By the way, I would highly recommend picking this book up, which includes the Beyblade Burst victory box. Very convenient for deck format. The book itself includes all of the CoroCoro Beyblade inserts up until RBV3.

[request] Perhaps someone should unfold that box, scan it and post the template here? [/request]


Thanks for the tip.

---

New Format Guidelines
Tiebreakers
Ties when advancing to the final stage are broken by 1) outcome of previous matches in the tournament between two tied players [winner moves on], 2) Median-Buchholz score in Challonge.

One thing we might not have addressed here is what happens when there is a tiebreak in Round Robin or Block Round Robin between more than two players where the outcome of previous matches in the tournament are also tied? For example, take this six player block from an imaginary Block Round Robin tournament:

[Image: neNMxVO.png]

In the TB column, you can see that all five players are completely tied in this instance. Because this isn't a Swiss Format event, the Median-Buchholz score does not exist. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this other than to do a Round Robin between the five players, which we obviously don't want to allow moving forward. The only possible solution that pops to mind would be to start counting the round wins and have the third tiebreaker be total round wins.

---

How did Challonge determine those top players are set to advance? You have no idea?

Can you post the match history as well? Or uh, just make the tournament public?

How did Challonge determine those top players are set to advance? You have no idea?

Right now in the settings (these can't be made public, I don't think) the tiebreaks are based on these rules:

Rank by: Match Wins
Tiebreak #1: Wins vs Tied Participants
Tiebreak #2: Game/Set Wins
Tiebreak #3: Points Scored

The options are:
- Match Wins
- Game/Set Wins
- Game/Set Win %
- Points Scored
- Points Difference
- Wins vs Tied Participants
- Median-Bucholz System (this can be selected in an event like this that isn't Swiss, but it has no effect if chosen because it's meant only for Swiss).

Can you post the match history as well? Or uh, just make the tournament public?

http://challonge.com/wbobrrtest

(Please ignore the fact that there's 18 total people in this event. Forgot our max was 16)

---

While I do think we should come up with some way of addressing this, we should also keep in mind that this is an extreme edge case and is extremely unlikely to occur in the real world. Still, if there are no tiebreaker methods left then the obvious only solution is tiebreaker battles. Unless you wanna flip coins.

While I do think we should come up with some way of addressing this, we should also keep in mind that this is an extreme edge case and is extremely unlikely to occur in the real world. Still, if there are no tiebreaker methods left then the obvious only solution is tiebreaker battles. Unless you wanna flip coins.

Or keep track of BeyBattle scores haha.

In any case, it's something we should document when we finalize the rules.

---

While I do think we should come up with some way of addressing this, we should also keep in mind that this is an extreme edge case and is extremely unlikely to occur in the real world. Still, if there are no tiebreaker methods left then the obvious only solution is tiebreaker battles. Unless you wanna flip coins.

Or keep track of BeyBattle scores haha.

I don't, and the same situation is possible, just less likely (than this already very unlikely scenario).

So I finally got to try out the new switch rules in last week's Montreal tournament.

After each round, the winner of the previous round must declare if they want to switch or not. If they do decide to switch, they must show their new Beyblade to the opponent. Then the loser of the previous round may decide whether or not they want to switch as well.

I can't say that I liked it as much as the previous rules. For one thing, it was awkward to enforce; because the loser has to wait for the winner to decide if they're going to switch or not before making a decision on whether they will switch or not, it really disrupts the flow of the match. We would often have to remind the loser of a round to wait for the winner to decide if they would switch or not first.

When I won rounds, I didn't really feel incentivized to switch, which I guess was Beylon's point — the idea is to keep the loser at the advantage while also empowering the winner. But usually it just means stick with what works, unless you used something easily burst-able to win the previous round, in which case maybe pick something else. But I found this even more annoying than just being locked into my combo, and that it also removed a lot of the risk/reward elements and the necessity of planning ahead.

I know Kei had a different experience than I did, so I'll look forward to his thoughts here, along with anyone else who participated in a tournament running this format. But since we'd like to finalize this before 2017, we should decide on what the next test format will be.

