100T Meteos says “Focusing only on Worlds is really, really wack”

The intense back-and-forth clash between 100 Thieves and Dignitas ultimately propelled 100T to break their sixth-place tie in the LCS standings. For jungler William “Meteos” Hartman, this hard-fought victory represented a potential inflection point for his squad, which he believes demonstrates measurable progress with each passing week.

In an exclusive discussion with WIN.gg, Meteos detailed their win’s significance and articulated why the Spring Split maintains competitive relevance regardless of structural modifications.

How are you feeling after your victory today?

Meteos: The win feels exceptionally rewarding. Looking back at our early-season form, I’m confident we wouldn’t have secured this victory without our recent developmental strides. We successfully executed numerous strategic frameworks we’d extensively discussed and refined during practice sessions. Witnessing that conceptual understanding translate into competitive success provides genuine satisfaction.

Our approach centers on creating systemic pressure that complicates the opponent’s decision-making. While we don’t possess foolproof victory conditions, we’ve developed methods to force opponents into suboptimal plays and capitalize on their errors.

What are some things your team has improved on since the start of the spring split?

The most significant advancement involves elevating our collective situational awareness. We’ve moved away from rigid, predetermined play patterns—the “this is our assigned role” mentality that proves counterproductive in dynamic competitive environments. Now, our rotational decisions and strategic movements derive entirely from enemy positioning and predictive behavioral analysis.

We’ve made substantial progress in deciphering opponent objectives and recognizing available strategic alternatives. The realization that we’re not locked into specific actions 100% of the time has been transformative. Understanding that multiple viable options exist in every scenario, while not yet perfected, represents our current developmental trajectory.

At the beginning, it looked like Dignitas’ game to lose. How were you feeling during the early game?

The early game deficit didn’t generate excessive concern. While several elements unfolded suboptimally, securing the initial dragon provided crucial objective control. Facing Lee Sin’s substantial dragon pressure required precise execution, yet our mistakes stemmed from self-inflicted execution errors rather than opponent-imposed constraints.

Our first top lane dive, for instance, should have resulted in a successful elimination. Ssumday inadvertently initiated combat prematurely by engaging Aatrox before I could establish proper positioning. The resulting collapse eliminated us from the engagement.

Despite the positional disadvantage, my mental focus shifted immediately to determining our subsequent strategic response rather than dwelling on the misplay.

There was a long pause during the match. How were you feeling about that? Do pauses annoy you during games?

Extended competitive pauses prove particularly disruptive. I empathize with Dignitas’ situation, since prolonged interruptions disproportionately impact teams with established momentum. The stoppage halts offensive rhythm while providing trailing squads valuable recovery time. While beneficial for our position, their opportunity for strategic discussion balanced the advantage somewhat.

Our practice facility has experienced persistent internet instability over the past fortnight, with daily multiple outages forcing early scrimmage cancellations. When we lost character control today, our immediate reaction was “scrims déjà vu.” Our extensive experience managing these disruptions provided comparative advantage in maintaining composure during the extended break, though we’d prefer uninterrupted competition.

Did you have a chance to talk strategy during the pause?

Both competing rosters receive communication permission during lengthy competitive halts. Brief interruptions don’t permit discussion, but this qualified as extended. We analyzed necessary gameplay adjustments from our standard approach.Conventional macro strategies weren’t yielding desired results. Their Zoe selection created substantial poke pressure, effectively chunking our health bars with consistent success until that juncture. We concluded, “Standard gameplay patterns might require modification given current circumstances.”

Our team employs an ironic strategic designation called “alternative macro.”This represents implementing unpredictable actions to increase opponent frustration. Our objective involves stringing along adversaries while creating mistake capitalization opportunities through split forces and rapid pick engagements. Recognizing the necessity to transition toward this approach became imperative.

I believe we would have implemented similar adjustments without the interruption, but the additional contemplation time proved beneficial.

When were you sure you guys finally had the game in hand?

The Baron engagement unfolded exceptionally favorably. This unconventional play mirrored our scrimmage experimentation from this week. We’d initiate bottom-side ganks with Baron available, prompting their Baron attempt. Their champion selections created unfavorable fighting conditions during Baron engagement, enabling our successful elimination followed by secure Baron acquisition. From that pivotal moment, our confidence solidified considerably.

100 Thieves is now in sixth. What do you think it will take to climb up the ranks and make it to the playoffs?

I don’t anticipate requiring fundamentally different approaches. Continued progressive development remains paramount. Teams experiencing winning streaks face complacency risks, making sustained focus maintenance essential. Regardless of match outcomes, continuous refinement represents our operational philosophy.

If you qualified for MSI, what team would you want to play the most?

International competition hasn’t fully entered my strategic radar yet, but facing SKT and legendary mid-laner Faker would provide exceptional challenge. G2 also represents compelling opposition. Global tournaments consistently deliver valuable insights through exposure to diverse strategic approaches. North American competition rarely presents completely novel concepts, typically operating within predictable frameworks. International opponents frequently implement unexpected situational responses that enhance your own competitive development through exposure to innovative methodologies.

Doublelift said that the spring split isn’t very important this year in the LCS due Riot removing qualifying points for the World Championship. What is your take on the spring split now that there are no points available for World Championship qualification?

My perspective doesn’t significantly differentiate between seasonal splits. I consistently evaluate “What’s my current skill level?” and “What’s our team’s competitive ceiling?” Continuous improvement represents the fundamental competitive imperative.

Exclusive focus on competitive outcomes with singular Worlds fixation represents fundamentally flawed competitive philosophy. The championship’s existence doesn’t fundamentally alter my developmental approach. Even without Worlds qualification stakes, my commitment to progressive enhancement would remain unchanged—that represents competition’s most rewarding aspect. Format modifications wouldn’t substantially impact my competitive approach or enjoyment derived from high-level play.

No reproduction without permission：Games Guides Website » 100T Meteos says “Focusing only on Worlds is really, really wack” Meteos reveals 100 Thieves' strategic evolution and why focusing only on Worlds is misguided