>>31171293>Why do people use the times table when this is so much more intuitive?I'm going to answer using the actually decent version in
>>31172793While the information is presented cleanly and accurately, the functionality is lost. Instead of being able to directly compare the two types, I have to pick one of the two and then go through the entire row until I find the other. That's not good design for a lookup table, which is what the type chart is often used for.
Also, note that this version doesn't display normal effectiveness--just super/not-very effective--so you do have to go through the entire row, just in case.
