type chart confusion

Anyone else confused about some of the resistances or super effective match ups currently in place in Pokémon?

For me, the biggest issue is that bug is not weak to ice but instead neutral. It bothers me that poison is not super effective against bug but at least you could argue that bugs develop resistances to poisons and that neutral damage is fair. However, bugs are generally very weak to the cold and usually have to hide from it or die. With bug I'm forced to assume they didn't want to create 4x weakness for bug/grass and flying/bug as they seem to be a common duel typing.

Ice is also the only type besides normal that has one resistance/immune (itself lol). I could see all of the types it's super effective against as being resistances. However since bug is already resisted by 6 types while grass is resisted by a staggering 7 types dragon and or flying would make the most sense. I could potentially see ice resistant to water but water/ice tpying are very common and it wouldn't make much sense if the types resisted each other (maybe it's just me but it makes more sense if ice was neutral when attack water and resisted water).

At 4 weaknesses and only one resistance ice seems rather lacking. Unfortunately it's also a difficult type to duel type with since it's weak to fire and fighting. It's saving grace is that it is super effective against some of the most powerful types out there (flying, ground, and dragon) but I still feel that ice got the short end of things. Perhaps they felt guilty about it and that's why they give so many dragons a flying and ground dual types? Although that also encourages non-ice Pokémon carry ice moves since at 4x weakness stab isn't as necessary.

Most the others ones I'm okay with but I've felt that fighting should be weak to poison, ground resistant to fire, and I never really understood the whole steel weak to fighting thing (vibrations cause internal damage or something?). A weakness to electric as steel would have made some sense to me but I suppose most of these are needed for balance issues.

I always thought Ice should be super effective against Water. It just makes sense to me.

I think Gamefreak should include NPCs in-game whose dialogue explains Gamefreak's reasoning for why types are effective or not against each other. What if, before battle, a Blackbelt said, "Ha! My fighting type pokemon are so strong, they can crush right through Rock, Ice, and Steel-types defenses!"

Whereas a normal human/pokemon "Mega Punching" or "Body Slammed" a steel pokemon, it would be weak. But the entire point of the fighting type, no different than the electric or fire or whatever type, is that the pokemon is using a superpower, in this case, super strength. Think of Superman, the man of steel, being able to bend metals bars or fly through a brick wall. If Fighting moves were weak against rock or steel... what would the difference between normal and fighting type moves be?

I agree that Ice being supereffective against Bug and Water would make sense, and this is what I use to think when I was a child. But considering that Ice is already one of the best offensive types in the game, and that people tend to use non-ice type pokemon that use Ice Beam to avoid the horrible defensive properties of the ice type, I'd much rather that Ice type got boosts defensively.

If dragons can't stand the cold... wouldn't touching an ice type pokemon's body hurt? Therefore, I think Ice should resist Dragon. (Before anyone mentions Fairy, I'm not talking about nerfing dragons, just boosting ice types.)

There are many, many type matchups which I disagree with, but like I said, I want to hear Gamefreak's reasoning before asserting against them. Okay, just one:

Why are ghost type moves weak against steel type pokemon? Ghosts can phase in and out of matter, whether it's a rock (neutral), plant (neutral), body of water (neutral)... yet all of a sudden, steel armor is magically ghost-proof? Considering that Steel is already a HUGE outlier defensively (11 resistances, compared to the average of 3 or 4), this seems very unnecessary.