Why GC shouldnt exist

#1

A1pha1

12

Frags

+

–

I dont wanna make this a hate thread, I just want to present my case to why united circuit is better for women and marginalized genders long-term. If you care about Valorant and have self-respect, please dont post hate comments and be a reason for this thread to get deleted.

So the main reasons why GC was created in the first place include:

Provide exposure for women and marginalized genders (reffered as females for short from this point)
Create a safe space where they wont get bullied or get blamed for losses just because of their gender
Inspire other female players to go Pro and reach the highest level

But the ultimate goal of GC still is to develop a talent that can later be picked up to tier 1, its just that GC is safer place for talent to develop.

My argument is that female players will never reach the playing level of the open circuit if they are seperated. They will always play against weaker opposition but still get paid in a similar (at least enough) to VCT so why bother to get better to try to get into tier1?

Actually similar thing happened in chess. Female circuit was created for women to get exposure and safe space. FIDE, the governing body of chess, thought by giving seperate titles and helding seperate tournaments, female circuit will eventually produce talents that can later join the open circuit and compete against the best players. But what ended up happening is that best women players never left the female circuit and ended up playing against only female opposition thus never developing to be able to compete against the best players.

Only player who broke this tradition is Judit Polgar and she never competed in womens circuit. She played against male opposition from her childhood and ended breaking into top 10 of the world at the peak of her career and defeated 10+ Men's World Champions.

So the conclusion is women are not biologically inferior they just need to compete against stronger opposition from the start. I think its the same with Valorant, if female players play in the open circuit from the beginning, they could end up being one of the best players in the world.

If Riot completely abolishes GC circuit and female players play in the open circuit, it might be hard at the beginning to compete but as the time goes on and 14-15 years old female prodigies grow up playing against the best opposition, they will eventually catch up. But if this merge never happens, there is no incentive for them to get better and at the end of the day you can only beat what is in front of you

#2

termtermtermterm

0

Frags

+

–

considering there are teams like SRG, who make quite a good living just in GC, its honestly fine if they have their own league

its more so the criticism they get just for living that makes it seem like a poor decision in hindsight

#3

THE_killing_mac17117

0

Frags

+

–

It also the hope of GC fans and players that they would try and make it to T1 open circuit
If you wanna do that dont compete in both choose one

#4

A1pha1

2

Frags

+

–

Dont you think they wouldve played at the higher level if GC didnt ever exist? I heard mel saying that she was trialed to be igl for C9 main team in 2022 and she was gonna get the job but they eventually rejected her just because she was a woman not for her performance. Even tho this might provide a reason to create GC scene, it also shows that female players are capable of competing with a tier 1 org if given the chanve.

#5

termtermtermterm

1

Frags

+

–

I mean in absolute fairness the one example of blatant sexism is from Clown9 so idk if thats the right org to bring up a quarrel for.

realistically I think that most of the players are content enough being in GC and having their own space, and if they genuinely want to do better, then they have the opportunity to go through tier 2. Just look at the ROSE and Swimtrek blue core

#7

A1pha1

1

Frags

+

–

Yeah fair.

I still think competing in open circuit is more beneficial for GC players in a long term. Imagine someone like Noia or dodonut play in a tier 1 org in some sort of coed team, they would get 10x support and the following than they currently have. For me personally, I was so happy when I saw SRG won their 1st tier game agaisnt TSM last year but imagine something like this happens in tier 1. Its gonna inspire generations

#6

DBStudios

0

Frags

+

–

SRG are like the gatekeepers of GC, they are much better than the rest of the league that there is no talent to be developed for better leagues on their team but much worse than the T2 league that they are just the middle of the two. I wouldn't be surprised if GC teams use SRG as a benchmark for determining if they should even consider tier 2 at all and could even make some players feel like they aren't good enough for it and just stop working towards it entirely.

It's also pretty hypocritical on some people's parts because they complain about teams like M80 or SRB that have a lot of tier 1 level players playing in tier 2 and claim they pretty much "gatekeep talent" from going to tier 1 but approve of SRG js chilling for the rest of time in GC.

