Thread: Summarizing the opinions on the Poison type against the Water type

Originally Posted by H-con

Again, you are completely missing the point.

Well that's ironic, since you just ignored the content of my last post in favour of shoving words in my mouth. You seem to think that I'm arguing for making Water weak to Poison simply because I could imagine a logical reason why it could work that way, which isn't what I was saying, if you actually read my last post. I said that, out of the numerous candidates for Poison weakness (Ground, Fighting, Bug, and--possibly--Flying), Water is one of the ones that deserve it more (if not the most, depending on how you feel about the Bug precedent) because it wouldn't suffer too much, where as Poison would be much better off for the change.

Also, Water's status as "fairly balanced" is debatable. It could be viewed as slightly overpowered, and possibly the strongest type of all: Firstly, it only has two weaknesses, one of which (Grass) is easily dismissed by Ice, a move type that is dirt common amongst Water-types. Water also has 3 strengths, two of which are commonly paired, and all of its resistances (bar itself) are taken care of, again, by Ice, which also includes the mighty Dragon-type. Furthermore, it resists Steel (one of the stronger defensive types) whilst being neutral to it, neutralising that threat. Finally, whilst you could say it still has Psychic & Electric to contend with for the title of strongest type overall, even they have their drawbacks (numerous weaknesses for Psychic, and the ubiquity of EQ in the metagame for Electric).

So in short, I think Water could do with being taken down a peg or two, and Poison would be the perfect type to do that with.

P.S.

Originally Posted by H-con

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

I don't really see how this argument goes against Water being weak to Poison. If anything, it suggests Water & Flying should both be weak to Poison.

If we are to reduce all type resistance to something like this, then surely Normal, Ground, Fighting, Bug and Flying to name a few should also take SE damage from Poison as well as Water. You do realize how silly that sounds, right?

And why is that so silly, exactly? Fighting has five strengths, and only two weaknesses, as Poison would if Flying, Ground, Bug, and Water were added to its strengths. But I don't see anyone rallying for a change in Fighting's type matchup (I ignore normal because I don't really see the logic for giving it a Poison weakness, from a conceptual viewpoint, and nor do I advocate it in the slightest).

@H-con

I think that what @Green Zubat and others are trying to say is that it has less to do with logic and more to do with type balance. Water is one of the better types in the game. Poison is one of the worst. This change would put them on slightly more even ground. They use the 'pollution' argument to justify a mechanical change that would make the type chart more balanced. That is all.

Exactly. We don't need a logical reason to make the type chart change. There's no logic in Psychic being super-effective against Poison and look, there it is. Bug's super-effectiveness against Dark doesn't make any sense either, yet it exists. It's all about balancing the Poison-type more than nerfing the Water-type.

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

Well that's ironic, since you just ignored the content of my last post in favour of shoving words in my mouth. You seem to think that I'm arguing for making Water weak to Poison simply because I could imagine a logical reason why it could work that way, which isn't what I was saying, if you actually read my last post. I said that, out of the numerous candidates for Poison weakness (Ground, Fighting, Bug, and--possibly--Flying), Water is one of the ones that deserve it more (if not the most, depending on how you feel about the Bug precedent) because it wouldn't suffer too much, where as Poison would be much better off for the change.

Not really, as you didn't give a good reason to why Water should have the precedent over any of the other types. That's the key point. I don't see how Water "deserves" it at all.

Also, Water's status as "fairly balanced" is debatable. It could be viewed as slightly overpowered, and possibly the strongest type of all: Firstly, it only has two weaknesses, one of which (Grass) is easily dismissed by Ice, a move type that is dirt common amongst Water-types. Water also has 3 strengths, two of which are commonly paired, and all of its resistances (bar itself) are taken care of, again, by Ice, which also includes the mighty Dragon-type. Furthermore, it resists Steel (one of the stronger defensive types) whilst being neutral to it, neutralising that threat. Finally, whilst you could say it still has Psychic & Electric to contend with for the title of strongest type overall, even they have their drawbacks (numerous weaknesses for Psychic, and the ubiquity of EQ in the metagame for Electric).

