I watch a lot of tournaments. From the big, such as Dreamhack, to the small, such as Deck Wars. The main problem with most of these tournaments is that they tend to function on an invite model.
I do understand why tournament organizers want certain popular Hearthstone streamers at their tournaments. It guarantees (or at least enhances) their viewer numbers. This increases their advertising revenue and increases exposure for their sponsors. Tournaments are a business.
The problem, though, is that we're constantly seeing the same eight players over and over again. At least a couple of those players, while popular, haven't performed to a level that suggests they're competent or consistent enough for top level tournament play.
Players of a high calibre, such as Amaz and RDU, certainly deserve to be invited over and over again. They continue to perform consistently well at nearly every tournament they take part in. Both are ranked #1 and #2 in the world respectively. The same goes for any of the top ten ranked players.
Things are starting to improve, in that we're starting to see some of the better, yet lesser known, competitors get the invites they deserve, players such as Firebat, StrifeCo, Realz, and Alchemixt. But we're still seeing players of very poor ranking bumping more deserving players off those invite rosters.
Which brings us to players such as Reynad and Trump. Both are exceptionally popular streamers, yet neither has accomplished anything of note in a tournament setting.
Trump is ranked #841 in the world. Trump has never finished top 16 in any Hearthstone season. He's a great guy. He tries hard to rank highly every Hearthstone season, while always falling short. But he's just not up to snuff with the best players in the world.
Reynad is ranked #726. Reynad's circumstances are even more interesting when you realize that earlier this year he spent a fair amount of time complaining that he wasn't getting into tournaments, while players of much less skill level — as he compared them to himself — were getting those coveted invites. Yet, Reynad is now in that exact situation. He's getting the invites now, but his performances have been underwhelming and lacklustre. In essence, he's now taking tournament spots away from more deserving players, the exact situation he was complaining about not four months ago. He's become a victim of his own lack of success.
Take for example Kripparrian. I'm a big fan of the guy. I watch his stream a few times per week. He also has one of the larger Hearthstone audiences. Would I be happy if he started getting invites to major tournaments? Not at all. I might like the guy. I might enjoy his stream immensely. But he would be undeserving of such invites. Has he received invite offers? Yes, he has, since he has that level of popularity that tournament organizers look for. Thankfully, he is on record turning down those guaranteed tournament spots.
Do we want to see the best in the world at the big tournaments, or would we prefer to see our most popular streamers flail about and burn out in the first or second rounds? Should our big tournaments invite based on merit of skill or merit of popularity?
I'd rather see the top 20 in the world duke it out at tournaments. If that means people like Reynad and Trump don't get their invites, then so be it. There are smaller tournaments that they can use to improve their world rankings. They may feel those tournaments are beneath them, but they really have to prove that the big tournaments are where they should be. Popularity is no measure of a player's skill.
At least we have the Hearthstone World Championships to look forward to, which is entirely merit of skill. No invitees. Everybody has to climb through the large qualifier pool. If you're good enough, you will make it to Blizzcon.
i guess that invite model is in order to create more income for those that organize such tournaments (when a streamer says he has to log out because in 5min he is playing that tournament you can expect his viewers to follow him there). speaking from a skill point of view its totaly unfair, i agree on that.
i once had to laugh hard when a caster mentioned how this game is not about rng, because there are always the same people in those tournaments ^^ (imo this game isn't about rng, but those tournament settings are just rigged)
I totally agree with Alathya. While other players might be great, even better than the streamers you mentioned, I wouldn't enjoy watching them.
The tournament organizers seem to believe that the majority of the audience wants to see players compete who are already well known to the viewers - and I suppose that is true. I mean, it's the same with sports: I love watching football but I'd rather not spend my time watching a match between two clubs I don't care about at all.
@ Alathya, how does one become a known player ? I mean if you only invite the same players over and over, then of course you won't know who any ofters are, but if you start to invite them then they will be known. But the problem is that many of these tournaments claim they have the "best of the best" when what they have done is invited a bunch of "celebs"
No offense to Amaz or anyone else rated highly on that list, but that entire ranking that you linked is bullshit and looks to be based on a far too small sample of games in select tournaments only.
They pretty much include every tournament, except a few of the ones in Asia.
What sort of sample size do you want? The game is still young. Not too mention, other sports utilize such rankings on an even smaller yearly sample size.
