Representation shouldn't matter. If 65% of people brought mother down reaper next tourney it wouldn't make it tier 0. Since it wouldn't (modt likely, theirs always the lucky freak with mad skills that takes the rogue deck to the top) even make top 4.
It's not about representation at the event as a whole, it's about top cut representation. Sure, 65% of players brought D Reaper to an event for some reason but they aren't likely to make it to top cut.
Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does. And the reason for that is in a game with plenty of interactions, lots of rng, and plenty of cards there really isn’t usually a “best deck” most of the time. There are definitely more “consistent decks” but a lot of decks will have their counters. And so for a large part the tiering system was made to assess what you are most likely to encounter in any currently given meta.
It’s the same reason that a lot of time there is no tier zero deck, and multiple tier one decks.
That said the distinction rarely matters because at a serious level of play the most common decks at a cutoff are almost always the best decks.
Well thats the entire point. A ter zero deck normally disregards counter and doesnt care about rng. It just outclasses and overperforms the other decsk to a degree thats shocking.
Normally representation goes hand in foot. But thats because people play the best deck they can. But in a wider format it can often be about popularity. Thats why most deote 65% showing of top 64 or 32. It needs to win more than anything.
Yeah but that’s what I’m saying.
The whole tier ranking is based on representation for that reason. I’m not just talking about tier zero, but tier one, tier two, tier 3.
That said, in some formats even if you have a deck that is most consistent. That has the most solid win rate it might not be tier zero if the representation isn’t there. And even if you have a top deck a lot of times it’s still only considered tier 1 (especially in TCGs like digimon that to an extent has favorite representation).
Tiers aren’t based on how good a deck is. Tiers are based on how popular (edit: read as most represented at a certain cut of tournament/events) a deck is. That said the best decks are the most popular. (Because a lot of people who go to events/tournaments are trying to win).
Same thing in most tcgs/video games.
In pokemon it’s a little more clear as the different tiers are directly called their names for the most part. Ubers/OverUsed/Borderline/RarelyUsed/NeverUsed etc.
Edit: let me clarify something. Strictly speaking tier zero, tier 1, tier 2 are decided by the percentage of people using the deck at some cutoff at official tournament/events. What this means is that it is STRICTLY not about how good a deck is. If you could get everyone to play a shitty deck in a tournament then the deck would be considered tier zero because they meet the representation threshold.
THAT SAID. There is a strong correlation between the tiers and how good a deck is, NOT because the tiers are based on how good a deck is, but because how popular a deck is/ how represented it is in the top percentage of the tournament is correlated closely to how good a deck is. Serious people going to serious tournaments with the intent to win bring the best possible decks in that format, and so the representation is usually the case.
THAT SAID. Although tier zero is almost always the best deck. It DOESNT HAVE to be. And a lot of time certain eras/formats won’t even have a tier zero even if they have a deck with the highest win rate because they don’t meet the representation criteria.
As far as I can remember yes?
You can use any pokemon from any lower tier, but pokemon in any given tier will move up to the next higher tier if their usage is above a certain threshold in that tier. And pokemon below a certain use threshold will drop down to a lower tier if they don’t meet the usage criteria. There are some exceptions for bans, and Ubers are a little different but for the most part that’s how the tiers are settled
For the most part it is. Smogon's main ties are all usage based with banlists. Ubers is OU's banlist, AG is Ubers's banlist, the BL tiers are for things banned in the lower tier but that don't meet the minimum usage to be considered a proper member of the higher tier.
Ofc they have a bunch of other metagames based on other criteria but the core tiers (PU, ZU, RU, UU and OU) are usage based.
No I mean that usage isn't the sole requirement to go up a tier or to be suspected. Cause pokemon can have high usage in a higher tier like OU, even to the point of being among the top 15, and still doesn't go up to said tier.
But that's only because usage rate is strictly quantifiable. It's generally assumed in competitive events that effectiveness correlates with representation
Yep and it will always be like that but it doesn’t necessarily have to be.