Over Dragon? Really? Very few types can really compare to that. Besides, looking at usage statistics sure doesn't make it look like Water pokémon are everywhere, one is used mostly because of ability (one might say that Rain is overpowered because of Drizzle and all, but that's a whole different can of worms I don't intend to open here), and others (Cloyster) because of one single move. Not only that, but with Water types being all over the dex, I don't think that's unnatural. Pretty much every dragon out there is viable in one or another way, you just can't say the same about Water.

You also forget to mention Fighting, I'd say they deserve a mention.

P.S.

Originally Posted by H-con

And why is that so silly, exactly? Fighting has five strengths, and only two weaknesses, as Poison would if Flying, Ground, Bug, and Water were added to its strengths. But I don't see anyone rallying for a change in Fighting's type matchup (I ignore normal because I don't really see the logic for giving it a Poison weakness, from a conceptual viewpoint, and nor do I advocate it in the slightest).

Because the argument can be extended to every type in existence. I stopped at those because quite clearly, if you are to go by such simple things as "water pollution" which is a scapegoat a lot of people use to justify buffing Poison. Reductio ad absurdum. It's just not a viable way of thinking, because you can do that with Fire and probably Water as well. You can't just cherry-pick arguments like that and expect it to hold up, especially when you ignore the opposite, Water against Poison.

If anything, I'd focus more on the defensive side of Poison. There is no way I really think a Poison>Water match-up is justifiable, but I can't really see why Ground>Poison, even on the offensive front when Poison NVE Ground. To be honest, ground pollution certainly isn't unheard of, and why they chose to not let it affect ground-dwelling creatures very well is beyond me. I'd rather change that to normal damage both ways if any change is to be made. Of course, it won't appease to the people who want to use Poison really offensively, but to them I'd just say "fuck you", I sincerely couldn't care less about that.


I don't argue that Poison>Normal, but I strongly object the notion that somehow Water should take precedent over any sort of terrestrial life. Type matchups aren't really decided like that, of course if you tried to burn a fish it would die pretty fast, yet Fire is still NVE against Water regardless. As have been mentioned, plants can live in icy conditions, but make it cold enough,and it dies. Same goes for all other organic life for that matter, but Ice doesn't SE everything. Water dissolves most (polar) substances, but localized pollution can do pretty big damage on aquatic life (or terrestrial, for that matter). A perfect scenario for normal<->normal damage if you ask me.

That, and Poison is perhaps hindered by the lack of decent sweepers? I have a hard time thinking of many offensive poison-mons that really take advantage of their Poison-typing more than their secondary (or primary) type.

Also, we don't need a logical reason to change the type chart? Really? We don't have enough illogical things in pokémon already, so let's throw in another one that doesn't make sense as well?

Originally Posted by H-con

Also, we don't need a logical reason to change the type chart? Really? We don't have enough illogical things in pokémon already, so let's throw in another one that doesn't make sense as well?

I meant that we don't have to mandatorily justify a type change with real-life explanations. And, in any case, Poison > Water does make sense. You not liking it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't.

Originally Posted by H-con

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

Well that's ironic, since you just ignored the content of my last post in favour of shoving words in my mouth. You seem to think that I'm arguing for making Water weak to Poison simply because I could imagine a logical reason why it could work that way, which isn't what I was saying, if you actually read my last post. I said that, out of the numerous candidates for Poison weakness (Ground, Fighting, Bug, and--possibly--Flying), Water is one of the ones that deserve it more (if not the most, depending on how you feel about the Bug precedent) because it wouldn't suffer too much, where as Poison would be much better off for the change.

Not really, as you didn't give a good reason to why Water should have the precedent over any of the other types.

Er, yes I did, and one that has been echoed by @Grass Type Trainer and @Anser: Water is a little too powerful, and Poison isn't strong enough. Ergo, it makes sense to make former weak to the latter.