I actually wish tournaments were on a larger scale *if possible* And anyone that wanted to compete would be able to. *I hate the invite model* Some players don't have the time to invest to play for as many hours as it takes to get to legend+, but might be extremely good. But to show up for a few hours on a weekend is much more do able. And if you aren't good, you burn out in the beginning very fast, no big deal.
Might not be realistic now, but If they ever come out with a spectator mode, or something where people can watch. Then everyone's home computers can be used, no travel needed, *if they even do that at the moment* all at the same time. And such larger scale tournaments might become a reality.
Hearthstone games are fast too, more so than any other tcg I've ever played. So even best three deck elimination each match, large scale wouldn't take that long. If they had a way to reduce player time per turn to say, 30-45 seconds that would make it very good. *leaning heavily toward 30* Pro players should be able to think and make good decisions very fast, and I actually believe that speed decision making is a piece of skill this game should always have. The past tournaments I've seen where they let the players have as long as they want to play a turn are horridly bad in my opinion. They waste time, and totally throw that piece of skill out.
For the moment though, I can understand them inviting whoever will get the most people to come watch, till they can go a much larger scale.
Why the Trump hate? I've seen him @ rank 4 a couple days ago. Reynad deserves tournament exposure at least for his deckbuilding I'd say.
No Trump hate. I like the guy. But he hasn't proven anything. Sure, he might have been #4 briefly, but you have to maintain that through season end, which he has yet to do.
I totally agree with Alathya. While other players might be great, even better than the streamers you mentioned, I wouldn't enjoy watching them.
You're disregarding them without giving them a chance. It could turn out to be a great tournament, in which case they've developed an instant fanbase. Word of mouth and VODs would make it grow. The next tournament they appear in, more people would tune in.
But nobody wants to watch 4 person tournaments, no matter who is in them. 8 is a minimum. 16 is better. 32 to 64 is perfect.
I think the whole matter might change after BlizzCon. Players who will perform well there will be invited to all kind of smaller torunaments as well in the future I am assuming.
I am hoping Blizzcon allows some less known players to break into the scene. I also hope a few "names" make it as well. It is a tournament based on merit of skill.
128 player qualifier round seems fair but it takes quite a lot of time, especially when you want to keep up with BO5 ban format. Organiser are reluctant to conduct qualifier rounds.
Why the Trump hate? I've seen him @ rank 4 a couple days ago. Reynad deserves tournament exposure at least for his deckbuilding I'd say.
No Trump hate. I like the guy. But he hasn't proven anything. Sure, he might have been #4 briefly, but you have to maintain that through season end, which he has yet to do.
Neither Trump nor Reynad jump on the FOTM-train like a few other top-players. They regularly switch their decks during their streams to weaker decks... that is mainly the reason why they do not perform that well in ladder-matches.
This month is hunter hunter hunter and some more hunter, hunter hunter and hunter... they play mage, priest, warrior, paladin etc. (sometimes even shaman although they get wrecked by hunters)
Is it the tournament organizers fault for picking people they know will increase their exposure, or is it the other top-ranking hearthstone players for not having a personality that anyone cares enough about to follow them? (If they even stream at all, which if they don't, then of course they won't get all the invites.)
128 player qualifier round seems fair but it takes quite a lot of time, especially when you want to keep up with BO5 ban format. Organiser are reluctant to conduct qualifier rounds.
You only "televise" select matches, the ones with the "names". A 128 man tourney, after 3 rounds you're down to 16 people. It takes a bit more organization, logistically, but it's something that can be done over a weekend easily enough. Hell, you could run two separate streams, and "televise" two matches per round, let people decide what to watch, let the hype for any particular match build up over social media and such.
I definitely feel like the real issue is just tourney size. Part of that is in the fact that hearthstone collections and friends lists are region based, and that is currently a hurdle for making larger tournaments actually work. On top of that the lack of spectator mode is also a problem. Not only is this a computer only game, so you can't as easily fit 128+ people into a room if they all need a computer, but you have to do that to control fair play. Magic Grand Prix can have thousands of players, and even the Pro Tour is between 350 and 400ish players, which is something that's just not easy to do with computers and conflicting region based accounts. Its a bummer atm, and it will hurt organised play for a substantial amount of time, but hopefully the game can succeed and overcome that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
They pretty much include every tournament, except a few of the ones in Asia.
