The purpose of this thread is collecting feedback from members of the community on what they think the tiers should be defined as, as well as what they think of the definitions others put forth. The hope is that some kind of consensus can come forth as a good general definition for the tier system to serve as a base for further discussion in the future. Before we begin, I wanna be clear that this isn't a thread for discussing particular classes; classes are useful as potential examples of a tier (something like "this is my definition of Tier 1; basically, anything like a Wizard"), but the hope is that the definitions put forth will cover sufficient ground that new things could be easily tiered. Hopefully my own tier definition suggestion will make this a bit clearer.

Spoiler: My suggestion for Tier Definitions
Show
The basic idea of my suggestion is that Tier is the result of the relationship between how many roles a class/build fills (Versatility), and how well it fills them (Power), with a slight additional metric for how easily an individual build can change its Versatility or Power (Flexibility).

Please note, I am aware that this definition is not entirely complete, due to needing a bit more definition on what roles there are, and possibly discussion of the relative value of those roles. I am also aware that some additional complexity is likely necessary for this system, given that classes might have different power levels for different roles, which isn't reflected in this current version.

Versatility

One Trick Pony (-0): A class/build that attempts to fill one role.

Simple (-1): A class/build that attempts to fill a few roles.

Complex (-2): A class/build that attempts to fill many roles.

Jack Of All Trades (-3): A class/build that attempts to fill all roles.

Power

Pointless (-0): A class/build that barely works towards filling its role(s) at all, but still does something more than nothing.

Weak (-1): A class/build that works towards filling its role(s), but will still struggle to fill them properly.

Average (-2): A class/build that can perform sufficiently at its role(s), but does not excel at them necessarily.

Strong (-3): A class/build that excels at its chosen role(s).

Broken (-4): A class/build that is virtually impossible to challenge in its chosen role(s).

Flexibility

Set In Stone (-0): Build cannot be changed, or can be changed with the expenditure of significant in-game resources (time, money, XP, etc).

Mutable (-1): Build can be altered with the expenditure of non-insignificant in-game resources (time, money, XP, etc).

Wish Fulfillment (-2): Build can be altered without the expenditure of in-game resources (more or less at-will).

I'll also clarify that flexibility is more about how much you can change your build around within the same tier. Like, a class that can change between different T4 Versatility/Power combos more or less at-will is probably T2, but a class that can change between a single T4 (strong at this one thing) and a bunch of T6 combos (weak at one other thing, pointless at a few other things, etc) isn't gonna get knocked up a tier for its ability to be slightly less awful at some things.

Spoiler: Useful(?) Chart
Show
Pointless Weak Average Strong Broken
One-Trick Pony 7 6 5 4 3
Simple 6 5 4 3 2
Complex 5 4 3 2 1
Jack Of All Trades 4 3 2 1 0


Looking forward to hearing people's suggestions for tier definitions, or their thoughts on mine.