i dont see any other topic talking about it. anyway, i think qualifying arenas structure is very flawed. in first place, the no increment games is a bad decision to me, even a bullet 1+2 was better for decent endgames, instead of flagging ability. i understand the idea probably is to have similar time lenght for each game, ok then i don't think a 4+1 was going to make so much difference on games lenght, yet changed a lot in endgames flagging.
second thing. i think the best idea was to just put a "number of games cap", let's say with a 4+1 time control, the longest game would be expected to last 25 minutes at the very most (more likely 20 minutes), it could be used a 5 games cap for each player, and is about sure that every player registered from the beginning will all have played 5 games, which it seems more fair to me.
last thing, is it solo mode right? it would not be a problem with the #games cap said before. but as players can play as many number of games as possible, it would be expected a lot of early resignations as soon as a player feel a little position disadvantage, and start a new game, instead of stay and trying.
well i'm actually surprised that none of the greatest players like icystun, eyeofthetiger, rojitto etc, said anything about this qualifying method. they are the ones that should complain more, i just partecipate for fun i'm 1900 in 4pc blitz and playing with a flawed mouse, i know my chances are practically 0 anyway, but they are unfairily disadvantaged imho.
anyway, let's have fun and gl to all