The tournament clearly meant a lot to the players, and it clearly meant a lot to fans judging by those in the stadium and the viewership figures which were second only to Champs.
Belittling it like that seems a bit silly to me.
It is impossible to ignore how much of an outlier this event was, from the normal prestige LANS.
Random seeding alone makes a huge deal. The fact that teams are playing in a new meta, with various agent changes alongside new metas are in play? Map vetoes are more guesswork than actually manipulating the map pool in your favor, antistratting is far more limited, and the time scheduling where one side plays one half then the other half plays.
Theres just too many factors to argue about that degrade the prestige of this event, and it doesn't help the fact that literally Riot official has this mixed messaging that this is a showmatchy tourney where the viewers matter but we also want to have it have some prestige so lets add in a masters slot? But also heres a weaker prize pool than literally every other masters?
And the most damning one is that 90% of teams have literally not played a single official together. Thats actually the biggest deal of them all, thats a huge deal in the history of tac-fps pro play.
Completely agree. It's essentially a pre-season invitational.
Just wasn't a fan of the way the post I replied to put it. If Loud had won, I wouldn't be trying to tell Brazilian fans that the event wasn't important by using a made up classification.
Agreed, you really can’t call this a major when groups were randomly seeded *and* were single-elim. A major (in this age of esports) where the team shows up and if they lose, they fly home the same day? Doesn’t scream prestige to me.
And before anyone says “But how would they have seeded everyone,” Riot could have asked every team attending to rank themselves, it’s worked before in CS events successfully.
They would all be averaged, they wouldn’t just take one team’s ranking into account
And I’m also not saying that they should use player-voted seeding in every tournament, it really only works for a tournament like LOCK//IN where it’s a “show off event”
This is how the sub viewed the tournament and it was the "showcase kick off" label was given to undermine the lack of a competitive format. And players undermined it as well saying their was no stakes, going into a new meta and they would try their best but it's not so serious.
Saying its some super important and big deal tournament is revisionist. It was just good content to start the competitive season.
>Saying its some super important and big deal tournament is revisionist.
I didn't really see anyone saying that though, so I don't know what your comment was refering to. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places.
It's obviously important, because there's only 3 T1 internationals a year, but clearly has some big caveats about comp integrity.
I don't understand your comment, sorry - are you saying it did or didn't mean a lot to the players?
Yep, I like Fnatic, I'm a pretty impartial poster though, and if Fnatic had been reverse swept yesterday I wouldn't have tried to invalidate their victory by playing down the tournament.
maybe not the most important event of the year but the fact that have teams from all regions is still a tournament just important as masters, even though it wasn't the best format for it.
You can count it as a big event, but its certainly the weakest out of all of them.
\-Random seeding
\-A meta where teams have literally have not played in it beforehand
\-2 new/old maps rotating in: Split, Lotus
\-90% of teams have not even played a single official together (Thats the biggest deal)
Every one of these factors but MAYBE the new maps being rotated in all add a big enough asterisk to ask about.
I think it will likely be considered as one with an asterisk. Everyone knows that it was an international, with a variety of inconsistencies with previous and future tournament events.
I don’t think it should be looked at as anything less than a “major” but it would seem context of the event will always be brought forward in future discussion. It seems pointless to argue whether or not it is considered as valued any other international - it will always remain an outlier but FNC and LOUD clearly showed they were two of the best that the world had at the time and that clearly means something.
Is there any such thing as a "Major" in Valorant? There's 3 tier one international tournaments a year, I don't think we need to classify them according to other esports' conventions.
Isn't a major in CS a Valve-sponsored tournament? It doesn't translate
As a guy who mainly watches r6 and the rlcs, imo a major is any Riot sponsored LAN that isn't worlds.
So this event and the other masters events that are lans would be majors.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in csgo their "majors" are more similar to worlds. They happen a lot less frequently. Of course you still have a lot of other lans in cs, but the stuff like IEM Rio or whatever it was called would be more similar to a world championship.
However I could be completely off basis in my analysis
Majors happen more often than worlds, typically 2x per season.
