DL Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 RArely. 1. Inventor2. Hermit3. Virus4. Tamer while it's true the last three supposedly can fit into warrior, spellcaster, and machine, they're still well-thought out types that could very well be very awesome, but if people keep shooting down those ideas, then better types will never appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 RArely. 1. Inventor2. Hermit3. Virus4. Tamer while it's true the last three supposedly can fit into warrior' date=' spellcaster, and machine, they're still well-thought out types that could very well be very awesome, but if people keep shooting down those ideas, then better types will never appear.[/quote'] Inventor is the only one out of all those. Why even try with a hermit? They are just some random people who lives in the woods. Virus as explained is a machine >_> Tamer? Can easily fit into warrior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguespreader Zombie Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Alright, Darklink, stop being an idiot. Hermit, no. Dryad takes that, and she's Spellcaster. http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Dryad Virus is Machine, as proved by 2 people Tamer, There's a Card, CALLED Monster Tamer, and it's Warrior Inventor is the only Fake-Type that could be seen as an actual type, otherwise, you're just making a fool of yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I've already proven that Tamers can ether be a Warrior or Spellcaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguespreader Zombie Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 I've already proven that Tamers can ether be a Warrior or Spellcaster. Pfft. It was me and my Monster Tamer that did it. People really need to lrn2usethewikia =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Like I said, they WERE proven to be able to fit into actual types (though monster tamer has a whip, so it's gonan be a warrior.) What I'm getting at is ppl will be too scared of makin fake types to try and make up cool new types. You people say you don't mind creative ones, but how can you expect anything else when you shoot down ideas instantly (hermit, virus, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 We shot down your ideas with facts and proof. Fake Types aren't bad, but only if they don't fit into a type already. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 Like I said' date=' they WERE proven to be able to fit into actual types (though monster tamer has a whip, so it's gonan be a warrior.) What I'm getting at is ppl will be too scared of makin fake types to try and make up cool new types. You people say you don't mind creative ones, but how can you expect anything else when you shoot down ideas instantly (hermit, virus, etc.)[/quote'] Why do you think people are scared of making fake types? They aren't really scared as much as the type could probably fall under an existing type. Well we shot down all your ideas because they can already fall under an existing type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 that's cause you tried to make them fit. They were perfectly fine outside, but you shoved it inside the "existing types" category. I realize that they CAN fit into an already existing type. (I'm not THAT stubborn) but it doen't mean you have to TRY and put them back to the category of existing types. If ideas liek mine, that come close to getting out of the box, are rejected, then almost anything is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 You're not supposed to make new types that still fit in others, it pretty much screws up the whole purpose of types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plaguespreader Zombie Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 that's cause you tried to make them fit. They were perfectly fine outside' date=' but you shoved it inside the "existing types" category. I realize that they CAN fit into an already existing type. (I'm not THAT stubborn) but it doen't mean you have to TRY and put them back to the category of existing types. If ideas liek mine, that come close to getting out of the box, are rejected, then almost anything is.[/quote'] They're not close. They fit perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 just cause you showed me a pic of a guy holding a whip doesn;t mean he's the sam etype of tamer I'm talking about. Virus only fits if you stretch the machine thing. Hermit's are not spellcasters, and don't do anything that humans can't do. So unless you stretch the spellcaster concept to include those that are wise, it jumps out of the box. BTW, you're ALL missing the point. There's no room for creativity when all the ideas that come into play are rated lower, even when they're in the any other cardds section, which is any other cards (duh) not realistic. Someone makes a good fake-type The person had a VERY good idea to go with that type People rate it lower for fake type the kid gives up on the idea. hget where I'm goin. We're more alike than you think. I don;t like to see unthought-out faketypes, liek animal. Really, if I saw animal, I'd be like Really? But something liek hermit and virus is nowhere near something liek animal., I put alot of thougt into hermit, and I'd just like for it to be rated fairly, but of course, if I post them , they'll be lower rated for fake type. So I'm waiting until people accept fake types to post them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 You do realize ratings are BS and should be ignored in the first place? >_> No, you guys don't seem to understand the vagueness of the types. When you think Machine Type, don't think robot, think everything technological. >_> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Requiem Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 You do realize ratings are BS and should be ignored in the first place? >_> No' date=' you guys don't seem to understand the vagueness of the types. When you think Machine Type, don't think robot, think everything technological. >_>[/quote'] With machines you can get even more broad anything that looks metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL Posted December 10, 2009 Report Share Posted December 10, 2009 My kind of virus don't look like metal Wait, looks like metal? WTH?? Really? XD That made me lol. I though of fire emblem, those huge heavy knights that seem like big chunks of metal. I guess they'd be machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolta Posted December 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 11, 2009 Virus Type? Easy. But I won't tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DL Posted December 12, 2009 Report Share Posted December 12, 2009 Either way, if ratings ar BS, then why do ppl bother to rate down fake types? Well, anyway, I'm done here... this thread has served its purpose, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.