The reason nobody has posted tests about Oval is because it's terrible.
[BST] Overlooked Parts Discussion and Testing
probably but we have no formal information on that for new players. How they may understood why its terrible. Bad stamina? Resisting burst? etc... I think we may have enough information on each part of this series. I'm volunteer to test Oval to begin and fulfill data on it.
We are a good source of data on beyblade. why put aside some parts because their considered "bad"?
We are a good source of data on beyblade. why put aside some parts because their considered "bad"?
That's what I try to say hah!
I'm glad someone is finally going to do it, then, because there have been constant complaints about nobody testing Oval yet so far none of the complainants have been willing to test it themselves, even though several of them have the part.
I understand that others disagree with this perspective, but I don't see the point in testing a part that is so obviously unviable in any type of combination. Testing takes time, and time is a finite resource.
Tests should start with a hypothesis based on an observation, and then attempt to prove that hypothesis. But I can't earnestly hypothesize that Oval is good in any kind of combination because through repeated efforts, I've failed to observe any gameplay result that would indicate that there's any hope for it.
I feel this way almost exclusively about Oval and a few other obviously awful parts, like Trident. There are parts that seem not-great but are still interesting, like Massive. But Oval is the lightest disk by many grams in a game where most of the Disks are already too light. This, compounded with the fact that it has really poor balance and no discernible positive traits, makes me wonder what you are hoping to discover.
And even then, what do you test it with? Does it have to be tested with every kind of particular combination before we can officially say, "OK, it's bad?" Is there someone willing to put in the many hours required to prove this?
Tests originally began on the WBO not as a way of definitively documenting the performance of each part, but to prove that combos that were being shared and claimed to be good were actually good. In a lot of cases, I believe that consensus through collective observation is just as valuable — if not more valuable — than "official tests" from a single source.
That isn't to say a test is detrimental or shouldn't be done. By all means, go ahead. More information is always better than less. But I think it's easy to understand why nobody has tested Oval so far.
I understand that others disagree with this perspective, but I don't see the point in testing a part that is so obviously unviable in any type of combination. Testing takes time, and time is a finite resource.
Tests should start with a hypothesis based on an observation, and then attempt to prove that hypothesis. But I can't earnestly hypothesize that Oval is good in any kind of combination because through repeated efforts, I've failed to observe any gameplay result that would indicate that there's any hope for it.
I feel this way almost exclusively about Oval and a few other obviously awful parts, like Trident. There are parts that seem not-great but are still interesting, like Massive. But Oval is the lightest disk by many grams in a game where most of the Disks are already too light. This, compounded with the fact that it has really poor balance and no discernible positive traits, makes me wonder what you are hoping to discover.
And even then, what do you test it with? Does it have to be tested with every kind of particular combination before we can officially say, "OK, it's bad?" Is there someone willing to put in the many hours required to prove this?
Tests originally began on the WBO not as a way of definitively documenting the performance of each part, but to prove that combos that were being shared and claimed to be good were actually good. In a lot of cases, I believe that consensus through collective observation is just as valuable — if not more valuable — than "official tests" from a single source.
That isn't to say a test is detrimental or shouldn't be done. By all means, go ahead. More information is always better than less. But I think it's easy to understand why nobody has tested Oval so far.
This is probably gonna sound whiny as i've mentioned the issue before but I feel the whole "the part is obviously terrible so i'm not gonna test it" argument would have a lot more weight if people were actually bothering to test anything more than bare minimum which simply hasn't been happening lately. And even then in Feb and March those testing threads were started by staff members.
Fair point. But in this case, I'm talking explicitly about Oval.
I pledge to do at least one testing thread within the next month. Hope a few others who haven't done one in a while can do the same. m(_ _)m
(But it ain't gonna be Oval!)
I pledge to do at least one testing thread within the next month. Hope a few others who haven't done one in a while can do the same. m(_ _)m
(But it ain't gonna be Oval!)