Also, Water's status as "fairly balanced" is debatable. It could be viewed as slightly overpowered, and possibly the strongest type of all: Firstly, it only has two weaknesses, one of which (Grass) is easily dismissed by Ice, a move type that is dirt common amongst Water-types. Water also has 3 strengths, two of which are commonly paired, and all of its resistances (bar itself) are taken care of, again, by Ice, which also includes the mighty Dragon-type. Furthermore, it resists Steel (one of the stronger defensive types) whilst being neutral to it, neutralising that threat. Finally, whilst you could say it still has Psychic & Electric to contend with for the title of strongest type overall, even they have their drawbacks (numerous weaknesses for Psychic, and the ubiquity of EQ in the metagame for Electric).

Over Dragon? Really?

Yeah, really. I already said Water doesn't find it hard to deal with Dragon, since Water types are often given ice moves (I'm looking at you, Ice Beam), and double Ice weakness isn't uncommon to dragons.

Very few types can really compare to that.

Hence my point about Water being a little overpowered.

Besides, looking at usage statistics

Funny, I don't see any ...

[It doesn't] look like Water pokémon are everywhere,

ORLY? Two words: Bulky. Water.

one is used mostly because of ability (one might say that Rain is overpowered because of Drizzle and all, but that's a whole different can of worms I don't intend to open here), and others (Cloyster) because of one single move. Not only that, but with Water types being all over the dex, I don't think that's unnatural. Pretty much every dragon out there is viable in one or another way, you just can't say the same about Water.

That's irrelevant: This is about Water as a type, not the individual Pokemon within it, who are set back by variations in base stats, which are often a lot higher for Dragon on average than Water.

You also forget to mention Fighting, I'd say they deserve a mention.

Why, exactly? It doesn't compare very well to Water, and is pretty average in general. I mean, sure, it hits Dark and Steel, but Psychic & Flying are common in the metagame too.

P.S.
And why is that so silly, exactly? Fighting has five strengths, and only two weaknesses, as Poison would if Flying, Ground, Bug, and Water were added to its strengths. But I don't see anyone rallying for a change in Fighting's type matchup (I ignore normal because I don't really see the logic for giving it a Poison weakness, from a conceptual viewpoint, and nor do I advocate it in the slightest).

Because the argument can be extended to every type in existence. I stopped at those because quite clearly, if you are to go by such simple things as "water pollution" which is a scapegoat a lot of people use to justify buffing Poison. Reductio ad absurdum. It's just not a viable way of thinking, because you can do that with Fire and probably Water as well. You can't just cherry-pick arguments like that and expect it to hold up, especially when you ignore the opposite, Water against Poison.

If anything, I'd focus more on the defensive side of Poison. There is no way I really think a Poison>Water match-up is justifiable, but I can't really see why Ground>Poison, even on the offensive front when Poison NVE Ground. To be honest, ground pollution certainly isn't unheard of, and why they chose to not let it affect ground-dwelling creatures very well is beyond me. I'd rather change that to normal damage both ways if any change is to be made. Of course, it won't appease to the people who want to use Poison really offensively,

I'm not even a Poison fan, in fact I prefer Water. However, like many others, I have tried to train & use Poison-types before (during normal gameplay & competitively), and I just don't think it's fair that Poison can't be used offensively, and the waste of STAB frustrating. And that's a completely valid reason to want a change to the type chart.

... but to them I'd just say "fuck you", I sincerely couldn't care less about that.

Well fuck me, I guess that's my argument in shreds--wish I'd thought of something clever and witty like that. Must've taken you hours to think of such a water-tight counterpoint. Truly, such wisdom is beyond the scope of our tiny minds to comprehend.

I don't argue that Poison>Normal, but I strongly object the notion that somehow Water should take precedent over any sort of terrestrial life. Type matchups aren't really decided like that, of course if you tried to burn a fish it would die pretty fast, yet Fire is still NVE against Water regardless.