SRG is the same as a tier 2 team just making a tier 1 caliber team and just never leaving tier 2

#8

termtermtermterm

1

Frags

+

–

didnt SRG literally sign 2 new players? indicating that there is more talent popping up worthy of recognition?

sure SRG have always been a cut above but nowadays it seems that the GC field has been somewhat leveled, and thats just NA, in EU there is a lot more competitiveness in the GC scene

wouldnt call it "gatekeeping"

#9

DBStudios

0

Frags

+

–

I mean you can't use the newest signings as an example because it just happened, in every year prior they had the best team with no more talent to be developed and they remained that way for years. Only changing now because of retirements/breaks.

Also I mean I was talking about the NA GC scene when talking about how SRG "gatekeeps" but even then SRG has made every single GCC final so far so yeah that's kind of a gatekeep on other teams. You play against them = you get stomped most of the time. That's not developing talent that's js giving SRG a new toy to play around with.

#10

termtermtermterm

0

Frags

+

–

All im trying to say is that with GC it gives a platform to those groups and I think thats all they want and are equipped to ask for

they all play in the same ranked servers as the pros, they all have the same connections as the pros, yet they stay in GC more because it is where they are comfortable rather than they dont see themselves moving further

If certain players wanted to join a t2 team they probably could, but they choose to prioritize GC because it is more lucrative for them and honestly a better option as a whole for their brand and whatnot

#11

raavv

2

Frags

+

–

But what ended up happening is that best women players never left the female circuit and ended up playing against only female opposition thus never developing to be able to compete against the best players.

your logic is good and this is largely true. iron sharpens iron type thing but you're forgetting a lot of the better GC teams DO play in other tournaments "funhavers" in NA for example and of course they do play for the tier 2 qualifiers with some of the GC teams getting into tier 2 and being able to play there

they are playing against tier 2 teams already not to mention whoever they scrim against, many of them grind ranked which obviously is the same people not women's only ranked. the level of GC is actually improving quite a bit at least at the top end so if anything i'd make an argument that GC is doing well and exactly as they intended - a goal of helping GC players/teams rise up to compete in tier 2

If they were truly staying only in GC you would be right but that doesnt look like the case

#14

A1pha1

0

Frags

+

–

All the ranked, scrims and "funhavers" tournament are not serious enough to provide a genuine opposition for women to get better. Officials are much more serious and better tool to actually measure teams' level.

Female chess players also play tons of online games and over the board rapid/blitz tournaments against best players all the time but this doesnt help them at all for their progression.

As long as GC exists, there will always be big gap between the open and GC circuit.

#16

raavv

1

Frags

+

–

i cant speak much on the chess part as i dont follow the chess scene but how exactly do we know how serious they are/arent taking scrims and unofficial tourneys? they have coaches and do vod reviews on those scrims/tourneys so what exactly more do they need to make it serious? that seems sufficient to me

but also that begs the question how will the gap close between GC teams/players and tier 2 players if you remove GC? teams like liquid br, SRG, g2, etc will have to exclusively rely on those scrims, qualifiers and unofficial tourneys to play matches anyway no? what else could they do so either way it's the same thing only with GC matches on top or removed

#18

A1pha1

-1

Frags

+

–

How can you take scrims seriously? 24 rounds and the result matter thats why "underdog" teams play bit better in scrims because there is no pressure to perform. I wont be shocked if SRG win like 50% of their scrims against tier 2 teams but they only won 1 out of 12 (ig) tier 2 games in last 2 years.

I think competing in the different circle itself installs some sort of inferior complex in the brain from the start and when the time comes to play against VCT or VCL teams, GC teams automatically presume themselves as underdogs. Having a unified circuit will eliminate this complex especially on the young players who never played in GC before.

I think coed teams are the best option for short term development because I think seeing players like Noia or dodonut on the VCT stage itself will inspire 10x more female players to compete rather than them competing in GC where there is way less viewership. And this will eventually cause enough young players to start to compete so the female players will be more competetive long-term.

