What do you guys think about the masters qualifiers format?
In my opinion the way these tournaments are built is just bad.
What do you need to qualify to Masters Tours through these tournaments? A first place in one of those masters qualifiers or 4 (yes 4!, and it was 5 before) top 8 in MQs.
What does it take to get a first place? There are a lot of variables but pretty much you need a good lineup, you need to be good at the game, and you need a great dose of luck.
And in my opinion the way the tournament is structured favourites luck. You have most of the times no way to really demonstrate you're better than your opponents in those tournaments in my opinion, most of the times it comes down to who has the better hand, match after match. You'd say to me that this is hearthstone, which is partially true. And I have no issue to just lose to an opponent with a better hand, but I'm pissed off when I lose to a guy that played bad and won just because he had a better hand. I have no way to demonstrate I'm better, cause I lost one round and I'm out of the tournament. It happened to me few times (and I've started to do those tournaments a week ago) to lose to players who have made even multiple big mistakes in a single game, just because their hand was just superior. And even if the mistakes they make are small, you technically played better than them but you lose because of your hand. Now, it's not always like that obviously, sometimes if the opponent does a mistake he loses, but I am here to talk about how the tournament format doesn't do anything to prevent worse players to go on. Also I am not all against luck, because its obviously part of the game, but favouring it with the tournament format just doesn't make sense to me: if you have a very unfortunate starting hand a couple of times in row, you're just out of the tournament cause you lose your round. These's no turning back just like in the Swiss format. Maybe you're better than other players because you played better than them and they made mistakes, maybe you brought a better lineup overall, and maybe you would have won all the other rounds except the one you lost. But it doesn't matter cause you're out due to your 2 consecutive bad hands. You need to win 10 consecutive rounds, you lose one, you're out!
Now, if you're out because you had bad hands in the first few rounds, its fine. But imagine losing at round 5 or 6. You're not in the top8 and you've just lost 3 or more hours. And imagine playing more tournaments cause you really wanna qualify for masters tour and getting 4x top8: you're gonna get, unless you're really lucky, a lot of top 32 or 16, which are not rewarded. Basically you gonna waste a lost of time!
Now let's talk about the 4x top 8. The fact that you can qualify without getting insanely lucky in one tournament its fine, cause it takes consistency into account, which is a good thing cause there's a high probability that the player who got that achievement is really good at HS and he does very few mistakes if any (while these's a lower probability that he just got there only thanks to his good hands and top decks) . The amount of rounds won is far superior to the amount of rounds won by a player that gets the first place just one time and the "amount of luck" involved is lower.
But they still are too much. 3 of them would be the perfect number in my opinion. 4x top8 implies a player needs to play and waste (getting top32 and top16 is a waste of time because those placement are not rewarded) a lot of hours. Just to many. The fact that the number of players that win a MQ is far superior to the number of players who get 4x top8 it's another error imo.
Another topic I really wanna talk about is the player's number difference amongst servers. A player that does tournaments in the asian region has simply a higher chance of going through and qualify to masters tours. Why? Cause the amount of players in tournaments in the asian region is lower compared to Europe or America. European tournaments are almost always exceeding the maximum number of players allowed to participate, which is around 1k. In Asia there are half, sometimes one third of the participants.
So what's the solution to all of those problems? I honestly don't know, and it's not my job to find it. But I would definitely introduce the Swiss format. If they wanna stick with this format I would suggest to assign points to placements: for example first place is 1k points, 2nd is 600, 3rd and 4th 400 and so on until maybe top 32. To qualify to MT you'd need 1k points. This would be more fair. It doesn't improve the lucky nature of the tournaments but at least rewards consistency more and does make you lose less time. A way to rewards more skilled player would be making those tournaments (or at least some of them) more exclusive: top sth legend.
I'd like to hear your opinion on that guys.
- FNCS Solo Qualifier 4: Live Info/Discussion
- FNCS Solo Qualifier 3: Live Info/Discussion
- FNCS Solo Qualifier 2: Live Info/Discussion
More about HearthStonePost: "Discussion about Masters Qualifiers Format" specifically for the game HearthStone. Other useful information about this game:
Top 20 NEW Medieval Games of 2021
Swords, dragons, knights, castles - if you love any of this stuff, you might like these games throughout 2021.
10 NEW Shooter Games of 2021 With Over The Top Action
We've been keeping our eye on these crazy action oriented first and third person shooter games releasing this year. What's on your personal list? Let us know!
Top 10 NEW Survival Games of 2021
Survival video games are still going strong in 2021. Here's everything to look forward to on PC, PS5, Xbox Series X, Nintendo Switch, and beyond.