Since when did GF invent a Fish-type? Stop warping the concept of types to fit your argument. Water represents the element of water, not the creatures that live in it, and the same for Fire. And the water-fire relationship has already been discussed, so I'm just gonna repost:

Originally Posted by Lord Clowncrete

Originally Posted by Reynbowz

Originally Posted by H-con

/snip

Originally Posted by YamiiDenryuu

While poison can contaminate water, water can just as well dilute poison until it's basically ineffective /snip

I'm not advocating that Water should get more SEs (it should stay the same), but I'd rather see Water SEing Poison than vice versa.

^ This argument can be used for a lot of typings. Heat evapourates water, some plants do well in the snow, a couple species of tarantula can eat birds...
I could go on, but I think the point is clear. It's still logical IMO.

Water stops fire from getting oxygen and extinguishes fire. If water and fire come in contact, the fire will most likely be extinguished unless the fire was started by potassium.
Some plants do well in the snow. That is what Abomasnow is based on. Plants which survive the snow are exceptions and not a rule.

SOME Tarantula can eat small birds or baby birds. Again that is an exception. Majority of the bugs like caterpillars are easy target for birds.(We also have Galvantula destroying birds, just incase you want press it further. )

That, and Poison is perhaps hindered by the lack of decent sweepers? I have a hard time thinking of many offensive poison-mons that really take advantage of their Poison-typing more than their secondary (or primary) type.

This isn't a problem with the Pokemon themselves. Even if Poison was full of sweepers, they would be terrible, because Poison has terrible coverage. The fact is that Poison, like Steel, hosts a number of good mons (e.g. Crobat), but they can't take advantage of their STAB because they'd get better coverage for the same power with moves of other types. This is a problem with the type in general, not the Pokemon of it.

Also, we don't need a logical reason to change the type chart? Really? We don't have enough illogical things in pokémon already, so let's throw in another one that doesn't make sense as well?

Was that directed at me? Because I didn't say anything like that. The crux of my argument is: 1.) Poison has no offensive capability, and that's not on; 2.) Water is a little too powerful as is 3.) It would make sense to make Water weak to Poison, because not only would it make sense from a conceptual standpoint (water pollution), but both types would then be more or less fairly balanced, as would the type chart in general.

Yes, I realise that you could justify making Poison SE on other types conceptually as well, but this thread is concerned solely with whether or not Water should be Weak to Poison, not whether any other types should be as well, hence I am limiting myself to arguing for that, despite having clearly shown that I advocate other types being made weak to Poison too (Bug, in particular). The Water pollution thing's just an intuition pump to show that the relationship makes sense from a real-world perspective, as well as from a mechanical one, both of which are crucial when suggesting changes to the type chart.

@Green Zubat;

I disagree with some parts of your post. I will address them but first:

Er, yes I did, and one that has been echoed by @Grass Type Trainer and @Anser: Water is a little too powerful, and Poison isn't strong enough. Ergo, it makes sense to make former weak to the latter.

Heh, I have know GTT for some time now and I know he will support any notion that empowers grass tpes.

Anyway:

Yeah, really. I already said Water doesn't find it hard to deal with Dragon, since Water types are often given ice moves (I'm looking at you, Ice Beam), and double Ice weakness isn't uncommon to dragons.

@H-con; isn't saying that water doesn't do well against dragons. He is saying that dragons are far more over-powered than water types out there.

Hence my point about Water being a little overpowered.

Nope, not in gen 5 and definitely not as game-breaking as dragons are. The sheer power of dragons is shaping the metagame. Most defensive or slower teams are forced to pack multiple steel types just to counter this menace. Stuff like Mamoswine and Magnezone sees a lot more usage thanks to the dragons.

Funny, I don't see any (stats) ..

Here are OU stats for October. Please count the number of dragons and water types out there. And also count how many non-uber dragons of the total dragons and how many non-uber water types out of the total water types found their way to OU.

ORLY? Two words: Bulky. Water.

