Small nitpick, but for the parts where Updated has been put next to it, can we also add the date? I know it's a small thing, but when this is further updated, it'll be easier to keep track.
Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion
![[Image: THEKINGTAISIG.png]](https://s32.postimg.org/h1cevt2z9/THEKINGTAISIG.png)
![[Image: 1a1bfc1f08f30f84ebbe6f28c4017c7b.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/1a1bfc1f08f30f84ebbe6f28c4017c7b.png)
Looks good to me, aside from closing that one loophole that MJ99TCGGaming pointed out.
Both Mitsu and Kei make good arguments for 1-point Bursts as a means of encouraging KO Attack, though for some reason I feel less sure now that 1-point Bursts are the way to go than I have before... Either way, it's definitely worth trying out. I also think that it would make players feel less punished for losing a D2/Deathscyther mirror match to a random Burst that's outside of their control (I mean, all bursts are outside of the players' control, but you know what I mean).
Both Mitsu and Kei make good arguments for 1-point Bursts as a means of encouraging KO Attack, though for some reason I feel less sure now that 1-point Bursts are the way to go than I have before... Either way, it's definitely worth trying out. I also think that it would make players feel less punished for losing a D2/Deathscyther mirror match to a random Burst that's outside of their control (I mean, all bursts are outside of the players' control, but you know what I mean).
(Nov. 11, 2016 3:39 AM)Kei Wrote:(Nov. 11, 2016 3:04 AM)Cake Wrote: The loser declaring whether they have switched seems like an unnecessary step, because the winner is already locked in anyways, but otherwise it it looks good.
The reason it is needed is because we want the selection to happen simultaneously if both players are going to switch. With this in mind, the winner needs to know whether the loser is going to switch or not.
Although, I do wonder what the difference would be if the winner declared whether they would switch, then they switch if they have declared they will, and then the loser declares their intentions and makes a switch if they want. This would be like v2 of the rules except the loser doesn't know what combo their opponent switched to.
Er... The second scenario you describe is what my proposition was supposed to be (and I think Wombat's is the same). Although the rules for this iteration are interesting, they will play significantly differently. I was thinking to give the loser an advantage by giving them some information in the winner's next choice, but not the exact combo like in v2. I had planned the winner to declare whether they were switching, then both Bladers choose in secret - the loser does not declare whether they are switching. If the loser lets the winner know whether they are switching in response but before the final combo choice is made, the loser doesn't gain much of an advantage, and may actually be at a disadvantage in some cases. When the winner decides whether to switch, they will probably only repeat the same combo if they think they can beat any combo in the loser's deck with it. Alternatively, they limit their choices to the two others. The loser gains the advantage because they are given the ability to respond to the opponent's choice; if the loser needs to reveal their choice before the opponent is locked in, the opponent is now the last one in the chain of responses, and has the picking advantage. Basically, Winner picks --> Loser chooses how they want to counter --> Winner may attempt to counter the counter.
(Nov. 11, 2016 3:45 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: Thinking about it, it makes quite a big difference if/when the loser declares they're switching. Whether or not the winner is locked into switching, whether their opponent is switching or not will affect the decision they make. Personally I do think it's ideal that the winner has this knowledge because otherwise it's a total guessing game what to do.
The decision on whether to switch should be pretty clear; the winner should only use the same combo if they think they can beat anything in their opponent's deck with it. If they are switching, the choice between the remaining two is less clear, but one may be more appealing for a variety of reasons (maybe due to launch strength, Attack skill, holes in the opponent's type coverage, etc). Personally, I think that the uncertainty on the winner's part is within acceptable levels and that balancing picking power between the loser and winner makes it worth it overall, but I understand what you're getting at. Maybe eliminating the loser's advantage and making a completely balanced picking system would be the way to go?
(Nov. 11, 2016 9:29 AM)Cake Wrote: Er... The second scenario you describe is what my proposition was supposed to be (and I think Wombat's is the same). Although the rules for this iteration are interesting, they will play significantly differently. I was thinking to give the loser an advantage by giving them some information in the winner's next choice, but not the exact combo like in v2. I had planned the winner to declare whether they were switching, then both Bladers choose in secret - the loser does not declare whether they are switching. If the loser lets the winner know whether they are switching in response but before the final combo choice is made, the loser doesn't gain much of an advantage, and may actually be at a disadvantage in some cases. When the winner decides whether to switch, they will probably only repeat the same combo if they think they can beat any combo in the loser's deck with it. Alternatively, they limit their choices to the two others. The loser gains the advantage because they are given the ability to respond to the opponent's choice; if the loser needs to reveal their choice before the opponent is locked in, the opponent is now the last one in the chain of responses, and has the picking advantage. Basically, Winner picks --> Loser chooses how they want to counter --> Winner may attempt to counter the counter.
