>>553744276/10
Going with only fully evolved pokemon (mostly, Snom) helps with legibility. The list plays it almost entirely safe, and lacks a bit of a personality. But, sometimes, popular designs are liked for a reason. Outside of Parasect being bottom tier, there's not mon here that is wildly out of place.
>>553746799/10
An excellent and unique take. Very respectable bottom tiers, and a new take on top tiers. I think Combee is stretching my imagination for how someone could put it top 5, but this list really is the bug catcher's list. All the top tiers are things you could realistically keep in a jar / box, with an obvious preference for bees that break that rule.
>>553747748/10
Some truly based takes, really. That top tier is well crafted and manages to avoid looking bog standard. There's a few disagreements I have (Like Mega Scizor or Pheromosa in the high tiers, or Escavalier in the bottom tiers), but I can't deny that, when you randomly glance at this list, your eyes will likely land on something awesome on top and lame on the bottom.
>>553747878/10
Like
>>55373684, it pays respect to the clear popular mons, while showing it's character with some top tiers like Armaldo and Escavalier breaching top 5. There's a bit of "grade inflation" by just dumping most of the unevolveds below the rest, but overall a solid list.
>>553748517/10
A hot streak, 5 good lists in a row. There's a clear preference for elegant pokemon here, which is an odd take on bug mons, but not unappreciated. Still, the list is at least mooostly consistent, but there are a few that are hard to really see the logic behind; such as Spidops or Araquanid.
>>553750450/10
~60% in Top Tier, ~30% in high tier, order is clearly just dex order and not personal order. This barely has anything to comment on, and ends the streak of good lists.
