I saw carrotstix’s thread, which inspired me to ask this question. How much do y’all value a champs win compared to a masters? I’ve always thought of it as 1.5 masters equivalent.
How much do you value a champs win over a masters?
posted in
Valorant Discussion
Why so? Winning 2 masters means you were the best team in the world for 2/3rds of the year as opposed to 1/3 of the year. Also, it’s way easier to fluke one tournament win/run than two tournaments wins/runs, especially since winning paints a huge target on your back.
Why does viewership matter. That’s like saying beating sen matters more or is more impressive than beating fnc because the sen match had more viewers
I'm just saying bc champions is the most important tournament for both viewers and pros
It’s more impressive than a masters, but surely two masters is more impressive than one champions? Especially in a game like valo where consistency is very difficult.
so basically winning champs is the same as winning a regional tournament. got it.
No, because a regional tournament is against every single tier1 team in ur region, including the shitty ones. Masters or champions is against the best teams from each region across the world.
that shit is exactly my point, vlr is undervaluing champs way too much to the point that there has to be debates on which is better, fucking EWC or the biggest valorant tournament that only happens once a year
I don’t get what ur point is. I’m arguing two masters is worth more than one champs. There both international tournaments so I don’t get why your point applies.
For me as viewer and part of the community, I guess 1.5 or 2 masters. But for the team, it's the ultimate prize, as you are undoubtedly the best team of that year. (Fuck ppl who said fluke champs or smth, most of the time they just implode)
Idk about this take. EDG we’re definitely not 2024’s best team, ascend we’re definitely not 2021’s best team, EG we’re definitely not 2023’s best team, and you could even slightly argue loud weren’t 2022’s best team
EDG was the best team of 2024. No matter what people said and compare them to, they're the Champions, and not the team that they compare EDG with.
It's the same as the Alfajer and Forsaken MVP debate. The fact is the winner takes it all. The title, the glory, the prize and the praise.
Edg got grouped at Madrid and went winless at Shanghai. No way were they the best team of all of 2024, wtf
it is what champs for... To prove that they're the best team of the year. Even if they fall short or not even attending Masters, you have the chance to show your worth to the world, by winning Champs.
But champs is just one tournament. You could be dog awful the whole year, be insane at champs, then go straight back to being shit after. I’m not saying this is edg, but how does it proves that they were the best team of the year? In valorant where repreat winners and back to back winners are far rarer than champs winners, winning one tournament isn’t more impressive than two.
As I’ve said, that’s the whole point of Champs — and also the consequence. You could be absolute trash before Champs, but if you win it, you get all the glory of being the best team that year.
That’s exactly why there’s still debate about teams like Gambit vs Acend or LOUD vs OpTic. One won Champs, but a lot of people in the community still believe the other was actually the better team.
Factually, Acend and LOUD were the best teams in the years they won Champs — that’s just how the system works. The other side of the debate is more about public opinion, which can be biased.
Factually based on what tho? Riot says champs is the most important tournament, but they never said that it determines who the best team across the year is. What facts is this from? The best team of the year is opinion based mostly. If you win champs you get the glory of winning the important and most impressive tournament of the year. That’s all you factually achieve.
That’s just the name of the tournament bud. It would only determine the best team of the entire year if it was the ONLY international tournament the whole year.
Let me get this straight, finishing 10th 10th 3rd 1st is better than finishing 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 2nd? How does that make any fucking sense?
Champs doesn’t give free playoffs, has more competition, and is at the end of the year (more time for rosters to practice and improve/adapt to meta). Surely that makes it more impressive?
idk, not really for me, its all the same, they are best team in the world at that moment. i came from cs which have open circuit tourneys, and in my opinion in cs, winning kato / cologne is as good as winning major. you can have big titles without it being a major. so i only applied my logic and beliefs to val
I can see ur point, but don’t you think winning a 12 team masters is more impressive than an 8 team one for an example? Do you think winning a round robin format where you have to beat all the other teams (for an example, masters doesn’t use this) is more impressive than a single elim bracket? (Due to lucky bracket chance?)
