniques are about the actual approach to the battle, kinds of strategies or special abilities that give you an edge.
-Fighting
-Poison
-Flying
-Psychic
-Dark

And species actually relates to the organism itself (also, if the type is merely secondary, its usually employed as armor)
-Bug
-Rock
-Ghost
-Dragon
-Steel

The most redundant at first seem the whole species group, after all, simplified, they make as much sense as a Fish, Mammal, Monster, Bird...types.
But they are the more unique ones. For example, including Bug is justified even simply as a homage to "bug collecting", which is what inspired pokemon alltogether. Dragon, is THE mythologic creature known to all humanity even before there was actual contact between different cultures, yet seems to have no real world basis. Ghost covers everything "abnormal", while Rock and Steel are THE concepts for all sorts of armors and more mineral based creatures, while steel also adds an artificial aspect.



I couldn't imagine taking away anything else than those 5, but I don't think that would work nicely either.

 

[Orithan]

Ok, ever since gen 2, everyone wanted to know about the ??? type. It's kinda sad that they wasted a possible new type and make it ghost

The ??? type is what I call the Curse type, because it is only used by the move 'Curse' in the main games. However, there is a ???-typed Arceus coded into the games, suggesting that GF is planning to expand on it and possibly turn it into a proper type at some stage

 

[Dragalge]

If Gamefreak wants to implement a new type, they can, I mean its a great company, I'm pretty sure they will find some way to make it balanced. But as for my answer no.

And as for people saying Poison and Ice needs revamping because of there issues, think this: most games will have a "best and worst" for example; Ground is the best offensively while Poison is the worse and Ice is the weakest defensively where Steel takes the cake. Besides all types have there niche in gameplay and types aren't the only thing that determines how balanced Pokemon is since there are a myriad of moves, abilities, items, and almost complete different stat distributions.

 

[Endolise]

The ??? type is what I call the Curse type, because it is only used by the move 'Curse' in the main games. However, there is a ???-typed Arceus coded into the games, suggesting that GF is planning to expand on it and possibly turn it into a proper type at some stage

I doubt it, since they got rid of the Curse-type entirely in Gen V. Curse itself was reclassified as a proper Ghost-type move, and the Arceus beta-sprite (which was only implemented in order to cover for a potential hack (just like Reshiram, Zekrom, and Victini's Shiny sprites), and there was still no Curse-type Plate) was taken out.

 

[jireh the provider]

In truth, I'll be commenting on everyone who responded to this topic. Including the original creator of this thread itself.

First and foremost, I'll focus on the respondents who say that:

"The typing chart has to be changed for there are certain types being under powered and forgotten in the competitive environment, and that some of those certain types can be combined to the other similar type."

While it is true on how some of you pointed out the similarities of, lets say Rock and Ground or Ice and Water, It makes sense in some pedigree. Its true that pokemon has too much types for us to handle. But I wanna ask this? Is there any other monster catching franchise that has more than 17 types on its type chart? Plus, the aforementioned type similarities can be separated with logical terms. Think of a compound atom. Compound atoms are atoms combining 2 or more different elements. Elemental atoms however are their original forms. That phrase is just basic chemistry. So for those wanted to change the name of the types and combine two similar types into one, you wanted compound types instead of separating the "Earth" element into a much more logical Rock type and Ground type.

"Type A should have more/less resistances/super effectiveness against types B/C/D in order to have a fair spotlight with other dominant types like dragon/fighting/steel/water."

I know that it terribly sucks to be a poison/ice type thanks to their terrible/lackluster coverages. While most of us understand the sense of making poison also super effective to water, fighting, steel, and bug types thanks to the references for environmental pollution, I ask you this? Does EVERY kind of chemical acid destroy stainless steel? The others are theoretically logical. But steel? That is quite impossible.
The Ice types. Oh how we wish that they have resistance to water, and get rid of the hated rock type weakness. But about the weakness to rock, which of the two types will be higher o the mos Scale of Hardnesss? A block of Ice or many kinds of rocks and stones? That is up to you to research if you wanted to know.