Discussion Does Dragon Need a Basic Energy Type?

[Dave Summers]

if double dragon energy is going to continue to rotate out and stay rotated then yes it does and likely will eventually get its own basic energy just like Metal and Dark did in diamond and pearl after being only special energy for years, give it time it will happen or they will keep double dragon energy around (not looking like it is though) Noivern GX doesn't exactly need DDE to be around for the format's sake

Well we had dragons with multi colored attacks since... Around 2002.

Spoiler

Expedition Base Set baby.

So, if they wanted do give Dragon its own energy, they would already done it on Dragons Exalted/Vault. But they didn't.

So yeah, no. There's not gonna be a basic dragon energy anytime soon. If they do it, they're just taking out an interesting game mechanic just to... Yeah there's no reason to make a basic dragon energy.

 

[Dalton]

This guy gets it.

PPS this is exactly the kind of support Dragon needs, though I'd be wary of giving them a free +40 to everything. Maybe it could be like Kukui in that it provides a small damage boost but also some sort of other buff, like +20 damage and +20 HP, or +10 damage and free retreat.

DEAR TPCI. MAKE US WANT TO PLAY DRAGONS. PLEASE STOP MAKING THEM A MEME TYPE.

As powerful as +40 would be, every Dragon Pokémon is absolutely terrible. Salamance EX is no longer playable, considering most decks play 0-2 EX. Tina isn't good anymore, and it is rotating. The only good Dragon Type will be Noivern GX. The problem is, with Garb still the king of the format, decks have learned to play with very few items. Also, post rotation you will never be able to get a consistent turn one lock. You need Noibat, Wally, Max Elixir, Energy AND a way to retreat/switch. The amount of things you need is crazy. And all that must literally be in your opening hand, because no Shaymin, Trainer's Mail or "good item draw support". And you have to play a minimum of 9 Basic Energy if you want you Elixirs to hit.

 

[PMJ]

It's been established that dragons have shitty attacks that aren't worth paying for. That's why they're bad. Taking away a way to power them up without trashing your consistency is not the way to make them playable.

Giving them a basic Energy not only won't solve that, but it takes away the Dragon type's niche (as much as you can call being virtually unplayable post-rotation a niche).

Maybe SM4 will have something for them. Or maybe they'll start printing better dragons.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

As powerful as +40 would be, every Dragon Pokémon is absolutely terrible. Salamance EX is no longer playable, considering most decks play 0-2 EX. Tina isn't good anymore, and it is rotating. The only good Dragon Type will be Noivern GX. The problem is, with Garb still the king of the format, decks have learned to play with very few items. Also, post rotation you will never be able to get a consistent turn one lock. You need Noibat, Wally, Max Elixir, Energy AND a way to retreat/switch. The amount of things you need is crazy. And all that must literally be in your opening hand, because no Shaymin, Trainer's Mail or "good item draw support". And you have to play a minimum of 9 Basic Energy if you want you Elixirs to hit.

Why is this a necessary thing for the game? The point of rotation is to move on and make something new. I have no idea what it is with newer Pokemon players wanting to lock the opponent out of the game in one turn effortlessly. I have a rule of game design for these things. A easy-to-do lock should be easily broken and a hard-to-do lock should require effort to break, not the other way around.

It's been established that dragons have shitty attacks that aren't worth paying for. That's why they're bad. Taking away a way to power them up without trashing your consistency is not the way to make them playable.

Giving them a basic Energy not only won't solve that, but it takes away the Dragon type's niche (as much as you can call being virtually unplayable post-rotation a niche).

Maybe SM4 will have something for them. Or maybe they'll start printing better dragons.

Don't you think reprinting DDE, removes that niche?

 

[signofzeta]

The game does not need another basic energy type. The 9 types that require a basic energy is similar to 9 toys using the same mold, but are painted differently.

A grass pokemon, and the way you use the energy, how you build the deck, is no different if that pokemon were a fire pokemon instead. Dragon is one of those types where you are supposed to have very few of them in your deck, not build your deck around the dragon type.

The only thing dragon types need to fix is the energy costs in relation to the power level of attacks.

I find it funny how some people here want basic dragon energy, but nobody in the MTG community wants a basic land that produces "gold" mana.

One reason why I think dragons aren't viable is because there are 9 freakin basic energy types. In MTG, multicolor cards work because there are only 5 colors of mana, meaning at least 10 different 2 color pairs. In Pokemon TCG, there are 36 2 color pairs, meaning that you can't consistently have enough different dragons with the same 2 energy type costs to fill a deck you built using 2 energy types.

The game already killed itself when it introduced fairy energy. What they really should have done is to have all types from the video games, and separate them as such, but some type share the same basic energy as another type.

The energy types won't be grass, metal, or any name that uses the exact same name as the pokemon type etc. It will be generic elemental names like Earth, Fire, Water, Air, Light, and Darkness. Something that might use Light energy would be Electric and Fairy types. Darkness might power poison, dark, and ghost types. Air might power flying and psychic types. You can even replace "air" with "nature" energy, to represent the grass and bug types.

