Champions format is a mess

https://liquipedia.net/valorant/VALORANT_Champions_Tour/2021

doesn't it look like masters 3 is harder than champions?
for example, fnatic and liquid are almost already qualified for champions and they aren't looking that good rn.
and in EMEA, if u are aiming to get a spot in the last chance qualifier it is super hard since teams like futbolist, bbl, forze have a bunch of points just because they dominated their own region, if G2, SMB, NAVI don't qualify for berlin they are basically out of the question which is really dumb imo.

Yeah, i think EMEA should be a entire region not a 3 parts region. Theres a lot of good teams in EU not like CIS or TR that they have few good teams, i think it should be a unique challengers for the three regions because is too much easier to farm last chance points for the CIS and TR teams, and i think that in EU will be teams not qualifiying for last chance that are better than some TR and CIS teams that they will.

(I dont think TR or CIS has low level just EU has more good teams than thoose regions imo)

Masters 3 gives higher points than Masters 2, if FNC and Liquid dont make it because they aren't good rn then other EMEA teams will make it and get more points than they did from Masters 2. If any team from EMEA gets 1st or 2nd at Berlin then they will qualify over FNC/Liquid. Also Futbolist and BBL cant make Champions and Forze probably wont so it doesn't matter if they have points.

XerXa [#2]

Yeah, i think EMEA should be a entire region not a 3 parts region. Theres a lot of good teams in EU not like CIS or TR that they have few good teams, i think it should be a unique challengers for the three regions because is too much easier to farm last chance points for the CIS and TR teams, and i think that in EU will be teams not qualifiying for last chance that are better than some TR and CIS teams that they will.

(I dont think TR or CIS has low level just EU has more good teams than thoose regions imo)

yup, I don't think it's fair at all that some teams have the chance to qualify just because they play in less competitive regions.
Fnatic is pretty much qualified so that leaves 1 spot for direct qualification + 1 spot for the winner of the last chance qualifier.
In the last chance qualifier for EMEA, there are 7 teams qualified through circuit points + 1 team qualified through strike Arabia, there aren't many spots for a region with so many teams, especially considering that some teams have a free pass without even needing to compete against the other regions or just because they made a miracle run once that got them a lot of points.

As you said, I would prefer if they mixed the 3 regions, and if not, rito could and should make a better system format.

dyoun14 [#3]

Masters 3 gives higher points than Masters 2, if FNC and Liquid dont make it because they aren't good rn then other EMEA teams will make it and get more points than they did from Masters 2. If any team from EMEA gets 1st or 2nd at Berlin then they will qualify over FNC/Liquid. Also Futbolist and BBL cant make Champions and Forze probably wont so it doesn't matter if they have points.

For that to happen the EMEA teams need to have good placements and the points aren't much higher than in masters 2 (but there are 4 teams qualified so they will all get some points and that's good), it doesn't change the fact that many deserving teams will be left out with no chance of getting in because of this format.

Masters 1 messed some shit up. And also challengers should not give this amount of points. Like EMEA playoffs should give more points while the challengers should give less. I guess it'll make it a little hard to organize and balance. But I feel like this is the main problem. Masters 1 will not happen the same way next year because Masters are meant to be international. But hopefully they fix the point totals in the regions or make the EMEA playoffs have more teams and make the circuit points in challengers barely anything and make EMEA have most of it.

Asphyxia [#6]

Masters 1 messed some shit up. And also challengers should not give this amount of points. Like EMEA playoffs should give more points while the challengers should give less. I guess it'll make it a little hard to organize and balance. But I feel like this is the main problem. Masters 1 will not happen the same way next year because Masters are meant to be international. But hopefully they fix the point totals in the regions or make the EMEA playoffs have more teams and make the circuit points in challengers barely anything and make EMEA have most of it.

I actually think the opposite, that being Riot should only give points on challengers finals at least this year, due to masters 1 being regional. To explain it better, let's assume that when Iceland occurred the top 3 teams were from NA. The amount of circuits points earned would be 400 to top 1, 350 to top 2 and 50 to top 3 instead of 300 because the third team couldn't compete in Iceland, so they got fewer points than they should. This leads to the top teams that played masters 2, especially from EU and NA, to have a disproportional amount of points. For EMEA, they should give a spot for every region that had a masters 1.

About Champions Slots, I don't understand why the hell Brazil + Latin America have more slots than EMEA and Brazil having more slots than Korea, it should be at least equal.

This entire cluster fuck of brackets are really confusing so i aint paying attention to it anymore LUL am just here for the games and the finals

Viktor22 [#8]

About Champions Slots, I don't understand why the hell Brazil + Latin America have more slots than EMEA and Brazil having more slots than Korea, it should be at least equal.

true, maybe yoink one for korea cause they are really good and can hold themselves against international competition.

what i dont get is if acend win emea playoffs then they get 0 points but qualify for berlin like the top 4 does? why would they try and win the finals then, they'd rather throw and get to berlin with the extra 75 points right? im using acend as a placeholder it can be any top emea teams. correct me if im wrong im looking at this and it makes no sense.

edit: nvm, those who make berlin get 0 circuit points for challengers. idk why the graphic shows 75 points for 2nd place even when 2nd place goes to masters too.

