"GRASS" the worst starter and possibly type??

[TakenGrace]

I assume that is why grass pokemon are easier to level up. but the poison makes zero sense because If you get poisoned in real life there is usually a plant around that can cure it. but I think normal is the worst type personally is not effective against any type and doesn't affect ghost types.

[telivisionhead]

I've never had a problem with Grass Pokemon. I got other Pokemon in my team to counter it's disadvantages. Every Pokemon has eachothers back on my team.

That is true,
They are some of my fave starters!

[Wishing Star]

but I think normal is the worst type personally is not effective against any type and doesn't affect ghost types.

But certainly, Normal-type Pokémon can learn many, many other types of moves, so wouldn't that more than make up for these qualities?

[Nyarlathotep]

Maybe it's just me, but I find the poison status ailment extremely useful, yeah. To say that a type is bad when considering everything about it is alright, but to say that it's bad when considering only Pokémon of that type is definitely erroneous. The fact that Poison has access to such a status ailment affects how good it is, doesn't it?

I don't think it is erroneous, because we have to take only Poison-Type Pokémon in consideration when analyzing the type. It doesn't matter much if other-typed Pokémon can make good use of Poison-Type moves. It is like the Ice-Type, a lot of Pokémon learn Ice Beam, a extremely useful move, but does that make the Ice-Type good? No, it is still terrible. And yes, like I said, the poisoned status is indeed extremely useful. Again, if it were only able to be inflicted by Poison-Type Pokémon, the type would be way more useful.

Also, I said the type is mediocre, not necessarily bad. It is just outclassed but almost every other in existence.

I agree with this somewhat. That being said, it's not wrong to compare Poison and Fighting, as each have their own faults, but I don't really think it's right to say that even when considering these facts, Fighting is better than Poison due to competitive usage. :/

Fighting is more usable in the competitive scene because it is better than Poison. Not the contrary. Fighting-Type Pokémon usually have high Attack stat and this coupled with a lot of good Fighting-Type moves + the fact that Pokémon of this type usually learn the elementals punches, makes them really useful. Defensively it is not that good, but hey, two of its weakness are not -that- common, unlike Poison which is weak against Ground.

but I think normal is the worst type personally is not effective against any type and doesn't affect ghost types.

If Normal-Type is the worst, explain to me how the trainers who specialize in this type are among the most difficult to beat in the games?

The fact that Normal have only one weakness (Fighting-Type) and is immune to another one (Ghost-Type) makes it a pretty good type.
Yes, it isn't SE against any type, but strong Normal-Type moves + high Attack or Sp.Attack + STAB = High damage in any Pokémon besides the Steel-, Ghost- and Rock-Type ones.

Plus, like Wishing Star said, Normal Pokémon are able to learn a huge lot of different moves and that is a thing we should considerate.

[telivisionhead]

I assume that is why grass pokemon are easier to level up. but the poison makes zero sense because If you get poisoned in real life there is usually a plant around that can cure it. but I think normal is the worst type personally is not effective against any type and doesn't affect ghost types.

Actually they only have 1 weakness thats fighting and isn't strong against anything but they are still hard to beat. They can learn many moves too so whats so bad about them? Lillipup was hard to beat when i was getting my trio badge.

[Wishing Star]

I don't think it is erroneous, because we have to take only Poison-Type Pokémon in consideration when analyzing the type. It doesn't matter much if other-typed Pokémon can make good use of Poison-Type moves. It is like the Ice-Type, a lot of Pokémon learn Ice Beam, a extremely useful move, but does that make the Ice-Type good? No, it is still terrible. And yes, like I said, the poisoned status is indeed extremely useful. Again, if it were only able to be inflicted by Poison-Type Pokémon, the type would be way more useful.

Also, I said the type is mediocre, not necessarily bad. It is just outclassed but almost every other in existence.

If one only had to take consideration of Poison-type Pokémon when analyzing the Poison type, then what would be the point of asking for analysis of the entire type rather than just the Pokémon? Just like you said, the Ice type may be terrible based on the Pokémon that are of the Ice type; however, Ice Beam and Blizzard counter (no pun intended) this somewhat.

Fighting is more usable in the competitive scene because it is better than Poison. Not the contrary. Fighting-Type Pokémon usually have high Attack stat and this coupled with a lot of good Fighting-Type moves + the fact that Pokémon of this type usually learn the elementals punches, makes them really useful. Defensively it is not that good, but hey, two of its weakness are not -that- common, unlike Poison which is weak against Ground.