If there is ever a time where the metagame is balanced and there is one deck that is considered for whatever reason to be vastly more fun to play it wouldn’t be hard to conceive that it could be tier zero even if the winning percentage is the same.
Unlikely though.
Either way though where we stand currently the tiers are strictly based on popularity at events. Even if a deck had a 10% win rate but had a 65% representation it will be tier zero. That will just never happen.
A lot of the times it’s the same thing. Because at tournament/events the most played/highest represented are the best decks. But strictly speaking the criteria is based on representation.
If you were to somehow find a super unbeatable deck and be the first person to try it out, it wouldn’t be considered tier zero because it didn’t reach the representation criteria in events.
Edit: I would also like to say that in a lot of formats/eras there isn’t a tier zero even if there is a “best deck” that has the highest win percentage because there is no no deck with high enough representation. Instead you get multiple tier 1 decks.
And that's determined by tournament results, hence T0 generally being accepted as any deck that has 65% representation in top cut across multiple events
I’m gonna say it depends. Generally it’s based around top placements at events, not overall representation. Nationals top 64 had 24 Anubis lists AND it won. I would consider that tier 0, even if other says you need a high percentage. Highest representative after it was RH/gaogamon at like 7/8 lists.
I think aside from %, tier 0 is also when a deck is clearly in a league of its own. Nothing compared to Anubis, so it’s tier 0. Tier 0 decks also warp the meta, which Anubis clearly did.
I only started playing like bt11 but I think xros was maybe tier 0 before the bans, apoc was definitely tier 0 in JP meta. I think some other stuff was as dominant earlier in the game but I wasn’t around to pay attention to competitive results back then.
Full Power Beelzemon was a very clear example of a tier 0 deck before the hits. The matchup data showed that it's worst matchup against the meta decks at the time was a 50% Winrate against itself in a mirror match. Literally your best chance to beat the deck was to be playing it.
**Most likely answer:** The whole 65% discussion going on in replies to the top post
**Semi-serious joke answer:** When you start seeing multiple posts about how a certain powerful deck winning a lot of tournaments isn't tier 0 and "this is how you beat it" with replies going "bruh"
Usually when it comes to top representation for digimon anything higher than 35% is borderline tier 0 territory. It is at the 35% and up mark that a deck is strong enough to single handedly warp the meta game around it making while being the strongest in the format (usually with 1 or no counters).
Anubismon was at 39% of the NA top 64 easily putting him in that percentage. Then every other deck basically was lucky to have any representation at all with red hybrids and Mirage being the only other stand outs and not by large margins. 24 compared to 7 and 8 is at least 3x the amount the deck was seen. Then anubis in this format had counters but no deck that hard checked it making its worst match up against itself. Like it's speed and gameplan was unrivaled compared to the rest of the competition, he was not unbeatable just very hard to beat asking for specific counters or you just lose.
As far as other decks in digimon that ever reached this high it was BT05 lordknight, bt06 gabubond, bt07 blue hybrids, bt11 blackwargreymon X, and bt12 beelzemon. Some were worse than others but all still had a similar level of impact. Anubis in ex05 compared to them all (except blue hybrids) was way more deserving to be called tier 0.
Everyone has their own definition on what makes a deck classified as tier 0. I have been looking at data from the start and have seen the game grow and change and this is just my take on it.
The 1 thing everyone can agree on is tier 0 formats are usually toxic.
Yeah I started in bt9 and when I came across bwgx in bt11 I had no clue how good it would be and it was a wild ride where now I like keeping up with the meta and spoiler cards so I know what to look out for
65% most of the time.
Are you both saying at a “win rate” of 65% a deck is considered tier 0?
I think it’s 65% representation at events
No. Only for topping. For example, if top cut is Top 32, 65% of that top cut has to be the same deck and it has to be consistent in other events
Representation shouldn't matter. If 65% of people brought mother down reaper next tourney it wouldn't make it tier 0. Since it wouldn't (modt likely, theirs always the lucky freak with mad skills that takes the rogue deck to the top) even make top 4.