#20

raavv

1

Frags

+

–

so you're arguing that there is no significant skill gap between GC and tier 2 but it's primarily a mentality gap? otherwise this doesnt make much sense but if that is your stance fair enough. i dont fully agree but i also dont fully disagree im sure there are many players going into those t2 qualifiers or matches with an underdog mindset and im sure that hurts their performance 100%

#21

A1pha1

0

Frags

+

–

Yeah thats my point. I think psychology of playing in different circuit itself builds enough of inferior complex for female players to play worse. I know you are not familar with chess but I have been a chess teacher for 8-10 year olds for 2 years when I was in high school and from my experience girls pick up fundamentals better than boys early on and they are usually better players and ahead of the boys by like 2-3 months of experience. But as they grow older and start competing in tournaments boys usually play in 150-200 player tournaments and girls play in 30-40 player girls only tournaments. As a result boys will eventually surpass girls slowly but surely.

#22

raavv

0

Frags

+

–

the girls chose not to play in the bigger tournaments? why not just play in both the girls-only and the big ones? if that is the case yeah it would definitely lead to the boys being better over time

girls learning faster does make sense though they tend to do better in school and generally be better at "sit and learn" type stuff and boys get more restless (on average)

#27

A1pha1

1

Frags

+

–

Because it is easier to get higher elo and chess titles like Womens Fide Master and Womens Grandmaster titles when you play in womens circuit. Even if chess is so popular only 1/10 titled players will commit to chess as their profession, most players just use these chess titles to try to get a government job or good resume to College application. Womens titles are usually 200-300 elo lower than Open titles thats why most girls choose female circuit. In valorant terms 200-300 elo difference is more like 600-800 RR difference because chess skill gap is higher.

#17

Rhyspal

0

Frags

+

–

liquid brazil/srg both played in tier2 this year
liquid brazil recent gc champs went 0-12 on maps, srg didn't win a match this year outside promotion

so you believe that they are just not at all competitive bc they are playing in these gc tournaments? and it makes their level worse
because they would be on the same path otherwise as all other tier2 teams, scrims vs top teams, ranked.

#12

1One1

0

Frags

+

–

GC should be positioned as challenger (1 step below ascension) both salary and competition

#13

laifu

0

Frags

+

–

i mean isn't that already the case for most GC teams

i feel like only the top GC teams of their regions get ascension salary but that's mainly due to big orgs backing them

#15

x3malx3

7

Frags

+

–

I think GC was created as a remedy for the systemic oppression and discrimination that women and marginalized gender people face. In the patriarchal world we live in women and marginalized people are disincentivized by the systems at large to follow their dreams especially if their dreams are something alternative like going pro in val. Having systems in place where marginalized people are prioritized is a way of equalizing the playing field. The difference in skill isnt due to the skill of the competition, I believe it is due to the difference in talent pool of men in comparison to women and marginalized people.

There is no way to tell how many tier 1 caliber players never played enough to realize their potential due to the societal pressures placed upon them, these could include;

"gaming isnt for girls" social stigma
their social circle not being aware of games
negative social pressure disincentivizing playing games a lot etc.

How many "14-15 prodigies" have stopped playing or never played valorant due to the sense that their is no place for them at the top, or due to bigoted discouragement by the undeniably ignorant competitive gaming landscape.

This is where I believe GC is so valuable. It provides a goal for people who arent men to reach, it legitimizes their dreams, it shows them that there is a place for them at the top. In my eyes its only a benefit.

#24

A1pha1

0

Frags

+

–

I think you are right when it comes to 14-15 year old female players quitting due to toxicity. But I still think GC should be just pipeline for talent to go to tier 1/tier 2 not the Final destination as it currently is. We have only seen Flor playing in tier 1 and I would say it was a successful debut considering the circumstances but I am surprised why other GC players didnt try to join coed teams. Players are like Noia, daiki, dodonut and Petra are/were capable of playing in at least tier 2 and even tier 1 but they didnt even try to compete in coed teams because GC is enough of a milestone for them. Thats why I dont like GC. It should never be a final destination it should only be the pipeline.
Thats why I provided the chess example because FIDE though seperate women's circuit will develop teenage talents and once they become professional chess players they can later join the open circuit but it never happened.