Fighting is more usable in the competitive scene than Poison is not because Fighting is better than Poison in all regards, but because the current competitive metagame is heavily biased toward Fighting-types and favors offensive play. I'm sure that if the competitive battling metagame were to shift to favor defensive and stalling strategies more than offensive ones that Poison would shine more than Fighting would.

Of course, the fact that the metagame clearly isn't like what I described, along with the fact that it is your opinion, doesn't invalidate your points in the slightest.

[PancakeBoy]

Look, I know this sounds crazy and nerdy, but I'm going insane over the fact that nobody likes Bulbasaur (well, Grass type starters in general, but mainly Bulbasaur). I'm not here to discuss it, I'm here because I need help with this. Please, I need a reply. I just searched on Google every combination of words like "*insert starter* is cool" or "*insert starter* is stupid", and I find these pictures or posts saying "Nobody uses Bulbasaur" or "You seriously use Bulbasaur?" and they get voted up as if that's normal to say. It makes me so mad! All the starters are good! I don't even think they mean in-game! I think they mean that the Bulbasaur line sucks because they don't look as awesome as the other evolutions. That is so stupid, you don't judge by how cool something looks! I need help with this because I couldn't get it out of my mind all day. The worst part is that I can't reply on some of the threads or comment sections that people say that on, because they are closed or outdated. That's why I came here, for a higher chance of a reply. I know this sounds like I have no life, but please help.

[Flying Ludo]

Look, I know this sounds crazy and nerdy, but I'm going insane over the fact that nobody likes Bulbasaur (well, Grass type starters in general, but mainly Bulbasaur). I'm not here to discuss it, I'm here because I need help with this. Please, I need a reply. I just searched on Google every combination of words like "*insert starter* is cool" or "*insert starter* is stupid", and I find these pictures or posts saying "Nobody uses Bulbasaur" or "You seriously use Bulbasaur?" and they get voted up as if that's normal to say. It makes me so mad! All the starters are good! I don't even think they mean in-game! I think they mean that the Bulbasaur line sucks because they don't look as awesome as the other evolutions. That is so stupid, you don't judge by how cool something looks! I need help with this because I couldn't get it out of my mind all day. The worst part is that I can't reply on some of the threads or comment sections that people say that on, because they are closed or outdated. That's why I came here, for a higher chance of a reply. I know this sounds like I have no life, but please help.

Dude.....believe me if I tell you I understand how frustrating it can be sometiomes to be a fan of an overlooked/commonly disliked pokemon, but chill out. If it can help, I kinda like Bulbasaur myself. Well not really Bulbasaur, but rather Venusaur is quite a cool poke.

[Nyarlathotep]

If one only had to take consideration of Poison-type Pokémon when analyzing the Poison type, then what would be the point of asking for analysis of the entire type rather than just the Pokémon? Just like you said, the Ice type may be terrible based on the Pokémon that are of the Ice type; however, Ice Beam and Blizzard counter (no pun intended) this somewhat.

Listen, it seems that you are still missing my point. We are discussing the Poison-Type, not other Pokémon capable of using Poison-Type moves. When you analyze one type, we take in consideration only the Pokémon of the said type. It doesn't matter if Armaldo makes a good use of the Cross Poison move, because it isn't a Poison-Type Pokémon. It is like the Ice-Type case which I mentioned in an early post: It is way more useful to teach Ice Beam to a Water-Type Pokémon, like Starmie, than using a Ice-Type Pokémon for this reason.

So, the fact that Starmie is an outstanding Pokémon and is capable of using a Ice-Type move doesn't make the Pokémon of this type (Ice) any better. Same goes to Poison, a lot of Pokémon use "Toxic", but that doesn't make the Poison-Type Pokémon any better. If anything, it makes them worse.

Fighting is more usable in the competitive scene than Poison is not because Fighting is better than Poison in all regards, but because the current competitive metagame is heavily biased toward Fighting-types and favors offensive play. I'm sure that if the competitive battling metagame were to shift to favor defensive and stalling strategies more than offensive ones that Poison would shine more than Fighting would.