And now I will tell you why water types are not overpowered. Simply because bulky water types are just no longer good enough in gen 5. The rise of bulky grass types like ferro, celebi and offensive ones like Venusaur and Breloom means that bulky water types are often a liability and a free switch in to all the mons I mentioned. There are powerful electric sweepers, jolteon and thundurus-t which melt water types. If the weather is sunny & with no way to change it, bulky water types are massacred by even fire mons like Volcarona. Swampert, Kingdra have all dissappeared and the "bulky" water types that exist are actually multi-purpose water mons capable of filling multiple roles. Gyarados? Also a DD sweeper. Rotom-w? Also a good scarfer. Starmie? Not bulky, a spinner and good sweeper in rain. Politoed = drizzle

Now the bulky ones, Jellicent also happens to be a spin blocker, which is the primary reason it is used for. If it was pure water, it would be UU for sure. Same with Tentacruel. The ability to setup, absorb t-spikes and spin hazards turns it OU. Without its poison typing and toxic spikes, it wouldn't be used at all. (and we are saying poison is bad?) That means the only pure bulky water type is Vaporeon, used solely for its typing(and wish passing), no frills. We no longer have suicune, swampert, kingdra, slowbro, etc being used much in OU. Nobody puts in grass types or electric types just to counter bulky water types. People however regularly put steel types and ice sharders for dragons. So it would be erronous to say that bulky waters exert much of an influence in OU.

That's irrelevant: This is about Water as a type, not the individual Pokemon within it, who are set back by variations in base stats, which are often a lot higher for Dragon on average than Water.

Now, you are clearly saying that water type as whole should be "nerfed" even though most water types like Lumineon, Luvdisc, Golduck, Quagsire are not even game-breaking. Individually, dragons are superior. As a type, dragons are superior, so who do you think should be nerfed?

Why, exactly? It doesn't compare very well to Water, and is pretty average in general. I mean, sure, it hits Dark and Steel, but Psychic & Flying are common in the metagame too.

Fighting has powerful mons alongwith high powered attacks. Some of them like Terrakion are uncounterable. Psychic isn't common at all while most flying types are vulnerable to a well time stone edge,ice punch, hp ice, etc.

I'm not even a Poison fan, in fact I prefer Water. However, like many others, I have tried to train & use Poison-types before (during normal gameplay & competitively), and I just don't think it's fair that Poison can't be used offensively, and the waste of STAB frustrating. And that's a completely valid reason to want a change to the type chart.

Ok, poison isn't the best STAB in OU, but ingame the simple ability of most poison moves to cause your opponent to be poisoned endears me to sludge bomb or poison jab on my mons. Ingame, the resistances by ground, ghost, rock tend to have a larger impact, imo then a immunity for steel. And frankly, every mon is usable ingame, no matter what.

tldr: water isn't too powerful, dragon is. IF you want to nerf a type, go for dragon.

Originally Posted by Lord Clowncrete

Anyway:

Yeah, really. I already said Water doesn't find it hard to deal with Dragon, since Water types are often given ice moves (I'm looking at you, Ice Beam), and double Ice weakness isn't uncommon to dragons.

@H-con; isn't saying that water doesn't do well against dragons. He is saying that dragons are far more over-powered than water types out there.

See closing statement.

Funny, I don't see any (stats) ..

Here are OU stats for October. Please count the number of dragons and water types out there. And also count how many non-uber dragons of the total dragons and how many non-uber water types out of the total water types found their way to OU.

See below.

ORLY? Two words: Bulky. Water.

And now I will tell you why water types are not overpowered. Simply because bulky water types are just no longer good enough in gen 5. The rise of bulky grass types like ferro, celebi and offensive ones like Venusaur and Breloom means that bulky water types are often a liability and a free switch in to all the mons I mentioned. There are powerful electric sweepers, jolteon and thundurus-t which melt water types. If the weather is sunny & with no way to change it, bulky water types are massacred by even fire mons like Volcarona. Swampert, Kingdra have all dissappeared and the "bulky" water types that exist are actually multi-purpose water mons capable of filling multiple roles. Gyarados? Also a DD sweeper. Rotom-w? Also a good scarfer. Starmie? Not bulky, a spinner and good sweeper in rain. Politoed = drizzle