You're definitely right. I think somewhere along the way I got confused when writing the updated rules because the second scenario I described is what I originally recognized the proposed rules to be.
@[Bey Brad], are you OK with it if I update the v3 rules to reflect this and the 1-Point Burst Finish?
(Nov. 11, 2016 9:29 AM)Cake Wrote: The decision on whether to switch should be pretty clear; the winner should only use the same combo if they think they can beat anything in their opponent's deck with it. If they are switching, the choice between the remaining two is less clear, but one may be more appealing for a variety of reasons (maybe due to launch strength, Attack skill, holes in the opponent's type coverage, etc). Personally, I think that the uncertainty on the winner's part is within acceptable levels and that balancing picking power between the loser and winner makes it worth it overall, but I understand what you're getting at. Maybe eliminating the loser's advantage and making a completely balanced picking system would be the way to go?
I agree that the actual intended rules you described above are probably better; they don't handicap the winner completely like v2 did, but at least still give the loser a slight advantage, which is fair.
![[Image: beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLksgt2k/beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg)
Consulted with Brad and I've updated the v3 rules listed in the post here slightly to reflect the proposed updates over the past few posts. Specifically, these sections have now been updated/added:
If there's anything I've missed this description for switching combos, let me know. These are the rules we used at BEYBLADE SWITCH today in Toronto, a full deck rotation format tournament. Here are my impressions after playing with these new rules today:
1. Tournament Length: Probably less of a concern to most people since Deck Rotation seems like it is primarily going to be meant for the finals in our new standard rules, but if we want to continue allowing full Deck Rotation Format events (which I feel we should), we do have to consider that the 1 Point Burst Finish rule does elongate the length of the tournament.
2. 1 Point Burst Finish: The general opinion of the players in the tournament today seemed to be that perhaps the 1 Point Burst Finish isn't necessary and that generally speaking the volume of self-bursting (which is really what we want to avoid) did not feel high enough to warrant the protection the 1 Point Burst Finish gives it. Of course, I do realize that this could perhaps vary from region to region depending on an enormous number of variables ... so I'd really like to see another community try this ASAP.
As I mentioned in my post in the Winning Combinations thread, I also did even lose a battle because Burst Finishes were 1 Point instead of 2 (was up 3-2 and bursted Odin with Zillion Zeus, then eventually lost 5-4).
And there was also a few instances where contact KOs were earned at the very beginning of a battle in a fashion that didn't necessarily seem intentional on the part of the winning side ... This is always going to be a part of Beyblade, but in the previous ruleset it was at least balanced by the fact that you could also score two points via Burst Finish, which is an easier feat typically for Attack types than KOing is.
Don't get me wrong, in this ruleset players did still feel incentivized to use Attack, I just worry about the balance being thrown off because self-bursting didn't seem like as much of an issue.
I'm leaning towards going back to 2 Point Burst Finishes, but it's still a tough call in my mind right now, which is why I'd love for more feedback from actual events with this ruleset.
3. Replay/Switching Procedures: Like last time, there was some confusion with the rules in the beginning, but things became smoother as the tournament went on and we realized that after every battle everything could basically be summed up by looking at the loser and saying "Rematch?" and then if the answer is no looking at the winner and saying "Switch?". However, I would say it felt like they were more confusing overall than the previous ruleset (which we admittedly had a smaller sample size of playing with).
Some people were confused about if the loser could keep their same combo for the next round after the winner declared their decision and they both turned around to make their selections, for instance.
For me, even though it was still fun because the fundamental idea of Deck Format is more engaging than a regular battle, I came away feeling like the v3 ruleset for Deck Format is inferior to v2 or the original rules—particularly when it comes to the replay option and new switching procedures.
What I disliked about the switching procedures was that it instilled more uncertainty into the entire battle, making it very difficult to plan any concrete strategy or bait your opponent as you advanced through each round. A sense of logical and easy to understand continuity was sort of lost because there is no ability in the v3 ruleset for the loser to lock their opponent into a selection and respond to that directly, which is a feature of Deck Format that I originally admired.
And even for the winner of any round, if they are given the opportunity to switch and take it, they are picking completely blind just like their opponent is. In the v2 ruleset, even though the loser could respond to their choice directly, the winner could pick something that they felt gave them the best chance in general or exposed a weakness in the opposing players skill level or deck construction, which puts a little bit of pressure on the loser still to determine why they've made a particular choice (especially if they sense the winner is trying to bait them into winning the round so they can get the last pick in the following round, which is where the intense mind games can begin throughout a battle).
