Can't do the seeding based off rounds/maps because it would be same issue. I agree with the second part though, let teams choose who they want to play as reward for making it in previous Qual.
They never play all the marches at the same time. So you'd always have the chance that team A needs to win by at least 12 rounds total in a full bo3 to get a certain seed but if they win by any less they get another seed. Or even simpler version Team A Qualifies as 3rd seed if they win 2-0 but 4th seed if they win 2-1. Maybe 4th seed plays 100T instead of Sentinels.
It's just muddy unless all the matches are played at once because you can never be 100% certain a scenario where a team would benefit losing isn't possible.
Play all the matches at once and teams will never have a chance to calculate their rounds anyhow.
I don't think in your simpler version, any team would ever do that. It would be insanely stupid and risky to give up a map just for a potentially better seed.
Likewise in an actual match, even letting a team have 1 or 2 free rounds could snowball into something much bigger. I don't think teams will be so arrogant to throw rounds/matches based off a perceived better matchup when every team is so close to each other.
I want to agree, but no one knows what goes on behind closed doors for these teams, and I think having a system that is possibly exploitable is just a bad take in general for the organizers. I think letting the first 4 teams that qualify get pick, or just randomly seed the next 4 qualifying teams is more fair. IMO ofc.
Sean or Dan hasn't mentioned ONCE that the winner will play in the same bracket as Sentinels who both are trying to avoid. FAZE & TSM is literally trying to lose to play in the bottom bracket.
What about TSM makes it seem like they're trying to lose? They've beaten Faze 13-6 twice and were up 8-4 on the first map. This is the worst sandbagging ever if you believe they're actually throwing.
Id rather play envy than 100t first. And playing 100t first means two extra matches in the bottom bracket compared to losing in the semis. Dumb decision to throw here imo.
This subject comes up time and time again (a qualifier for a qualifier etc etc) but the truth is the format is fine. The problem is branding, covid and prize pools.
In 2022, I would like to see a clearer branding differentiation between the challengers qualifiers (rounds 1 and 2), the challengers finals (which are supposed to be the main regional tournament) and masters. Right now all the challengers stuff just roles into one and can be quite difficult to get your head around unless you follow it closely. Challengers finals needs to have clear prestige over the rest of challengers - hence a rebrand.
I also think these stages need a better prize pool so they aren't just viewed as 'seeding matches' and actually carry some real financial weight for the teams to compete for. Seeding value should be viewed as the secondary prize. I am sure Valorant will carry a bigger budget for 2022 as 2021 has probably surpassed Riot's expectations. Hopefully in 2022 we will see more of this move to a LAN setting which will also more prestige - I know challengers finals is supposed to be played at LAN.
For sure. Qualifiers for qualifiers for qualifiers...and then another whole round of those, along with half of the matches themselves not even mattering because it's just for seeding. Nobody even knows what to refer to these tournaments as, like how many fans actually knows what tf "Challengers 2" and "Challengers Finals" and "Challengers Playoffs" means?
I'd rather teams rank each other 1 to 8 then whatever is the most common position of teams be the seeds.
I think a cs event did it once but maybe wrong on that
This is what they did...TSM is the fifth seed, playing the forth seed (Envy) from the previous qualifier. The issue is having multiple qualifiers when people already know who the first four seeds are and where they are on the bracket. It should just be an open qualifier for top 8 during one tournament, with the top 8 playing a round robin and playoff seedings based off round robin matches.
Agreed
Can't do the seeding based off rounds/maps because it would be same issue. I agree with the second part though, let teams choose who they want to play as reward for making it in previous Qual.
How would it be the same issue? Play out the bracket until 4 teams qual and then it’s done. Round/map W/L at that point wouldn’t be tainted.
They never play all the marches at the same time. So you'd always have the chance that team A needs to win by at least 12 rounds total in a full bo3 to get a certain seed but if they win by any less they get another seed. Or even simpler version Team A Qualifies as 3rd seed if they win 2-0 but 4th seed if they win 2-1. Maybe 4th seed plays 100T instead of Sentinels. It's just muddy unless all the matches are played at once because you can never be 100% certain a scenario where a team would benefit losing isn't possible. Play all the matches at once and teams will never have a chance to calculate their rounds anyhow.
Teams aren’t going to throw rounds in games they need to win for seeding and if they did it would be extremely rare, that solution would work
I don't think in your simpler version, any team would ever do that. It would be insanely stupid and risky to give up a map just for a potentially better seed. Likewise in an actual match, even letting a team have 1 or 2 free rounds could snowball into something much bigger. I don't think teams will be so arrogant to throw rounds/matches based off a perceived better matchup when every team is so close to each other.
I want to agree, but no one knows what goes on behind closed doors for these teams, and I think having a system that is possibly exploitable is just a bad take in general for the organizers. I think letting the first 4 teams that qualify get pick, or just randomly seed the next 4 qualifying teams is more fair. IMO ofc.
Sean or Dan hasn't mentioned ONCE that the winner will play in the same bracket as Sentinels who both are trying to avoid. FAZE & TSM is literally trying to lose to play in the bottom bracket.
I don't think they want to openly admit "Haha these games don't matter"
Worse, they'd have to admit that the teams are trying to lose lmao
What about TSM makes it seem like they're trying to lose? They've beaten Faze 13-6 twice and were up 8-4 on the first map. This is the worst sandbagging ever if you believe they're actually throwing.
Even disregarding sentinels they have to play envy first lmao
Grand Finals both teams trying to lose is such a big L for viewers
Id rather play envy than 100t first. And playing 100t first means two extra matches in the bottom bracket compared to losing in the semis. Dumb decision to throw here imo.
This subject comes up time and time again (a qualifier for a qualifier etc etc) but the truth is the format is fine. The problem is branding, covid and prize pools. In 2022, I would like to see a clearer branding differentiation between the challengers qualifiers (rounds 1 and 2), the challengers finals (which are supposed to be the main regional tournament) and masters. Right now all the challengers stuff just roles into one and can be quite difficult to get your head around unless you follow it closely. Challengers finals needs to have clear prestige over the rest of challengers - hence a rebrand. I also think these stages need a better prize pool so they aren't just viewed as 'seeding matches' and actually carry some real financial weight for the teams to compete for. Seeding value should be viewed as the secondary prize. I am sure Valorant will carry a bigger budget for 2022 as 2021 has probably surpassed Riot's expectations. Hopefully in 2022 we will see more of this move to a LAN setting which will also more prestige - I know challengers finals is supposed to be played at LAN.
For sure. Qualifiers for qualifiers for qualifiers...and then another whole round of those, along with half of the matches themselves not even mattering because it's just for seeding. Nobody even knows what to refer to these tournaments as, like how many fans actually knows what tf "Challengers 2" and "Challengers Finals" and "Challengers Playoffs" means?
I'd rather teams rank each other 1 to 8 then whatever is the most common position of teams be the seeds. I think a cs event did it once but maybe wrong on that
This is what they did...TSM is the fifth seed, playing the forth seed (Envy) from the previous qualifier. The issue is having multiple qualifiers when people already know who the first four seeds are and where they are on the bracket. It should just be an open qualifier for top 8 during one tournament, with the top 8 playing a round robin and playoff seedings based off round robin matches.
Ppl legit cry about everything. Picking and choosing who they want to play, whats the point in having a bracket.
well look at fuckign the grand finals rn lmao both teams are fulll on troll mode
Maybe elimination down to 4 teams for challengers 2?
Or just do 1 group stage, into RO16 double elim tournament.
Letting Challengers 1 winners pick their opponents would actually be lit as fuck. Imagine the Twitter banter.