#28

x3malx3

4

Frags

+

–

Without GC there is less talent, thats my point. Due to GC you are seeing these prodigies be supported, their dreams be legitimized by GC. Would DaNa be picked up by any tier 2 team if GenG GC didnt exist? If GC didnt exist as a whole her career would have never started.

This goes back to my point, without GC there is nothing to aspire to. Women and marginalized genders know better than anyone the limitations put upon them by society, they see the bigotry, the lack of support, didnt Mel directly say that she got denied trials on the basis of her gender? In time as GC grows as the player base of women and marginalized genders grow, the overall talent pool will grow, there will be more flors, more daikis, more noias, more players with the ability to compete at a tier 1 level. Before GC how many women or marginalized genders were anywhere near the top? In the decades that CS has been out how many women or marginalized genders have been anywhere near the top? GC has incentivized people like flor, noia, daiki to keep grinding, to go pro, to be proof that being a marginalized gender doesnt mean you cant go pro.

A system has to be in place to counteract the societal pressures that marginalized genders face. As GC continues to grow, as will the talent pool of marginalized genders, this will cause the gap between tier 1 and GC to become smaller.

Also Bob (was on C9 White i think) has been competing and farming in tier 2 NA for years now. SRG and TLB both qualified to tier 2 circuits. Your point that GC players just dont want to go to tier 1 is intellectually dishonest.

#33

A1pha1

-1

Frags

+

–

GC existing is only good for short-term and hinders women's playing level for long-term. CS esport scene has been around like only 20 years thats why I provided the example to chess because its been here for more than 100 years. Chess was split into with the exact same hope of generating more female talent in hopes that they will play in open circuit once they become professional and evetually once there are enough female players they wanted to abolish female circuit.
But the reality was different. Top female players just kept playing in female circuit and didnt compete in Open world championship cycle. I dont wanna say they never wanted to become Open world champions but the reality is that if they immediately switch to Open section they would get paid way less than female section so there isnt any incentive to actually to try to be the best.
Only player who had a chance of being Open's World Champion and was top 10 player was Judit Polgar who never played in female section from the start. Thats why I am saying female players should compete in Open Circuit in Valorant as well so that we could have Valorant's Judit some day.
The fact is Judit wouldve never been as good as she was if she played in female circuit.

You should also consider the fact that one female player playing in VCT team in the mixed roster will inspire much more people than them competing in their own tournaments and winning much lower quality events.

#39

x3malx3

2

Frags

+

–

i think youre missing the point. this is not about the individual, this is about the systemic disincentivization that marginalized genders face. Judit polgar is unique in the fact that from a young age they had access to everything they needed to be successful (endless support, elite coaches, opportunity). The polgars did everything they could to ensure their daughters were successful in chess. No GC player has ever had this kind of support, they are to this day shunned from trials, discriminated against online and made to feel unwelcome in the community (see Leo and Ardiis +their supporters), and have to deal with posts like yours who have not experienced any of the discrimination that they have faced in this community. These are all systemic issues which must be fixed by systemic change. Judit polgar is an individual, if it were truly equal wouldnt it be a 50/50 split of men and women grandmasters? this should be especially true before the womens competition was created right? It is incredibly ignorant to suggest that the only reason marginalized genders are not going to tier 1 is because that GC is easier.

#42

A1pha1

-1

Frags

+

–

Every player in any type of competetive environment gets haters its just normal. There are as many haters as supporters in this world. Tenz has haters, Faker has haters and Messi has haters. When did Noia or mel get hate for being a woman? Everyone gets a hate if they underperform, its just the truth. I agree marginalized genders get hate from transphobic people just for their gender but its society issue and they get hate from those transphobic ill people wherever they go.

I am not saying they shouldnt ever get to compete, I am just saying their play level will always be way lower than Open circuit as long as GC exists. I want to see teams with 2/3 GC players compete in VCT Internationals in mixed rosters but that dream reality will never happen if GC exists. Chess had seperate circuit for 100 years and its similar to Valorant where any woman can compete in Open section whenever they want but still the only player who came close to world championship was the woman who only played in Open tournaments.