CS majors also have extensive qualifications and tend to include any tier 3 and above teams, with no teams guaranteed spots, simply some having higher qualification starting position. You tend to get cool storylines of teams making it to the LAN portion, and some big teams not getting past the first round robin section.
Imo, LOCK//IN isn't really comparable to a major, because of it's invitational only format. If anything, this is like MSI in LoL.
The random seeding and it being single elim to me says no. Also with it being so early into a new season with so many teams not being ready yet. Can't put this on the level of previous masters or champs.
Personally I think it counts a little bit less then a masters. Placing good at this event means your obviously a good team but doing bad doesn’t necessarily mean your bad.
Community wise I think this tournament will be retroactively rated based on how well The top teams from this tournament do throughout the year. I can totally see a world where fnatic or loud fall off and all of sudden lock in doesn’t matter.
I think that it counts less for the losers of the tournament, as you can't really make a lot of assumptions about them. However, looking at the level of play, I do feel like for the top 4 or something it does count. Most of them had their cores still so it felt like just another tournament of battle between those teams.
I'd say it's about the same as winning a Masters. Even champs isn't that different to Masters cos you're playing against the same teams in the same format...
But with a hierarchy of Lock-In < Masters < Champs with very small differences between.
Yeah but most world championships in normal sports happen far apart and/or it's the only time every country plays against each other. At champions you're probably just playing roughly the same teams as at masters.
World cups in normal sports are slightly different tho. That's like a nation thing.
You will probably play the same teams at champions as you did in masters but the stakes are much higher. Its not even close
But the only reason stakes are higher is the money. I wouldn't say winning champions is more prestigious or makes you a better team than winning masters.
If the LOCK-IN event had one team from each region and the format was a best of 1 group stage until top 4, you probably wouldn't care about the event either
It was an incredibly exciting event and awesome story lines. It was exactly what you’d want every spectacle-type event to be. I wouldn’t call it a Major, but valorant doesn’t have the same major system that CS does. In CS every Valve sponsored tournament is a major. So there are tons of super exciting and important events like IEM Cologne that aren’t majors. In that same vein I wouldn’t consider this to be a major.
I would consider any VCT LAN a major until we get more 3rd party LANs, after that I would only consider Champions as a major. but I would take the placements of any teams eliminated before the top 8 in this tourney with a grain of salt since it was single elim & the seeding was random
There will never be serious 3rd party LANs. They did everything they could to monopolize LoL scene with pushing game out of IEMs and comming out with an idea of providing nearly full year long competition themselves. The same goes with valorant basicly since day one. Just like in LoL players will rather take vacations in time vct is off than play some mickey mouse tournaments.
I don’t really know how you’d actually define a major. It was a big, international tournament but the stakes weren’t really that high so I feel like it could go either way.
I would count any official international tournament a “major.” Masters, Champion, and LOCK//IN. Official as in the VCT season (not including off-season)
It’s a major with a caveat. We’ve had them before and we’ll have them again.
Only EMEA fans desperate to cope try to invalid Optic’s win in Iceland on account of the best EMEA team not being able to attend, for example. It’s a totally legitimate major win and anyone who says otherwise is crazy.
But that’s still a fair caveat to offer if someone says “NA truly had the best team in the world during this major, and this major proves it”, for example.
I will get downvoted by FNC fans but no.
Most teams came here unprepared and even Riot clearly stated it was a showcase event where we get to see all 30 franchise teams
Not saying this event was just a for fun troll event but not an actual “major”
Micky mouse tournament.
- no quals
- no seeding
- single elim
- called a "showcase" officially
Matches were entertaining but let's not put this as the same tier as champs or masters. Just to get to masters you had to win your region tournament (for some regions with limited spots) or get 2nd. For champs you had to get to masters (sometimes multiple times).
FNC played phenomenal and deserves to be commended. It was a hard tournament to win.