again, coming from someone from cs, in cs there is no double elim system. in fact i want to see single elim more when it comes to playoffs, just like in cs. it shows you need to win when it matters, not just being good but choked in the stage (for example spirit losing to mouz on major qf, if there's double elim system, maybe they wouldve get to grand final, but the fact is they lost when it matters, so they should be eliminated)
I think double elim suits valorant more than cs tho since valorant is a lot more flukey than cs due to abilities and constantly changing metas. In CS, I feel the better team usually wins, but not necessarily true in valo. Also, I like double elim allowing teams to either beat someone twice and prove that it wasn’t a fluke or for a team to recover from a fluke loss and complete a lower bracket run.
i fthe purpose of double elim is to eliminate 'the flukiness' of the result, can we all agree that PRX @ toronto, t1 @ bangkok, edg @ champs last year all not a fluke win then? i still a lot of people especially the westerners all claims these are fluke result though (all double elim btw, which should reduce the flukiness as you said)
Prx at Toronto being a fluke win is absolute stupidity, it’s just happened and they dropped literally one map in playoffs. EDG didn’t fluke champs either, since they placed 3rd at Bangkok right after. T1 at Bangkok is a bit flukey imo, because they failed to even make domestic playoffs afterward, and DRX, vitality, and trace all failed to make Toronto (literally 3/8 of the tourney), so you could argue that the only really impressive win was over g2 and edg.
Part of it is kickoffs flukey single bracket system that qualifies potentially the wrong teams to the tournament anyways. However, I don’t want to call it a complete fluke because autumn is fucking around removing sylvan and putting meteor on tejo so honestly idk.
T1 made domestic playoffs they just lost to DRX and PRX, SEN after Madrid was even worse they missed regional playoffs and they went on to be 4th at Champs, I'd rather see if T1 gets to champs and performs first before calling their win a fluke
My apologies, I actually watched those games too I’m just an idiot. I also did think Madrid was a fluke until champs (several Madrid rosters were missing players), so I’ll hold off on the t1 slander until champs. They were my fav apac team at the start of the year due to being a buzz fan so I’m definitely rooting for their comeback
Adapt to the meta? Valorant meta changes every few months, no one is adapting to it
Good point, but there’s usually a general trend. 2022 was chamber, 23 was viper harbor, 24 was neon and omen, 25 so far seems to be a lot of yoru and double duelist
and btw, another arguments of mine is that winning champs doesnt make u instantly the best team of that year. for example, would u say EDG the best in 2024? no id say even heretics is better for the whole year without winning anything. but edg for sure is the best during champs right? so basically champs = masters, just another global events to win. doesnt really claim anything more than masters
I 100% agree. Was just discussing this with someone else on the same thread. I would put edg over th for the year though since did actually get the crucial grand finals win and did beat heretics to do it, but I’d prolly have geng over both.
2 masters = 1 champions. Same with MSI and Worlds for LoL even though MSI has way more prestige than a Masters.
Do you believe that two back to back masters wins is more impressive than a singular champs win then?
even though you’re changing the context of the question it’s still a no. Champions is THE event of the year.
But why? Riot says so, so it’s more impressive? What does winning an intl tournament mean? It means your the best team itw. Winning champs is more impressive because it’s end of the year and harder format, but winning TWO masters means you’ve proven the best team in the world twice and held that title for longer.
I like how you’re pushing the question into making it 2 back to back masters wins in a single year rather than just 2 masters vs 1 champions as is, but again, I’d rather have my favorite team win champions over 2 masters back to back or not. you can disagree if you want bro, I just think champions is that important. Riot isn’t just saying it’s more important, they’re showing it to be, and it’s why the entirety of VCT is formatted for Champions.
I can see why you believe that for sure, I just disagree with the idea that masters is only really a qualifier for champs. Unpopular opinion but I would regard any two masters (even if not back to back) more impressive than a champs as long as one of the masters isn’t from Stone Age valorant. I mean, how many rosters have won two trophies in valorant, even if not back to back? (Sen don’t count since it’s only tenz) There are 4 different rosters than won champs in comparison, despite champs being far lesss frequent than masters.
the masters aren’t even 1:1 so idk how you’re comparing them. i personally think winning the 2nd master is harder and more valuable than the 1st but they’re both masters so who gives a shit I guess
Agreed with ur points. I was curious because I’ve heard some people say it’s the same, some people say it’s more impressive than one masters but not as impressive as two. I’ve heard some people say one champs is two masters, and still others say any numbers of masters will never equal champs.