EDIT: Well everything happened while I was writing, so whatever hah.
I agree with the very last part (everything should be backed by several sources), but in the case of Yggdrasil Ring Gyro, for instance, nobody even posted their observations for anything until I did, late. Plus, some of our impressions are slightly biased, and a good example of that that comes to my mind is when Mitsu highlighted to 1234beyblade that his test results actually did not support his observation that Gyro was more resistent to Bursts. https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-BST-Gyr...pid1318391
And posting more or less complete test results will help in making sure that anybody, not just the tester, can write an article for Beywiki on a Beyblade or on a part.
Honestly, to test a part on my own, what do I do? I test it in top-tier setups, in all types, just to make sure I am not overlooking anything. Since I already do that task, why not do it slightly more formally, write down the results and share them with everyone? And if I do stumble upon a particularly great combination, then I can definitely create a new topic just for it too.
I think the way testing topics have progressed throughout the last five years definitely clarifies everything, helps for Beywiki and gives pointers for actual new top-tier customizations to come.
In Oval's case, it should be completely natural for someone to assume it would have good Flywheel Effect and could be good at something, and any part for that matter can raise a reasonable doubt as to its utter uselessness. I agree that, from my own tests, it was too bad because it made the Beyblade lose balance way too quickly and dramatically, and I have already gone ahead and published the article on Oval on Beyblade Wiki, but I can understand why someone would want to see the tests behind those observations.
I agree with the very last part (everything should be backed by several sources), but in the case of Yggdrasil Ring Gyro, for instance, nobody even posted their observations for anything until I did, late. Plus, some of our impressions are slightly biased, and a good example of that that comes to my mind is when Mitsu highlighted to 1234beyblade that his test results actually did not support his observation that Gyro was more resistent to Bursts. https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-BST-Gyr...pid1318391
And posting more or less complete test results will help in making sure that anybody, not just the tester, can write an article for Beywiki on a Beyblade or on a part.
Honestly, to test a part on my own, what do I do? I test it in top-tier setups, in all types, just to make sure I am not overlooking anything. Since I already do that task, why not do it slightly more formally, write down the results and share them with everyone? And if I do stumble upon a particularly great combination, then I can definitely create a new topic just for it too.
I think the way testing topics have progressed throughout the last five years definitely clarifies everything, helps for Beywiki and gives pointers for actual new top-tier customizations to come.
In Oval's case, it should be completely natural for someone to assume it would have good Flywheel Effect and could be good at something, and any part for that matter can raise a reasonable doubt as to its utter uselessness. I agree that, from my own tests, it was too bad because it made the Beyblade lose balance way too quickly and dramatically, and I have already gone ahead and published the article on Oval on Beyblade Wiki, but I can understand why someone would want to see the tests behind those observations.
For sure, I am not saying that we shouldn't test parts ... Gyro is obviously a part that needs testing since it has obvious competitive uses and potential. But in that case, it totally falls into line with what I said: there are hypotheses about it that need to be proven. Tests about it being late or not thorough enough are a different matter from what I was discussing above.
But I also think there are some assumptions about how thorough our testing process is. You'd need to play a lot more than 20 rounds to establish whether one part was more Burst-resistant than another, unless the gulf was seriously huge in those 20 rounds.
But I also think there are some assumptions about how thorough our testing process is. You'd need to play a lot more than 20 rounds to establish whether one part was more Burst-resistant than another, unless the gulf was seriously huge in those 20 rounds.
Yeah both sides have good points, but the fact of the matter is that testing not only costs time, it also costs money. I would love to have tests from at least a few different people on each part, but it's easier said than done. Even a person like myself, who spends way too much money on Beyblade, is getting sick of buying Valkyries.