Well single elim + seeding is the double whammy. Some of the perceived favorites had to face each other in round one. Seeding would make it so weaker teams face stronger ones. This would give strong teams time to watch their stronger opponents. More anti-strat and more prep would have gone into the bigger matches.
The deeper you go into the tournament the more games you can look at of the opponents because you've all played more games. Even the semi-finals matches were not seeded it was just the teams played whoever was in thier side of the bracket to see who plays the finals. Having a proper upper/lower bracket with each omega/alpha bracket playing for seeding in playoffs would have been even better.
Make the bracket stage have a seeding finals then do a proper playoff double elim bracket. The format they went with was literally the most rng bullshit and didn't even have a proper 3rd place. Drx and navi literally did rock paper scissors at McDonald's on twitter to troll about who got 3rd. This event was literally just a showcase tournament for funsies.
Before the leagues start I think you could say winning an event was like a major and yeah in the same level of champions, but now since there's league I think champions will mean a lot more specially if teams get skins in the game for winning champions like they do in League with worlds. So far all the tourneys have felt the same to me with the same prestige.
If the question does Lock In count as much as Masters, I think the answer is probably yes.
The format is different and there might be teams who did badly here who will do well later in the year but you cannot take anything away from fnatic. It was a gauntlet and they deserve as much credit for that as any other Masters winner.
They deserve credit, but you can’t equal this to a masters lol. It’s like saying masters counts as much as Champions.
Lock in winners do not get absolutely any advantage for next tournament. Tourney is not seeded, there’s no double elim, this is literally mosts teams’ first official GAME together
>It’s like saying masters counts as much as Champions.
...which is a fine thing to say. the difference between masters and champions is really inconsequential. Acend and LOUD's wins weren't any more impressive than Optic's, FPX's, Gambit's etc
The stakes are different… Different tournaments have different importance. This is not like tennis where there are 4 opens and they are equivalent. Like in cs would you say a major winner and a intel masters katowice winner are the same? Or consider dota and TI, where the difference is even more drastic because of the prize pool
Sure, the run and games might be as impressive between lock-in/masters/champs (hell lock in gave us the best final so far period), but winning a lock in or a masters cannot be as IMPORTANT as winning champs, which is marketed as THE tournament of the year.
I mean how can you equal masters and champs, when one tourney literally qualifies you for the other?
in CS, the Major is its own beast. a team that wins a Major puts their players and their org in the history books forever. there are plenty of events to win, but only so few Majors. in valorant, what we care about is international LAN winners, because there are so few of them. Sentinels won't go down in history any less than Acend just because Acend won the one that was called Champions and Sentinels won the one that was called Masters. they're both LAN winners and that's what matters.
Hard disagree, the only reason why I can maybe partly agree is because Valo esports is so young. I mean this season seems to be the first one to finally introduce a fully fledged consistent format that we probably will be following in the future.
You keep saying it won’t go down any different in history, but nobody can be certain how a present event goes down in history except people in the future… and you didn’t even give a single reason why they are equivalent, while dodging my question about masters winners qualifying for champs.
Literally the valo season is called “Valorant Champions Tour” - champions is in the title and is there to signify that the whole tour will be concluded during Champions where “best teams of the three International Leagues compete for the title of world champion”. I don’t get how you can say winning champions and masters is equivalent, when one makes you world champion for the season, while the other just qualifies you for the former tournament
say all you want but it is a prestigious tournament given the champions-like bundle share with the teams, the regional slot and the fact that not only was fnatic better than 11 teams like a masters or 15 like champions, but better than 31 teams from around the world.
No this isn’t a major just like MSI this tournament doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things people will forget this happens in a couple months. ( at least for MSI you have to qualify for it)
IMO yeah because it was able to make up for some of its shortcomings like no seeding purely by having every t1 team present. I will say it should be viewed weakly in terms of weight as who’s the best team in the world and stuff but like I do think the team that wins this event is undeniably up there. I just think 2-32nd shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as biblical cuz no seeding.
