What do you guys think of teams with overlapping types ingame?

I try to avoid it if it's the same type as my starter

>>26208047
The only type im okay with overlapping is Flying. mainly because it is gained in evolution

>>26208047
Not really, unless the roles that those same-type pokemon overlap as well. Like I probably wouldn't have Machamp and Conkeldur on the same team unless I was doing something specific with the way I built my team.

There are other times, though, when I just want to fill a party with a bunch of weirdo pokemon and pokemon I haven't necessarily used before. For those I'll usually overlook type overlap.

I only start noticing it if more than two mons have overlapping types. I tend to be more lenient towards Flying, on account of how much stuff has that plastered on it, or Normal on account of the high diversity within the type. A few time I have run closer to a monotype, though.

>ingame
Literally no one cares, anything is viable, especially with how are you supposed to cover your mons weaknesses with moves

I usually don't mind, unless its some of the main types like fire, water, grass, electric and ice.

No more than two Pokemon with the same type. They must also be dual-typed, and not share their second one. The formerly special types and Ghost fall under heavier scrutiny. Coloration is also an important factor.

Examples:
>Acceptable: Swampert and Ludicolo
>Unacceptable: Sceptile and Ludicolo

Beware of gazing too long upon my autism, for you might catch it too.

>>26208047
I often do monotype runs. So... no.

>>26208047
That's a big no-no for me. The only, and I mean ONLY, exception is if a Pokémon changes type during Mega Evolution or form change and it just so happens to match another one of my mons' types.
>Altaria is Dragon/Flying but becomes Dragon/Fairy upon Mega Evolution
>still okay to put on a team with, say, a Sylveon
And I generally try to avoid that even.

File: Bug Pokemon.jpg (2MB, 1250x1550px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1250x1550px

>>26208047

I only use Bug-types.