"If". Unfortunately assumptions like that don't matter much. If the metagame was oriented towards a more defensive gameplay, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

The fact is that Poison, Grass, Ice, Flying, Rock and Bug are "mediocre" types if compared with Ground, Dragon, Water, Steel, Ghost and maybe Dark. The usable Pokémon of the aforementioned "mediocre" types usually are paired with another non-mediocre type, like: Poison/Dark (Drapion), Ghost/Poison (Gengar), Grass/Steel (Ferrothorn), Flying/Ground (Gliscor, Landorus), Flying/Dragon (Dragonite, Salamence) Rock/Flying (Aerodactyl, Archeops) and Bug/Steel (Scizor, Durant, Forretress, Escavalier, Genesect), Bug/Fire (Volcarona).

Again, I am not saying that one shouldn't use these types, it is just that they are severely handicapped compared with others. The Pokémon metagame is so unbalanced :<

Look, I know this sounds crazy and nerdy, but I'm going insane over the fact that nobody likes Bulbasaur (well, Grass type starters in general, but mainly Bulbasaur). I'm not here to discuss it, I'm here because I need help with this. Please, I need a reply. I just searched on Google every combination of words like "*insert starter* is cool" or "*insert starter* is stupid", and I find these pictures or posts saying "Nobody uses Bulbasaur" or "You seriously use Bulbasaur?" and they get voted up as if that's normal to say. It makes me so mad! All the starters are good! I don't even think they mean in-game! I think they mean that the Bulbasaur line sucks because they don't look as awesome as the other evolutions. That is so stupid, you don't judge by how cool something looks! I need help with this because I couldn't get it out of my mind all day. The worst part is that I can't reply on some of the threads or comment sections that people say that on, because they are closed or outdated. That's why I came here, for a higher chance of a reply. I know this sounds like I have no life, but please help.

"Nobody likes Grass-Type starters" is an exaggerated assumption. There is a lot of people who likes them, me included. Most of the time I chose the Grass-Type starter in my first playthrough. To be honest, in some generations, the Grass-Type starter is the most popular. Sceptile in Gen III and Serperior in Generation V, for example. Yeah, now Blaziken is the most popular due to its hidden ability, but back in the day, it wasn't. I pretty much prefer Bulbasaur over Crapmander and Squirtle and Snivy over Oshawott and Tepig. I like Turtwig as much as like Piplup, though.

But relax, I know how hard is to be a fan of unpopular types, since Bug and Flying are some of my favorite ones.

[your boss]

@Nyarlothotep it actually can be balanced by an individual if you let say make your own rules like don't use Dragon Types. In general it was balanced in Gen 2 to help control the Psychics. Poison granted isn't the best out there but a dual type like Dark/Poison is beast!

[PancakeBoy]

Dude.....believe me if I tell you I understand how frustrating it can be sometiomes to be a fan of an overlooked/commonly disliked pokemon, but chill out. If it can help, I kinda like Bulbasaur myself. Well not really Bulbasaur, but rather Venusaur is quite a cool poke.

Yeah, I just want those darn pictures to STOP because it is offensive to me and a whole bunch of other people, but those sites continue to allow them! It's the same as the ones about genwunners (people who only like the first generation), but NOBODY does anything about them! I would go comment to those pictures, but they are old and nobody would reply to me. Those pictures are not funny and they don't make me laugh.

[Nyarlathotep]

@Nyarlothotep it actually can be balanced by an individual if you let say make your own rules like don't use Dragon Types. In general it was balanced in Gen 2 to help control the Psychics. Poison granted isn't the best out there but a dual type like Dark/Poison is beast!

For in-game runs, yeah, you can make the game balanced. But in other cases, it is hard to not use the better types when everyone and their mothers use only the "good" types. Unless one decides to play only in the lowest tiers, like NU or even LC - which are the most fun to play, by the way - if that is the case, a lot of types have their usage, including the Grass-Type. And yes, I know, I mentioned the Poison/Dark combination in my early post. Again, it barely makes the Poison-Type itself any better, since Drapion/Skuntank are nice thanks to the Dark-Type addition. =P

[your boss]

For in-game runs, yeah, you can make the game balanced. But in other cases, it is hard to not use the better types when everyone and their mothers use only the "good" types. Unless one decides to play only in the lowest tiers, like NU or even LC - which are the most fun to play, by the way - if that is the case, a lot of types have their usage, including the Grass-Type. And yes, I know, I mentioned the Poison/Dark combination in my early post. Again, it barely makes the Poison-Type itself any better, since Drapion/Skuntank are nice thanks to the Dark-Type addition. =P

Well Poison also has Toxic, that worsens every turn plus if Poison was super effective against water, it make water have another weakness, which would hurt IMO.

[Nyarlathotep]

Well Poison also has Toxic, that worsens every turn plus if Poison was super effective against water, it make water have another weakness, which would hurt IMO.

