This is the tier list of a champion R six player, me. But for a copper, this same tier list might look something like this. Ask the best pro players in the world, and their tier list gets a little crazy looking to the average player. So, how do we determine the objectivity of a tier list? Well, that's what we're going to figure out today so that we know objectively who the best and worst operators in Cjax really are. You see, I made a short the other day talking about the three worst operators in the game. Knock, Thunderbird, and Sentry. While this might be true for me, it's not true for everyone. Trust me, I heard a lot about this. This opinion of mine is not objective, but subjective, as it's based on my personal experiences in the game, and is hardly free from bias. It's heavily influenced by the opponents I play, the teammates I get, and the thousands of hours that I've spent just playing the game. Even if I attempt to be objective, my opinions of what gadgets are stronger and what guns are better are also based around my own experiences. Some people think that the Commando 9 on Mazi is one of the best defender weapons in the game, while I seem to think that it's one of the worst. Why is that? Well, for me, a higher rate of fire weapon is pretty much always going to be better. The only exception being the P10 Rooney because it only has 16 bullets or guns with tons of recoil that aren't very good at range. But for a lower ranked player who might be aiming more for the body and everyone having worse aim on average, a low recoil gun that does a lot of damage is obviously quote one of the best defender guns in the game. Now, this is still not objectively true despite this guy claiming it is. So, the next question is, how do we make a tier list that is entirely objective? Well, making it 100% objective wouldn't be entirely possible based on the fact that again, we only have our own experiences to work from along with the conversations and debates over operator strengths and weaknesses with other players. To be as objective as possible, we would have to attempt to verify our claims of operator strength in facts and evidence instead of personal opinion. Now, for a tier list as broad as Rainbow 6 in its entirety, the most correct version of it would be R six at the highest level, ProLeague. This is where a creator like FET might have a more accurate answer of the best operator in their truest form with maximum coordination and teamwork that you see in the highest level of competition. But that doesn't really help the average player to improve and ranked up because the average player doesn't have extreme coordination in perfect coms like they do in pro league. So if we kind of just ignore professional and highle competition, the next level of competition would be ranked. The highest rank of course being champion. Now, we could make a tier list for each rank, showing off the strongest operators for each one. That would be more objectively accurate because, of course, Tachanka is an S tier operator in copper. If you only use the LMG and walk around twoshotting everyone in the body, you're going to absolutely clap your way out of copper pretty quick. But what good is playing an S tier operator if by the time you get to silver or gold, that S tier operator has moved to Btier? And the higher you go from there, the more obsolete they become, being a Dtier or even F-tier operator in the highest rank in the game. So in that sense, is an operator that's good in lower ranks but not in higher ranks actually a good operator, or are they only good because of the negligence that lower ranks have? Tchanka isn't good in copper because he's objectively super strong. He's good in copper because you don't need the extra utility and deep level playmaking and extreme precision that is required at higher ranks. The enemy will walk at you with horrible aim, are probably looking the wrong direction, and probably not even know what half the operator's abilities do. The LMG is good, but that's only because the time to kill is so low in this rank. Once you're in champ, you'll probably want to be more precise, aim for the head, and have the utility to help you and your team win the round and stop the other team from taking advantage of your poor setup. So, objectively speaking, Tachanka is a bad operator in comparison to all the other operators that do what he does while giving you more of an advantage. Like Smoke, who is objectively stronger. Not just because I feel that way, but because I have the facts and evidence to support it. In direct comparison, Smoke's ability covers more area, but it also distorts vision. It's also less risk to use, being throwable and taking less time compared to Tchonka's Shmika launcher, which has to be swapped to entirely, and you have to reload it. There's more risk to Tachanka's gadget with less reward. Yet, there is no advantage to using it over smoke outside of having more ammo and an overall greater time stall if used in an extremely reserved way, which to be fair, they can just walk through at that point. Tanka Shmika is much more difficult to use as well because of the lack of range requiring more precision and less window for error. Then when it comes to loadouts, we need to break it down even more. Tachona has the LMG or the 9x19 VSSN. The 9x19 VSSN is disgustingly good at high ranks, having both an ACOG and a high rate of fire, making it a headshot machine. However, using it on Tonka means you lose the destruction capabilities of his LMG, which is a massive perk. Why? Because sight setup is very important at high ranks. But how is this an objectively true statement? Having a rotate hole versus having no rotate hole is objectively better on default locations because it gives you another avenue of rotation throughout the bomb site. Instead of the attackers only having to hold one rotate through the site to cut it in half, they now have to invest more resources or more players to successfully achieve the same thing. The harder they have to work, the stronger your defense setup is. This is a fundamental concept and it can be reflected in the highest rank in the game, including professional play. You see them setting up the bomb site because it's good. Therefore, setting up the site is objectively a good thing. This doesn't mean you can't win without a sight setup, and it doesn't mean that pro setups are going to be necessarily strong for you in your rank games. Understanding your setup and being able to play into it is really important. and most pro setups, people just don't really understand and play into it well, especially lacking that coordination. But what it does mean is at the top ranks, having the tools to do the sight setup is a benefit. I could break down the exact same thing here for vertical play and soft destruction in general, but I really just want to get to my