(Jan. 08, 2012 11:01 PM)Dracomageat Wrote: One, we're talking a semi agressive destabilising type here (think WB for the type of movement desired), not a stamina combo.
(Jan. 08, 2012 11:05 PM)th!nk Wrote: Firstly, destabilisers were entirely outclassed by low track stamina types for a reason. Anything lower than an opponent, hitting under the MW, will destabilise it. Even on WD, which happens to have better balance/stamina than SF/MB etc
I want to remind both of you that "Destabilizer" is not a type. Destabilization is the result of the height of the Beyblade; it shouldn't be mistakenly labeled as an actual "type" like Attack, Defense, Stamina, or Balance.
(Jan. 08, 2012 11:01 PM)Dracomageat Wrote: Finding previously undiscovered uses for outdated parts would be progress and, since we're not dealing in regular beyblade theory, that is a possible outcome.
It would be "progress" in a sense, yes, but this is not the place to discuss something like that. If you do "discover" something, it should be posted in the Beyblade Customizations forum.
However, if you were to do that, you'd not only have to provide a sufficient amount of test results, but actual reasoning behind why you would choose "outdated parts" over more current and superior ones. For your "Hasbro destabilizer", you can do neither of those things, so don't be surprised if your ideas are intensely objected by members who
do have the parts.
(Jan. 08, 2012 11:21 PM)Dracomageat Wrote: EDIT: Thinking about what you've said, I think I've come to a conclusion. This forum doesn't tolerate discussion of anything that doesn't mesh with it's views. Sure, those views have their reasons but that does not make them 100% correct 100% of the time and, even if it did, would it not be good to see a few innovative failures from time to time, to make those reasons more obvious?
Promoting the idea of "innovative failures" to me sounds like a license to go around propagating the use of subpar combos in a serious way. If you really want to do something like that, do it in the less serious environment found in
this thread.
Experimentation is always meaningful, but sometimes it truly is a waste of time to test something "innovative". I'm sure that nobody has ever tested MF-M Wolf 85Q, but does that mean it should be tested? No, of course not. We know based on our collective knowledge of each individual part (and the parts that have been released afterwards) that it will suck.
(Jan. 08, 2012 11:44 PM)Dracomageat Wrote: I never said that I cannot accept the mainstream. I said I cannot accept it just for being mainstream. I need good solid reasons is all and every time I question anything it ends up with you all metaphorically shouting at me or me getting temporary bans.
You're saying you can't accept something "just for being mainstream" ...? I agree with this–you cannot blindly accept anything–but what sorts of things are you talking about? Just a moment ago you admitted that "Sure, those views have their reasons".
And as I mentioned before; don't be surprised when your ideas are chastised when you don't even own the part you're talking about. It's fine to talk about things in theory, but you can't expect the people who do have the parts to not bring their
actual experience into the discussion to argue against your claims.