What sort of sample size do you want? The game is still young. Not too mention, other sports utilize such rankings on an even smaller yearly sample size.
I guess you are right in that there hasn't been more tournaments due to hearthstone being a relatively new game. But isnt ~40 games too small of a sample size to determine anyone's skill in a game that contains the element of luck?
They pretty much include every tournament, except a few of the ones in Asia.
What sort of sample size do you want? The game is still young. Not too mention, other sports utilize such rankings on an even smaller yearly sample size.
But isnt ~40 games too small of a sample size to determine anyone's skill in a game that contains the element of luck?
Maybe. But if you look at the Top 20, how many of those players do you think don't deserve the ranking the site is giving them? One? Two? Three, maximum? I'd point out two. So, even with the small sample size, as you're saying, the site still seems pretty accurate to me.
Are there people in the poorer ranks that should be ranked higher? Probably. But people like Reynad have played as many matches as those in the Top 20, and he still can't crack it. He's had his opportunities to prove his elite level skills. Trump, on the other hand, maybe hasn't had as many opportunities yet, but also he's forgone a lot of opportunities to prove himself too.
Look at last years Blizzcon. People assumed Artosis and Kripp must be the two best hearthstone players when in fact now, they are just regarded as above average who are good enough to make Legend but no where near good enough to challenge for top 16 on the ladder.
I sometimes wish Kripp would put some effort into constructed and tournaments, but he has no interest. I feel he could be one of the best if he could bother caring. :) But that may just be my own wishful thinking.
It has been said a couple times already, but I like throwing my two cents in when given an opportunity, so here it goes:
As previously stated I don't think the issue is "who" gets the invites, but how many. That being said 128 may be a bit too large of a field. I think 64 seems reasonable enough. Even if not one large 64 player tournament why not 16 player regional tournaments for EU, NA, and Asia that gives a "wild card" slot to the 2nd place player who suffered the least total games lost in there tourney run. That would create a top four comprised of the three represented regions, that all arguably deserved to be there.
Lastly I think it's unfair be overly critical of some players because their popularity/ranking don't coincide. Trump is the most obvious example of this point. All players experiment with decks that's true, but Trump has such a heart for the community that he spent a lot of time climbing with F2P decks. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any other top legend players do anything similar. I'm not validating giving anyone a free pass due to popularity, but Trump is highly regarded as being knowledgeable and a skilled player. I can't offer much insight into Reynad or Hafu, or others like them, because I don't watch a lot of them. My point simply is, they wouldn't be invited if there wasn't merit to their credentials and we don't know all the circumstances that goes into a player's Hearthstone ranking.
I watch a lot of tournaments. From the big, such as Dreamhack, to the small, such as Deck Wars. The main problem with most of these tournaments is that they tend to function on an invite model.
I do understand why tournament organizers want certain popular Hearthstone streamers at their tournaments. It guarantees (or at least enhances) their viewer numbers. This increases their advertising revenue and increases exposure for their sponsors. Tournaments are a business.
The problem, though, is that we're constantly seeing the same eight players over and over again. At least a couple of those players, while popular, haven't performed to a level that suggests they're competent or consistent enough for top level tournament play.
Players of a high calibre, such as Amaz and RDU, certainly deserve to be invited over and over again. They continue to perform consistently well at nearly every tournament they take part in. Both are ranked #1 and #2 in the world respectively. The same goes for any of the top ten ranked players.
Things are starting to improve, in that we're starting to see some of the better, yet lesser known, competitors get the invites they deserve, players such as Firebat, StrifeCo, Realz, and Alchemixt. But we're still seeing players of very poor ranking bumping more deserving players off those invite rosters.
Which brings us to players such as Reynad and Trump. Both are exceptionally popular streamers, yet neither has accomplished anything of note in a tournament setting.
Trump is ranked #841 in the world. Trump has never finished top 16 in any Hearthstone season. He's a great guy. He tries hard to rank highly every Hearthstone season, while always falling short. But he's just not up to snuff with the best players in the world.
Reynad is ranked #726. Reynad's circumstances are even more interesting when you realize that earlier this year he spent a fair amount of time complaining that he wasn't getting into tournaments, while players of much less skill level — as he compared them to himself — were getting those coveted invites. Yet, Reynad is now in that exact situation. He's getting the invites now, but his performances have been underwhelming and lacklustre. In essence, he's now taking tournament spots away from more deserving players, the exact situation he was complaining about not four months ago. He's become a victim of his own lack of success.
