Should I Remove Bug Type?

Remove bug type, so that you can add an unrestrained number of bugs without needing to worry about type prevalence

Honestly...If you're gonna end up making the project less and less like Pokémon, I guess I wouldn't mind the removal of Bug types all that much. I would be interested to see if you're gonna add any types that were previously not in Pokémon to compensate for these changes. Like a Light Type or something.

Since so many of your types end in -o, you might as well go the full way and call the fairy or charm type Mytho or Ficto, then call normal type Bio.

I would combine the water and ice type if you want to make room for a new type. They feel too similar especially for a science region where snow/ice dont really have a lot of unique ideas that can be made for different mons

I've always liked the concept of a "nature" type, a type that encapsulates all aspects of forests and their flora and fauna, from rainforests to savannahs. It might not work for a more scientific region, and admittedly it does contrast with things like the classic Earth type a bit as well, but the reason I suggest this is it would fit Atelgo perfectly; Bugs, Trees, and Monkeys all fall into a "nature" or "forest" type quite nicely!

I like 15 types. It's the first odd composite that isn't a square. Though if you continue to rework the types, dark has a lot of overlap with fighting and ghost. Also, psychic, fairy, and ghost have a lot of overlap with each other. Those 5 could realistically be condensed into 2 or 3.

I really would prefer if you kept the bug type or something similar to it. A specifically underdog type is something I really find charming, and a type for little creepy crawlers is one I think is important!

It might be good to know more about the game mechanics because mechanics can impact design even if that design is just what elements you have in the game. As an example if you do something like Temtem and have it be all dual battles, you could have your creatures have "Elements" and "Creature Types" with creature type having no direct rule usage but being purely a referable variable, in which case you could have Creature Types line up with morphology and then be referenced. So a move might do "This does 30 ranged water damage, however if your other monster is an insect or plant this poisons this creature and the target." This would increase build composition because it adds something other then element and stats to how your team is built. (In this case you would have plant as morphology and maybe "Nature" as element and you could have a plant that does not have the "Nature" element.) I am not suggesting that you use this mechanic, it is entirely an example of mechanical effect on design nothing else.

The only issue i have with losing bug type would be losing out on “buggy” designs. Bug is my absolute favorite type by far, but it certainly has to do with the designs more than the raw typing itself.

For me, in a region entirely based on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics, Bug types are pretty important, as it represents a huge part of Biology. There are so many species of Insects, Arachnids and the like that can be put in Pokemon and some has very unique properties or behaviors that can be used as a reference for future Pokemon Designs. Take the orchid mantis for example. It mimics Orchid Flowers so they can hunt unsuspecting prey. So what did Pokemon do? They reversed it. Fomantis and Lurantis is a plant that mimics Mantises, not to hunt, but to defend themselves from Predators. There are so many to real life creatures that can be considered as bug types of that can be used as a reference here, so no I think you should keep bug types in.

Thank you so much for the bug warning I have Entomophobia(fear of bugs)(and Arachnophobia) and when people randomly put images of bugs and spiders in videos without warning I have to quickly cover it up, but this just made me so happy that it had a warning

Honestly even though I'm very biased to keep bugs in, I definitely understand especially in wanting to separate yourself more from Pokémon. I however think bug has a lot of potential especially in regards to STEMA as a whole, Pokémon uses the bug type for a lot more then just insects and I think it could be a more interesting approach that instead of removing it entirely to rework it into more of an arthropod type. There is also the fact that while bugs coverage is pretty bad most of the time, its a really effective and easy to access counter to Psy and dark, and acts as one of the few walls to your Geo type. Beyond bug type I would love to see how you plan to tackle fairy type as in my opinion its pretty much equal to Dragon in terms of uniqueness to Pokémon and I feel you could definitely do something interesting by merging or adapting it into a magic/fantasy/light type.

Suggestions Incase you want a smaller type pool: my number idea is combining the dark and ghost but I wouldn't be surprised if you considered removing them both entirely since I don't know what you do for a stem based dark and ghost type my other suggestions is removing or replacing the fairy type with a light type or something similar or combine it with the psychic type for a esp type of some kind