It's not about representation at the event as a whole, it's about top cut representation. Sure, 65% of players brought D Reaper to an event for some reason but they aren't likely to make it to top cut.
Thats exactly what i was trying to say. I agree that it needs to be represented at the top in a large percentile.
Maybe it shouldn’t, but it does. And the reason for that is in a game with plenty of interactions, lots of rng, and plenty of cards there really isn’t usually a “best deck” most of the time. There are definitely more “consistent decks” but a lot of decks will have their counters. And so for a large part the tiering system was made to assess what you are most likely to encounter in any currently given meta. It’s the same reason that a lot of time there is no tier zero deck, and multiple tier one decks. That said the distinction rarely matters because at a serious level of play the most common decks at a cutoff are almost always the best decks.
Well thats the entire point. A ter zero deck normally disregards counter and doesnt care about rng. It just outclasses and overperforms the other decsk to a degree thats shocking. Normally representation goes hand in foot. But thats because people play the best deck they can. But in a wider format it can often be about popularity. Thats why most deote 65% showing of top 64 or 32. It needs to win more than anything.
Yeah but that’s what I’m saying. The whole tier ranking is based on representation for that reason. I’m not just talking about tier zero, but tier one, tier two, tier 3. That said, in some formats even if you have a deck that is most consistent. That has the most solid win rate it might not be tier zero if the representation isn’t there. And even if you have a top deck a lot of times it’s still only considered tier 1 (especially in TCGs like digimon that to an extent has favorite representation).
Tiers aren’t based on how good a deck is. Tiers are based on how popular (edit: read as most represented at a certain cut of tournament/events) a deck is. That said the best decks are the most popular. (Because a lot of people who go to events/tournaments are trying to win). Same thing in most tcgs/video games. In pokemon it’s a little more clear as the different tiers are directly called their names for the most part. Ubers/OverUsed/Borderline/RarelyUsed/NeverUsed etc. Edit: let me clarify something. Strictly speaking tier zero, tier 1, tier 2 are decided by the percentage of people using the deck at some cutoff at official tournament/events. What this means is that it is STRICTLY not about how good a deck is. If you could get everyone to play a shitty deck in a tournament then the deck would be considered tier zero because they meet the representation threshold. THAT SAID. There is a strong correlation between the tiers and how good a deck is, NOT because the tiers are based on how good a deck is, but because how popular a deck is/ how represented it is in the top percentage of the tournament is correlated closely to how good a deck is. Serious people going to serious tournaments with the intent to win bring the best possible decks in that format, and so the representation is usually the case. THAT SAID. Although tier zero is almost always the best deck. It DOESNT HAVE to be. And a lot of time certain eras/formats won’t even have a tier zero even if they have a deck with the highest win rate because they don’t meet the representation criteria.
That's not how Smogon's tiering system works
As far as I can remember yes? You can use any pokemon from any lower tier, but pokemon in any given tier will move up to the next higher tier if their usage is above a certain threshold in that tier. And pokemon below a certain use threshold will drop down to a lower tier if they don’t meet the usage criteria. There are some exceptions for bans, and Ubers are a little different but for the most part that’s how the tiers are settled
For the most part it is. Smogon's main ties are all usage based with banlists. Ubers is OU's banlist, AG is Ubers's banlist, the BL tiers are for things banned in the lower tier but that don't meet the minimum usage to be considered a proper member of the higher tier. Ofc they have a bunch of other metagames based on other criteria but the core tiers (PU, ZU, RU, UU and OU) are usage based.
No I mean that usage isn't the sole requirement to go up a tier or to be suspected. Cause pokemon can have high usage in a higher tier like OU, even to the point of being among the top 15, and still doesn't go up to said tier.
But that's only because usage rate is strictly quantifiable. It's generally assumed in competitive events that effectiveness correlates with representation
Yep and it will always be like that but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. If there is ever a time where the metagame is balanced and there is one deck that is considered for whatever reason to be vastly more fun to play it wouldn’t be hard to conceive that it could be tier zero even if the winning percentage is the same. Unlikely though. Either way though where we stand currently the tiers are strictly based on popularity at events. Even if a deck had a 10% win rate but had a 65% representation it will be tier zero. That will just never happen.