Daniveus [#5]

For that to happen the EMEA teams need to have good placements and the points aren't much higher than in masters 2 (but there are 4 teams qualified so they will all get some points and that's good), it doesn't change the fact that many deserving teams will be left out with no chance of getting in because of this format.

teams like futbolist, gambit and acend can overtake fnatic and tl (given they dont make berlin) just by coming atleast 8th in berlin (given fnc and tl get no extra points)

hellaeleganceyeah [#11]

what i dont get is if acend win emea playoffs then they get 0 points but qualify for berlin like the top 4 does? why would they try and win the finals then, they'd rather throw and get to berlin with the extra 75 points right? im using acend as a placeholder it can be any top emea teams. correct me if im wrong im looking at this and it makes no sense.

edit: nvm, those who make berlin get 0 circuit points for challengers. idk why the graphic shows 75 points for 2nd place even when 2nd place goes to masters too.

by qualifying to Berlin they secure a minimum of 175 points, which is the points that the last place team in Berlin gets.

Viktor22 [#7]

I actually think the opposite, that being Riot should only give points on challengers finals at least this year, due to masters 1 being regional. To explain it better, let's assume that when Iceland occurred the top 3 teams were from NA. The amount of circuits points earned would be 400 to top 1, 350 to top 2 and 50 to top 3 instead of 300 because the third team couldn't compete in Iceland, so they got fewer points than they should. This leads to the top teams that played masters 2, especially from EU and NA, to have a disproportional amount of points. For EMEA, they should give a spot for every region that had a masters 1.

but masters 1 was essentially equivalent to a challengers finals. That wouldn't make sense. I think the better solution would be to make the LCQs larger since so many regions are involved or to include proportional slots for CIS/TR (at least 1 each) like they do for the EMEA finals/playoffs so that it doesn't feel like one region is squeezing out another by virtue of their different levels of internal competition.

By far this is the best competition that a game has after only 1 year launch. And in pandemic situation.
If you can, name a game that has better LAN WORLDWIDE competition only after 1 year launch.

And the format is good, almost many game now using Point to qualify to the biggest event competition.

DazzleAlec [#13]

by qualifying to Berlin they secure a minimum of 175 points, which is the points that the last place team in Berlin gets.

but then top 4 of emea make it to berlin anyways and 2nd gets 75, 3rd gets 60 and 4th 50 points, wouldnt it be more beneficial to throw the grand finals and enter berlin as 2nd seed from emea with 75 extra circuit points? the top 4 will still get to berlin and score atleast 175 points, why get 1st seed and lose out on 75 points?

edit: they get 0 points from challengers for making berlin, the graphic was misleading

This is true, I dont understand the process of it either tbh, they need to make it simple but sophisticated enough

hellaeleganceyeah [#16]

but then top 4 of emea make it to berlin anyways and 2nd gets 75, 3rd gets 60 and 4th 50 points, wouldnt it be more beneficial to throw the grand finals and enter berlin as 2nd seed from emea with 75 extra circuit points? the top 4 will still get to berlin and score atleast 175 points, why get 1st seed and lose out on 75 points?

edit: they get 0 points from challengers for making berlin, the graphic was misleading

I'm not sure what you mean at all.

Where do you see 2nd gets 75, 3rd gets 60 and 4th 50? The top 4 who make it to Berlin don't get any points until they actually place in Berlin. Even if they all get 13-16th somehow, they'll all get the same 175 points. If they all get 9th-12th somehow, they'll each get 225 points.

Points for 5-12th in the playoffs (the people who don't make it to Berlin) haven't been disclosed yet, so I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from.

Either way, nobody should be throwing any matches at this point when even LCQs are very hard to get into.

1king [#18]

I'm not sure what you mean at all.

Where do you see 2nd gets 75, 3rd gets 60 and 4th 50? The top 4 who make it to Berlin don't get any points until they actually place in Berlin. Even if they all get 13-16th somehow, they'll all get the same 175 points. If they all get 9th-12th somehow, they'll each get 225 points.

Points for 5-12th in the playoffs (the people who don't make it to Berlin) haven't been disclosed yet, so I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from.

Either way, nobody should be throwing any matches at this point when even LCQs are very hard to get into.

from this image in this official riot games link. as i said in the edit, the graphic was misleading.

hellaeleganceyeah [#19]

from this image in this official riot games link. as i said in the edit, the graphic was misleading.

Its only for regions iwth one spot, for othee regions everyone gets 0, but i think they should at least get some points to make the tournaments fair so teams that win actually havd more than only a seeding advantage

1king [#14]

but masters 1 was essentially equivalent to a challengers finals. That wouldn't make sense. I think the better solution would be to make the LCQs larger since so many regions are involved or to include proportional slots for CIS/TR (at least 1 each) like they do for the EMEA finals/playoffs so that it doesn't feel like one region is squeezing out another by virtue of their different levels of internal competition.

I think I'm not making myself very clear. Due to the fact that Masters 1 was essentially challengers finals and masters 2 and 3 will be a truly international event, the points of the circuit was distributed in an uneven scenario. The teams which played nicely at masters 1, had, proportionally speaking, a smaller gap than the teams which placed as good as them, but on masters 2. This made that the teams from top regions that didn't make the cut to masters received a lower amount of circuits points than they should have in comparison with the standards put on masters 1, making the competition for champions slots not fair.

For EMEA, this scenario lead to teams from "lesser regions", receiving more points proportionally. So they should give champions slots for every region of EMEA