Winning masters = best team in the world, winning champions = best team in the world, in terms of prestige champs is definitely better but when it comes to rating team skill and stuff masters shouldn't be much less impressive imo
like i don't think EDG's champs win means they were better (as a team and performance wise) than GenG at Shanghai but as a fan of EDG i'm happy they won champs over masters because it's the coolest achievement if that makes sense
I personally think edg winning champs was more impressive geng winning shanghai, but geng were better across alll of 2024, because they also had a second place whereas edg struggled outside of champs. I do think champs win > masters alone because more teams + later on in year = more competition.
you're right but I meant more that despite EDG winning Champs and GenG winning Masters I still think Shanghai GenG beats them in a straight up series given respective tournament forms, even though Champs is a greater achievement
I think champs is everything because we always hear about when they building the team they always aim at champs they are ready to f*ck up every stage and masters to just have a chance to wining champs. It feel like World, Ti shit
Both are S tier events, but winning Champions is a statement.
Closest comparison we can make is football, where Champions equals World Cup and Masters equals Champions League.
1 Champions > 1 Master
2 Masters > 1 Champion, but you still don't have the "supreme achievement"...
gambit 2021 > acend 2021
optic 2022 > loud 2022
fnatic 2023 > eg 2023
geng 2024 > edg 2024
do what u will with that information
This is true, but EG champs > fnatic Tokyo. Ascend champs > gambit Berlin, loud champs > optic Reykjavik, etc. it’s because of what fnatic gambit and optic did the rest of the year that puts them as the best team of the year.
you have 2 masters in a year, one of which only has 8 teams and another who has 12 playing in it, meanwhile you have 1 champions per year which has 16 competitors vying for the title. Id say its way more prestigious based on these factors and Id value a champions in a ratio of 2:1 in favor of champions
I agree champs is harder to win, but to play devils advocate, wouldn’t more teams make it easier? If there are 8 teams, you have to play the TWO best teams from each region to win the trophy. On the other hand at champs, there’s a chance you could play the 3rd or 4th best team from the region.
People seem to forget that the prize for winning champions is 1mil dollars as opposed to the 350k in a masters. People also seem to forget that the first masters of the year only have 8 teams competing, and the second masters have only 12 teams (1st seeds instantly in playoffs btw) as opposed to champs which have 16 teams on equal footing. At the end of the day, it is named valorant champions tour for a reason–teams since the beginning of the season are given time to prepare and build/rebuild till cutoffs and they are given three chances to win a tournament, champions being that last and final chance. Considering all this:
Champions > Master 1 + Master 2
Master 2 > Master 1
Champions = Master 2 + Master 2 (But even then having the title as a world champion is a statement and is remembered more, i.e., Aspas, Jawgemo, KangKang)
Depends on the masters, Masters Toronto and Bangkok were kinda mid and held in a small venue, Masters Shanghai and Tokyo were fucking sick because of the huge arenas tho. Champs is probably worth 2 times on average, mainly because there is only one a year not because there are some huge stakes involved for the players like TI/cs major. Would be nice if Riot gave something special to the players to make it feel more special, I dont play League but dont they give a special skins for each player in that game? Would be nice if they did that and had a % of the sales go to the player, ik Riot are rats so they could do it only for a small period of time but it would still be huge motivator for players
I remember all the champ winners on the other hand i don’t recall any masters winner without checking vlr
hmm
firstly, i think theres a distinction in how much a 12 team masters vs an 8 team masters is worth, but i wont get in to that. ill assume the comparison is a 12 team masters
I think I'd say roughly 1.5-1.75x would make sense
Funniest shit is this: paper rex won masters 2 and got 350K but they came second in Champs 23 and got 400K. The difference is in hype, fanfare and attendance. There are more eyes on champs than both masters combined and with the custom music vids, ramped up prod and custom weapon skins in game to support the tourney you know its way bigger than toronto or bangkok. The world isnt fair and yes I’d much rather PRX win champs and get 1M than even winning two masters 2s and only get 700K
1 champs > 1 masters winner + 2nd place
1 champs = 2 masters winner
Champs is proper 16 teams, all starts in traditional group stage, no skip to playoff BS. The 1 grand prestigious event of the year with the biggest prize pool shouldn’t be overshadow by any technicalities/if’s/consistent choker efforts.
Discord