• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Most overrated or underated type?

Poison-types are not stylically different from the rest of Pokémon; I don't see why people would dislike the type for "being ugly".

Except for Garbodor, but that's in a category of its own.
 
I can believe this, but I honestly dont think pokemon should be judged by their looks.

Newsflash:

Alot of people do. It's kind of silly. But that's how the world works.

Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.

But I like Pikachu best because it's cute, so.
 
Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.

Amen.
 
Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.

But I like Pikachu best because it's cute, so.

clearly, what really matters is the movepool. obviously.
 
Really? I think it's sillier to judge Pokemon on their stats. It makes me sad when people boil Pokemon down to numbers and values and disregard lots of Pokemon entirely because they're not good competitive battlers. "Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favourites" and all that.

Unfortunately, my favourite six range from NU to Uber.
 
I think Dragon types are overrated. Most people I know think that once they have a dragon type, they can rule over all. I agree with Bug types being underrated. I also think that ground and ice types are underrated as well.
 
ground and ice are among the best offensive types, especially due to the large distribution of their defining moves. as a defensive typing, ice is terrible and ground is okay.

dragons get stupidly powerful moves with only small drawbacks, tend to have at least decent stats, and ridiculous neutral coverage; it's not that they're overrated, they're just that good.
 
STAB Earthquake is a great asset in the metagame. Ice is good as an offensive type because it keeps dragons in check, but being Ice-type yourself isn't very good, since STAB on Ice Beam/Ice Punch isn't very necessary and Ice is probably the worst type defensively.

Dragons are very difficult to kill if you don't have an Ice-type move or a Steel-type Pokémon to wall Outrages. Salamence and Garchomp are 4x weak to Ice, but they are speedy and will beat down most Pokémon before they can launch an Ice move. Speed is what makes Cynthia's Garchomp very difficult to prepare for.
 
Ice lacks good offensive Pokémon (aside from maybe Weavile), which means the type is most useful outside STAB. Furthermore, Ice-types tend not to learn much that counters their weaknesses.
 
Back
Top Bottom