Take for example Kripparrian. I'm a big fan of the guy. I watch his stream a few times per week. He also has one of the larger Hearthstone audiences. Would I be happy if he started getting invites to major tournaments? Not at all. I might like the guy. I might enjoy his stream immensely. But he would be undeserving of such invites. Has he received invite offers? Yes, he has, since he has that level of popularity that tournament organizers look for. Thankfully, he is on record turning down those guaranteed tournament spots.
Do we want to see the best in the world at the big tournaments, or would we prefer to see our most popular streamers flail about and burn out in the first or second rounds? Should our big tournaments invite based on merit of skill or merit of popularity?
I'd rather see the top 20 in the world duke it out at tournaments. If that means people like Reynad and Trump don't get their invites, then so be it. There are smaller tournaments that they can use to improve their world rankings. They may feel those tournaments are beneath them, but they really have to prove that the big tournaments are where they should be. Popularity is no measure of a player's skill.
At least we have the Hearthstone World Championships to look forward to, which is entirely merit of skill. No invitees. Everybody has to climb through the large qualifier pool. If you're good enough, you will make it to Blizzcon.
(original article: http://hearthpoe.blogspot.ca/2014/08/trump-and-reynad-merit-of-skill-or.html)
Poetic.
i guess that invite model is in order to create more income for those that organize such tournaments (when a streamer says he has to log out because in 5min he is playing that tournament you can expect his viewers to follow him there). speaking from a skill point of view its totaly unfair, i agree on that.
i once had to laugh hard when a caster mentioned how this game is not about rng, because there are always the same people in those tournaments ^^ (imo this game isn't about rng, but those tournament settings are just rigged)
I totally agree with Alathya. While other players might be great, even better than the streamers you mentioned, I wouldn't enjoy watching them.
The tournament organizers seem to believe that the majority of the audience wants to see players compete who are already well known to the viewers - and I suppose that is true. I mean, it's the same with sports: I love watching football but I'd rather not spend my time watching a match between two clubs I don't care about at all.
@ Alathya, how does one become a known player ? I mean if you only invite the same players over and over, then of course you won't know who any ofters are, but if you start to invite them then they will be known. But the problem is that many of these tournaments claim they have the "best of the best" when what they have done is invited a bunch of "celebs"
Why the Trump hate? I've seen him @ rank 4 a couple days ago. Reynad deserves tournament exposure at least for his deckbuilding I'd say.
Come join me @ twitch.tv/Creeepling ! Only fun and unusual decks!
No offense to Amaz or anyone else rated highly on that list, but that entire ranking that you linked is bullshit and looks to be based on a far too small sample of games in select tournaments only.
They pretty much include every tournament, except a few of the ones in Asia.
What sort of sample size do you want? The game is still young. Not too mention, other sports utilize such rankings on an even smaller yearly sample size.
Poetic.
I actually wish tournaments were on a larger scale *if possible* And anyone that wanted to compete would be able to. *I hate the invite model* Some players don't have the time to invest to play for as many hours as it takes to get to legend+, but might be extremely good. But to show up for a few hours on a weekend is much more do able. And if you aren't good, you burn out in the beginning very fast, no big deal.
Might not be realistic now, but If they ever come out with a spectator mode, or something where people can watch. Then everyone's home computers can be used, no travel needed, *if they even do that at the moment* all at the same time. And such larger scale tournaments might become a reality.
Hearthstone games are fast too, more so than any other tcg I've ever played. So even best three deck elimination each match, large scale wouldn't take that long. If they had a way to reduce player time per turn to say, 30-45 seconds that would make it very good. *leaning heavily toward 30* Pro players should be able to think and make good decisions very fast, and I actually believe that speed decision making is a piece of skill this game should always have. The past tournaments I've seen where they let the players have as long as they want to play a turn are horridly bad in my opinion. They waste time, and totally throw that piece of skill out.
For the moment though, I can understand them inviting whoever will get the most people to come watch, till they can go a much larger scale.
No Trump hate. I like the guy. But he hasn't proven anything. Sure, he might have been #4 briefly, but you have to maintain that through season end, which he has yet to do.