You can have 100 billion pokemon types for all I care. Just keep the number of basic energy types to a minimum.

 

[Kietharr]

Don't you think reprinting DDE, removes that niche?

Kind of, but not reprinting DDE effectively removes the dragon type from the game. And not even just in a 'well this isn't meta so it sucks ass' sort of way. I play all sorts of stupid dragon decks for fun, Haxorus, dragon Megaray, ect. All of them go from bad decks that work maybe 30-40% of the time to unplayable decks that work 5-10% of the time when DDE leaves. There is not a 'get good, change the way you play' solution to that problem, it's a straight hit to both consistency and speed for a collection of already marginal cards.

I would rather they design dragons that are worth paying multicolor costs for than reprinting the band-aid solution, but they're clearly not doing that. Kommo-o is the clearest sign to me that they're still clueless when it comes to making good multicolor cards. Nothing that card does justifies the consistency hit for running different basic energies. Even WITH DDE, there is no reason to run that card. We have the setlists for everything through October. Dragon is getting no support and one playable card (which is only playable because its main attack doesn't have a multi-type cost). Fairy is getting what will probably be a new t1 deck with Garde-GX which puts dragons in an even sketchier situation viability wise.

I think the above comment on reduction of basic energy types and expansion of pokemon types would be cool if I could trust PCL to not just make all of the multicolor cards garbage compared to those that use single color costs. That's the core design problem here. Even the most powerful dragons in recent memory simply wouldn't be worth playing without DDE with the exception of Salamence and again, that's because its main attack isn't multicolor.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

Kind of, but not reprinting DDE effectively removes the dragon type from the game. And not even just in a 'well this isn't meta so it sucks ass' sort of way. I play all sorts of stupid dragon decks for fun, Haxorus, dragon Megaray, ect. All of them go from bad decks that work maybe 30-40% of the time to unplayable decks that work 5-10% of the time when DDE leaves. There is not a 'get good, change the way you play' solution to that problem, it's a straight hit to both consistency and speed for a collection of already marginal cards.

I would rather they design dragons that are worth paying multicolor costs for than reprinting the band-aid solution, but they're clearly not doing that. Kommo-o is the clearest sign to me that they're still clueless when it comes to making good multicolor cards. Nothing that card does justifies the consistency hit for running different basic energies. Even WITH DDE, there is no reason to run that card. We have the setlists for everything through October. Dragon is getting no support and one playable card (which is only playable because its main attack doesn't have a multi-type cost). Fairy is getting what will probably be a new t1 deck with Garde-GX which puts dragons in an even sketchier situation viability wise.

I think the above comment on reduction of basic energy types and expansion of pokemon types would be cool if I could trust PCL to not just make all of the multicolor cards garbage compared to those that use single color costs. That's the core design problem here. Even the most powerful dragons in recent memory simply wouldn't be worth playing without DDE with the exception of Salamence and again, that's because its main attack isn't multicolor.

The things is not every type has support. Colorless Pokemon have no support. Regardless of what people say, this is still a Pokemon type. Many other types in Standard don't have support either. Also, how are we defining support here? Just a playable mon or something that helps across the type? If the latter is true, then the only Pokemon type going into the new Standard with Support is Water, Fire and Lightning. That is three of what, 12 types in the game? Why are Dragon type more deserving than, say the Grass type for support?

You can still play a Dragon deck, with the two Energy types, you just need to build the deck the right way but each player should be able to build a decent deck anyway. You run your standard Pokemon line. You have Energy Switch to help out, Spread out your Energy, like players used to do. Kommo-o-GX have a free kill at any point in the game, so you're always playing a four-Prize game and with a Choice Band or Kukui, you can knockout even the 250 HP mons. You also have an attack that can KO both A.Ninetales and Darkrai in a single hit. You have to want to wait a while and attack. You can put down two Basic Energy and a DCE, most decks have to attack three anyway. Does the Dragon type deserve the support? Sure, but so does every other type without Support. It will come. Maybe they make another Dragon set but they have had more support than most types.

 

[signofzeta]

Lol, imagine a Dragon attack that requires one of each of Grass, Fire, Water, Lightning, Psychic, Fighting, Darkness, Metal, and Fairy energy. The attack does 500 damage to your opponent's active pokemon, and 500 damage to 5 of your opponent's benched pokemon. This means that if you are able to power up this attack, you win the game.

Considering how most cards probably don't have 9 energy cost attacks, they already ruined this kind of attack by introducing too many energy types.

Remember that if you keep on adding basic energy types to the game, it means that less cards will use that one specific energy, so adding a basic energy type is the worst idea ever.

There is seriously no difference between a fairy type using fairy energy, and a fairy type using lightning energy. What makes a type what it is is based on the weakness and resistance, not the energy it uses. What making fairy use its own energy means that there would be less cards that use fairy energy, as opposed to if fairy used lightning, the card pool that uses that energy includes both lightning and fairy pokemon. Sure it would look stupid if a fairy type card uses the same yellow card face as lightning pokemon, which is why all 18 types should have their own card face color, and the only difference is that 2 or 3 types may share the same basic energy types.