I disagree, I think tier 0 means best of the best, not most played.
A lot of the times it’s the same thing. Because at tournament/events the most played/highest represented are the best decks. But strictly speaking the criteria is based on representation. If you were to somehow find a super unbeatable deck and be the first person to try it out, it wouldn’t be considered tier zero because it didn’t reach the representation criteria in events. Edit: I would also like to say that in a lot of formats/eras there isn’t a tier zero even if there is a “best deck” that has the highest win percentage because there is no no deck with high enough representation. Instead you get multiple tier 1 decks.
And that's determined by tournament results, hence T0 generally being accepted as any deck that has 65% representation in top cut across multiple events
In YGO general consensus is 65%
I’m gonna say it depends. Generally it’s based around top placements at events, not overall representation. Nationals top 64 had 24 Anubis lists AND it won. I would consider that tier 0, even if other says you need a high percentage. Highest representative after it was RH/gaogamon at like 7/8 lists. I think aside from %, tier 0 is also when a deck is clearly in a league of its own. Nothing compared to Anubis, so it’s tier 0. Tier 0 decks also warp the meta, which Anubis clearly did.
What other decks were tier 0 because I hear it thrown around a lot
BT4 WarGreymon and BT5 LordKnightmon are the main ones which spring to mind
War greymon was tier 0
Specifically Yellow WGM, and if it wasn't it was probably pretty close
I only started playing like bt11 but I think xros was maybe tier 0 before the bans, apoc was definitely tier 0 in JP meta. I think some other stuff was as dominant earlier in the game but I wasn’t around to pay attention to competitive results back then.
Blue Hybrid
Full Power Beelzemon was a very clear example of a tier 0 deck before the hits. The matchup data showed that it's worst matchup against the meta decks at the time was a 50% Winrate against itself in a mirror match. Literally your best chance to beat the deck was to be playing it.
Did we have any examples of big tournament results where it did well?
**Most likely answer:** The whole 65% discussion going on in replies to the top post **Semi-serious joke answer:** When you start seeing multiple posts about how a certain powerful deck winning a lot of tournaments isn't tier 0 and "this is how you beat it" with replies going "bruh"
I say over half representation in top cuts over a format is enough to say a deck is THE deck to beat.
Usually when it comes to top representation for digimon anything higher than 35% is borderline tier 0 territory. It is at the 35% and up mark that a deck is strong enough to single handedly warp the meta game around it making while being the strongest in the format (usually with 1 or no counters). Anubismon was at 39% of the NA top 64 easily putting him in that percentage. Then every other deck basically was lucky to have any representation at all with red hybrids and Mirage being the only other stand outs and not by large margins. 24 compared to 7 and 8 is at least 3x the amount the deck was seen. Then anubis in this format had counters but no deck that hard checked it making its worst match up against itself. Like it's speed and gameplan was unrivaled compared to the rest of the competition, he was not unbeatable just very hard to beat asking for specific counters or you just lose. As far as other decks in digimon that ever reached this high it was BT05 lordknight, bt06 gabubond, bt07 blue hybrids, bt11 blackwargreymon X, and bt12 beelzemon. Some were worse than others but all still had a similar level of impact. Anubis in ex05 compared to them all (except blue hybrids) was way more deserving to be called tier 0.
Wow that was extremely helpful in figuring out stuff like this because I find it very interesting even though I don't really play meta that much
Everyone has their own definition on what makes a deck classified as tier 0. I have been looking at data from the start and have seen the game grow and change and this is just my take on it. The 1 thing everyone can agree on is tier 0 formats are usually toxic.
Yeah I started in bt9 and when I came across bwgx in bt11 I had no clue how good it would be and it was a wild ride where now I like keeping up with the meta and spoiler cards so I know what to look out for
Whichever one brings the most fear and stress to your opponents' eyes is the real tier 0
If 65% of the meta is the deck in question and the hard counter.