and you are wrong with tiers based on formats. the so called tier system is only a system of what is "popular" and "what everyone is using so i'll use it too"
that is the only way for them to top in such quantity
and if you haven't read yet... give it a read. and if you say it's too long then you are just lazy and refuse to learn
and no... i actually like CB
“Tier 1”
Speaking of killing your ability to innovate, the whole concept of a tier system in Yu-Gi-Oh! may be the worst contributor to that problem. Let's be clear: there's absolutely no tier system for rating decks in this game. And yet, a huge chunk of the Dueling population talks about tiers all the time. Why is that poor? Let's compare the following statements:
-“Dino Rabbit has won three recent YCS tournaments.”
-“Dino Rabbit is Tier 1.”
Do me a favor: tell me which of the above statements communicates actual information, and which one makes reference to a vague, fairytale numeric system with no definition, meaning, or value.
...Good job. I'm glad you got that one right. Let's try another.
-“Dino Rabbit, Wind-Ups, Inzektors, and Chaos Dragons are popular right now amongst competitive tournament players.”
-“Dino Rabbit, Wind-Ups, Inzektors, and Chaos Dragons are Tier 1.”
See a pattern developing? Again, the first of these statements communicates actual ideas, while the second one communicates nothing. How about this one?
-“Gravekeepers could have competitive potential, but they haven't been successful yet in a Championship-level tournament in this format.”
-“Gravekeepers are Tier 2.”
Again, one of these statements expresses coherent thoughts. The other one doesn't. But unlike our first two examples, there's something sinister going on this time around. Here, the first statement suggests that while Gravekeepers haven't been competitively proven in the current format yet, the possibility that they could be competitive isn't ruled out. The “Tier 2” statement is different: it just slaps a negative label on a deck that could be a winner, but hasn't won yet. It literally says absolutely nothing except, “This deck isn't Tier 1.” That implies it's not even worth playing in the first place, because why would you play an inferior strategy?
The use of a tier system, and related terminology, is the enemy of innovation. The whole concept just exists to crap on decks that haven't won yet. And then, when those “lower tier” decks do win? Everybody turns around and suddenly acts as if they're magically “Tier 1” now. Well... Sometimes they do. Other times, alot of people just go on bashing the deck anyways.
I really doubt Peter Gross looked at Chaos Dragons before YCS Toulouse, and thought, “This deck is clearly Tier 2. I'm going to play it regardless.” Michael Balan didn't look at Dark World before Long Beach, and proceed to tell all his friends, “I've decided to play an inferior deck. I believe in a numerical system that defines it as being worse than Dino Rabbit.” Truly great players don't view the game in those kinds of terms. At least not while they're winning.
If the potential damage these terms can cause you as a player isn't enough to get you to stop using them, how about the fact that tiers aren't defined at all? This is literally an arbitrary system, with no agreed-upon definitions whatsoever. How many YCS tournaments does a deck have to win in order for it to officially be Tier 1? Two tournaments? One tournament? Any? What percentage of the field does a deck have to occupy, or how many tops does it need to accrue, to be Tier 2? And what tournaments should contribute to that running count? Better yet, what is this hilarious garbage about “Tier 1.5” and “Tier 2.5”. Really? Do we really need to make an imaginary system – one that's both pointless and irrational – even more complicated by adding decimals? And even if we could suggest a standardized tier system, would anybody agree on it anyway?
As fun as it is to ask those Questions, the reality is that they don't matter. The only Question that should concern you is this: does the use of a tier system help you become a better player? And the answer to that is a resounding “Hell no.” If you want to talk about a deck's track record in major events, talk about the deck's track record in major events. If you happen to know what percentage of the field it occupied at a tournament, talk about that. Talk about tops, and potential, and possible interactions, both negative and positive with other decks.
Just don't talk about tiers, because doing so is completely useless. It literally doesn't mean anything.
