id be less of a hater if pokemon had actually interesting dog designs. theyre all just extremely mid to kinda badspoilers: puppies sell
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Unpopular opinions
- Thread starter antemortem
- Start date
Listen, Dacshbun is pretty cool. After 25 years, they've finally got the craft up to a 1/3 success rate per generation.
Never understood the hype abt dogs. Ugly looking, dangerous loud animals.spoilers: puppies sell
I think we're very different people, since I consider dacshbun the most boring out of the three, and mabosstiff the one decent in the gen
I feel like some of the problem is that Sweet and Aroma Veils aren't very exciting abilities. Sweet Veil feels especially lame for a Fairy type since it doesn't block anything that isn't already affected by Misty Terrain. I'm definitely not opposed to more aggressive and supernatural Fairies though, if anything Grimmsnarl feels a bit lacking for sticking to Prankster team support instead of breaking the opponents in both body and spirit.
I love most of the dog pokemon smh
Where are my Fairies based one the actual Fair Folk or trickster Gremlins? Klefki, Mawile, heck I give Tinkaton half a point here since she's more like a fantasy Dwarf than an elegant magic girl like most vaguely-humanoid Fairy Pokemon (as are other examples of the "small girl with extremely large weapon" trope)
QuentinQuonce
formerly green_typhlosion
Impidimp?
That's 1 for sure. My point is to give us more of those and less "I am a pretty butterfly I bring the Moonblast to your eye" by comparison.
QuentinQuonce
formerly green_typhlosion
I think they're leaning into this vibe more as time goes on. A lot of the earlier Fairies are "the pretty and the sparkly" but most of the examples who lean more explicitly into the whole tricky-and-mean vibe are from more recent gens: Mimikyu, Shiinotic, the Tapus, Enamorus, Flutter Mane, Fezandipiti.
Last edited:
I also think Fairy just needs more time to have more Pokemon who lean into a wider variety of concepts that could apply to it. Fairy is still a relatively new type and has only been around for four generations, and hasn't had as much time for Game Freak to really get into the more creative things that can be done with it design wise, especially seeing as how Fairy is a pretty abstract type that can welcome a variety of design concepts. Gen 6 is when it was first introduced and it introduced a few new ones and had to retcon several older mons into Fairy-types to begin the type. Recent generations however have been getting pretty creative and leaning into more classical depictions of fae. Hatterene, Grimmsnarl, and Tinkaton in particular are varying flavors of classical fae, being chaotic monsters who do whatever they want with little care for others, with Grimmsnarl being a troll/goblin and Tinkaton being a small blacksmith carrying a giant hammer, and all three are top tier designs that have taken off immensely (deservingly so).
Remember that for the longest time, Dragon, Fairy's counterpart and an equally as abstract type, had very few designs and most leaned into badass draconic monsters (like Garchomp, Salamence, and Rayquaza), but when you look at the Dragon-type roster now, many Dragons nowadays have delved into so many different design concepts and is now one of the most colorful and varied rosters of Pokemon from a design and concept point of view, with all kinds of mythological influences and whatnot. So the Fairy-type will likely reach that level of variety itself over time.
Remember that for the longest time, Dragon, Fairy's counterpart and an equally as abstract type, had very few designs and most leaned into badass draconic monsters (like Garchomp, Salamence, and Rayquaza), but when you look at the Dragon-type roster now, many Dragons nowadays have delved into so many different design concepts and is now one of the most colorful and varied rosters of Pokemon from a design and concept point of view, with all kinds of mythological influences and whatnot. So the Fairy-type will likely reach that level of variety itself over time.
This part of the forums isn't really for competitive stuff.
I don't think so. The forums for individual Smogon metagames can be found here, the place for higher-level Smogon policy stuff can be found here, and the forums for official Game Freak metagames like VGC can be found here. Posting in the Policy Review subforum requires either a badge or special permission.
Also keep in mind that people there tend to not be very receptive to stuff. Actually I've never been to the VGC forums so they might be pretty chill there, but the other two places can get very elitist.
now that Certainly Very Normal post got me thinking - what if gamefreak decided to erase a type from existence? like fairy from the TCG but in the main series? "we decided steel was a mistake. the type is gone. steel mons will be redirected to other types or simply become monotypes of their other type. gg guys." it certainly sounds like a mess, but i never thought about it before and at this point i am not immediately saying no to any attempt at shaking up the type table. we need something.
Do we really.
We don't need to change the type table. It's fine as it is.
As I usually say, if you want a perfectly balanced type chart, you can play rock / paper / scissor. Part of what makes pokemon's charm unique is the fact the type chart isnt a rock / paper / scissor scenario, but a way more complex thing.
This post could have definitely ended here.
Why? What other similar games is it in?
