Which Master’s Tour qualification method do you think is more difficult/impressive?
-
-
Replying to @MeatiHS
Ladder is a Marathon, tournaments are more equal to a sprint. Having endurance over 100's maybe 1000's of games, possibly playing the same deck/class is way more difficult and draining for me personally.
4 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Each have their challenges. The marathon of ladder increases your sample size and allows the cream to rise to the top. This is somewhat true of tournaments as a player can optimise line ups and bam strats but it’s far more likely someone could highroll 1 tournament to qualify.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So Ladder probably just edges 5 top 8s for difficulty rating? Both require a very good understanding of strategies and meta over a longer and sustained period of time than a single tournament win.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RagingAl_HS @MeatiHS
I agree with all you said which just means we should have what we had in 2018, something between both :)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
The old system was very good. I think 2018 they maybe took it a step too far with the sheer number of tour stops around the globe which ‘forced’ a number of players to become globetrotters for the year. Perhaps if there were 2 or 3 stops in each region per qualification period?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RagingAl_HS @MeatiHS
3 Tourstops per season like you mentioned and the player chan choose where they play.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
yeah. As a viewer/fan, this kind of schedule felt hard to keep up with. And surely couldn't have been sustainable for Teams or enjoyable for players due to the amount of travel, and also still needing to push for ladder finishes, potentially on multiple serverspic.twitter.com/qiwAMT8SmU
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.