 

[Ecourts]

You can still play a Dragon deck, with the two Energy types, you just need to build the deck the right way but each player should be able to build a decent deck anyway. You run your standard Pokemon line. You have Energy Switch to help out, Spread out your Energy, like players used to do.

You can't just "build the right way," that's not how it works.
Sure, you can "play" any card. Build a deck around it, focus the entire engine to getting it set-up... you'll still lose to a good deck.

As Tord said in his interview with Kettler:
"[...]playing the most well rounded deck matchup-wise and the most consistent version of the most consistent deck ended up paying off!"

The issue is consistency.
You will not always have access to the energy switch, you will not always have both types of energy in play.
Even in the best case scenario, you will be out-paced by things like Garbodor and Zoroark BREAK.
Their attacks are one energy, they have better decks built around them, and they are one-prize attackers.

Why try and make Kommo-o viable, when it loses to the meta?
Garbodor will abuse your dependency on items to set-up...
While Zoroark BREAK will knock you out with your own attack(s), before you can even use them.

Metas are created by a constant battle to be the best.
When one deck tries to claim this title, other decks build themselves to defeat it.
Decks that cannot adapt to these new threats, are discarded, and cease being viable.

DDE is the Dragon type's claim to viability.
This energy allowed Dragons to fill a niche, and aid a select few decks in the meta battle.
For Example: Giratina allowed Darkrai to wall Megas, and in some situations, slow down opponent's decks.
Even with these attributes, it rarely saw play in anything but Darkrai; because Darkrai benefitted from DDE.
This combination of benefits is what made it see play in the Darkrai deck.
Giratina without DDE is bad.
DDE without cards like Giratina is bad.

They are designed around each other.
Without DDE, it would not have seen play.

We either need a card similar to DDE, or better dragons.

To be honest... even with a reprint, I think Drampa would abuse cards like Giratina; as a lot of dragons have massive retreat costs.

 

[John InCENAroar]

How does Pokemon print sets after a region focused one? As in after we get out of Sun and Moon, do they just do a random theme or focus on another region? Would be cool to see RSE again since ORAS didn't seem to get a focus on it.

They could just call it Ryuki...

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

You can't just "build the right way," that's not how it works.
Sure, you can "play" any card. Build a deck around it, focus the entire engine to getting it set-up... you'll still lose to a good deck.

Yeah you can. If your attacker need two different Energy, you run six or seven of each. You also have cards like Energy Search for this reason and with all the draw that exist, you shouldn't have any issue finding energy.

As Tord said in his interview with Kettler:
"[...]playing the most well rounded deck matchup-wise and the most consistent version of the most consistent deck ended up paying off!"

Yeah, this is true but the most consistant type in Standard right now is Water, Fire, Dark and Psychic right now. What about the other eight types?

The issue is consistency.
You will not always have access to the energy switch, you will not always have both types of energy in play.
Even in the best case scenario, you will be out-paced by things like Garbodor and Zoroark BREAK.
Their attacks are one energy, they have better decks built around them, and they are one-prize attackers.

This is also a issue for other decks as well. You won't always have that Rare Candy or Spirit Link. M Rayquaza-EX is the most consistent Mega because of the trait. Garbodor is a slow deck. Don't play as many items and you do well but you're forgetting that the Dragon type is supposed to support other types, not be their own deck because their strengths are also their weaknesses. It's why we can smash Lance easily.

Back on track, many decks are better than others. My deck is better than most of the meta decks now and has no issues with Garbodor variants.

[/QUOTE]Why try and make Kommo-o viable, when it loses to the meta?[/QUOTE]

If you like the Pokemon... That is usually good enough for me.

Garbodor will abuse your dependency on items to set-up...

I hear this isn't a Kommo-o-GX or Dragon exclusive problem.

While Zoroark BREAK will knock you out with your own attack(s), before you can even use them.

Again, I hear this isn't a Kommo-o-GX or Dragon exclusive problem.

Metas are created by a constant battle to be the best.
When one deck tries to claim this title, other decks build themselves to defeat it.
Decks that cannot adapt to these new threats, are discarded, and cease being viable.

No one is arguing that. Meta is also a pretty subject term since the meta changes all the time. Passimian/Mew won a event and still does decently but it won't be considered meta for most. Players are always developing tech but denying the fact Kommo-o-GX has tools is just as bad.

DDE is the Dragon type's claim to viability.
This energy allowed Dragons to fill a niche, and aid a select few decks in the meta battle.

DDE doesn't need to exist though. It came and it went, like all other support. You adapt and keep going or move on to something else.

For Example: Giratina allowed Darkrai to wall Megas, and in some situations, slow down opponent's decks.
Even with these attributes, it rarely saw play in anything but Darkrai; because Darkrai benefitted from DDE.
This combination of benefits is what made it see play in the Darkrai deck.
Giratina without DDE is bad.
DDE without cards like Giratina is bad.

Rainbow Energy can do the same thing. DDE is just as good with Darkrai as it is for the new Raichu-GX or currently Primarina-GX or Xerneas BREAK or M Gardevoir-EX or Delphox or any other Pokemon that does Energy base damage scaling. These decks don't need a Dragon and DDE. DDE wasn't made for Darkrai-EX or any of the other decks. It's just a possible card interaction, like how well Battle Compressor works for Night March and Vespiquen.