And I think it has to be some form of revealed deck, blind-switching format, but how should the implementation work exactly? I think what's been proposed is that the winner must declare if they want to switch, and then the loser declares, and then they both select blindly. If one player refuses to switch, the other still can. However, if you say you're going to switch, you really do have to switch and can't use the same combo. Is that right?

Finally, other parties have brought up before that the unique parts rule is probably not even necessary, and all it does is stop someone from using 2 Heavies or something. Running two of the same Layer or Driver will almost always be disadvantageous.

We all had a great experience with the new Deck Rotation rules at our Experimental Burst Format event in Toronto last weekend: burstlimit!

The battles were made so much more exciting because they were two-sided rather than just one-sided because of the winner's ability to switch their Beyblade after each round. Allowing the winner to switch empowers them slightly–justifiably so–but also makes them think more critically about the entire battle because they have to consider the effects of every possible choice; they know they can stick to their current Beyblade, but they have to consider what could happen if they switch, if they switch and win again, if they switch and they lose, and so on. And they need to think about what their opponent's strengths and weaknesses are more than they did before when they'd be stuck with their choice by default. It's felt really challenging and invigorating and was very fun to watch.

The enforcement of it felt slightly awkward in the first couple battles of the first Deck Rotation BeyBattle of the finals, but that was only because we were all so used to the old rules where the winner was not permitted to switch. After that, it became natural to us and to the judges to ask the winner first if they want to switch.

When I won rounds, I didn't really feel incentivized to switch, which I guess was Beylon's point — the idea is to keep the loser at the advantage while also empowering the winner. But usually it just means stick with what works, unless you used something easily burst-able to win the previous round, in which case maybe pick something else. But I found this even more annoying than just being locked into my combo, and that it also removed a lot of the risk/reward elements and the necessity of planning ahead.

In some ways you are right, but in my experience at our event in Toronto I felt like the possibilities opened up by allowing the winner to decide whether they want to switch or not (and knowing that if they lose their opponent will also have the choice of whether they want to switch or not in the next round) made it exciting in the sense that you have to gauge much more carefully the strengths and weaknesses and mindset of your opponent to determine how they will react in every possible situation that lies ahead (which is aided by the fact that you know their entire deck in these new rules, which I also liked in this particular ruleset).

For some context, I'll give you an example: the final battle of burstlimit between pyrus1000 and myself.

pyrus10000's Deck
Dark Deathscyther Gravity Defense
Deathscyther Spread Revolve
Minoboros Heavy Zephyr

My Deck
Odin Heavy Orbit
Deathscyther Gravity Revolve
Valtryek Knuckle Variable

1st Round:
(pyrus10000) Minoboros Heavy Zephyr vs. (Kei) Deathscyther Gravity Revolve: Kei Wins via BF (0-2)

2nd Round:
(pyrus10000) Dark Deathscyther Gravity Defense vs. (Kei) Odin Heavy Orbit: pyrus10000 Wins via OS (1-2)

As the winner of the first battle, I intentionally picked OHO here knowing that pyrus10000 would likely switch to D2. I knew I had a chance to OS him, but that I would likely lose. I wanted to draw him into a position where he had to decide whether to switch to MHZ against my OHO (which he was vocally concerned about before the battle and I was confident with defensively), D2GD again in which case I would switch to DGR (which isn't a problem because if I won I could switch it out), or his DSR which I could defeat easily with VKV. Surprisingly, he chose DSR and I subsequently defeated it via Burst finish to go up 4-1:

3rd Round:
(pyrus10000) Deathscyther Spread Revolve vs. (Kei) Valtryek Knuckle Variable: Kei Wins via BF (1-4)

Planning to some degree is possible in our previous rules where only the loser could switch, but in this tournament and example the possibilities felt so wide-ranging to me. In our previous rules I would have been locked in to DGR after the first round, meaning that I would be left wide open to another MHZ vs DGR battle and there was a good chance I wouldn't be so lucky the second time around (as you'll see in the sixth round of this BeyBattle). Because I switched after winning the first round in response to information I knew about my opponent, the complexion of the entire BeyBattle changed.