Now the bulky ones, Jellicent also happens to be a spin blocker, which is the primary reason it is used for. If it was pure water, it would be UU for sure. Same with Tentacruel. The ability to setup, absorb t-spikes and spin hazards turns it OU. Without its poison typing and toxic spikes, it wouldn't be used at all. (and we are saying poison is bad?) That means the only pure bulky water type is Vaporeon, used solely for its typing(and wish passing), no frills. We no longer have suicune, swampert, kingdra, slowbro, etc being used much in OU. Nobody puts in grass types or electric types just to counter bulky water types. People however regularly put steel types and ice sharders for dragons. So it would be erronous to say that bulky waters exert much of an influence in OU.

I was merely using the Bulky Water archetype to show how influential Water types have been in the metagame, in contrast to H-con essentially handwaving it. Sure, Bulky Waters aren't as big of a deal as they used to be, but Water is still a common competitive type. I count at least 5 in the top 25 (20%) of the stats you gave, for example.

That's irrelevant: This is about Water as a type, not the individual Pokemon within it, who are set back by variations in base stats, which are often a lot higher for Dragon on average than Water.

Now, you are clearly saying that water type as whole should be "nerfed" even though most water types like Lumineon, Luvdisc, Golduck, Quagsire are not even game-breaking. Individually, dragons are superior. As a type, dragons are superior, so who do you think should be nerfed?

See closing statement.

Why, exactly? It doesn't compare very well to Water, and is pretty average in general. I mean, sure, it hits Dark and Steel, but Psychic & Flying are common in the metagame too.

Fighting has powerful mons alongwith high powered attacks. Some of them like Terrakion are uncounterable.

Again, individual members of the type don't make the type itself any stronger or weaker.

Psychic isn't common at all

Are you sure about that? 'Cause last I heard, Psychic has always been popular (admittedly, not always to the same degree, but still). Again, even the stats you gave show psychic types to comprise 20% of the top 25, which seems like a lot to me.

I'm not even a Poison fan, in fact I prefer Water. However, like many others, I have tried to train & use Poison-types before (during normal gameplay & competitively), and I just don't think it's fair that Poison can't be used offensively, and the waste of STAB frustrating. And that's a completely valid reason to want a change to the type chart.

Ok, poison isn't the best STAB in OU,

Come on, it's the worst STAB. Even Steel has better coverage.

tldr: water isn't too powerful, dragon is. IF you want to nerf a type, go for dragon.

I wasn't saying saying Dragon isn't too powerful as well, though I do admit, now that you mention some of the changes brought about by Gen V to the metagame, it probably wouldn't be fair to call Water the strongest type of all. However, regarding Dragon Vs. Poison ... meh. It doesn't seem counterintuitive, but not something that springs readily to mind either. Not as easily as a Water (or other type candidates, like Bug) weakness would, anyway.

But like I said, this thread isn't for discussing the other candidates & their suitability for a Poison weakness. The thread specifically addresses Water, which, all things considered, is still quite a strong type, and I maintain that you could call it overpowered at least when compared to marginalised types like Poison. Furthermore, I don't think it would suffer horribly from the change, whereas Poison would receive a great boost, and so I still agree with the idea that Water should be weak to Poison.

I would hate to do it to Kyogre but yeah poison should be super-effective of water because of reality. Polluting water and just simple: Poison would hurt the living things in the water.

Holy guacamole! I don't mean to mini-mod, but can we all calm down a notch? You're all coming off as totally flaming each other. It's not like Gamefreak is in here taking notes on our argument points.
This is Pokémon we're talking about, for the love of everything.

Anyways.

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

I said that, out of the numerous candidates for Poison weakness (Ground, Fighting, Bug, and--possibly--Flying), Water is one of the ones that deserve it more (if not the most, depending on how you feel about the Bug precedent) because it wouldn't suffer too much, where as Poison would be much better off for the change.

