Title

legendary

lets be real that baby would be one hell of a valorant player..aim+igl+util, this is clearly a shrewd business decision

Man.. T2 production, especially the last match is just so painful. The first games they had the Wyatt crew, Sierra/Stronglegs/Emma are okay, but whoever was calling that last game that one guy was painfully bad, and annoying.

On top of the tech pauses, lack of content they produce during breaks (same trivia for 3+ months at a time), observer was REALLY bad (half the time watching it, im watching some dude standing in a corner when there are several frags going on), replays are spotty at best and mostly unexistent, all the way to just showing the center of the stage instead of mostly showing player reactions between rounds?

I'm not saying t2 is worth from Riot's standpoint to invest into top tier talent, but this is ROUGH, they need upgrades or current team needs some retraining

They are competitive against everyone, except m80. M80 is TSM's father

nope, not only is he washed but he doesn't want to play he make more money flipping watches or some shit

Thats alot of icing, that performance was insane

Cypher trips are broken, if someone gets tripped by it once, it should be destroyed after that. OP asf

not tru 2/4 teammates not SA

Why is it unfortunate for someone to earn a spot?

Looks like he's giving back the watch

I like the take from a performance standpoint, and Yay is my favorite player but... Don't do this to Net again lol please just cruel

As this tourney goes on, it's been very proven how insanely stacked Group B was. The 2 grouped teams are the only ones in it, with the strong tourney favorites knocked out before playoffs. Not taking a stance necessarily, but does this mean format needs changing? What do you guys think?

Upper Final is not best of 5?

I wouldn't be VERY surprised if at some point soon we see -Boaster +Leo for their roster. With Boaster being a coach

How do you rate a champs that it's playoffs just started?

Esports are marketing, hard to calculate this value, but its there

some ppl use it for that, but there is probably something to be learned from an fps esport that is THAT successful (csgo). i want valorant to succeed and some of the points made, about things riot are not doing, are worth talking about

Autumn impressed me big time, dudes for real.

This thread is brain rot

This is not currently possible.

Ngl this coach seems like kind of a dick

I don't think they have a weak duelist, I think they are trying to play more team oriented like G2

Optic core is not together because they were not partnered, no? Last Optic core game was Champs finals L

Not sure there is a HUGE clout difference between SEN vs. NRG/C9. All 3 are very solid, known orgs. Something to be said for continuity, running it back, developing deeper chemistry too. Change isn't always good.

Congo1, I think you are missing the main point of these esports, playoffs, VCT all together. It's for brand promotion (Players->Team Sponsors->Valorant), whether it counts for anything or not, its the teams playing, brands represented, marketing being pushed.

Incentive comes in many forms for participation, whether thats prize money/glory/playoff points/etc. More Valorant->more promotion->business grows

I hope so too! I simultaneously feel for these players/selfishly want to see more action. I think that the only path for stability here is near year-round saturation. I don't really care if that is done via 3rd party or Riot saturating it themselves, but it needs to happen, imo.

I see, I read what you were saying wrong, and I definitely agree with that first sentence, Riots gonna Riot.

I somewhat contest what you said about them having different audiences, at least Valorant specifically, maybe not for FPS as a whole genre. Example: IEM, they have broadcast channels that primarily, maybe exclusively host CS tourneys. If they were to host Valorant for example, CS watchers would click on IEM and see Valorant there, give CS players a look at it and maybe attract them. Therefore you potentially garner CS players to Valorant.

Watch parties are definitely a powerful cross marketing scheme, but Riot even makes that difficult.

I think that this is both cause and effect here. Teams don't field a roster until before matches start, because of no Valorant being played for so long. They work around Riot's scheme, the best way to do that is to basically not pay players during the offseason. If the offseason were saturated, teams would deem it attractive to keep their roster year-round, as their brand is consistently being represented.

I think you are absolutely correct, then why would Riot shy away from 3rd party tournaments, that gives them marketing for their game?

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