Hearthstone Masters Changes Are Coming
Due to feedback on the Hearthstone Masters programs, there are some changes that have been announced. No changes are coming to the specialist format, yet anyway. Blizzard will look at this post-Grandmasters offline event. Here's what is changing now.
- There will be fewer Masters Qualifiers going forward.
- Each qualifier instead awards two invites to the Masters Tour which begins June 7.
- Consistent high-placing players in Master Qualifiers (placing 6 times in top 8) will earn an invite to the Masters Tour event. This applies retroactively.
- Surveys will be sent out to competitors in Masters Qualifier events to gain more feedback.
You can read the whole post down below.
Quote from BlizzardWhen we introduced Hearthstone Masters we made it clear we intended to make changes to the program over time. Now, with our first full Masters Qualifiers season in the books, and our first Hearthstone Masters Tour event on the horizon (June 14–16), we have enough data and feedback to begin doing so.
Tighten It Up
Beginning June 7 we will reduce the number of Masters Qualifiers overall. To balance this, each Masters Qualifier will award two invites to its respective Masters Tour event beginning on June 7. We are also considering reducing the maximum number of players per tournament in the future.
We have heard your feedback that Masters Qualifiers are taking too long, and a common suggestion to combat this is to change the format to single-elimination. In light of that, we will introduce single-elimination tournaments as well, replacing some of the scheduled Swiss events.
The first week after these changes are implemented, we will hold three Swiss Masters Qualifiers on Friday, with three Swiss and three single-elimination Masters Qualifiers on Saturday and Sunday. We will monitor this mix of tournaments and may consider moving solely to single-elimination in the future.
Additionally, to better reward consistent high-placement finishes, players who make the Top 8 of a Masters Qualifier six times within the same qualifying season will earn an invite to that Masters Tour event. We are applying this retroactively as well, meaning that the following players now are qualified to Masters Tour Las Vegas (congrats!):
- hone
- Warma
- T4COTASTIC
- Guntofire
- Vinz
- Saturos
- Paradox
- Cosmo
- WoT
- kirilius
- 樂天盜賊
- Bertels
- Leta
- Impact
- pokrovac
- SieraN
- WaningMoon
- Bequiet
- SubUss
- okasinnsuke
- CmaccompH
- gunzerker
- Ostkaka
- Jakattack
Additional Tweaks
Regarding the Specialist format, we are keeping record of your major concerns but can’t appropriately gauge the format's success until we’re on the other side of the Grandmasters launch and our first major offline event. Rest assured, we will be revisiting the Specialist format after Masters Tour Las Vegas has concluded.
In collaboration with Battlefy, we will send a survey to all players who have participated in a Masters Qualifier to help us gather the feedback required to make decisions regarding the Specialist format, Swiss vs. single-elimination tournaments, and how invites are distributed. Please keep an eye out for this survey in the coming weeks. Tell us what you like and don’t like about Specialist and Masters Qualifiers and we will take it into account, along with the data we have, and adjust accordingly.
Thank you for continuing to be an active voice in Hearthstone esports. Hopefully these changes will help cut down on idle time between games and the overall time commitment required for a Masters Qualifier.
Personally, I find the Specialist format incredibly boring. Perhaps it appeals to the hardcore or something?
I feel like most of the interesting things in HS happen due to the interaction between different classes. I am not sure who, at Blizzard, thought that Warrior mirror matches were going to be the next big thing on Twitch. When I was watching the stream, it was filled with ResidentSleepers.
Imagine a game that has 9 playable classes and all these cards. Then imagine the same games tournament format is to only allow you to play ONE of those classes. Yeah that's doesn't really make any sense at all and really does turn the game into an RNG fiesta.
I'd have preferred to hear that they were limiting qualification attempts by individuals and keeping the # of tourneys the same (with maybe half the max enrollment). This would allow more players to try (this years qualifiers had many wait lists that alone were in excess of the max enrollment), preventing the frustration of trying to get into a qualifier, but being unable to except in the worst time slots. It would also reduce the length of the overall tourneys.
