>>48914816Good effort anon but these sorts of threads are a pain to read. Take it from someone who used to make these sorts back in the day, it's better if you collate your findings in an image or even a pdf / archive somewhere and then share them. Rambling run on posts are just a chore to browse.
For what it's worth, I've done my own assessments and analytics on the types. My takes:
1) The obvious stuff about how two types is restrictive and an artifact of GB/GBC limitations, but Pokemon needs some kind of limit to keep things elegant etc.. The best fix here is to accept that some types are "bigger" than others, and allow Pokemon to have say six "Type Points". Some types may only use one type point, while others may occupy four or more. Ditto for moves and such.
2) In general certain types are quite redundant while others are strangely precise, and there are several pseudo-types waiting to exist in the games already.
- Audio is just screaming to be its own type, ditto for Ballast as a bullet, launcher, throwing ball etc. type.
- Rock and Ground could easily be rolled into one Earth Type.
- A Tiny type could be made from Bug and Fairy, with the remaining magic being its own type - Magic.
- Then Ghost is just Dark and Magic, Dragon is Magic and, like, Big type or something.
There's wiggle room here, and when paired with point 1), you can see how an overarching main type could have multiple specific subtypes.
3) Beyond just the types and their allocations, there's the workings of the effective/ineffective systems. There's time and room to make some types slightly effective but not a full x2 and vice versa, and equally so some types to be a wopping 3x or 4x effective all by themseles, or resisted down to a third or quarter without total immunity. Most immunities I'd probably remove in this fashion.
Beyond this, I could link to some spreadsheets and docs I made ages ago, exploring a massive 40 type system and how to implement it over a bunch of mons.
