>>58104160>>58104174>Your core argument is "if things are balanced they won't have an identity" and that's just so blatantly fucking wrong that I can't believe I have to point this out to you.you don't have to point this out because that was never my argument. You made that up, as if you were building some sort of... strawman. As always, accusations turn out to be confessions.
>Anyway, go ahead and pretend that I stawmanned you now."hmm if I strawman him and then correctly predict that he's going to point out the strawman, that'll really make HIM look like the bad faith debater"
>Here's you're exact quote btw:>>no it's not, shit game design would be making every single type equally powerful and with no identitysee how I said "equally powerful AND with no identity"? see how I stated those things separately, implying I don't believe them to be synonymous? I know that reading comprehension is practically a superpower nowadays, but you could at least try.
My argument is that the only way campaignshitters can conceive of balance is to remove the individual identities of each type, like you want to do with Bug. This is because, as someone who doesn't actually play competitive pokemon, you think the type chart is the only determining factor in balancing and, as someone who doesn't play competitive games whatsoever, you think a balanced game is a game where everything is at the exact same level of relative power.
The type chart is already balanced, as proven by the fact that we're way past the gen 1 days where Psychic and Normal dominated everything. Buffing Bug, the type whose identity is tied to being the worst type, not only removes the type's identity but it does absolutely nothing to improve your vision of balance, because if Bug was no longer the weakest type, another type would take its place, which you would call to buff just like Bug, potentially in ways that would remove its identity as well, such as giving Grass the same offensive prowess as Ice.