4th Round:
(pyrus10000) Dark Deathscyther Gravity Defense vs. (Kei) Valtryek Knuckle Variable: pyrus10000 Wins via OS (2-4)

Here I stuck with VKV because I knew switching to DGR would draw his MHZ and switching to OHO would draw his D2GD. I had success with VKV against D2 at our previous event anyways, and I was up 4-1, so VKV seemed like a fair choice especially considering I had some wiggle room with a 4-1 lead.

So, even though I had the ability as the winner of the previous round to switch here, I was held back because of my opponent's ability to get the last pick. The winner is empowered by being able to switch, but they are also still held back to a significant degree knowing that their opponent can respond to whatever they do. Sometimes this can be part of your strategy–like it was early in the battle for me–but sometimes you're bound by it and have to stick with your combo.

5th Round:
(pyrus10000) Minoboros Heavy Zephyr vs. (Kei) Odin Heavy Orbit: pyrus10000 Wins via BF (4-4)

Having won the previous round, pyrus10000 switched to MHZ for this final round. I chose OHO in response because I was hoping it would close out the battle for me ... little did I know that Minoboros is good at bursting Odin lol. I probably could have won if I played more aggressively to try and KO MHZ, but I weak launched a bit and ended up being Burst Finished.

6th Round:
(pyrus10000) Minoboros Heavy Zephyr vs. (Kei) Deathscyther Gravity Revolve: pyrus10000 Wins via BF (6-4)

At this point I knew my deck was flawed. I wasn't feeling too confident in OHO (I chose it on a bit of a whim to begin with just because I could in this experimental event and I wanted something that would set me apart from the D2GD or SD that everyone would be running), VKV is not good against mobile opponents, and I didn't have any good responses for something on a plastic Attack Driver like Zephyr ... so I went back to DGR and end up losing haha.

Would be really interested to hear thoughts from @[Mitsu], @[pyrus10000], and @[Naru Blader] who were the other finalists!

Finally, other parties have brought up before that the unique parts rule is probably not even necessary, and all it does is stop someone from using 2 Heavies or something. Running two of the same Layer or Driver will almost always be disadvantageous.

I like this rule on a philosophical level more than anything; even if the difference only is between using 2 Heavy Disks or 1 Heavy and 1 Gravity, I still see it as a positive because there is differences between each Disk even if they are not obvious that may manifest themselves in the BeyBattle and a players choice of where to use a particular part knowing that they can only using it once.

The main argument for abolishing this rule is that it would allow for a wider audience to participate in the format. If running more than one of each part is legal, players who don't haven three Beyblades could technically participate with just one Beyblade. Not that this would be recommended, though since they'd probably lose every battle ... But I'm sure most players would have a handful of Beyblades at least anyways. The question would just be whether they have three complete Beyblades with all different parts; if they didn't, removing this rule would make it easier for them to play with what they have.

---

Thanks for your feedback, Kei. It's possible that the enforcement would get less awkward as time goes on.

Do you have any feedback on the next set of switch rules to test?

I mean, we could try this if others are in favour of it:

And I think it has to be some form of revealed deck, blind-switching format, but how should the implementation work exactly? I think what's been proposed is that the winner must declare if they want to switch, and then the loser declares, and then they both select blindly. If one player refuses to switch, the other still can. However, if you say you're going to switch, you really do have to switch and can't use the same combo. Is that right?

But I don't like the idea of creating additional double-blind situations, so I'm against the idea at this point.

And for these rules, I would say that yes, if someone says they are going to switch, they have to pick a different Beyblade.

---

Well, considering how quickly you were swayed by this previous test format when you tried it, you should probably try this one before writing it off too.

To be honest the conclusions you made are pretty inevitable for these rules, and I felt you glossed over some specific issues, like how traditionally risky choices like Deathscyther become easy to use since you can just switch out at the end of the round to something safer.

I really liked the experimental format today. it seemed like everyone enjoyed it. i feel like the ability to switch is what makes it better

---

Hey guys. Check out my YouTube channel  wbba. Account

One part of the deck rotation format that really throws me off, is that you have to show your opponent what bey your changing to, which therefore makes it easier for the opponent to counter your choice. Though i do actually think this makes deck rotation format more fair.