The biggest challenge in the regular format at our events is the immense pressure placed upon picking the single best combo that you think will counter what your opponent could use from an infinite number of possible combinations. Deck Format reduces this to three combinations and originally also allowed you to respond directly to challenges presented to you after you've lost a round, which in my mind felt extremely fair, kept winners from becoming complacent, and allowed losers to feel like they have a fighting chance if they've constructed their deck properly. The v2 rules that allowed the winner some agency by allowing them to pick another combination in their deck for the loser to respond to rather than being locked into the one they just won with seemed like a good compromise to me.
In this new v3 ruleset, every time you lose you have an opportunity for a replay–which I think is fair and we could perhaps keep in a v4 of these rules if everyone else agrees, although it does add another layer of complexity into everything–but if you decline that, and your opponent chooses to switch (which happens most of the time) you're kind of put yet again into a guessing game which is discouraging after having just lost. Granted, it is only a guessing game between the two Beyblades remaining in their deck, but I found this uncertainty alone made it difficult to create a solid strategy in comparison to the previous rules where when thinking ahead a round or two, you don't necessarily know what Beyblade they will use after you've lost a round, but you can guess while also knowing that you can respond directly to whatever it ends up being, which allows you to make more strategically sound calculations and evaluations mentally.
So for me, the best ruleset at the moment was v2 because it offered the least amount of uncertainty throughout the battle and allowed for more strategic planning than any of the other rulesets we've tried where there is more double-blind picking or when the decks were hidden. Considering we are still going to maintain a high level of "uncertainty" in the first stage of our tournaments using the regular format, I like the idea of instilling a greater level of certainty and continuity to the battles conducted using Deck Format in the finals by displaying decks and allowing the loser of each round to respond directly to the winner's next combo.
4. Final Stage: Not related to Deck Format, but 1234beyblade and JesseObre were a little bit upset at the end of the Round Robin today because they were both 8-1 while Naru Blader and I as the third and fourth finalists were 5-4 at the end of the first stage. The idea that 1234beyblade or JesseObre could be 4th Place after such a performance seemed weird to them. Although I guess the argument for that is that the round robin isn't supposed to determine anything other than who gets to play in the finals. Just thought I'd voice this concern here anyways.
Would love to hear feed back from everyone, especially those who played in the event today!
v3 Experimental Format Rules Wrote:1. Points Awarded
Knockout: 2 Points
Burst Finish: 1 Point
Outspin: 1 Point
...
4. Switching Combos
If the loser declines a replay, both players may switch bey before the next round. The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. If they will switch, both players then select their next bey in secret. If the winner chooses not to switch, the loser may then select their next bey. If you say you will switch, you have to switch.
If there's anything I've missed this description for switching combos, let me know. These are the rules we used at BEYBLADE SWITCH today in Toronto, a full deck rotation format tournament. Here are my impressions after playing with these new rules today:
1. Tournament Length: Probably less of a concern to most people since Deck Rotation seems like it is primarily going to be meant for the finals in our new standard rules, but if we want to continue allowing full Deck Rotation Format events (which I feel we should), we do have to consider that the 1 Point Burst Finish rule does elongate the length of the tournament.
2. 1 Point Burst Finish: The general opinion of the players in the tournament today seemed to be that perhaps the 1 Point Burst Finish isn't necessary and that generally speaking the volume of self-bursting (which is really what we want to avoid) did not feel high enough to warrant the protection the 1 Point Burst Finish gives it. Of course, I do realize that this could perhaps vary from region to region depending on an enormous number of variables ... so I'd really like to see another community try this ASAP.
As I mentioned in my post in the Winning Combinations thread, I also did even lose a battle because Burst Finishes were 1 Point instead of 2 (was up 3-2 and bursted Odin with Zillion Zeus, then eventually lost 5-4).
And there was also a few instances where contact KOs were earned at the very beginning of a battle in a fashion that didn't necessarily seem intentional on the part of the winning side ... This is always going to be a part of Beyblade, but in the previous ruleset it was at least balanced by the fact that you could also score two points via Burst Finish, which is an easier feat typically for Attack types than KOing is.
Don't get me wrong, in this ruleset players did still feel incentivized to use Attack, I just worry about the balance being thrown off because self-bursting didn't seem like as much of an issue.
I'm leaning towards going back to 2 Point Burst Finishes, but it's still a tough call in my mind right now, which is why I'd love for more feedback from actual events with this ruleset.