#43

x3malx3

2

Frags

+

–

its obvious im not changing your mind, im going to go play overwatch and talk with my gf now. i think it would be valuable to you to read up on intersectionality, as well as systemic oppression. wish you the best.

#47

A1pha1

0

Frags

+

–

Have a good time. I think we are discussing the same subject but viewing from different points. I want to see Judit Polgar of Valorant, I want to see success story even if its a few who made it to the absolute peak of the esport. You want to see opressed people who were abused just because of their gender have a playing space. The only difference is I think that seperate circuit will not produce any Judit Polgars.

#19

Abhi5

1

Frags

+

–

who cares let them do their thing

#23

W1ngFly

0

Frags

+

–

What's a "marginalized gender"

#25

hinahinaa

0

Frags

+

–

trans/nonbinary people (correct me someone if im wrong)

#26

W1ngFly

0

Frags

+

–

Trans as in biologically XXY/XYY?

#29

x3malx3

2

Frags

+

–

marginalized gender is any gender who experiences discrimination from society on the basis of their gender. this includes women as well as non-binary people, trans people, and basically anyone who doesnt identify as a man.

#30

hinahinaa

0

Frags

+

–

thanks!

#31

x3malx3

0

Frags

+

–

anytime :3

#36

W1ngFly

-2

Frags

+

–

"and basically anyone who doesnt identify as a man."
??? that's plain wrong, a lot of men are also hated, who are actually nice ppl.

#44

x3malx3

0

Frags

+

–

intersectionality and systemic oppression. please do your research. thank you

#45

W1ngFly

0

Frags

+

–

Still didn't counter my point. Yes, women are oppressed in many parts of the world but don't generalize "all men".

#48

raavv

0

Frags

+

–

in the wider world and logically you are correct but in terms of opportunity in competitive esports it is very men-centric and many women over the last 20 (?) years or so have tried to get into esports with quite a lot of pushback or worse. if you need an example just go play ranked with 1 girl in the lobby on mic

#51

W1ngFly

1

Frags

+

–

Thanks, this actually helped

#49

M1ssing

0

Frags

+

–

The original post was about who was included in the terms of marginalized genders...?

#50

W1ngFly

0

Frags

+

–

Yea I know but then what #29 said is wrong because the definiton contradicts itself.
"Experiences discrimination on the basis of their gender" is still very vague and is applicable to both males and females.

In my personal experience girls often get scot free for misdemeanor and somehow garner sympathy as well but boys are often called out and hated for the exact same act. Both the parties should be equally punished and called out.

#52

x3malx3

0

Frags

+

–

systemic oppression. in a patriarchal society men cannot experience systemic oppression. marginalized genders experience systemic oppression.

#53

W1ngFly

0

Frags

+

–

Ok...? How does that relate to anything to what I said in #50

#32

M1ssing

0

Frags

+

–

I think this is largely correct (although from what i have seen the salary you get is very low nowadays, most teams dont even earn salaries especially in north america and china) i do think that the positive aspect of gc which is that the players have a safe space where they dont get harassed for their gender and voice and can meet players that are around their caliber in a non toxic (ranked) way is getting largely overshadowed by the whole conversation about whether trans people should be allowed (whatever your opinion might be on that matter), you do have to note that before gc there were never really any women that could even barely compete at a radiant or even tier 1 level which now is (very rarely) the case for some people like noia, vania shirazi and (arguably the best talent gc has ever had) dana.
I also think the chess example is not really comparable as you dont have to actually work with the people that dont respect you because of your gender but just play against them

#34

A1pha1

-2

Frags

+

–

I am completely OK with anyone competing in GC if they feel unsafe in the Open circuit.
Chess example matters because it proves that there is no biological difference that makes male players superior to females. You also have to work with other people in chess because almost every serious chess player has a team of 3-4 players who they train with before the tournament, discuss and review games during the tournament and prepare the opening for the upcoming game. So yeah communication does matter.
My argument is that GC is easier than the Open Circuit thats why players never reach their ceiling because they dont have to. It is also much smaller than Open circuit, so by the pure number less competetion and lower ceiling in any way you put it.