---

Toads.

Well, considering how quickly you were swayed by this previous test format when you tried it, you should probably try this one before writing it off too.

To be honest the conclusions you made are pretty inevitable for these rules, and I felt you glossed over some specific issues, like how traditionally risky choices like Deathscyther become easy to use since you can just switch out at the end of the round to something safer.

True, but that's one switch. Hard to discern a trend from that! In any case, not saying I'm opposed to trying it at all.

I realize this (and mentioned considering that at one point in my example battle), but switching into something like Deathscyther as the winner of a round is also inadvisable because your opponent in that situation has the opportunity to counter it.

It's really only as the loser of a round that switching to something like Deathscyther could be advantageous. However, because players should realize this, they have to work to avoid putting themselves in a position where someone can switch to something like Deathscyther, win the round, and then switch again. To me, that means avoiding switching to a Defense type as the winner of a round. This will ultimately result in more aggressive play because in many situations a round winner also won't want to keep their Stamina combo or switch to one because a) their opponent could then switch to Attack and b) something like Deathscyther vs Deathscyther is not necessarily an foolproof match-up even if you do have a stronger launch (or better balanced Beyblade) than your opponent.

---

Thanks for posting these, guys. Just really, really interesting. With the additional comments between, I think this has to be one of the most valuable threads ever posted.

Reading my previous posts in this topic again, I feel I should mention something I missed - which appears to have surfaced in this latest round of testing... When I originally tried the "winner switches" idea (in response to tester feedback), I first tested it on a completely new set of testers - so the testers who played the new "winner switches" did not get to play the old "only loser switches" beforehand. Can you see why? I was trying to minimise jarring by the sudden change in rules. I expect Brad and his crew did suffer this a little - in the same way Kei says it impacted on his first few attempts.

I'll admit, when I first read Brad's report, I was convinced the "winner switches" method was debunked. Mainly because he says it negatively impacted the flow and rythm of the battle. Fair enough. But reading Kei's report presents equally valid counterpoints. It's a whole new way of playing with this depth of strategy. And it sounds awesome.

On a personal level, can I just say that Kei's report of just a single battle is probably the most interesting beyblade thing I've ever read. If, because of this new format, we suddenly have the substance and tools to actually write "battle reports" in this fashion (where a traditional battle report is just: I chose this...) then I think this new format is already a resounding success - regardless of the particulars. I just want to congratulate the WBO and all the testers of the new format for being so forward-thinking. It's really impressive that you're all doing this and fills me with hope for the future of the sport.

---

So I finally got to try out the new switch rules in last week's Montreal tournament.

After each round, the winner of the previous round must declare if they want to switch or not. If they do decide to switch, they must show their new Beyblade to the opponent. Then the loser of the previous round may decide whether or not they want to switch as well.

I can't say that I liked it as much as the previous rules. For one thing, it was awkward to enforce; because the loser has to wait for the winner to decide if they're going to switch or not before making a decision on whether they will switch or not, it really disrupts the flow of the match. We would often have to remind the loser of a round to wait for the winner to decide if they would switch or not first.

When I won rounds, I didn't really feel incentivized to switch, which I guess was Beylon's point — the idea is to keep the loser at the advantage while also empowering the winner. But usually it just means stick with what works, unless you used something easily burst-able to win the previous round, in which case maybe pick something else. But I found this even more annoying than just being locked into my combo, and that it also removed a lot of the risk/reward elements and the necessity of planning ahead.

I know Kei had a different experience than I did, so I'll look forward to his thoughts here, along with anyone else who participated in a tournament running this format. But since we'd like to finalize this before 2017, we should decide on what the next test format will be.

And I think it has to be some form of revealed deck, blind-switching format, but how should the implementation work exactly? I think what's been proposed is that the winner must declare if they want to switch, and then the loser declares, and then they both select blindly. If one player refuses to switch, the other still can. However, if you say you're going to switch, you really do have to switch and can't use the same combo. Is that right?