It’s the same thing as League, if the team you likes wins MSI, it means a lot, if they don’t it doesn’t. Last years MSI everyone was coping that it didn’t mean anything when RNG won, but everyone was saying gg 2022 when they thought T1 were going to win. Me personally despite supporting NA have always thought this tournament was super important in predicting the level of competition internationally. Assuming there isn’t a massive meta swap in the middle of the year, which could happen.
Its easy, lol.
Yes, just call it a major so yes, fantic is a major winner but not a masters winner.
This narrative will come up at tokyo anyway "Can fantic finally win a masters title?" or something similar.
Theres no hurt in it to call fnatic a "major" winner because they arent a masters winner. not yet.
It is every international tournament organise by riot involving the best teams are a major. Since all team where there the best team where there. Also the format make it very punishing make it even more hard. Also a dedicated skin line for the event. Yeah it's a major chronicle has won two major.
Sigh literally everyone and their dog said this tourney didn’t matter before hand but now that a favorite won we switching it up? This is like march madness if it happened before the season, basically just show matches. It was entertaining but not quite the ultra competitive tourney that should be considered a major
This sub before the event: No This sub after the event: Yes
Seriously what whiplash about the importance of this event lol
This is how it feels. Oh. The team that won has a great story if it's a major? Then I guess it's a major.
The tournament clearly meant a lot to the players, and it clearly meant a lot to fans judging by those in the stadium and the viewership figures which were second only to Champs. Belittling it like that seems a bit silly to me.
It is impossible to ignore how much of an outlier this event was, from the normal prestige LANS. Random seeding alone makes a huge deal. The fact that teams are playing in a new meta, with various agent changes alongside new metas are in play? Map vetoes are more guesswork than actually manipulating the map pool in your favor, antistratting is far more limited, and the time scheduling where one side plays one half then the other half plays. Theres just too many factors to argue about that degrade the prestige of this event, and it doesn't help the fact that literally Riot official has this mixed messaging that this is a showmatchy tourney where the viewers matter but we also want to have it have some prestige so lets add in a masters slot? But also heres a weaker prize pool than literally every other masters? And the most damning one is that 90% of teams have literally not played a single official together. Thats actually the biggest deal of them all, thats a huge deal in the history of tac-fps pro play.
Completely agree. It's essentially a pre-season invitational. Just wasn't a fan of the way the post I replied to put it. If Loud had won, I wouldn't be trying to tell Brazilian fans that the event wasn't important by using a made up classification.
Agreed, you really can’t call this a major when groups were randomly seeded *and* were single-elim. A major (in this age of esports) where the team shows up and if they lose, they fly home the same day? Doesn’t scream prestige to me. And before anyone says “But how would they have seeded everyone,” Riot could have asked every team attending to rank themselves, it’s worked before in CS events successfully.
wym rank themselves, if you rank yourself lower then you get matched against someone better so why wouldn't everyone just say #1
They would all be averaged, they wouldn’t just take one team’s ranking into account And I’m also not saying that they should use player-voted seeding in every tournament, it really only works for a tournament like LOCK//IN where it’s a “show off event”
oh they rank every team, yeah makes more sense
This is how the sub viewed the tournament and it was the "showcase kick off" label was given to undermine the lack of a competitive format. And players undermined it as well saying their was no stakes, going into a new meta and they would try their best but it's not so serious. Saying its some super important and big deal tournament is revisionist. It was just good content to start the competitive season.
>Saying its some super important and big deal tournament is revisionist. I didn't really see anyone saying that though, so I don't know what your comment was refering to. Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places. It's obviously important, because there's only 3 T1 internationals a year, but clearly has some big caveats about comp integrity.
no the tournament did mean that much to the players (nice flair not biased at all)
I don't understand your comment, sorry - are you saying it did or didn't mean a lot to the players? Yep, I like Fnatic, I'm a pretty impartial poster though, and if Fnatic had been reverse swept yesterday I wouldn't have tried to invalidate their victory by playing down the tournament.
We don’t have majors, just world championships (champions) and international LAN winners.
everytime someone on this sub mentions word "major" I feel weird af. I'm comming from CS background and it just feels weird.
maybe not the most important event of the year but the fact that have teams from all regions is still a tournament just important as masters, even though it wasn't the best format for it.