Is Giratina bad without DDE? I don't think so. Slower, yeah but not bad. It blocks Megas and prevents three card types from being played. It was balanced without it.

They are designed around each other.
Without DDE, it would not have seen play.

This is incorrect. DDE wasn't designed for Giratina-EX. DDE was designed to give dragons a easier time. It helped it out a lot, sure but the card wasn't made for it.

We either need a card similar to DDE, or better dragons.

We don't need a similar card to it right now. Wait three or four formats first. The Dragon type isn't the only type that needs better Pokemon to be honest with you. Maybe if the Energy discarded itself at the end of the turn or if you're losing on Prize cards or something. Not something free.

To be honest... even with a reprint, I think Drampa would abuse cards like Giratina; as a lot of dragons have massive retreat costs.

Which Drampa are we talking about by the way?

Well, Dragons are supposed to be a big imposing threat

 

[Ecourts]

Yeah you can[...]

No one's playing Dragons... even with DDE still in the format.
So, how you justify Dragons being too powerful, and that DDE needs a nerf, is beyond me.

Also...

Yeah, this is true but the most consistant type in Standard right now is Water, Fire, Dark and Psychic right now. What about the other eight types?

This is just... not how the game works.
There isn't a lot of support for any type right now, just a handful of cards altogether.
Pokemon actually act independent of their typing, believe it or not.

Psychic type will see the most play, because of Lele; a card used in nearly every deck list.
Dark type is seeing a lot of play, because of Zoroark; a card that's been used in decks like Vespiquen, which doesn't even have Dark energy in it.
Even the decks that run dark energy... often don't have any dark synergy in the deck.
ex. Andrew Mahone's Zoroark BREAK deck doesn't even run Altar of Moone...

Fire and Water are the only two out of those that legitimately have support.
Even so... the Top 2 decks at internationals were neither Fire nor Water.

One of which was Grass, however, a type you seemed to forget has quite a bit of support.
and the other was Colorless/Psychic, running no supporting cards for either typing.

Funny enough, Psychic actually has the least support.
It's currently the only typing without a special energy; and I don't expect to see it return, as they gave it's effect to Altar of the Moone.

 

[crystal_pidgeot]

No one's playing Dragons... even with DDE still in the format.
So, how you justify Dragons being too powerful, and that DDE needs a nerf, is beyond me.

They did print a Raquaza with 190 damage printed on the card and I think a Zygarde with 150 HP. The new Noivern-GX is looking pretty busted. A DDE that discards at the end of the turn seems fine post Noivern-GX.

Also...

This is just... not how the game works.
There isn't a lot of support for any type right now, just a handful of cards altogether.
Pokemon actually act independent of their typing, believe it or not.

True but why should Dragon have any support over the rest of the types? Some Dragon Pokemon are going to be more playable than others.

Psychic type will see the most play, because of Lele; a card used in nearly every deck list.
Dark type is seeing a lot of play, because of Zoroark; a card that's been used in decks like Vespiquen, which doesn't even have Dark energy in it.
Even the decks that run dark energy... often don't have any dark synergy in the deck.
ex. Andrew Mahone's Zoroark BREAK deck doesn't even run Altar of Moone...

Looking a what we have now, there are at least two Pokemon from each type that are playable. Something like a Pokemon with a cost of [F][C][C] is going to be more playable than a Pokemon with [F][F][F] since you can put a DCE on the former. This isn't just a Dragon problem. Pokemon from the Delta block also had attack cost like this and they too saw play but that was a slower format, like the one we're going into.

Fire and Water are the only two out of those that legitimately have support.
Even so... the Top 2 decks at internationals were neither Fire nor Water.

That is true.

One of which was Grass, however, a type you seemed to forget has quite a bit of support.
and the other was Colorless/Psychic, running no supporting cards for either typing.

I was talking post rotation, so I didn't want to list cards that would be going away.

Funny enough, Psychic actually has the least support.
It's currently the only typing without a special energy; and I don't expect to see it return, as they gave it's effect to Altar of the Moone.

This is why I want to ask how we are defining support. Cards that are busted are going to be played. Also, Colorless Pokemon don't have a special Energy as well.

 

[Olimar.Inc]

They did print a Raquaza with 190 damage printed on the card and I think a Zygarde with 150 HP. The new Noivern-GX is looking pretty busted. A DDE that discards at the end of the turn seems fine post Noivern-GX.

Also...





True but why should Dragon have any support over the rest of the types? Some Dragon Pokemon are going to be more playable than others.



Looking a what we have now, there are at least two Pokemon from each type that are playable. Something like a Pokemon with a cost of [F][C][C] is going to be more playable than a Pokemon with [F][F][F] since you can put a DCE on the former. This isn't just a Dragon problem. Pokemon from the Delta block also had attack cost like this and they too saw play but that was a slower format, like the one we're going into.



That is true.



I was talking post rotation, so I didn't want to list cards that would be going away.



