What a Video Game Tier List Actually Is
A tier list is a ranked grouping of items within a game, sorted by how useful they are in practice. Most people encounter these when ranking characters in fighting games, weapons in shooters, or heroes in MOBAs. The format is simple enough — you put things into rows labeled S, A, B, C, D, sometimes F on the bottom. Higher tiers mean the item is more viable or powerful. Lower tiers mean it struggles in competitive or even casual play. Here's the part nobody admits upfront: tier lists are opinions, not facts. They're structured opinions, usually backed by data from thousands of matches, but they're still made by humans with biases about what matters in a game. That's important to remember before you treat any tier list as gospel.
Video Game Tier List
Building one takes about 30 minutes to 2 hours depending on the scope. I make them for a few fighting games on the side, and the process isn't that complicated if you know what you're doing. Start by defining the exact matchup scope. Are we ranking based on tournament results, ranked ladder data, or personal experience? Each approach produces different results. Tournament data is the most reliable but it's also the most expensive to gather. Ladder data is easier to get but skews toward average players, not top competitors. Personal experience is the fastest but the most biased. I usually go with a hybrid method. I grab win rate data from sites like V-Sauce's trackers or game-specific platforms, then I cross-reference that with what I've actually seen in my own matches over the past few months. The combination catches things that raw numbers miss. A character might have a 52 percent win rate overall but that number doesn't tell you they're getting absolutely crushed in the late game or against specific archetypes. You catch those details by playing, not by scrolling spreadsheets. The S tier should be reserved for things that genuinely break the meta. Not just strong things. Things that change how the entire game gets played when they show up. Most tier lists I see online abuse the S tier. Half the list ends up in S and A combined because the author is confused about what the middle tiers are for. If your tier list has three items in S and nothing below B, you probably just built a popularity contest, not an actual ranking system.
How to Structure Your Tiers
Use five tiers minimum. S, A, B, C, D. Don't add extra letters unless you have a good reason for them. More tiers sounds more precise but it just creates false accuracy. Players in the B tier are often only slightly behind the A tier, and the difference between B and C might be one bad matchup instead of a fundamental design problem. Splitting things into ten tiers makes the list look thorough but it actually makes it harder to use. When I rank something, I ask three questions. First, what is this character or weapon capable of at the highest level of play? Second, how consistently does that capability show up at lower skill levels? Third, what counters it and can those counters be reliably exploited? If the answer to the second question is no, that thing goes lower regardless of how strong it is in tournament play. A tier list exists to help people make decisions, not to impress other tier list makers. I once ranked a character as mid-tier because the data looked fine, then spent six weeks playing against them in ranked and realized they had an insidious matchup profile. They weren't weak, they just required very specific setups that most players can't execute under pressure. The number said one thing, the hands-on experience said another. I moved that character up two full tiers after I figured out what was actually happening. That's the whole point of combining sources instead of relying on a single data type.
Get the Full Details
Common Mistakes People Make
The biggest mistake is ranking based on visual appeal or lore instead of mechanical performance. Just because a character looks cool or has an interesting backstory doesn't make them strong. I've seen tier lists ruined by this exact issue, usually on character-based games where the fanbase is emotional about their favorites. The numbers don't care about your feelings. Another mistake is updating too frequently. A new patch drops and someone immediately throws together a tier list claiming the meta has flipped. Most patch changes are incremental, not revolutionary. Wait at least a week of actual gameplay before committing to a revised ranking. Let the data settle. Half the time the "broken" new character turns out to be perfectly balanced once people figure out how to play against it. There's also the problem of size. Ranking 200 items in a single tier list creates a lot of compression. You end up with fourteen things in B tier and nobody can distinguish between them. When the list gets this large, it's better to break it into sub-tiers or separate lists by category. A single comprehensive ranking sounds impressive but it's usually unusable because the differences between adjacent items are too small to matter in practice.
When Tier Lists Fail Completely
They fail in cooperative or team-based games where individual rankings don't capture synergy. Putting characters into a straight S-to-D line tells you nothing about how well they work together. Two C-tier characters might form an oppressive combination that no single ranking can represent. I stopped trying to force team games into traditional tier list formats a long time ago. Composition guides and role charts are far more useful for that genre. Single-player games are another category where tier lists are mostly decorative. The AI doesn't adapt to your choices in a way that makes tier rankings meaningful. A weapon ranked low might still be perfectly viable for a casual playthrough because the difficulty curve never pressures you to use the absolute best option. Tier lists in that context are just trivia, not tools. If you want to build a tier list that people actually reference instead of scrolling past, you need to be willing to be wrong about your initial instincts and let the data correct you. The good ones take time, they contradict popular opinion sometimes, and they get updated when the game changes. The bad ones exist to generate arguments in comment sections. I've made plenty of bad ones myself.