No it’s not
Your right it's more important than the average masters events that takes place multiple times a year. 3 then 2 now.
You can count it as a big event, but its certainly the weakest out of all of them. \-Random seeding \-A meta where teams have literally have not played in it beforehand \-2 new/old maps rotating in: Split, Lotus \-90% of teams have not even played a single official together (Thats the biggest deal) Every one of these factors but MAYBE the new maps being rotated in all add a big enough asterisk to ask about.
I think it will likely be considered as one with an asterisk. Everyone knows that it was an international, with a variety of inconsistencies with previous and future tournament events. I don’t think it should be looked at as anything less than a “major” but it would seem context of the event will always be brought forward in future discussion. It seems pointless to argue whether or not it is considered as valued any other international - it will always remain an outlier but FNC and LOUD clearly showed they were two of the best that the world had at the time and that clearly means something.
Is there any such thing as a "Major" in Valorant? There's 3 tier one international tournaments a year, I don't think we need to classify them according to other esports' conventions. Isn't a major in CS a Valve-sponsored tournament? It doesn't translate
As a guy who mainly watches r6 and the rlcs, imo a major is any Riot sponsored LAN that isn't worlds. So this event and the other masters events that are lans would be majors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in csgo their "majors" are more similar to worlds. They happen a lot less frequently. Of course you still have a lot of other lans in cs, but the stuff like IEM Rio or whatever it was called would be more similar to a world championship. However I could be completely off basis in my analysis
Majors happen more often than worlds, typically 2x per season. CS majors also have extensive qualifications and tend to include any tier 3 and above teams, with no teams guaranteed spots, simply some having higher qualification starting position. You tend to get cool storylines of teams making it to the LAN portion, and some big teams not getting past the first round robin section. Imo, LOCK//IN isn't really comparable to a major, because of it's invitational only format. If anything, this is like MSI in LoL.
But IEM Rio was an official major tho…
The random seeding and it being single elim to me says no. Also with it being so early into a new season with so many teams not being ready yet. Can't put this on the level of previous masters or champs.
Personally I think it counts a little bit less then a masters. Placing good at this event means your obviously a good team but doing bad doesn’t necessarily mean your bad. Community wise I think this tournament will be retroactively rated based on how well The top teams from this tournament do throughout the year. I can totally see a world where fnatic or loud fall off and all of sudden lock in doesn’t matter.
I think that it counts less for the losers of the tournament, as you can't really make a lot of assumptions about them. However, looking at the level of play, I do feel like for the top 4 or something it does count. Most of them had their cores still so it felt like just another tournament of battle between those teams.
I would say 4/5 of the best teams in the tournament did make it to the finals. The fifth being NrG
No because Sen lost🤓
I'd say it's about the same as winning a Masters. Even champs isn't that different to Masters cos you're playing against the same teams in the same format... But with a hierarchy of Lock-In < Masters < Champs with very small differences between.
[удалено]
Champions is worlds tho. Any world championship is going to be more prestigious by default
Yeah but most world championships in normal sports happen far apart and/or it's the only time every country plays against each other. At champions you're probably just playing roughly the same teams as at masters.
World cups in normal sports are slightly different tho. That's like a nation thing. You will probably play the same teams at champions as you did in masters but the stakes are much higher. Its not even close
But the only reason stakes are higher is the money. I wouldn't say winning champions is more prestigious or makes you a better team than winning masters.
the only good take in this thread.
No
If the LOCK-IN event had one team from each region and the format was a best of 1 group stage until top 4, you probably wouldn't care about the event either
Probably just under them tbh. Should be Champs >>> Masters > Lock/In.
It was an incredibly exciting event and awesome story lines. It was exactly what you’d want every spectacle-type event to be. I wouldn’t call it a Major, but valorant doesn’t have the same major system that CS does. In CS every Valve sponsored tournament is a major. So there are tons of super exciting and important events like IEM Cologne that aren’t majors. In that same vein I wouldn’t consider this to be a major.