Poetic.
You're disregarding them without giving them a chance. It could turn out to be a great tournament, in which case they've developed an instant fanbase. Word of mouth and VODs would make it grow. The next tournament they appear in, more people would tune in.
But nobody wants to watch 4 person tournaments, no matter who is in them. 8 is a minimum. 16 is better. 32 to 64 is perfect.
Poetic.
I am hoping Blizzcon allows some less known players to break into the scene. I also hope a few "names" make it as well. It is a tournament based on merit of skill.
Poetic.
128 player qualifier round seems fair but it takes quite a lot of time, especially when you want to keep up with BO5 ban format. Organiser are reluctant to conduct qualifier rounds.
Neither Trump nor Reynad jump on the FOTM-train like a few other top-players. They regularly switch their decks during their streams to weaker decks... that is mainly the reason why they do not perform that well in ladder-matches.
This month is hunter hunter hunter and some more hunter, hunter hunter and hunter... they play mage, priest, warrior, paladin etc. (sometimes even shaman although they get wrecked by hunters)
Is it the tournament organizers fault for picking people they know will increase their exposure, or is it the other top-ranking hearthstone players for not having a personality that anyone cares enough about to follow them? (If they even stream at all, which if they don't, then of course they won't get all the invites.)
You only "televise" select matches, the ones with the "names". A 128 man tourney, after 3 rounds you're down to 16 people. It takes a bit more organization, logistically, but it's something that can be done over a weekend easily enough. Hell, you could run two separate streams, and "televise" two matches per round, let people decide what to watch, let the hype for any particular match build up over social media and such.
Poetic.
I definitely feel like the real issue is just tourney size. Part of that is in the fact that hearthstone collections and friends lists are region based, and that is currently a hurdle for making larger tournaments actually work. On top of that the lack of spectator mode is also a problem. Not only is this a computer only game, so you can't as easily fit 128+ people into a room if they all need a computer, but you have to do that to control fair play. Magic Grand Prix can have thousands of players, and even the Pro Tour is between 350 and 400ish players, which is something that's just not easy to do with computers and conflicting region based accounts. Its a bummer atm, and it will hurt organised play for a substantial amount of time, but hopefully the game can succeed and overcome that.
To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.
I guess you are right in that there hasn't been more tournaments due to hearthstone being a relatively new game.
But isnt ~40 games too small of a sample size to determine anyone's skill in a game that contains the element of luck?
Maybe. But if you look at the Top 20, how many of those players do you think don't deserve the ranking the site is giving them? One? Two? Three, maximum? I'd point out two. So, even with the small sample size, as you're saying, the site still seems pretty accurate to me.
Are there people in the poorer ranks that should be ranked higher? Probably. But people like Reynad have played as many matches as those in the Top 20, and he still can't crack it. He's had his opportunities to prove his elite level skills. Trump, on the other hand, maybe hasn't had as many opportunities yet, but also he's forgone a lot of opportunities to prove himself too.
Poetic.
I sometimes wish Kripp would put some effort into constructed and tournaments, but he has no interest. I feel he could be one of the best if he could bother caring. :) But that may just be my own wishful thinking.
Poetic.
It has been said a couple times already, but I like throwing my two cents in when given an opportunity, so here it goes:
As previously stated I don't think the issue is "who" gets the invites, but how many. That being said 128 may be a bit too large of a field. I think 64 seems reasonable enough. Even if not one large 64 player tournament why not 16 player regional tournaments for EU, NA, and Asia that gives a "wild card" slot to the 2nd place player who suffered the least total games lost in there tourney run. That would create a top four comprised of the three represented regions, that all arguably deserved to be there.
Lastly I think it's unfair be overly critical of some players because their popularity/ranking don't coincide. Trump is the most obvious example of this point. All players experiment with decks that's true, but Trump has such a heart for the community that he spent a lot of time climbing with F2P decks. To my knowledge, I haven't seen any other top legend players do anything similar. I'm not validating giving anyone a free pass due to popularity, but Trump is highly regarded as being knowledgeable and a skilled player. I can't offer much insight into Reynad or Hafu, or others like them, because I don't watch a lot of them. My point simply is, they wouldn't be invited if there wasn't merit to their credentials and we don't know all the circumstances that goes into a player's Hearthstone ranking.