3. Replay/Switching Procedures: Like last time, there was some confusion with the rules in the beginning, but things became smoother as the tournament went on and we realized that after every battle everything could basically be summed up by looking at the loser and saying "Rematch?" and then if the answer is no looking at the winner and saying "Switch?". However, I would say it felt like they were more confusing overall than the previous ruleset (which we admittedly had a smaller sample size of playing with).
Some people were confused about if the loser could keep their same combo for the next round after the winner declared their decision and they both turned around to make their selections, for instance.
For me, even though it was still fun because the fundamental idea of Deck Format is more engaging than a regular battle, I came away feeling like the v3 ruleset for Deck Format is inferior to v2 or the original rules—particularly when it comes to the replay option and new switching procedures.
What I disliked about the switching procedures was that it instilled more uncertainty into the entire battle, making it very difficult to plan any concrete strategy or bait your opponent as you advanced through each round. A sense of logical and easy to understand continuity was sort of lost because there is no ability in the v3 ruleset for the loser to lock their opponent into a selection and respond to that directly, which is a feature of Deck Format that I originally admired.
And even for the winner of any round, if they are given the opportunity to switch and take it, they are picking completely blind just like their opponent is. In the v2 ruleset, even though the loser could respond to their choice directly, the winner could pick something that they felt gave them the best chance in general or exposed a weakness in the opposing players skill level or deck construction, which puts a little bit of pressure on the loser still to determine why they've made a particular choice (especially if they sense the winner is trying to bait them into winning the round so they can get the last pick in the following round, which is where the intense mind games can begin throughout a battle).
The biggest challenge in the regular format at our events is the immense pressure placed upon picking the single best combo that you think will counter what your opponent could use from an infinite number of possible combinations. Deck Format reduces this to three combinations and originally also allowed you to respond directly to challenges presented to you after you've lost a round, which in my mind felt extremely fair, kept winners from becoming complacent, and allowed losers to feel like they have a fighting chance if they've constructed their deck properly. The v2 rules that allowed the winner some agency by allowing them to pick another combination in their deck for the loser to respond to rather than being locked into the one they just won with seemed like a good compromise to me.
In this new v3 ruleset, every time you lose you have an opportunity for a replay–which I think is fair and we could perhaps keep in a v4 of these rules if everyone else agrees, although it does add another layer of complexity into everything–but if you decline that, and your opponent chooses to switch (which happens most of the time) you're kind of put yet again into a guessing game which is discouraging after having just lost. Granted, it is only a guessing game between the two Beyblades remaining in their deck, but I found this uncertainty alone made it difficult to create a solid strategy in comparison to the previous rules where when thinking ahead a round or two, you don't necessarily know what Beyblade they will use after you've lost a round, but you can guess while also knowing that you can respond directly to whatever it ends up being, which allows you to make more strategically sound calculations and evaluations mentally.
So for me, the best ruleset at the moment was v2 because it offered the least amount of uncertainty throughout the battle and allowed for more strategic planning than any of the other rulesets we've tried where there is more double-blind picking or when the decks were hidden. Considering we are still going to maintain a high level of "uncertainty" in the first stage of our tournaments using the regular format, I like the idea of instilling a greater level of certainty and continuity to the battles conducted using Deck Format in the finals by displaying decks and allowing the loser of each round to respond directly to the winner's next combo.
4. Final Stage: Not related to Deck Format, but 1234beyblade and JesseObre were a little bit upset at the end of the Round Robin today because they were both 8-1 while Naru Blader and I as the third and fourth finalists were 5-4 at the end of the first stage. The idea that 1234beyblade or JesseObre could be 4th Place after such a performance seemed weird to them. Although I guess the argument for that is that the round robin isn't supposed to determine anything other than who gets to play in the finals. Just thought I'd voice this concern here anyways.
Would love to hear feed back from everyone, especially those who played in the event today!
(Nov. 11, 2016 4:55 AM)MJ99TCGGaming Wrote:@[Kei] I think this still is a better explanation for the switching combos ruleQuote:The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. The loser must declare whether they will switch in response. The bladers that have decided to switch then select their next bey in secret. If you say you will switch or not switch, you have to stick to that decision.
Just made it make sense as there's no logic for players not deciding to switch to be secretive also made it so no deception takers can be exploited (e.g player saying they wont switch but switches which is technically legal in the previous ruleset.)
![[Image: MJ99TCGGamingBeyloggerInsert.png]](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xrVpNPNLgqE/V1eC8lYf-FI/AAAAAAAATaU/blgGCEh6ihg07NtDBjZowGoF-FZWe3vHwCL0B/w570-h331-no/MJ99TCGGamingBeyloggerInsert.png)
Im definitely a fan of the one point burst, and i can say it saved me a lot!