In my opinion, to do a proper test, you are going to need a fresh Valkyrie at least (if it involves attack in any way) and your other parts should really be mint too, but minor use is what I use mostly because of the cost factor. To formulate ideas for tests, you have to use the parts, so I don't want to then break out another mint one to test with after. Not to sound selfish, but with Burst, it essentially becomes spending money on beys for the sole purpose of telling everyone how good the combos I have come up with are. I have no problem with that, have done it a lot in the past and plan to do it much more in the future, but I would like people to realize that fact, because when you say that someone should test Oval, what I hear is that someone should spend $10+ and a lot of time to prove something that we already know. You are more than welcome to test it, but I don't find it worth the effort or money
Hopefully we get a new king of attack, so that we don't have to use a mint Valkyrie for every test. With Dual Layers here in a week, I am hoping that will be the case, because I know I am sick of adding to my pile of worn Valkyries and am kind of running out of all of mine except recolors, that's why I haven't been doing formal tests lately. But now with a lot of my collection complete, I have more money to spend on Burst
Either way, I will definitely be testing some of the new parts when I get them in a week, so look forward to that. I think I have one more cheap Valkyrie to use so I am hoping to see it beaten so I don't really have to buy any more.
In my opinion, to do a proper test, you are going to need a fresh Valkyrie at least (if it involves attack in any way) and your other parts should really be mint too, but minor use is what I use mostly because of the cost factor. To formulate ideas for tests, you have to use the parts, so I don't want to then break out another mint one to test with after. Not to sound selfish, but with Burst, it essentially becomes spending money on beys for the sole purpose of telling everyone how good the combos I have come up with are. I have no problem with that, have done it a lot in the past and plan to do it much more in the future, but I would like people to realize that fact, because when you say that someone should test Oval, what I hear is that someone should spend $10+ and a lot of time to prove something that we already know. You are more than welcome to test it, but I don't find it worth the effort or money
Hopefully we get a new king of attack, so that we don't have to use a mint Valkyrie for every test. With Dual Layers here in a week, I am hoping that will be the case, because I know I am sick of adding to my pile of worn Valkyries and am kind of running out of all of mine except recolors, that's why I haven't been doing formal tests lately. But now with a lot of my collection complete, I have more money to spend on Burst
Either way, I will definitely be testing some of the new parts when I get them in a week, so look forward to that. I think I have one more cheap Valkyrie to use so I am hoping to see it beaten so I don't really have to buy any more.
I do my test when I have some free time and I have specialy put Oval on Wyvern and Needle because we know a top tier with Heavy instead so its a good point to see how it works. I do not have Xcalibur yet so I could not test all match up possible but I used Spirggan Heavy Accel as KO attackers wich my second test to post soon. after that I have VSS, my DSB combo from the tournament too. after that I would try Oval on Stamina combo, etc... it will let us see how it work in all categories. back up test would be needed but it will let us an idea of what kind of Data Oval gives and clarify why everybody said its so bad.
after all these data I would probably open a thread for Oval to let everyone show their results if they feel free to try some formal testing.
Edit: my second test:
Spriggan Heavy Accel VS Wyvern Oval Needle
WON: 11 wins (4 BF, 1 OF, 6 SF)
SHA: 9 wins (3 BF, 3 OF, 3 SF)
2 ties redone (1 DSF, 1 DBF)
WON 55% wins
In that match up WON had more success. It confirm that he has some good abilities in both burst and ko resistance for now. we will see with other test to come. probably Needle do all the works but need more test.
If anybody is mad that I post each of my test here, I don't matter I will build an Oval thread instead when I've finished my long testing. In that way, I hope, no body will be mad in the fact I lost my time with it...
after all these data I would probably open a thread for Oval to let everyone show their results if they feel free to try some formal testing.
Edit: my second test:
Spriggan Heavy Accel VS Wyvern Oval Needle
WON: 11 wins (4 BF, 1 OF, 6 SF)
SHA: 9 wins (3 BF, 3 OF, 3 SF)
2 ties redone (1 DSF, 1 DBF)
WON 55% wins
In that match up WON had more success. It confirm that he has some good abilities in both burst and ko resistance for now. we will see with other test to come. probably Needle do all the works but need more test.