If you limited qualification attempts to, say 4 tries (just to pick a #), more people could get into later qualifiers. Then, instead of having a '6 top 8' add-on, they could use weighted stats/tie-breakers across each players 4 series to determine the extra qualifications. Seems to me this would have made it so that you could have wider access, and still get the best players qualified. Probably would not impact who attends as much as it would satisfy more players desires to try, but it would open the door a little wider for the quantity of players who could actually try to attend, while shortening overall tourney length.
I just watch the stream video the day after so i can skip all war v war matchups.
It's not realy the format that is the problem here but the current best decks.
They should make more tournaments 1 or 2 days after a x-pac release so everyone has different decks for once.
warrior vs warrior
followed by warrior vs warrior
followed by warrior vs warrior
followed by ...
good job blizzard.
maybe this is nice.
cause the tournament can takes 12 hours (from swiss to final). i try the tournament and feel bad and tired if i do it almost every days in weeks.
Why didn't they give master title by default to the former world champion Ostkaka?
I'm sure they will get PLENTY of feedback about Specialist after Grandmasters ... if anyone actually watches it.
Then again, when viewership tanks, I hope they have sense enough to realize it's because of Specialist and the Rogue/Warrior problem they refuse to address.
NA - 13 Warriors, 1 Mage, 1 Hunter and 1 Rogue
EU - 1 Priest, 1 Hunter, 2 Rogues, 3 Mage, and 6 Warriors
APAC - 3 Warriors, 4 Mages and 7 Rogues
I am prepared for the shitshow after tomorrow's matches :(
These are great changes, & retroactively inviting players who consistently hit top 8 is incredible. Very happy with the E-Sports team right now.
where a83620 ???????????????????
buhahhaha nobody from Poland GRANDMASTER
Ye ye changes for the masters and not for the meta
Bli$$ard wanting $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ again
Instead of changing / banning a single card from tournaments they pick single elimination as a solution; qualifiers were already a roulette, now they will be a roulette with a single chance, win or out.
They should go back conquest or last hero standing instead of specialist.
Whats the point with a format that makes most games identical, and also where players only use their primary deck.
Side decks sounds as a good idea in order to make decks more flexible against different situation and different opponents. But I would still keep it bo3/5 with 3-4 different classes and just to be able to choose which exactly deck from the class you want to pick. This will give each player ability to choose some variation of his deck based on the situation. But until now I didnt watch specialist yet, so maybe they are right, that we need to judge it after first tournament.
That sounds messy, since it means you'll need 3-4 classes AND 2 variations of each class. That's 9-12 decks for both the devs and players to track and sort over.
I did watch some of the specialist tournaments and it adds to my fears of the whole format. The entire point of a sideboard is that you bring ONE deck then tweak it to fight against their ONE deck. It's never been meant to allow for some sneaky multi-deck strategy (i..e change an control deck into a combo deck), just make it so that you don't autolose the entire match on bad matchups since you can swap some cards out to increase your odds. But it's still ONE deck vs ONE deck.
I can imagine it works best in rock/paper/scissors metas. Those "If I bring Warrior, Paladin will kill me. If I bring Paladin, Rogue will kill me. If I bring Rogue, Warrior will kill me." Thus the idea is that you pick, say, Warrior and use your sideboard to win those bad Paladin matches just enough to win the tournament.
Multi-class formats, meanwhile, work well with tiered metas, those "Rogue is best, then Warrior, then 3 other classes." Then you get bans to remove the #1 spot, and you have to bring multiple classes so you can let the 'best' deck by with a win and the real struggle comes from your third/forth pick vs their pick.
Honestly I'm biased in going the opposite direct to Specialist: bring all 9 classes, have a pick and ban phase or even a tournament where to win after best of 8 you have to win with all 9 classes (i.e. You take 9 classes, choose 3 at the quarterfinals, choose 3 different for the simifinals and the finals you MUST pick the 3 you haven't picked yet). It encourages good strategy as the meta loves to ignore That One Class so you have to come up with something, and brings A LOT of variety of matchups to the table.
I never knew how qualifications worked so far, now .... I am still in the dark :D
Ostkaka should have been invited to grandmaster league, he won 2015 WC after all.
You're invited based on points, not achievements from 4 years ago. If he was consistent he'd have been there already.
Blizzard reached out to him and put him on the shortlist, but he didn't reply to their emails.
This sounds like I made it up, but seriously it's true.