This is why I want to ask how we are defining support. Cards that are busted are going to be played. Also, Colorless Pokemon don't have a special Energy as well.

Rainbow/double colorless are their special energy in my book.

 

[Crizor]

They could just call it Ryuki...

Oh, didn't know he existed. Then maybe he'll come out in the Ultra Beast focused set? I haven't played SM so I don't really know his story implications or why/if he is important.

 

[Otaku]

Oops! Posted early. Will edit once I finish reading the thread. >.>

Okay.

There are so many tangents I want to bring up, but at least for now, I'm sticking to the main question asked.

Q: Does the Dragon-Type need its own Basic Energy?

A: No.​

The reason it is "no" is because the one possible benefit is making it easier to run a mostly or mono-Type Dragon deck in the future. It won't help previous Dragon-Types because it would only meet their Colorless Energy requirements. If a new piece of Dragon-Type support helps and older Dragon-Type, it helps an older Dragon-Type. It won't matter it needs this hypothetical [N] Energy* versus any others that don't match those of the older card. You'd have to reduce a glut of new Dragon-Type support that all used this hypothetical basic Dragon Energy card to make it matter, and all of this ignores the real problems behind much of this thread.

1. The Pokémon TCG has a lot wrong with it. So do many other successful TCGs. They don't need to fix these issues because customers either don't recognize them as problems or just don't care. We can still discuss it, though.
   
2. The Pokémon TCG has a pacing problem, which translates to balance issues between the Types and the Stages. Only the best cards of a Stage or Type are competitive, which makes for a lot of filler in expansions.
   
3. The Pokémon video games are locked into mechanics that (for the most part) were justified due to hardware limitations, but now have become etched in stone. Abstractions like the four (now five) core stats, and a mish-mash of things that count as a "Type", and the Weakness/Resistance/Immunity system should have been replaced by more details information to represent your Pokémon.
4. The Pokémon TCG is beholden to the video games, which creates problems because even if I was totally wrong with #3, it makes it hard to transfer things over and make them work. For example, Weakness is part of what causes the pacing problem, because x2 damage creates a wicked acceleration spike. True Dual-Types are a novelty mechanic in the TCG. Several video game Types aren't separate Types in the TCG. Etc.
5. False or misleading data. The Dragon-Type has only been around since BW and it has dominated the metagame at times; just because it's on the outs now does not mean it needs an influx of special Dragon-Type help. Mono-Type decks don't need to be a thing; if anything, it runs contrary to general Pokémon strategy where you want a well-mixed team!
6. @signofzeta unintentionally giving me a legitimate way to compare and contrast how Transformers - as both fiction and a toyline - makes mold reuse a good thing, and how that could be compared to the need for Types to have similar (even identical) pieces of technically custom support so none fall behind, but the exact emphasis of the support and strategies are how they should best distinguish themselves from each other.
   
   Transformers has always used redecos/repaints of figures to pad out the line, and over the years they made it a good thing. They use it to keep down costs, which allows them to invest more into designing a particular mold. They learned how to make the same figure look different by simply rearranging bits, or by having a few alternate bits that just get recycled when not used. They learned how to write better characters by making these redecos into noticeably different characters (at least, when doing it right). Even on the shallow end, sometimes I just think a character looks better in a particular color scheme.
   
   Pokémon probably needs a similar approach to the TCG. Have mostly the same pieces in each Type, but use a combination of flavor and exact execution distinguish them. Don't know if they'll put in the needed effort, but no need for Darkness-Types and Water-Types to feel repetitive just because both Aqua Patch and Dark Patch exist. Even if we never get an Ice-Type proper, utilizing them to give Water access to a particular mechanic can make them feel like something separate.

Whew! So yeah, not big on Dragon receiving its own basic Energy Type. If the video games aren't going to simplify, then I am big on Dual-Types and the current Pokémon TCG pseudo-sub-Types getting their own official Types, using a similar model where Ice uses [W] Energy, Ghost still uses [P], etc. Of course, I wonder if some of these need to be switched around. Maybe remove Rock-Types from the TCG Fighting-Type and add it to the TCG Metal Type. Maybe Poison ought to be part of the TCG Darkness-Type? Etc.

*We don't see it much, but my understanding is that [N] is the text-based representation for the Dragon-Type symbol. [D] is already Darkness, [R] is Fire because [F] is Fighting, [G] is already Grass, and vowels aren't use ( hence Fairy being [Y]).

 

[signofzeta]

Oops! Posted early. Will edit once I finish reading the thread. >.>

Okay.

There are so many tangents I want to bring up, but at least for now, I'm sticking to the main question asked.

Q: Does the Dragon-Type need its own Basic Energy?

A: No.​

The reason it is "no" is because the one possible benefit is making it easier to run a mostly or mono-Type Dragon deck in the future. It won't help previous Dragon-Types because it would only meet their Colorless Energy requirements. If a new piece of Dragon-Type support helps and older Dragon-Type, it helps an older Dragon-Type. It won't matter it needs this hypothetical [N] Energy* versus any others that don't match those of the older card. You'd have to reduce a glut of new Dragon-Type support that all used this hypothetical basic Dragon Energy card to make it matter, and all of this ignores the real problems behind much of this thread.