I disagree with you here. I've always felt like Fighting a bit overpowered. Five offensive advantages plus three resistences to Rock, Bug and Dark on top of that? Considering Steel only has Poison to contend with for worst attacking type, Water's resistences are effectively three as well, with three offensive advantages instead. If we're going to talk about which type most deserves some toning down, I would definitely say Fighting is the one.

Originally Posted by Reynbowz

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

I said that, out of the numerous candidates for Poison weakness (Ground, Fighting, Bug, and--possibly--Flying), Water is one of the ones that deserve it more (if not the most, depending on how you feel about the Bug precedent) because it wouldn't suffer too much, where as Poison would be much better off for the change.

I disagree with you here. I've always felt like Fighting a bit overpowered. Five offensive advantages plus three resistences to Rock, Bug and Dark on top of that? Considering Steel only has Poison to contend with for worst attacking type, Water's resistences are effectively three as well, with three offensive advantages instead. If we're going to talk about which type most deserves some toning down, I would definitely say Fighting is the one.

Poison has some reason to be SE on Fighting, too, since it already resists it for whatever reason. I really think that would work better than it being SE on Water.

I'd be cool with Poison being super effective against Fighting as well.

Originally Posted by Dreamweaver

I would hate to do it to Kyogre

Just as a note, Kyogre has always been one of the most relevant pokémon in Ubers.
Not saying it should be nerfed, for being one of the absolute strongest and most useful pokémon, it is well balanced in its own metagame. But a Poison weakness of all things would hardly hurt it. (Partially because there's nothing in Ubers that use the STAB and even with the Water SE Poison would remain as a poor offensive type and therefore a worse coverage option than Electric)

Er, yes I did, and one that has been echoed by Grass Type Trainer and Anser Water is a little too powerful, and Poison isn't strong enough. Ergo, it makes sense to make former weak to the latter.

Completely missing the point. Based on the argument presented, why should Water take precedence over Flying, Normal or Ground. You didn't answer the question.

Since when did GF invent a Fish-type? Stop warping the concept of types to fit your argument. Water represents the element of water, not the creatures that live in it, and the same for Fire. And the water-fire relationship has already been discussed, so I'm just gonna repost:

Please look at the list of Water types, exclude the legendaries (because lol legendaries) and tell me most of them wouldn't die if you threw them on a fire. Because they would. All of them. Some fish don't survive 2000 K. Some marine life don't survive being engulfed in flames. This isn't an exception case where some X can do Y.

Let us now, for the moment, stop there, and do as you say, look at the element of water. Of course, I have no problem with that being Super Effective against Fire (not that I'd use water to extinguish every fire out there, but that's besides the point). Now, however, back to your water-poisoning analogy. Does this "hurt" the water? No, it hurts what dwells in the water.

So on one hand, you're saying we shouldn't look at the things living in the water, but in the other hand, you're saying we should look at what's living in the water?

The element of Water doesn't really care. Water (especially at large quantities) dilutes most toxins, what damage could that do at all?

Now, let's take Flying. Going by the type analogies, I'd say Flying represents air and all that. Now, I don't have a hard time imagining air pollution, and the damage this does to creatures. Or Ground. Ground-poisoning is potentially very dangerous as well, can't dump chemicals everywhere you know.

Of course, this all leads back to the normal=normal relationship. From an elemental view, this is acceptable. From an "realistic" view, it's just as acceptable as Poison doing normal damage to Normal, Flying, Fighting and the like.

This isn't a problem with the Pokemon themselves. Even if Poison was full of sweepers, they would be terrible, because Poison has terrible coverage. The fact is that Poison, like Steel, hosts a number of good mons (e.g. Crobat), but they can't take advantage of their STAB because they'd get better coverage for the same power with moves of other types. This is a problem with the type in general, not the Pokemon of it.

Even if Poison did receive such a buff, it would be rather pointless with the current ensemble. They should rather focus on the defensive properties, which is why I think the weakness to Ground should be the first to go, rather than adding offensive properties.

Was that directed at me? Because I didn't say anything like that

Not really. Directly quoting the post slightly above mine

Originally Posted by Anser

Exactly. We don't need a logical reason to make the type chart change.