At first I was going to point out a few final tweaks that could be made to the Deck Rotation switching procedure, but after hearing Kei's thoughts about the current iteration I'm not sure how necessary they will be. It's nice to see in Kei's example of his battle with pyrus10000 how he was thinking several steps ahead about how pyrus could respond to his choices, this goes back to the point I made a long time ago about where I compared Deck Rotation to chess. I still have some issues with the loser knowing exactly the combo the winner will use in the next round, though Kei states he used this to his advantage to bait pyrus, so there's probably some emergent strategy there that I didn't consider. This is what I think the switching procedure for the next trial should look like:

1. Player A beats Player B
   
2. B decides if either player is allowed to change Beyblades in between rounds (this gives the loser a chance to retry a matchup they think they should have won. For example, if pyrus had chosen to rematch DGR with MHZ)
   
3. If B decides that a switch is possible, either player is allowed to switch combos, but if they don't allow a switch then neither can switch combos
   
4. Player A decides whether they will switch first. They can either stay with the same combo, or switch to one of their other two combos. If they choose to switch, they must annouce to their opponent that they are switching, but should not say which combo they are switching to. If the player says they will switch, they must switch.
   
5. In response to the knowledge of whether A is switching combos or not, B also chooses whether they will switch or not using the same rules as A did in the previous step.
   
6. Both players make their combo selection in secret.
   

The current iteration does give an advantage to the loser by letting them know exactly what their opponent will use. While it seems like this proposal takes away that advantage, I think it just changes the advantage the loser gets instead by letting them "control" the switch to a greater extent than they can now. I agreed with Brad at first that switching didn't seem to compelling unless you wanted to pull a hit-n'-run with Deathscyther Spread Revolve or something, since either way your choice is going to get countered by any well-constructed Deck. The only issue I could see people having with this is that it creates more pseudo-double blind situations that yall seem pretty bent on avoiding. I think that trying to find coverage over two possible combos with three of your combos seems like a pretty fair scenario, especially given what Cake said earlier about the likelihood of one of your combos being able to beat one of the opponent's possible combos and tie with the other.

Kinda off topic, since it was brought up here: Kei is Hasbro Variable really that slow that Zephyr would outspeed it if you guessed the wrong side of the stadium? I was aware that it was a slightly different composition that made it slower but more durable but I was imagining it to behave more like an aggressive RDF/RB/RSF that could go really fast if it came down to it. Speaking of which has anyone who has it tried Bite for a RB Attack type of thing?

Finally, other parties have brought up before that the unique parts rule is probably not even necessary, and all it does is stop someone from using 2 Heavies or something. Running two of the same Layer or Driver will almost always be disadvantageous.

I like this rule on a philosophical level more than anything; even if the difference only is between using 2 Heavy Disks or 1 Heavy and 1 Gravity, I still see it as a positive because there is differences between each Disk even if they are not obvious that may manifest themselves in the BeyBattle and a players choice of where to use a particular part knowing that they can only using it once.

The main argument for abolishing this rule is that it would allow for a wider audience to participate in the format. If running more than one of each part is legal, players who don't haven three Beyblades could technically participate with just one Beyblade. Not that this would be recommended, though since they'd probably lose every battle ... But I'm sure most players would have a handful of Beyblades at least anyways. The question would just be whether they have three complete Beyblades with all different parts; if they didn't, removing this rule would make it easier for them to play with what they have.

Agree with this [Image: a004a43ed8359d54524851dc45758bd7.png]%, especially the comment on the nuances between Disk performance. The point about players who only have 1 Beyblade is solid too, since apparently that issue came up in Delaware today?

Thanks for posting these, guys. Just really, really interesting. With the additional comments between, I think this has to be one of the most valuable threads ever posted.

Reading my previous posts in this topic again, I feel I should mention something I missed - which appears to have surfaced in this latest round of testing... When I originally tried the "winner switches" idea (in response to tester feedback), I first tested it on a completely new set of testers - so the testers who played the new "winner switches" did not get to play the old "only loser switches" beforehand. Can you see why? I was trying to minimise jarring by the sudden change in rules. I expect Brad and his crew did suffer this a little - in the same way Kei says it impacted on his first few attempts.