#41

M1ssing

0

Frags

+

–

Well that might be the case but from what i have heard teams like srg and team liquid have played scrims and tournaments with tier 2 and tier 1 pros dozens of times and are actively trying to get to a level of competitiveness in tier 2, the only reason they are abled to afford to have such high level coaching and make this their job is because gc exists, the era before gc proves that the time until there would have actually been more than 1 female that would have ever been competitive with tier 2/1 opposition would have been a lot longer

#35

guuz

2

Frags

+

–

"...the ultimate goal of GC still is to develop a talent that can later be picked up to tier 1, its just that GC is safer place for talent to develop."

I disagree with this point - I think the point of GC is still to give exposure to women and marginalized players, so they aren't just smothered (in the current state) by the top tier 2 teams, IN THE SAME WAY 99% of people who follow valorant can only name a couple guys off M80 and that one MxS roster.

GC teams already regularly scrim against all-guy squads and run tourneys against them. I don't think heavier GC presence in challengers would benefit them too much, given most of it is done online anyway.

You mention players like Noia who could hang in VCT and "inspire 10x more female players to compete rather than them competing in GC where there is way less viewership." But we've already seen how flor was frying even on a doomed Apeks, and all that the (vlr) community did was shit on her for team losses. And even before that, we've had players like bob thug it out in legit tier 2, and nobody (on vlr) really cared. Yes noias and daikis could do well on co-ed rosters, but the main reason we even know their names is because GC exists, and because they've stuck around on their GC teams for years while building their brands.

tldr - we only know those big names in GC because GC exists, in the same way we don't really care about guys in tier 2 until they get called up into VCT. folding GC into normal tier 2 would ruin opportunities for women and marginalized genders

#38

guuz

1

Frags

+

–

also i dont think any talents are getting fat and lazy by settling on GC contracts lol. we can't assume they haven't reached out for co-ed opporunities, and a lot of those t2 rosters are just the top boys and shitters from ranked

#55

A1pha1

0

Frags

+

–

Yeah you are probably right about the exposure part. I just think you and I have different viewpoint to what GC should be. I just want to be able see one day female or anyone who plays in GC in international stages. But what I am realizing from the comments is that most people just want GC playerd to get exposure and have a safe space but I want to see Judit Polgar esc success story even if its a few.

#37

Z0vereign

-3

Frags

+

–

it should just be abolished entirely in 2027 no need for gc with an open system if your good enough go play with everyone else and climb your way up

#40

foythvlr

1

Frags

+

–

They will always play against weaker opposition but still get paid in a similar (at least enough) to VCT so why bother to get better to try to get into tier1?

because they want to? why do you guys act like gc players dont have competitive drive and dreams

#46

Torinoni

-2

Frags

+

–

This actually makes a lot of sense. I feel like a lot of GC talent is getting stuck in T2 territory cuz they don't have a good enough reason to keep pushing themselves to higher levels. Riot should def find a way of integrating GC into the open circuit bit by bit, just like how they did with T2 (first ascencion then then the Stage 2 slots and now completely merging the 2 tiers).

#54

Anguibok

1

Frags

+

–

I was thinking that at the start of GC, but now I disagree, LoL doesnt have a GC circuit, and do you see any female player in T1 ? No not really, truth is female have to overcome a lot of challenge to play in a pro or semi-pro team even if individually they are good enough

Look at Valorant in comparison. GC player are WAAAAAY closer from Tier 1 a little bit more every year, In 2022 it would be absolutely impossible to conceive GC team qualifying in T2. But after few years of GC we had one team that manage to qual in T2, after even more years, we had more GC teams in T2, and we even have some win in T2, every years. So the question is : IS the gap increasing or closing in Valorant ? And the answer is the gap is really slowly closing.

And keep in mind the format will change in 2027, GC will have point in the openqualifier, so they will play even more male team and have experience agasint them