BAZINGA! Jokes aside, I think it is entirely reasonable to 'abolish' the bug type. My thought process for Pokémon has always been that bug type represents all forms of insects and insectoid-like creatures/animals. That being said, Normal appears to represent mammals (at least majority of them) and birds, or even just 'animals' in general. Why do bugs get special treatment? Probably because of the roots for Pokémon's creation, in bug-catching IRL. Mystic Umbreon had an interesting video where he expanded on the Pokémon types, and to avoid making it overly complex and convoluted, he separated them into three distinct categories of types. IIRC, there were Body Types, Element Types and Style Types. Bird, Animal and 'Bug"/Insect would all fall under body type in this scenario. Your types, however, seem to to be downsizing (personally, I like this a lot and I also think its a good way to differentiate from Pokémon). So, in this sense, I say, why not have bug under Normal? Why not have "Normal" represent animals and other more "natural" creatures that we would expect to see in our real word. All the other types can represent fantastical or fictional additions. I didn't wake up today expecting to write an essay on Pokémon types, but here I am, the rest of this will just be my thoughts and ideas. Feel free to disregard, but if you've already read this far then I'll assume you're at least interested in hearing this. Personally, I completely agree with the first half of your type system (Normal, Pyro, Hydro, Dendro, Electro, Cryo, Aero & Geo - I'm assuming that's what there called apologies if I'm wrong) but the rest is where I think Pokémon has more of its own identity and honestly I've recently been struggling to see the reasons behind justifying these types to begin with (Psychic, Fighting, Dark, Ghost, Steel, Poison, Fairy - & Dragon which you've gotten rid of and I agree with that too) First of all, Fighting & Psychic - I think this comes down to personal preference, but when it comes to the attacks in Pokémon being "Physical" and "Special" … I honestly don't see why we can't just consider these to be "Martial" & "Mental" attacks, respectively. In which case (again, matter of opinion) I don't really see a reason to have either original typing. Secondly, I think most elements of ghost & psychic can be combined under what I like to call the "Mystic" type - that being anything otherworldly, even magical or unexplainable in nature. Thirdly, I can see why someone would want to keep the Dark type, but personally I only see that for the elemental reasons - shadow, darkness. In terms of "Evil" or whatnot, i think that's better left outside of the type reasoning. In a similar sense, Fairy type is kind of like the magic/light type of Pokémon and with magic under the "Mystic" type, I don't see why we can't just have a Light type, and yes i guess it is electromagnetism and bares a lot of similarity to an electric type, but i view electric as more of an energy type. In this sense, Fire, Electric & Light are kind of like three sides of an energy type. Second to last point! Steel & Poison. I can see why we would keep steel/Metal, although I always argue with myself why not put it under the geo type, I do see how distinct it can be and if we focus on it being more like rare-earth minerals than i find it easier to get behind. That being said, poison. Poison never made too much sense to me. Is it acid? Pollution? Venom? If its connected to animals then why not have it as a secondary effect? That is to say, snake-like Pokémon may have an ability where they can inflict the poisoned status condition after using biting moves. In which case, it doesn't seem like it should be a type on its own - unless it represents more than that - decay, corrosion, etc. My sentiments go like this - why not have a chemical type? I suppose everything is a chemical, and this might be better named under "Acid" type. But I really like the idea of having anything nuclear, corrosive, poisonous, venomous, or even decay of any kind fall under this kind of type. There is certainly room for improvement here but I do think it is interesting to consider. FINALLY, I like the COSMIC TYPE please add the COSMIC TYPE please and thank you - i think it can fit a really nice niche where none of the earthly elements can really affect it (and maybe its neutral in return?) but I've always like the idea of space and time being some ethereal, higher dimensional power. I would personally only reserve this type for the powerful legendary Pokémon like Arceus, Palkia, Dialga, Giratina. Maybe Eternatus and Mega Rayquaza (he lives in the ozone i give him a pass). TLDR; - abolish bug, group it under normal if you want to. - do we need fighting and psychic types? physical and special moves sound like "martial" and "mental" attacks to me. - a "mystic" type could represent ghost & psychic, and even elements of dark and/or fairy. - instead of Dark & Fairy why not Dark & Light as elemental types? - why have a poison type when you could have chemical/acid type? - consider a cosmic type 0.o Thank you for your time and if anyone read all of this I salute you!

I feel attacked as Bug is my favorite type. I do like having more explicit (insect/creepy crawly buggy thing) represented as a type. Pokemon's bug type incorporates lots of these unique design options: - having a proboscis - being able to produce silk/web - having natural armor with a carapace - having abilities related how hive minds or swarms - having gimiky side effects to avoid damage or scuttle around - etc... Plus, I love the bugs you made and just shared, and each seems like the bug type moves would fit them. ***I love the binary search tree reference. As a Software Engineer, I approve!

I apreciate you trying to simplify types. Removing all the organic types is one way to do it. Another way may be to rework the organic types in a more science based way ... Like a 'Beast type' which might combine Normal and Dragon and an 'Invertibrate' type, which may combine Bug, some Poison, and crustecean and octopus designs. I myself have thought about adding a 'Germinator' type / 'Germ' type, which would include bacteria, and fungi, and general blobby mons. Alternatley, you could do a 'Predator ' Type which would combine Dragon, Dark, some normals,and some bugs and a 'Prey'/'Critter' Type which would replace normal and some bugs. I think this would work for you because it reduces the number of types, and references ecological concepts. Predator would obviously be SE on prey. This would use type matchups to demonstrate ecology/ the biomass pyramid. Predator > Prey > Plant > Earth & Water Maybe Fighting type represents humans so it would be fighting > predator etc Alternately, call it 'Carnivore' and 'Herbivore' type. Herbivore would be SE on Plant of course.

idk if you already have plans for the normal type, but perhaps you could consider going with more of like a "beast" or "animal" type and just have your arthropod based creatures fall under that type instead? and if you wanted to replace it with a new type, maybe you could add like an artificial type for manmade objects, to act as a counterpart to the natural animal type? also, Bazinga.

Personally, I would mix the dragon/bug type into a single "beast" type, which could capture both the strong and weak aspects of bug and dragon. It could also allow for better balancing, because of bug being so weak, and dragon being pretty strong, a mix could be a good average type. It's right in the middle, and could open up many new possibilities.

I entertain the idea of Monbogo for some moves creating orbs or "bubbles" to attack to reference bubble sort, which is probably the most well known "meme" sorting method. (Although it does have it's uses.)

I personally would have kept the bug type- but make it an arthro or arthropod type- including crustaceans, bugs, arachnids and all relatives. As arthropods are the largest phylum of animals, I feel it’s hard pressed not to take advantage of the power the phylum has. It can even be perceived as an “elemental” type, as there’s a LOT that arthropods exclusively throw out- silk/ spider webs, honey, scales and powders from Lepidopterans (butterfly and moth), the power of a swarm, pheromones, exoskeleton, etc. By making it this new type, you can fix the problems of bug while still making it an underdog type- mainly by removing resistances that don’t make sense- like to fairy