I'll admit, when I first read Brad's report, I was convinced the "winner switches" method was debunked. Mainly because he says it negatively impacted the flow and rythm of the battle. Fair enough. But reading Kei's report presents equally valid counterpoints. It's a whole new way of playing with this depth of strategy. And it sounds awesome.

On a personal level, can I just say that Kei's report of just a single battle is probably the most interesting beyblade thing I've ever read. If, because of this new format, we suddenly have the substance and tools to actually write "battle reports" in this fashion (where a traditional battle report is just: I chose this...) then I think this new format is already a resounding success - regardless of the particulars. I just want to congratulate the WBO and all the testers of the new format for being so forward-thinking. It's really impressive that you're all doing this and fills me with hope for the future of the sport.

Interesting point about the playtesting groups you made, Beylon. I understand the reasoning behind not wanting to make the change seem jarring from switching from iteration to iteration, but I would think that it would also be wise to have both groups playtest both iterations so they can compare and contrast them while offering their opinions on which one they think plays better.

As for accounting for the different experiences Brad and Kei had, that's still only two different players in two different regions. I still want to get the in depth perspective and input of other regions/people who played this iteration. @[*Ginga*] @[TheGrimRipper13] @[Manicben] @[~Mana~] @[Jimmyjazz39] (that is if any of the valid UK Deck matches were taken serious at all). While the "disrupting the flow of the battle" argument might only be as temporary as Kei suggests, I think that the 'breaks' taken between each round of the battle have a higher potential for strategic development. And even without Deck Rotation that's what competitive Beyblade is in a sense: short, fast paced battles separated by longer periods of strategic preparation.

As someone who documents their battles extensively and (usually) puts a lot of thought into their combo selection, it's also really cool to see the "battle report" as Beylon called it, especially with reasoning for why a specific combo was chosen in each situation. While it's probably impossible to get this kind of documentation for every event, Mitsu's thread where he listed all of the combo matchups is a step in the right direction.

sorry @[Wombat]. I did not make it to the deck rotation finals. talk to thegrimripper

---

Hey guys. Check out my YouTube channel  wbba. Account

I thought it was pretty fun. At *Ginka* birthday bash I don't think we had to show each other our Bey when we changed. It really added a fun strategic twist to the game. At both tournaments I was at the matches did take a little longer then normal. I did not think changing Bey disrupted the flow of battle at all. I judge a match between *Ginka* vs. Yami some of the rules are a bit awkward I agree. Over all though I think this format should be use more.

---

I MAKE MY OWN LUCK

Of course Kei and I may have had different experiences, and I don't necessarily consider them contrary — I think they're both accurate readings of how things could go. Kei simply didn't run into the issues we ran into with switching awkwardness, his battles had an entirely different makeup of combos from the ones at our event, etc.

I'm super thrilled to hear that the format was a success at his event and that exactly the kind of emergent gameplay we hoped to engender occurred. I really hope that more people who've played in deck rotation will share their thoughts here!

I would still love to know your thoughts on how we could improve the switching procedure, Wombat. We're obviously looking to tweak things towards the ideal.

I thought it was pretty fun. At *Ginka* birthday bash I don't think we had to show each other our Bey when we changed. It really added a fun strategic twist to the game. At both tournaments I was at the matches did take a little longer then normal. I did not think changing Bey disrupted the flow of battle at all. I judge a match between *Ginka* vs. Yami some of the rules are a bit awkward I agree. Over all though I think this format should be use more.

In experimental format so far we have never tested a ruleset that lets you switch your combo in secret, so this doesn't sound like the rules were followed properly.

We pick our combo and then showed each other. I think I could be wrong though. I really can't remember sorry.

---

I MAKE MY OWN LUCK

(that is if any of the valid UK Deck matches were taken serious at all)

I really hate reading this, and I've seen it pop up a few times. Admittedly, yes, the Experimental format we ran did descend into some form of combination chaos. However, I feel like that was somewhat justified, and that's largely attributed to having Odin unbanned.

As I described it at the event, Odin was toxic and, if you had Odin, it would literally be all you would be running. This was evident with a few people, as they only played your traditional Odin combinations; the same ones that got it banned in the first place. So what about if you don't have Odin? Well, when people aren't getting anywhere with Deathscyther against it, you continue down the chain of "what can I play to counter Odin?", and that's where some form of chaos began.