point here. My point is by picking the 9x19 VSN, you are losing the advantage of map destruction and sight setup. You're gaining a better weapon for shooting people though because of its high rate of fire and better vision at range, meaning more headshots, more vision, and more likelihood of winning gunfights. This is a trade-off, making both guns really good. The LMG having the high damage and the destruction capability, and the 9x19 VSN making up for it with the high rate of fire and ACOG. As to Chunka, though, if your ability is very weak, you're really only relying on your good to be a good operator. So, why not just pick smoke? Smoke's loadout is incredibly strong as well at the top ranks, having the high rate of fire SMG11 and the M5 shotgun. The shotgun gives you that sight destruction, but it also plays into his ability being extremely dominant in close ranges. The smokes allow you to block off areas for a temporary amount of time and seal the distance during that time to lock down close-range areas with a one pump shotgun. The shotgun in this close range is objectively better than the LMG as it will instantly kill a person anywhere from the ball sack up. While the LMG will take multiple bullets if you don't hit the head. Objectively speaking, a shotgun is a stronger gun to have in close range if you don't have terrible aim and can actually land the shot. Again, if you're in copper, the LMG will be more reliable and consistent for getting kills, making it objectively better in that rank. So, objectively speaking, Tachanka is both the best operator in the game and the worst operator in the game at the same time. Wait, no, because having bad aim doesn't really make the operator bad. But then that means my lack of skill with a gun like the P10 Rooney also doesn't make the P10 Rooney bad. If I had better aim, that would be the best gun in the game because of its fast fire rate. I just have to shoot less bullets and one tap everyone. So really, I like guns with more ammo because my aim isn't perfect and I also mess up. So my opinions on the operators is subjective then. To a certain extent, yes, of course it is. It's kind of what I've been trying to tell you this entire time. But the one critical thing I take into account when I rank these operators is their abilities. This is where objectivity comes in. Let me ask you a question. Is Zero's gadgets actually good? Well, not really when you compare him to Brava or Twitch. His cameras are too loud and they don't work effectively enough to fully clear rooms because you can't move them. You can't check every corner. You can't push with them because they are stationary. And he doesn't have the utility to actually push into people. So, they're only really going to be useful when people aren't moving for a wall bang or a floor bang or a pre-fire. So, if they're moving at all, the cameras really aren't doing that much. Yes, they are like Valkams on attack, but Valkcams just aren't very good on attack. Like a wise man in the comments once said, he's good if you have a defensive play style. But the problem is that a defensive play style is nowhere near as good on attack. Let's go back to the Twitch drones for a second. Because they're drones, firstly, they're much quieter than the deployment of the Zero cameras. This also means you can move them from room to room easily to not only check every corner, but clear out utility in multiple rooms. You're not able to do this as smoothly with Zero because you first need to establish a line of sight into each room to deploy the cameras, which in itself adds an element of risk, unless you're shooting it through the floor or wall, of course. But then the zero cameras are also incredibly loud when they deploy. So if there's a defender in that room, there is no sneaking around it. and your zero cam will be shot, at least in ranks where they can actually hear your camera, aka the top ranks. But this is also why zero is so good in most ranks. Because between having bad audio recognition and being overly aggressive at the wrong times, you will not only have a lot of info, but capitalize on a lot of poor decisions by the defenders. So, I understand why you might think that zero is good. And to be fair, you're not wrong. You're just wrong if you're talking about high ranks. In the same way, when I say zero is bad, I'm also wrong for most ranks, right? I think this is where a lot of confusion and argument on the internet comes from because we all have different perspectives on how the game works and who's good and who's bad based off who we're playing. But by the time you get to the top ranks, players have learned. And unfortunately, those zero cameras are much less practical. But what about flanking? Well, my counter question to you is why actively watch flanks on cameras when you can do the exact same thing passively. Air jabs and gridlocks will give you sound cues when they're flanking, meaning you can dedicate your time and resources to gaining more map control and working your way into the site. Sitting and achieving nothing is a waste of a body. And unfortunately, if they're not flanking at all, you're being completely useless to your team on zero. Not to mention, this same thing can be achieved with two drones that you already have when you spawn in, leaving the rest of your operator utility for other jobs that need to be done throughout the round, like destroying defender utility and gaining map control. This is not subjective, by the way. It's objective. The more map control you take and the more walls and floors you open, the more pressure and angles they're exposed to, meaning they're less likely to choose the right gunfight. the more info they have that you get rid of, the more difficult it is for them to make the right choices throughout the round. So, when it comes to the objectively correct tier list in Rainbow Six Siege, it's one that considers these things. Operator abilities in contrast to each other and the broader goals of each side throughout the round. It considers the operator loadout to a certain extent, but in a fair way that doesn't overvalue it. It has a specific lens that it can be viewed through, whether it's in pro league, copper, console, or PC. And if we take all that into account to make an objective tier list for the top rank of the game for both solo Q and five stacking, we would have my tier list, an objectively correct tier list for PC champion rank that clearly defines operators based on their objective strength in relation to each other and the maps. And luckily for you, I made it in my other video which you can go watch right now. So yeah, basically I made a tier list and tried to be objective, but obviously my personal biases crept in to a certain extent. Also, people really need to learn the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. See you guys next time.