If anybody is mad that I post each of my test here, I don't matter I will build an Oval thread instead when I've finished my long testing. In that way, I hope, no body will be mad in the fact I lost my time with it...
I am new to Burst and only have two beyblades at the moment (VWA & RHS), but I have some tests for VHS v. RWA, and Ragnaruk wing accel got consistent wins, roughly 60-70% of the time, mostly by bursting Valkyrie. I don't know if this helps at all, but I thought I might as well share this just in case.
(Aug. 06, 2016 1:18 AM)FruitSalad Wrote: I am new to Burst and only have two beyblades at the moment (VWA & RHS), but I have some tests for VHS v. RWA, and Ragnaruk wing accel got consistent wins, roughly 60-70% of the time, mostly by bursting Valkyrie. I don't know if this helps at all, but I thought I might as well share this just in case.
That's very strange - Valkyrie is considered to be one of the best Attack parts out there and is quite resistant to Bursting while being effective at Bursting other Beyblades, while Ragnaruk is generally considered one of the worst Layers in the game, being recoily and easy to Burst. But you got the opposite of the expected results, which is interesting. Maybe there's some kind of weird synergy going on that's making Ragnaruk win.
On the other hand, though Valkyrie's Teeth are OK, its design doesn't make it too good for defense. Ragnaruk's pretty weird actually. Risky, but you could get it to work on occasion. While it's definitely interesting to hear that it's having success, it's not that surprising if you're a well-versed attack player.
(Aug. 06, 2016 1:32 AM)Cake Wrote:(Aug. 06, 2016 1:18 AM)FruitSalad Wrote: I am new to Burst and only have two beyblades at the moment (VWA & RHS), but I have some tests for VHS v. RWA, and Ragnaruk wing accel got consistent wins, roughly 60-70% of the time, mostly by bursting Valkyrie. I don't know if this helps at all, but I thought I might as well share this just in case.
That's very strange - Valkyrie is considered to be one of the best Attack parts out there and is quite resistant to Bursting while being effective at Bursting other Beyblades, while Ragnaruk is generally considered one of the worst Layers in the game, being recoily and easy to Burst. But you got the opposite of the expected results, which is interesting. Maybe there's some kind of weird synergy going on that's making Ragnaruk win.
I have the exact test results that I can post later if it would help. I did 3 sets of tests, with 20 battles each (not including ties). The first 20 RWA was launched first, the 2nd set VHS first, and the 3rd set the launches were alternating. Both layers had around 10-20 minutes of use before the tests. Maybe my Valkyrie layer is bad, but idk. If someone else could test this, it could help determine if my tests were just a fluke or if Ragnaruk is actually better than what people say.
10 to 20 minutes sounds like enough time to kill the teeth ahh 
But as Mitsu said; Valkryie's use is not for Defense. I can definitely see why Valkryie was losing.
But as Mitsu said; Valkryie's use is not for Defense. I can definitely see why Valkryie was losing.
Has anyone managed to devote some time to testing out Jaggy and seeing if that part's worth anything? I haven't seen any setups using it and it seems like no one really talks about it.
![[Image: MJ99TCGGamingBeyloggerInsert.png]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xrVpNPNLgqE/V1eC8lYf-FI/AAAAAAAATaU/blgGCEh6ihg07NtDBjZowGoF-FZWe3vHwCL0B/w570-h331-no/MJ99TCGGamingBeyloggerInsert.png)
Once I get some more legit Defense layers(My Wyvern seems to be dying) I plan on doing some testing for O2. Iirc it hasn't really even been looked at in terms of use, but gotten some nice results with it.
![[Image: spin.gif]](https://paulrobertson.mechafetus.com/spin.gif)
Oh shoot. Must have missed it. How'd it do?
EDIT: Nevermind, found the thread.
EDIT: Nevermind, found the thread.