Poison-Type has Toxic... And almost every Pokémon learns it, so you don't need a Poison-Type Pokémon to make use of the move.

The Poison-Type should indeed be SE against Water- and maybe Fighting-Type too.

[your boss]

Poison-Type has Toxic... And almost every Pokémon learns it, so you don't need a Poison-Type Pokémon to make use of the move.

The Poison-Type should indeed be SE against Water- and maybe Fighting-Type too.

I agree with you on Fighting, it needs more counters.

[Meeker]

Ok, first off, I'm suprised that one would call grass the worst type in all of pokemon. I don't battle competetively, but after hearing about how common stealth rocks are, I am suprised that one would call a type that resists it to be considered the worst.

Secondly, the poison weakness is similar to weed-killer in my opinion. It's as simple as that.

Now a bad typing is bug-flying, ice-flying, and fire-flying, steel-dark, and ice-dark for some examples.

[Wishing Star]

[FONT=Tahoma]Listen, it seems that you are still missing my point. We are discussing the Poison-Type, not other Pokémon capable of using Poison-Type moves. When you analyze one type, we take in consideration only the Pokémon of the said type. It doesn't matter if Armaldo makes a good use of the Cross Poison move, because it isn't a Poison-Type Pokémon. It is like the Ice-Type case which I mentioned in an early post: It is way more useful to teach Ice Beam to a Water-Type Pokémon, like Starmie, than using a Ice-Type Pokémon for this reason.

Discussing Pokémon of a type and only Pokémon of that type without considering moves of that type is alright, but to say that analysis of a type means only considering the Pokémon of that type is wrong. There's nothing wrong with saying that since Pokémon are able to learn Ice Beam that the Ice type is a type to watch out for in battles (and from this, saying that the Ice type is good or bad).

I just personally don't believe that proper analysis of a type can be done without considering moves of that type.

I can go with you wanting to discuss only Pokémon of a type and not the moves of that type, though, since that's a discussion decision.

"If". Unfortunately assumptions like that don't matter much. If the metagame was oriented towards a more defensive gameplay, we wouldn't be discussing this right now.

The fact is that Poison, Grass, Ice, Flying, Rock and Bug are "mediocre" types if compared with Ground, Dragon, Water, Steel, Ghost and maybe Dark. The usable Pokémon of the aforementioned "mediocre" types usually are paired with another non-mediocre type, like: Poison/Dark (Drapion), Ghost/Poison (Gengar), Grass/Steel (Ferrothorn), Flying/Ground (Gliscor, Landorus), Flying/Dragon (Dragonite, Salamence) Rock/Flying (Aerodactyl, Archeops) and Bug/Steel (Scizor, Durant, Forretress, Escavalier, Genesect), Bug/Fire (Volcarona).

"If" does unfortunately bring up a hypothetical situation, yeah. And I know I said that hypothetical situations should not be extensively or repeatedly mentioned.

While I'm aware that mediocrity is an opinion, I wouldn't say that Rock is that mediocre of a type. Yeah, it has bad defensive capability, but its offensive presence is still pretty good.

[Mitja]

Yeah, I just want those darn pictures to STOP because it is offensive to me and a whole bunch of other people, but those sites continue to allow them! It's the same as the ones about genwunners (people who only like the first generation), but NOBODY does anything about them! I would go comment to those pictures, but they are old and nobody would reply to me. Those pictures are not funny and they don't make me laugh.

Dude. Its not even the case that Bulbasaur or similar is majorly disliked.
Its just that not all people feel the need to justify their favoritism by spreading hate against the alternative.
Im sure its mostly people who where kids when RBY came out and picked Charizard because its a freakin dragon that breathes fire and never since given the rest consideration.

You know whats offensive to me? When any pokemon is hated upon for no good reason, because I like all of them and understand that each is a creation from someone at gamefreak who tried their best coming up with something interesting.

As for Bulbasaur specifically, back before GS, I loved its design. Its plant growing along as it evolved was so interesting to me.

Also, with the existence of Drought teams via Ninetales now, Venusaur is getting lot of use recently in the competitive side.

[caucasianazn]

Although for battles, I usually only use one Grass-type per team at most, I do favor a few (keyword: few) of Grass-types aesthetically and competitively.
Venusaur, Ferrothorn, Roserade.
Most other Grass-types are purely just in my favorites for misc. reasons.

[AquaWarrior]

I never really had a problem with grass type Pokemon anyways.