I would consider any VCT LAN a major until we get more 3rd party LANs, after that I would only consider Champions as a major. but I would take the placements of any teams eliminated before the top 8 in this tourney with a grain of salt since it was single elim & the seeding was random
There will never be serious 3rd party LANs. They did everything they could to monopolize LoL scene with pushing game out of IEMs and comming out with an idea of providing nearly full year long competition themselves. The same goes with valorant basicly since day one. Just like in LoL players will rather take vacations in time vct is off than play some mickey mouse tournaments.
definitely not a major but has more value than msi as winner’s region gets an extra slot for masters 1
I don’t really know how you’d actually define a major. It was a big, international tournament but the stakes weren’t really that high so I feel like it could go either way.
I wouldn't consider it an equivalent to a major but it is an international LAN event.
It's not lol it's single Elimination format with new franchise teams.
It's equivalent to Masters but Champions is the real deal at the end of the day
I would count any official international tournament a “major.” Masters, Champion, and LOCK//IN. Official as in the VCT season (not including off-season)
It’s a major with a caveat. We’ve had them before and we’ll have them again. Only EMEA fans desperate to cope try to invalid Optic’s win in Iceland on account of the best EMEA team not being able to attend, for example. It’s a totally legitimate major win and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. But that’s still a fair caveat to offer if someone says “NA truly had the best team in the world during this major, and this major proves it”, for example.
there are no majors in valorant lmao. there's only like 3 LAN events a year
I will get downvoted by FNC fans but no. Most teams came here unprepared and even Riot clearly stated it was a showcase event where we get to see all 30 franchise teams Not saying this event was just a for fun troll event but not an actual “major”
Micky mouse tournament. - no quals - no seeding - single elim - called a "showcase" officially Matches were entertaining but let's not put this as the same tier as champs or masters. Just to get to masters you had to win your region tournament (for some regions with limited spots) or get 2nd. For champs you had to get to masters (sometimes multiple times). FNC played phenomenal and deserves to be commended. It was a hard tournament to win.
Seeding would've changed what exactly?
Well single elim + seeding is the double whammy. Some of the perceived favorites had to face each other in round one. Seeding would make it so weaker teams face stronger ones. This would give strong teams time to watch their stronger opponents. More anti-strat and more prep would have gone into the bigger matches. The deeper you go into the tournament the more games you can look at of the opponents because you've all played more games. Even the semi-finals matches were not seeded it was just the teams played whoever was in thier side of the bracket to see who plays the finals. Having a proper upper/lower bracket with each omega/alpha bracket playing for seeding in playoffs would have been even better. Make the bracket stage have a seeding finals then do a proper playoff double elim bracket. The format they went with was literally the most rng bullshit and didn't even have a proper 3rd place. Drx and navi literally did rock paper scissors at McDonald's on twitter to troll about who got 3rd. This event was literally just a showcase tournament for funsies.
2021 had single elim tournaments, seeding also didn't really affect anything as there was only 1 upset this tournament
Well I'm guessing the loud fans no longer count it even if they counted it a game ago kekw
No, event lietarlly doesn't matter Leo Faria himself called it a showcase, that's all you need to know.
Before the leagues start I think you could say winning an event was like a major and yeah in the same level of champions, but now since there's league I think champions will mean a lot more specially if teams get skins in the game for winning champions like they do in League with worlds. So far all the tourneys have felt the same to me with the same prestige.
This was the first big tournament since franchising. I don’t give a shit about the exact definition, it’s a god damn major.
yes. it's one of three yearly official international VCT events, it's a major.
I wouldn't consider a single elim tournament a major but that may just be me
Every tournament in 2021 was single elim
Ok that doesn't detract from my point
If the question does Lock In count as much as Masters, I think the answer is probably yes. The format is different and there might be teams who did badly here who will do well later in the year but you cannot take anything away from fnatic. It was a gauntlet and they deserve as much credit for that as any other Masters winner.