QuentinQuonce
formerly green_typhlosion
While statistically and aesthetically they're not particularly monstrous, both their dex entries infer that they're full of immense power (Altaria Emerald dex entry: It launches intensely hot fireballs from its mouth) and have savage dispositions (Kingdra Sapphire dex entry: Kingdra sleeps on the seafloor where it is otherwise devoid of life. When a storm arrives, the Pokémon is said to awaken and wander about in search of prey).
They're also the only non-legendary dragons who actually get Dragon Dance naturally in Gen III: Flygon doesn't at all, and Salamence and Dragonite both need to breed for it. It's another gameplay=/=lore thing, I always got the sense we're meant to think of them as every bit as powerful and imposing as others of their type even if mechanically they're not.
(although Kingdra in GSC is pretty fearsome when you first encounter it tbh)
QuentinQuonce
formerly green_typhlosion
ORAS did that long before I got here.
You gotta give a little respect.
So I want Gamefreak to stop wasting their time with the Doubles Focused Pokemon designs.
I do not mean I want them to stop trying Doubles-Mons (gimmicky or trying for power), but that if they want the Dex to include so many Pokemon that clearly only play their best in that format, the games need more Doubles Content while those mons are available. For a quick example, Passimian and Oranguru are available on Route 5/Lush Jungle areas of Alola, early-midgame catches, in a game that I don't think features more than 3 Double Battles in the entire run (and this is me assuming there are any just to cover my ass) where you could utilize their signature traits (which I find particularly glaring with Passimian since Receiver is its only non-Hidden Ability). SM/USUM actually feel particularly eye-twitching to me because SOS/Totem battles mean the OPPONENTS can utilize these techniques a lot, but you cannot since the challenge is in the 2v1 set-up.
It makes these Pokemon feel very Vanilla (even if they're good) for maingame purposes, and by the time you reach the Doubles content, they often aren't event particularly stand out compared to "regular" built Pokemon that you give Doubles Tools instead of a Doubles Focus.
This is coming off the Indigo Disk DLC for SV, where I actually experimented with the Doubles Gimmick mons because there were a sizable number of fights to actually experiment with them against both regular and boss trainers, so I could actually fine-tune my gameplan instead of breaking it out the one time it works and then just forgetting about it again. Stuff like having to consider EQ vs High Horsepower on my Excadrill or actually getting use out of Fake Out/Helping Hand on a Hitmontop to buy set-up turns. I don't need it (all) to be this level of difficulty, but some reasonable presence of Double Battles in the main game seems like a no-brainer given they design so many Doubles-focused Pokemon AND obviously it being the VGC format. Maybe something like SV's three paths, one could be focused on Doubles as opposed to Singles.
I do not mean I want them to stop trying Doubles-Mons (gimmicky or trying for power), but that if they want the Dex to include so many Pokemon that clearly only play their best in that format, the games need more Doubles Content while those mons are available. For a quick example, Passimian and Oranguru are available on Route 5/Lush Jungle areas of Alola, early-midgame catches, in a game that I don't think features more than 3 Double Battles in the entire run (and this is me assuming there are any just to cover my ass) where you could utilize their signature traits (which I find particularly glaring with Passimian since Receiver is its only non-Hidden Ability). SM/USUM actually feel particularly eye-twitching to me because SOS/Totem battles mean the OPPONENTS can utilize these techniques a lot, but you cannot since the challenge is in the 2v1 set-up.
It makes these Pokemon feel very Vanilla (even if they're good) for maingame purposes, and by the time you reach the Doubles content, they often aren't event particularly stand out compared to "regular" built Pokemon that you give Doubles Tools instead of a Doubles Focus.
This is coming off the Indigo Disk DLC for SV, where I actually experimented with the Doubles Gimmick mons because there were a sizable number of fights to actually experiment with them against both regular and boss trainers, so I could actually fine-tune my gameplan instead of breaking it out the one time it works and then just forgetting about it again. Stuff like having to consider EQ vs High Horsepower on my Excadrill or actually getting use out of Fake Out/Helping Hand on a Hitmontop to buy set-up turns. I don't need it (all) to be this level of difficulty, but some reasonable presence of Double Battles in the main game seems like a no-brainer given they design so many Doubles-focused Pokemon AND obviously it being the VGC format. Maybe something like SV's three paths, one could be focused on Doubles as opposed to Singles.
And why are the dogs unrelated? If you want to do multiple lines based on the same thing, sure, but DO SOMETHING with that. 3 dog lines, all single-typed, all 2-stage lines. And they have different BSTs, different evo levels, don't have similar abilities or learnsets...They're very clearly not counterparts, so why introduce all 3 of them at the same time?
The question isn't why. It's why not.
As I implied, "everyone loves puppies" (you included, you literally have one as avatar...). There's a gazillion dog species in the real world, and most of them have nothing in common other than being dogs, I don't see anything weird in having a gazillion unrelated dog (or cat) species in Pokemon either.