|
Post by JerkJerk on Feb 25, 2014 15:49:04 GMT -6
Question in title.
Is it? I don't find call anything outside of Tier 1 really accurate, and I simply feel there is a better term out there, or a better explanation.
|
|
|
Post by bystander on Feb 25, 2014 16:38:15 GMT -6
I am not sure if it is out dated.
Tier usually describes the power/speed/play time certain decks are getting in any Meta.
With each new list, the meta changes and so do the top decks.
|
|
|
Post by JerkJerk on Feb 25, 2014 17:01:44 GMT -6
I am not sure if it is out dated. Tier usually describes the power/speed/play time certain decks are getting in any Meta. With each new list, the meta changes and so do the top decks. Now, realistically the only "Tier" that is ever remotely correct is Tier 1. I find, that there are top decks, and decks that are not. There is no 1.5, 2, 3 etc. Only those two categories because any non-top deck can beat any other deck, Whats being implied most of the time with Tiers are decks are always better than the tier below. Which isn't true or false, it's merely a representation of decks being played and results shown. Because decks are inherently reliant on the duelist and luck, there is no feasible evidence of decks being better or worse outside of player representation. You can argue all you want, but all card games become about decks most represented vs. decks not so represented.
|
|
|
Post by ragda on Feb 26, 2014 0:22:42 GMT -6
I kinda agree with that sentiment. It's been a similar case before too, but more so now that the lines are a bit more blurred in the way decks can be "differentiated" from then and now. Occasionally, we'll get a Tier 0 deck as a result of poor card design that inevitably lead to some pretty lopsided results. Most of the other times though, the ban list does enough to stymie the existence of those for too long, and we often have multiple decks topping.
Now, we obviously still have decks that stand above the rest, but because of how the format is in general, that is not to say nothing else can have their shot at winning. Sure, there's decks that aren't going to be cut out for the competition no matter what happens, and since this definition varies from people to people, the decks in between are also similarly undefined.
Popularity is a major factor in their ability to meet that potential. Of course, other facets of a "success" also apply, but we can't ignore that it's basically a popularity contest out there. Like JJ said, the idea of categorizing decks has always been representation of the numbers and results. That isn't to say there's nothing to define the top decks. Dragons of last year were definitely Tier 0 in both their popularity and their success. Now they are neutered, nothing at the moment creates such lopsided results, but there are decks that show consistent success, so we define these as Tier 1. Past that, we have a bunch of unrealized potentials, and to assign them to a number is a practice of futility.
(I had more to say on how the idea of categorizing decks to a Tier not only confines the "lower-Tiered" ones but perpetuates the "higher-Tiered" decks for various reasons, but I'm too tired to elaborate right now)
|
|
|
Post by JerkJerk on Feb 26, 2014 16:45:20 GMT -6
(I had more to say on how the idea of categorizing decks to a Tier not only confines the "lower-Tiered" ones but perpetuates the "higher-Tiered" decks for various reasons, but I'm too tired to elaborate right now) I'm curious as to what you had in mind.
|
|
|
Post by BurnForGame on Feb 26, 2014 18:25:47 GMT -6
I feel that this format is part of the reason why this question can even be posed. Sure, Mermail and Fire Fist are top decks, but after the scourge of Rulers, it's not hard to see where this kind of format can make people wonder about the relevance of "tier" in this game. It's not that it's outdated... I just agree that the term has more or less meaning depending on when one asks about it.
Right now, it could be said that the group of decktypes that might conceivably be expected to perform well at a top-level tournament is higher than it was, oh, around the time of the last Worlds? Now, the question is, is that to say there were only two tiers then because it was largely Rulers or bust; or does it say that there are perhaps two tiers now because many decks can compete in this post-Ruler meta, but there's still that massive group of decks always on the bottom that can't reach competitive status?
I am inclined to think that both are true, and that tiers come into play when there is a group of decks in between what is normally present: One that can beat many of the other decks toward the bottom (the de facto Tier 4), a significant number of the decks that could potentially compete (Tier 2), but few of the decks made popular at top tables (Tier 1). It doesn't mean such Tier 3 decks can't win a YCS event (especially if they are something like the Grandsoil deck that simply came into being at the right time) but it also implies that they can't just be lumped together with everything on the bottom. A situation like that is what makes me think of "tier" as perfectly relevant, even today.