1. The Pokémon TCG has a lot wrong with it. So do many other successful TCGs. They don't need to fix these issues because customers either don't recognize them as problems or just don't care. We can still discuss it, though.
   
2. The Pokémon TCG has a pacing problem, which translates to balance issues between the Types and the Stages. Only the best cards of a Stage or Type are competitive, which makes for a lot of filler in expansions.
   
3. The Pokémon video games are locked into mechanics that (for the most part) were justified due to hardware limitations, but now have become etched in stone. Abstractions like the four (now five) core stats, and a mish-mash of things that count as a "Type", and the Weakness/Resistance/Immunity system should have been replaced by more details information to represent your Pokémon.
4. The Pokémon TCG is beholden to the video games, which creates problems because even if I was totally wrong with #3, it makes it hard to transfer things over and make them work. For example, Weakness is part of what causes the pacing problem, because x2 damage creates a wicked acceleration spike. True Dual-Types are a novelty mechanic in the TCG. Several video game Types aren't separate Types in the TCG. Etc.
5. False or misleading data. The Dragon-Type has only been around since BW and it has dominated the metagame at times; just because it's on the outs now does not mean it needs an influx of special Dragon-Type help. Mono-Type decks don't need to be a thing; if anything, it runs contrary to general Pokémon strategy where you want a well-mixed team!
6. @signofzeta unintentionally giving me a legitimate way to compare and contrast how Transformers - as both fiction and a toyline - makes mold reuse a good thing, and how that could be compared to the need for Types to have similar (even identical) pieces of technically custom support so none fall behind, but the exact emphasis of the support and strategies are how they should best distinguish themselves from each other.
   
   Transformers has always used redecos/repaints of figures to pad out the line, and over the years they made it a good thing. They use it to keep down costs, which allows them to invest more into designing a particular mold. They learned how to make the same figure look different by simply rearranging bits, or by having a few alternate bits that just get recycled when not used. They learned how to write better characters by making these redecos into noticeably different characters (at least, when doing it right). Even on the shallow end, sometimes I just think a character looks better in a particular color scheme.
   
   Pokémon probably needs a similar approach to the TCG. Have mostly the same pieces in each Type, but use a combination of flavor and exact execution distinguish them. Don't know if they'll put in the needed effort, but no need for Darkness-Types and Water-Types to feel repetitive just because both Aqua Patch and Dark Patch exist. Even if we never get an Ice-Type proper, utilizing them to give Water access to a particular mechanic can make them feel like something separate.

Whew! So yeah, not big on Dragon receiving its own basic Energy Type. If the video games aren't going to simplify, then I am big on Dual-Types and the current Pokémon TCG pseudo-sub-Types getting their own official Types, using a similar model where Ice uses [W] Energy, Ghost still uses [P], etc. Of course, I wonder if some of these need to be switched around. Maybe remove Rock-Types from the TCG Fighting-Type and add it to the TCG Metal Type. Maybe Poison ought to be part of the TCG Darkness-Type? Etc.

*We don't see it much, but my understanding is that [N] is the text-based representation for the Dragon-Type symbol. [D] is already Darkness, [R] is Fire because [F] is Fighting, [G] is already Grass, and vowels aren't use ( hence Fairy being [Y]).

My argument for the whole same mold, repainted was about how if you made dragon have its own basic energy, you would be making it exactly like the other 9 types. I used to collect lots of transformers toys, and I never ever bought a repaint of the same mold, as the play value of both toys are exactly the same. Likewise, if dragon used its own basic energy, the way you build your deck is no different than if you built a deck using Grass, Fire, Water, Lightning, Psychic, Fighting, Darkness, Metal, and Fairy. A dragon card with basic dragon energy costs has the same "play value" as a grass type with basic grass energy costs. You are going to use the same way of thinking to build a deck using that dragon type with its own basic energy costs as you are going to use when you play that grass type with basic grass energy costs. The way dragons are right now, you have to think differently. The reason why some of you want basic dragon energy is because you have the mindset like it is like the other 9 types that use their own basic energies, like you are supposed to run the same amount of dragons as you are with the other 9 types that use their own basic energy. Dragons are supposed to be different and not a copy paste same mold different color version of the other 9 types that use their own energies.

Likewise, I could make the argument that if some of you want basic dragon energy, there should also be basic colorless energy. The arguments for saying that colorless shouldn't have basic colorless energy, I could easily say that there shouldn't be basic dragon energy. Where colorless can be used in any case, dragon, being rare in the games and all, is supposed to be used in specific cases. Dragon is the type where you are supposed to have one or two dragon pokemon in your deck, not build your deck around multiple dragon pokemon. Dragons are supposed to support your other existing types you already have in your deck.

What dragons need to change is to change the power level of attacks. What costs 2 different energy for a dragon type attack should cost 3 for an attack that uses 2 of the same energy, 4 if it uses one specific energy, and 5 if it uses all colorless. Dragons should reward you for trying to run multiple energy decks.