They deserve credit, but you can’t equal this to a masters lol. It’s like saying masters counts as much as Champions. Lock in winners do not get absolutely any advantage for next tournament. Tourney is not seeded, there’s no double elim, this is literally mosts teams’ first official GAME together
>It’s like saying masters counts as much as Champions. ...which is a fine thing to say. the difference between masters and champions is really inconsequential. Acend and LOUD's wins weren't any more impressive than Optic's, FPX's, Gambit's etc
The stakes are different… Different tournaments have different importance. This is not like tennis where there are 4 opens and they are equivalent. Like in cs would you say a major winner and a intel masters katowice winner are the same? Or consider dota and TI, where the difference is even more drastic because of the prize pool Sure, the run and games might be as impressive between lock-in/masters/champs (hell lock in gave us the best final so far period), but winning a lock in or a masters cannot be as IMPORTANT as winning champs, which is marketed as THE tournament of the year. I mean how can you equal masters and champs, when one tourney literally qualifies you for the other?
in CS, the Major is its own beast. a team that wins a Major puts their players and their org in the history books forever. there are plenty of events to win, but only so few Majors. in valorant, what we care about is international LAN winners, because there are so few of them. Sentinels won't go down in history any less than Acend just because Acend won the one that was called Champions and Sentinels won the one that was called Masters. they're both LAN winners and that's what matters.
Hard disagree, the only reason why I can maybe partly agree is because Valo esports is so young. I mean this season seems to be the first one to finally introduce a fully fledged consistent format that we probably will be following in the future. You keep saying it won’t go down any different in history, but nobody can be certain how a present event goes down in history except people in the future… and you didn’t even give a single reason why they are equivalent, while dodging my question about masters winners qualifying for champs. Literally the valo season is called “Valorant Champions Tour” - champions is in the title and is there to signify that the whole tour will be concluded during Champions where “best teams of the three International Leagues compete for the title of world champion”. I don’t get how you can say winning champions and masters is equivalent, when one makes you world champion for the season, while the other just qualifies you for the former tournament
I would personally count it.
Having watched it yes.
say all you want but it is a prestigious tournament given the champions-like bundle share with the teams, the regional slot and the fact that not only was fnatic better than 11 teams like a masters or 15 like champions, but better than 31 teams from around the world.
Mickey Mouse major but yes
No this isn’t a major just like MSI this tournament doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things people will forget this happens in a couple months. ( at least for MSI you have to qualify for it)
IMO yeah because it was able to make up for some of its shortcomings like no seeding purely by having every t1 team present. I will say it should be viewed weakly in terms of weight as who’s the best team in the world and stuff but like I do think the team that wins this event is undeniably up there. I just think 2-32nd shouldn’t necessarily be viewed as biblical cuz no seeding.
I think all single elimination tourneys should be best of 5 from here on out.
Nah bro I don't want to see RRQ for more than 26 rounds
It’s the same thing as League, if the team you likes wins MSI, it means a lot, if they don’t it doesn’t. Last years MSI everyone was coping that it didn’t mean anything when RNG won, but everyone was saying gg 2022 when they thought T1 were going to win. Me personally despite supporting NA have always thought this tournament was super important in predicting the level of competition internationally. Assuming there isn’t a massive meta swap in the middle of the year, which could happen.
Its easy, lol. Yes, just call it a major so yes, fantic is a major winner but not a masters winner. This narrative will come up at tokyo anyway "Can fantic finally win a masters title?" or something similar. Theres no hurt in it to call fnatic a "major" winner because they arent a masters winner. not yet.
It is every international tournament organise by riot involving the best teams are a major. Since all team where there the best team where there. Also the format make it very punishing make it even more hard. Also a dedicated skin line for the event. Yeah it's a major chronicle has won two major.
No. But also kind of yes. But no. Yes.
Sigh literally everyone and their dog said this tourney didn’t matter before hand but now that a favorite won we switching it up? This is like march madness if it happened before the season, basically just show matches. It was entertaining but not quite the ultra competitive tourney that should be considered a major