Is that a lot of the players can''t have a sustainable future. A team can change as many players as often as they want, they will not get kicked out of franchising before their contract expires (Unless they go into financial manipulation, hello bleed), but that means a lot of players are fucked. verno, natank, rossy, nzr are all victims of not getting early results. Now I know, the reason is that ''they were not good enough'', but name me all time greats in other sports who were IMMEDIATELY in S-tier contention? Maybe someone like Lebron or MJ was a star immediately, but what about Messi and Ronaldo, who were mostly bench rotation options when starting out? In my opinion VCT's nature cuts a lot of player's careers short, and it takes away from the skill level of the entire league
problem with too few events
I mean technically it is. While in CS you have a sorta mechanism of go to tier 1 -> fail -> go back to tier 2 -> try to get back -> prove your worth -> get a shot at tier 1 -> see how it goes this time, val doesn't have it. In cs a team can afford to have 3 months of mediocre results before striking gold (e.g. GamerLegion, who were quite mid last year, but were quite strong when it came to the shanghai major simply cuz they took the time to develop)
which makes for a good show, but in my opinion it lacks the sporting element. And if we use cs as an example (because it is an esport with a shit ton of events). PGL, ESL and Blast all pull up great quality events with best casters available and all the best teams (who accept the invite), as well as the very best of tier 2
there are so many ways they could integrate tier 2 better they could do playins and have like 16 team leagues with 12 partners 2 ascension teams and 2 teams who get to play 1 stage from qualifying from playins. at least that would help investment into tier 2 their would seriously be so many more orgs in valorant if they had it more open to being able to qualify for the events but the way it stands now orgs who want to just take a look at how difficult it is just to make it into the league that the investment just isnt worth it. as for hosts dude it doesnt even have to be lan just a bracket where teams can play and its streamed would still get viewership and give teams somewhere to play and work on their game.
orgs do not care the partners dont get relegated our eco system isnt big enough for that they just want to be able to qualify to champs and masters which they cant unless they go through the tier 2 ascension eco system which is just sooooo unlikely like look at m80 bro this org obviously wants to be in valorant but are just unlucky.
problem with that is viewer retention that was the the driving force for VCT to exist in the 1st place giving mid table teams a chance means having longer events longer events = less viewers cause of the curve thing which is one of the only W's leo faria has
better idea would be A tier events for the teams that didnt make it 2-3 would be nice and you would have academy teams in there and play it normally prize pool and no points cause it isnt fair for the good team who cannot get those points themselves
riot should regulate VCT as S-Tier event and open the private company like ESL & Blast to organize A-Tier event and make current t2 (VCL) scene into B, C Tier. that way is good for business. imagine if A-Tier event the org can play with main and academy roster mixed, players wont be losing their job easily at the cost of ruthless regulations.
easy fix would be having A tier events along side them like CN does 2-3 depending on season length while the international teams play they play there lil a tier event for money and no points having them schduled for content droughts would be fire having academy teams sub in too so we see were there at etc
Discord