Common dragon cards should always have 2 attacks. Both are equal in power. One uses one energy type, the other uses a different energy type. Both attack don't use both energy types at once. You can at least run any common dragon if you have at least one of the two energy types in your deck, except you would only be able to use one of the two attacks.

Uncommon dragon energy cards uses one of each of the 2 energy types at the same time, but never more than one of each. Any cost that is higher than 2 energies would be filled with colorless energy costs.

Rare and higher still uses 2 different energy types, but the attack costs might use multiple of one or both energies.

That is how dragons should be designed.

Let's say you run a mono grass energy deck. You can use any common dragon provided it has at least one attack that uses grass, but you can't use the other attack, because it requires fire. If you want to use both attacks, or have access to uncommon or higher dragons, you have to run 2 energy types in your deck.

 

[jessalakasam]

Common dragon cards should always have 2 attacks. Both are equal in power. One uses one energy type, the other uses a different energy type. Both attack don't use both energy types at once. You can at least run any common dragon if you have at least one of the two energy types in your deck, except you would only be able to use one of the two attacks.

Uncommon dragon energy cards uses one of each of the 2 energy types at the same time, but never more than one of each. Any cost that is higher than 2 energies would be filled with colorless energy costs.

Rare and higher still uses 2 different energy types, but the attack costs might use multiple of one or both energies.

That is how dragons should be designed.

Let's say you run a mono grass energy deck. You can use any common dragon provided it has at least one attack that uses grass, but you can't use the other attack, because it requires fire. If you want to use both attacks, or have access to uncommon or higher dragons, you have to run 2 energy types in your deck.

I actually really like that idea, but sadly don't see TPCi being smart enough to do it

 

[Otaku]

I used to collect lots of transformers toys, and I never ever bought a repaint of the same mold, as the play value of both toys are exactly the same.

1) Doesn't preclude enjoying the option to own the color scheme you prefer.
2) Doesn't seem to apply to a decent chunk of the fandom; many exclusives are just recolors of an existing mold, and still sell well. Even in adult collector targeted venues.
3) Having multiple of the same toy can affect the play value; yeah, even exactly the same figure. It just depends upon how you play.

I won't add another quote, but your logic isn't as sound as you think. First, you noticed I am against adding a basic Dragon Energy card, right? I just brought up the Transformers thing because I was going to make a joke about it, but then realized my favorite toyline used it pretty well. Especially with how modern toys often have alternate transformation steps and pieces. Figure X comes with Head 1, Arms 1, and a gun. Figure 2 represents a distinctly different character, has Head 2, Arms 2, and a sword. While you technically can transform them in the same manner, the official instructions take advantage of how the alternate mode kibble and robot details give a distinct look when positioned one way versus another.

Why'd I bring this up? I do not expect a lot out of Pokémon R&D when it comes to game design. It may not be a matter of ability, but what they are allowed to do. While I do want the types to be more than "What you are about to play is the same strategy as for all other types. Only the names, art, and Pokémon Type have been changed to protect the innocent.", that doesn't mean they need to be radically different throughout. Which was my point, they don't need to be radically different; they can be, but as we've regrettably seen, a lot of Pokémon decks "feel" the same even when using different Types or Stages or even strategies; you give me a deck that hardlocks me T1 versus a deck that steam rolls with me raw offense starting T2, both can leave me sitting there doing nothing but draw/pass or actions that have little significance.

As you know, I make flawed arguments all too often. While I am that annoying person who enjoys being right, that isn't the only reason I try to correct them when I see them elsewhere. It is very easy for such things to spread online. As an example:

Likewise, I could make the argument that if some of you want basic dragon energy, there should also be basic colorless energy. The arguments for saying that colorless shouldn't have basic colorless energy, I could easily say that there shouldn't be basic dragon energy. Where colorless can be used in any case, dragon, being rare in the games and all, is supposed to be used in specific cases. Dragon is the type where you are supposed to have one or two dragon pokemon in your deck, not build your deck around multiple dragon pokemon. Dragons are supposed to support your other existing types you already have in your deck.

Remembering that I do not want to see a basic Dragon Energy card created, I still can see how this line of reasoning doesn't hold up. All basic Energy cards can meet two kings of Energy requirments: those of their own Type, and [C]. A basic Dragon Energy could fill [N] and [C], but a basic [C] Energy would only provide [C]. Now, I am assuming future Dragon-Types will have [N] Energy requirements; if this is not the case, then yes Dragon Energy would be just as pointless as a basic Colorless Energy card.

Probably still get lost since I'm addressing something else, but remember mono-Type decks aren't the norm for all Types and while not competitive, functional Dragon-only decks exist. If we allow the usual off-Type cards plus Bronzong (PHF), Giratina-EX (AOR) and Tyrantrum-EX (XYP) had a competitive deck for a time.

 

[signofzeta]

1) Doesn't preclude enjoying the option to own the color scheme you prefer.
2) Doesn't seem to apply to a decent chunk of the fandom; many exclusives are just recolors of an existing mold, and still sell well. Even in adult collector targeted venues.
3) Having multiple of the same toy can affect the play value; yeah, even exactly the same figure. It just depends upon how you play.