From then on, a lot of people began experimenting on how you could actually beat it unconventionally. Yes, this output some ridiculously ludicrous combinations that you wouldn't ever dare use, but it wasn't all like that. I for one saw potential with the Chaos layer in the BST tournament we ran beforehand and began looking into the defensive capabilities of that against Odin. Basedsamuraij also did the same, trialling something he saw potential in.

The most controversial thing was Clara playing Spriggan Oval Quake, which literally swept through things throughout the whole first stage, and even continued to help her place second. Fine, that was a troll combo, but it worked for her (it crushed Odin, even better) and that's why she stuck with it.

I'm not 100% sure what you guys define as "taking things seriously", but I'm glad that people were actually taking chances to topple Odin combos that they otherwise couldn't get over, and even succeeding! It was refreshing to see as well!

And yes, I'm still an advocate of keeping Odin banned regardless. It deserves to be unbanned at some point, but now is not the time in my opinion.

---

In regards to the Deck Rotation finals, I'm not sure we had the same issue that you're talking about here. While every Blader did have their entire deck to use, most didn't choose to change their combos, even if they lost. I think Ben and Chimera swapped once each, but I don't believe it stretched much further than that.

Though I do agree that there is little incentive for winners to switch at all. The loser essentially gets priority, so they literally choose whatever counters the winner's chosen combo. The only instance a winner would really benefit from changing would be if the winner knew they had a combo that the loser couldn't easily counter at all. Otherwise, it's a pointless benefit.

A battle report system would be great to see though. I'd love to see people's thought process when issued with the chance to make a swap; whether they feel it's worthwhile, whether they're wondering if a specific combo will come up. It'd provide a nice insight into what might need to happen to Winner Switches going forward.

---

Hoshi-no-Yume FS | Wiki Profile | Twitter | Burst Collection | Osu! | MyAnimeList

Add me on your Switch!
3008-5546-8702

^ What he said.

Not much I can add on to @[~Mana~]'s points there, he nailed it.

Troll Oval Quake combos were used (and some of course just bounced out of the stadium), but we saw some spectacular Burst finishes and KOs, which in Deck Rotation is exactly what people were going for.

I now feel that I thought about things too much and used "safe" combos (D2GO, DHR, VKT), but they did not really help at all. I switched from VKT to D2GO (as VKT was getting KOd by Clara's SOQ) and I ended up getting Bursted, again by SOQ. To be honest, SOQ rekt and it blew me away. Who would have thought...

@[Wombat]'s proposed switch protocol seems legit. It will keep things interesting, as the loser won't be given the advantage (as the choice is not known till launching). From there it turns into mind games, strategy and statistics, where players now have to think like their opponents in order to predict their swaps. I think that adds a whole new level to competitive play, to what already is starting to look like my new favourite format.

Will definitely reply to the above posts once I have more time, but:

With these new upcoming format changes, we've determined that there is still a chance in Round Robin or Block Round Robin events for there to be necessary tiebreak battles (if there is more than two people tied and the tiebreak column in Challonge is also tied, essentially). This is something that we can't avoid, even if it is probably a rare situation.

But part of the goal of these new changes was also to try and regulate the number of ranked battles that occur at our events. Under our current rules, people that get into tiebreaks have the benefit of being able to play multiple additional ranked battles, which is slightly unfair to other participants in the long run because it means the participants playing in tiebreak battles have more chances to gain BeyPoints from each other.

Brad and I were talking about this, and our proposed solution therefore is this: tiebreak battles in tournaments would not be counted for BeyPoints. They would ultimately still matter because winning the tiebreak would mean you get to continue in the tournament and play more ranked battles, so the intensity and seriousness of them would remain intact; we would just be removing the ability for players to gain essentially 'free' BeyPoints that nobody else has access to for being in a tiebreak.

How do you all feel about this idea?

---

Brad and I were talking about this, and our proposed solution therefore is this: tiebreak battles in tournaments would not counted for BeyPoints.

How do you all feel about this idea?

Makes sense.

---