|
|
|
Post by Yoh Komori on Feb 26, 2014 19:39:19 GMT -6
I feel that this format is part of the reason why this question can even be posed. Sure, Mermail and Fire Fist are top decks, but after the scourge of Rulers, it's not hard to see where this kind of format can make people wonder about the relevance of "tier" in this game. It's not that it's outdated... I just agree that the term has more or less meaning depending on when one asks about it. Right now, it could be said that the group of decktypes that might conceivably be expected to perform well at a top-level tournament is higher than it was, oh, around the time of the last Worlds? Now, the question is, is that to say there were only two tiers then because it was largely Rulers or bust; or does it say that there are perhaps two tiers now because many decks can compete in this post-Ruler meta, but there's still that massive group of decks always on the bottom that can't reach competitive status? I am inclined to think that both are true, and that tiers come into play when there is a group of decks in between what is normally present: One that can beat many of the other decks toward the bottom (the de facto Tier 4), a significant number of the decks that could potentially compete (Tier 2), but few of the decks made popular at top tables (Tier 1). It doesn't mean such Tier 3 decks can't win a YCS event (especially if they are something like the Grandsoil deck that simply came into being at the right time) but it also implies that they can't just be lumped together with everything on the bottom. A situation like that is what makes me think of "tier" as perfectly relevant, even today. Well stated. I can agree that it is at times a narrow field and bar the top cut the lines are blurred(run "it" or lose formats) or it can broaden like recently or during the PRE TSHD format. where the line between tiers 1-2-3-4(cause there is a difference between just out right crap decks, and non competitive ones. tier 4 is a thing, and it's not the same as tier 3) are more defined.
|
|
|
Post by ragda on Feb 26, 2014 23:18:44 GMT -6
(I had more to say on how the idea of categorizing decks to a Tier not only confines the "lower-Tiered" ones but perpetuates the "higher-Tiered" decks for various reasons, but I'm too tired to elaborate right now) I'm curious as to what you had in mind. Basically, the bandwagon effect feeds the system of more of the same decks. Some players that are good enough will definitely show successful results, which further reinforces the idea that this is a strong deck. That can be part of the deck's particular strengths, but you definitely have to credit the numbers work for it. When more people also play the deck, the deck's evolution speeds up faster than others. It has more people playing the deck, so it has more people winning or losing with it. When it's the latter, the tweaks can ripple through other people's builds through their eventual success. Lower "tier" decks basically rely on a smaller group of people to innovate them, to help the deck grow. Less people means the amount of progress is much slower. You get barely any addition to the numbers because of the label put on them. Yes, just like how a deck's popularity also hinges on its strengths and weaknesses, a lack of popularity can be due to such decks to have more weaknesses than strengths. However, some untapped potential lies in that "ignorance" and that's why you tend to get some surprising results coming from these. However, they still don't really grow much in numbers as much as some other decks for various reasons. The label is one of the bigger confining traits. The stigma of playing such a deck can prevent one from even trying it in the first place until it "proves" itself more. Another is the skill curve or learning new/uncommon strategies of the deck. People tend to play decks that already fulfill their playstyle roles so they won't feel awkward with the new thing. It could also be an issue of unavailability. People don't necessarily gather "low-tier" deck materials because it's generally unprofitable and unmoveable. That too also just furthers the confinement of some decks and keeping their potential to getting far.
|
|
|
Post by Silver on Feb 27, 2014 10:15:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by JerkJerk on Feb 27, 2014 13:29:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by ragda on Feb 27, 2014 14:09:58 GMT -6
That perspective is very agreeable to me. I do remember now such an article from ages past, thanks for helping me remember it.
JJ: You posted your reply in Silver's actual post, not outside the quote box, lol.
|
|
|
Post by JerkJerk on Feb 27, 2014 14:23:00 GMT -6
...I did this because reasons.
But, that article was from a while ago to. Surprised I can remember the exact one.
|
|
|
Post by ライトロード on Feb 27, 2014 15:32:04 GMT -6
Is the term tier outdated? No. In one way or another, it will always be relevant. Tier is used to define the effectiveness a deck has in the current meta, as well as the level of event one plays in (albeit applied in the reverse, in that case).
Regarding decks, Tier 1 is composed of the 2-4 decks that frequently win & top premier events. Tier 2 is composed of all of the decks that are viable for competitive play, but are not effective enough to be tier 1. Tier 3 decks are fun decks that hold little to no chance of topping an event, or even walking away with a decent record.
|
|
|
Post by ragda on Feb 28, 2014 13:13:57 GMT -6
That just shows that it's nothing more than some ambiguous categorizing system past "Tier 1".
|
|
|
Post by ライトロード on Feb 28, 2014 14:32:13 GMT -6
That just shows that it's nothing more than some ambiguous categorizing system past "Tier 1". Pretty much, yeah.
|
|