>>553738495/10
Lack of order in the lists makes it hard to really say much. There's a few oddballs, like Combee and Beautifly A tier, or Blipbug and Karrablast being below the true garbage, but overall it's a fine list that doesn't stand out too much. Owner themselves admits it's rather basic, which is true.
>>553739677/10
Clearly just overall not a huge fan of the type, the tier list shows that not a ton of thought was put into mons outside of the top and bottom tiers (over half the bugs are B tier). Still, it's telling what escaped B tier, like the cacoons and the megas falling below, and the S tier has no real stinkers outside Orbeetle. So, for as little thought as the list had, its surprisingly well made.
>>553742067/10
At first, this list confused me. Starting at the bottom, there's a clear distaste for just bugs that are mostly wing, yet Beautifly and Vivillon stand tall. But I think the answer is that anything that skitters or moves quickly is valued. Most of the S tier can be defined by either moving fast or having a lot of moving parts. And taking this list from that perspective, and seeing what designs got ranked high in spite of their slowness/elegance, gives this a bit of character. Like why is Pheromosa and Shedninja so high? The owner just thinks they're neat.
>>553742101/10
Even ignoring "Bottom Tier is actually B tier" that I despise so much, this list just has way too many mons to realistically make a valuable list only using 3 tiers. (having a tier of, really, 1 pokemon doesn't count as actually using it)
>>553742766/10
A bit cramped for space between two tiers holds the list back a bit, but the loveable oddballs that is the top tier really makes this list shine. Ledian and Masquerain are by no means the best designed bugs, but they're serviceable enough where you don't raise an eyebrow when someone says it's their favorite. The construction of this list is the main thing I disagree with; the specific order is actually quite agreeable.
