100% agree on your first response with everything you said.

I tend to disagree on the point where, no pro players play for money. I think alot of them if there was a 50-100k first place prize, which is close or in Major tourney territory, we would see the best talent/teams participating

This stuff builds player brand, team sponsor brand, overall Valorant brand. Not to mention me just being happy to see my favorite players/teams play more.

Potentially, but wouldn't you say that they lose a lot of general game exposure with less Valorant being played?

Side note: This has be a major reason less team sponsors want to have a Valorant team.. Underexposure + Franchising costs, make this a less attractive marketing investment.

My take on why we don't see our favorite teams/players outside of the 6 mo. VCT, please comment your thoughts on how I see this:

Riot has a two factor system that has discouraged places like ESL or other major tournament organizers from hosting Valorant. One, the obvious LoL debacles from the past, these huge tournaments are hesitant to work with Riot from these blunders. Two, if you read the 'Major Tournament Guidelines,' they only award these licenses to exceptional candidates, sounds like an application for a SEAL team. Given their reputation and these lofty requirements, it makes sense it doesn't exist much. Riot seem to want to both monetize, and have strict conduct regulation on casting/format/sponsors involved (they very much hesitate to have betting sponsors, for better or worse depending on how you view these things). What I think they are missing being this strict, is why yes, they don't get as much money directly from 3rd party major hosts, they miss out on general game exposure for half the year pretty much, you can decide for yourself what is better for Riot themselves.

I've heard Sideshow state on his streams that the team/crew does events for Val, does it for league also (I don't watch league so can't confirm). Wouldn't you think there is plenty of casting talent? Why do we need to bounce around LoL schedules for 3rd party tournaments? I think its partially because of Riots, in my opinion, overbearing nature on conduct. They want the same casters so that this conduct regulation is strictly adhered to via already trained talent. They're worried about a 3rd party event hosting going poorly enough that it reflects badly on their game it seems. I think this is a misread by them, if ESL had casters that said things controversial or that they didn't agree with, it would reflect poorly on ESL, not Valorant, but that is my opinion, and also Valve's take.

From the pro player/viewer perspective: I think we are getting the short end of the stick in all of this, imo. Point blank, I would like to see more high-end Valorant.. I know a lot care about both, but me personally, I don't care about LoL at all, its an entirely different game. Pro's, this has been stated by a vast amount of them, they want to play more, have chances at more money outside of VCT contracts. Individual team brand orgs also lose alot here (NRG, SEN, etc), would want their brand represented more often, and return more exposure for their investments.

With all this said, my TLDR take on this is that only Riot perceivably wins (debatable considering they lose lots of general game exposure), everyone else (Viewers/Players/Team Sponsors/Outside major tourny orgs) lose hard.

They should open up events for other companies to run them, and allow their players to compete. Point blank, I don't think we get enough pro Valorant..

I get why Riot wants to close it off, be vertical, reek in all of the profit.. However, with less exposure pertaining to your pro teams playing less games, you get less general game advertisement/outreach.

Depends on how you define that, yes the top 4 t2 teams prolly don't drop a map vs mibr, but only 2 could take maps off the top teams

I don't understand this take, how is counter strafing in Val any less beneficial vs CS or any other FPS?

I feel like map 1 for Sen was bad because they were playing REALLY bad, low energy, etc.

Map 2, nobody beats 100t there imo, Bang carried SO hard and left them almost no chance

As title suggests, on the base 'box score' of VLR at least. Instead of having just K/D/A, have 2 categories of assists for utility based assists, and 50+ damage based assists. Thoughts?

Zander

These are clearly the best two teams in Americas, you guys just don't know Valorant.

based

Let's get you to bed Grandpa

Lets focus on the tangibles, is NRG better with s0m, or Marved?

Tatum is maybe top 50 player in the NBA, carried by team

T2 got better, m80 lost some players/don't have continuity currently. Thats it

No team is the same level every game.. No player is the same level every game. PRX may have played better or worse against 100t vs their game against G2. You can go all the way back to T2 ascension last year, M80 beat G2 earlier, but G2 won the finals.

You prolly right, but Nismo would be top 3 smart player in t1, dude is like the worst mechanical player on his team yet he sets them up perfectly and somehow frags with pure wisdom

Love Cryo, but Aura? Dude shows little to no emotion outside of focus face and the occasional smirk

Do you guys think that he will dominate over there though? I.E maybe the competition isn't as fierce? Question not statement what ya'll think

Has been on 100T for awhile, Thwifu's real first name is Zander

Man why is lower final bo5 but not upper, super weird

I mean the lower bracket should get the short end no?