Quote Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung View Post
The "tier" system should define players. You can take a tier 1 player and give him anything, and he will always shine in the group. He will always spend the time and effort to make sure his character is efficient and competent. And vice versa you can give a tier 4 player the best build in the world and he will still be jealous and incompetent.
You may possibly have missed the meaning of the tiers, because you appear to be equating Tier 1 with "super-awesome good things and full of kittens and puppies" and Tier 4 with "this is the worst thing except for the other even worse things", which is not at all the intent; JaronK in fact suggests using Tier 3 and Tier 4 classes preferentially in most games.

That said, the idea of a tier ranking for players is interesting, though I'm not quite sure how you'd arrange it. Care to expand on that in another thread?

In closing, this system is a blight. It does nothing good. It accomplishes no goals. It is seeped in misunderstanding and flawed logic. It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress. And I personally wish it would die in a fire.
Ironically, just about the only dissent and friction I've seen in regard to the tier system is between people who think it's a fairly good description of existing class imbalance in 3.5, and people who think the concept is nuts.

So far, we've managed to avoid flaming responses, though, so that's good.