I won't add another quote, but your logic isn't as sound as you think. First, you noticed I am against adding a basic Dragon Energy card, right? I just brought up the Transformers thing because I was going to make a joke about it, but then realized my favorite toyline used it pretty well. Especially with how modern toys often have alternate transformation steps and pieces. Figure X comes with Head 1, Arms 1, and a gun. Figure 2 represents a distinctly different character, has Head 2, Arms 2, and a sword. While you technically can transform them in the same manner, the official instructions take advantage of how the alternate mode kibble and robot details give a distinct look when positioned one way versus another.

Why'd I bring this up? I do not expect a lot out of Pokémon R&D when it comes to game design. It may not be a matter of ability, but what they are allowed to do. While I do want the types to be more than "What you are about to play is the same strategy as for all other types. Only the names, art, and Pokémon Type have been changed to protect the innocent.", that doesn't mean they need to be radically different throughout. Which was my point, they don't need to be radically different; they can be, but as we've regrettably seen, a lot of Pokémon decks "feel" the same even when using different Types or Stages or even strategies; you give me a deck that hardlocks me T1 versus a deck that steam rolls with me raw offense starting T2, both can leave me sitting there doing nothing but draw/pass or actions that have little significance.

As you know, I make flawed arguments all too often. While I am that annoying person who enjoys being right, that isn't the only reason I try to correct them when I see them elsewhere. It is very easy for such things to spread online. As an example:



Remembering that I do not want to see a basic Dragon Energy card created, I still can see how this line of reasoning doesn't hold up. All basic Energy cards can meet two kings of Energy requirments: those of their own Type, and [C]. A basic Dragon Energy could fill [N] and [C], but a basic [C] Energy would only provide [C]. Now, I am assuming future Dragon-Types will have [N] Energy requirements; if this is not the case, then yes Dragon Energy would be just as pointless as a basic Colorless Energy card.

Probably still get lost since I'm addressing something else, but remember mono-Type decks aren't the norm for all Types and while not competitive, functional Dragon-only decks exist. If we allow the usual off-Type cards plus Bronzong (PHF), Giratina-EX (AOR) and Tyrantrum-EX (XYP) had a competitive deck for a time.

What I am trying to say is that if TPCi introduced dragon energy, and dragon used their own energy as opposed to the 2 energy attack costs they currently have, it is just like if HasTak had 9 transformers toys using the same mold but different color, and then they decided to discontinue a completely different mold, and change that character into the same mold as the other 9, with a new color scheme. Repaints are cost saving, but if you have almost all the toys in the toyline be repaints, then it isn't worth it anymore. I'm just clarifying that repaints can be cost saving, but if you already have 3 characters sharing the same mold, it would be a bad idea to introduce a fourth character that uses that same mold. Ok, same mold is a bad example. A better one would be same transformation scheme, or at least similar transformation scheme. You have 9 toys with similar transformation scheme, and the one toy that has a different, more complex transformation scheme. The toy itself is different, but for those 9 toys, the play value is the same. Some might like darkness, some might like grass. No matter the type, you will still build the deck and attach energy the same way as if it were lightning or psychic.

Not just basic dragon energy. There should never be any new energy types. Fairy energy was a mistake. We have types that have a lot of cards that use specific energy, namely fighting energy, and there are few pokemon that use this specific energy, namely fire, lightning or metal. When they introduced fairy, they should have used energy that few pokemon already use, like lightning. At least in yugioh, any monster that is fairy/angelic, and has anything to do with thunder is grouped under the light attribute.

The rulebook states some specific kinds of attacks that each type has, grass being good at healing, fire being good at high damage, etc, although the game itself never really follows these rules. The game needs to be strict on what attacks each types have. An attack that heals your own pokemon should only be on grass types, and nothing else. Attacks that paralyze pokemon should be exclusive to psychic and lightning types. There should never be a fighting type that paralyzes pokemon. If you really want a 10th energy type, then you, well not you, I mean you, as in those in favor of having energy types based on every single color in a 256 color palette, need to come up with a type specific attack that no other type already has. At least when they added fairy, the are supposed to have attacks that make opponent's attacks less effective, although it is almost similar to metal's ability to resist attacks.

I know toys have gimmicks and all, but guess what Dragon type's gimmick is supposed to be? Having 2 energy type costs for powerful attack, although from what I can tell, they left off the powerful part. Another reward for dragons having multi energy type costs would be they are only weak to dragons.

It's all fairy's fault. Making dragons weak to fairy (in the TCG)? A mistake. Introducing fairy energy rather than making them use an existing energy type? Another mistake. The whole fairy thing is one huge mistake. Mistake isn't even the right word. It needs more words. Boneheaded decision is more like it.

They could have introduced new types (not having a new type lumped into an existing type, but an actual new type with different card face color) to the game and made them share energies with another type. They could have grass type cards and actual bug type cards, both using green energy (formerly grass energy). Did they do that? NOPE. It just had to be one type per energy type. Why? It wouldn't matter if the game had one million pokemon types. The game would still work if it had at most 8 energy types. The game starts to fail if you have a million basic energy types.