I'd say that's fucking bullshit, of course you do. There's a reason to every type advantage, throwing an illogical one out there is just a stupid idea.

Originally Posted by Green Zubat

I was merely using the Bulky Water archetype to show how influential Water types have been in the metagame, in contrast to H-con essentially handwaving it. Sure, Bulky Waters aren't as big of a deal as they used to be, but Water is still a common competitive type. I count at least 5 in the top 25 (20%) of the stats you gave, for example.

And as have been said, most wouldn't probably even be there without extras. Drizzle, for instance, is the pretty much sole reason to Politoed. Take any other Poiltoed sans Drizzle and it's not very overpowered (not that I don't love Politoed though, just that it's pretty obvious why he can't really compete with a lot of other threats without Drizzle).

Moreover, if bulky water types were common, but aren't now, doesn't that tell you how Gamefreak have effectively stopped them from being so, with things like Ferrothorn?

In addition, Water having a high percentage isn't all that odd, considering the amount of Water types in the dex, being the most numerous type. Hell, 16.8% of all pokémon are Water. There's no reason to think that of so many, quite a few are competitively viable. Compare that to Dragon, and pretty much every fully evolved pokémon is in some way viable.

Again, individual members of the type don't make the type itself any stronger or weaker.

I don't buy that. The reason to why people use Dragons aren't just because of the type's offensive statistics, but because most of the pokémon really are that good. If the pokémon were bad, then the type wouldn't be as viable simply because of one SE. The type needs good pokémon to even be viable.

I'm not even a Poison fan, in fact I prefer Water. However, like many others, I have tried to train & use Poison-types before (during normal gameplay & competitively), and I just don't think it's fair that Poison can't be used offensively, and the waste of STAB frustrating. And that's a completely valid reason to want a change to the type chart.

Having no real logical reason for it (by that, I mean things like people claim, like pollution, which I don't buy at all) doesn't really make your point better. Most of the typings are based.

Come on, it's the worst STAB. Even Steel has better coverage.

Offensively, yes. I certainly don't think it's amazing in that regard, and at least Steel got things like Bullet Punch.

I wasn't saying saying Dragon isn't too powerful as well, though I do admit, now that you mention some of the changes brought about by Gen V to the metagame, it probably wouldn't be fair to call Water the strongest type of all. However, regarding Dragon Vs. Poison ... meh. It doesn't seem counterintuitive, but not something that springs readily to mind either. Not as easily as a Water (or other type candidates, like Bug) weakness would, anyway.

But like I said, this thread isn't for discussing the other candidates & their suitability for a Poison weakness. The thread specifically addresses Water, which, all things considered, is still quite a strong type, and I maintain that you could call it overpowered at least when compared to marginalised types like Poison. Furthermore, I don't think it would suffer horribly from the change, whereas Poison would receive a great boost, and so I still agree with the idea that Water should be weak to Poison.

I think I can agree on you with the latter, that Water wouldn't be too terribly affected by it all. That alone isn't reason enough to disturb what I consider a balanced type (there are other ways to change up the Water type without touching type resistances and the like) just so people can continue not using Poison offensively. Moreover, there would be other typings I would change before that. (I'd much rather have Poison>Fighting, I view Fighting more ... problematic than Water), and I would rather increase the defensive properties of Poison, because that's really what I think the typing should focus on, because that's what I think it would gain the most on, with already existing pokémon ready to do the job.

This argument is really moving in circle. I feel that there is little more I can contribute to the discussion. I think my point have been made.

In my opinion I don't think that will ever happen and I don't think it should. Poison as a type has never experienced the same amount of usage as other types because of its weaknesses more than its lack in strengths. Being weak to ground and psychic set it back from gen 1 as it was weak to the most popular and powerful pokemon. As a result people were put of the type in my opinion from the start.
If it became supereffective against water I don't think it will get more usage, I just think grass types will get less common in competive arenas....
But these are just my opinions :)