I loved the tournament today! It was awesome!
Naru Blader Wrote:Im definitely a fan of the one point burst, and i can say it saved me a lot!
I can believe this, but did you find that you also potentially lost any battles because the Burst Finishes you scored were worth only 1 Point? I just feel like even though the 1 Point Burst Finish saves you from having to worry so much about self-bursting, it means that the KO–and in particular, the accidental contact KO–that are worth 2 Points take on much more meaning. It threw the balance of things off in my opinion.
(Nov. 13, 2016 9:58 AM)MJ99TCGGaming Wrote:(Nov. 11, 2016 4:55 AM)MJ99TCGGaming Wrote:@[Kei] I think this still is a better explanation for the switching combos ruleQuote:The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. The loser must declare whether they will switch in response. The bladers that have decided to switch then select their next bey in secret. If you say you will switch or not switch, you have to stick to that decision.
Just made it make sense as there's no logic for players not deciding to switch to be secretive also made it so no deception takers can be exploited (e.g player saying they wont switch but switches which is technically legal in the previous ruleset.)
Sorry, I just realized I pasted the old description in my above post (the proper new one was in the updated v3 rules post). I've updated my post, but here it is again:
Quote:4. Switching Combos
If the loser declines a replay, both players may switch bey before the next round. The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. If they will switch, both players then select their next bey in secret. If the winner chooses not to switch, the loser may then select their next bey. If you say you will switch, you have to switch.
This seems pretty solid. The loser doesn't need to declare whether they will switch or not, and it says that if you will switch, you have to switch which seems clear cut to me.
I think we need to be careful of not falling in the habit of praising rules based on whether or not we're able to take advantage of them. I'm always a bit worried when I see people saying rules are good because it "saved them," or bad because they resulted in more difficulty or a loss.
However I was also surprised to read you say Scott that the loser doesn't have to declare if they're switching — even though I wrote that they did? Otherwise the loser can simply stay with their existing combo. If the loser has to declare whether they're switching or not before the switching phase begins, then the winning player can know which two combos they need coverage for (or, if the loser isn't switching, how to counter their previous combo). Playing it like you did, it definitely does become a bit of a guessing game.
But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
This is how any tournament advancement in any tournament with more than one stage would go, in any game. This could also happen with the existing ruleset. @[1234beyblade] @[JesseObre] What were you expecting here?
It's also the case that you played a deck format for an entire tournament. I think that if we're going to do deck format tournaments we should look into doing them in swiss even for smaller sizes, and perhaps eliminating the final stage (since it's just repeats of matches that already happened in deck format).
However I was also surprised to read you say Scott that the loser doesn't have to declare if they're switching — even though I wrote that they did? Otherwise the loser can simply stay with their existing combo. If the loser has to declare whether they're switching or not before the switching phase begins, then the winning player can know which two combos they need coverage for (or, if the loser isn't switching, how to counter their previous combo). Playing it like you did, it definitely does become a bit of a guessing game.
But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
Quote:4. Final Stage: Not related to Deck Format, but 1234beyblade and JesseObre were a little bit upset at the end of the Round Robin today because they were both 8-1 while Naru Blader and I as the third and fourth finalists were 5-4 at the end of the first stage. The idea that 1234beyblade or JesseObre could be 4th Place after such a performance seemed weird to them.
This is how any tournament advancement in any tournament with more than one stage would go, in any game. This could also happen with the existing ruleset. @[1234beyblade] @[JesseObre] What were you expecting here?
It's also the case that you played a deck format for an entire tournament. I think that if we're going to do deck format tournaments we should look into doing them in swiss even for smaller sizes, and perhaps eliminating the final stage (since it's just repeats of matches that already happened in deck format).
Good informational topic beybrad!
(Nov. 14, 2016 3:50 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: However I was also surprised to read you say Scott that the loser doesn't have to declare if they're switching — even though I wrote that they did? Otherwise the loser can simply stay with their existing combo. If the loser has to declare whether they're switching or not before the switching phase begins, then the winning player can know which two combos they need coverage for (or, if the loser isn't switching, how to counter their previous combo). Playing it like you did, it definitely does become a bit of a guessing game.
But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
Will reply more later, but in Cake's post that I quoted earlier when asking you about the update he did say that he meant for the loser to not have to declare whether they are switching, and for reasons that I agree with. Bold emphasis below is mine:
(Nov. 12, 2016 4:20 AM)Kei Wrote:(Nov. 11, 2016 9:29 AM)Cake Wrote: Er... The second scenario you describe is what my proposition was supposed to be (and I think Wombat's is the same). Although the rules for this iteration are interesting, they will play significantly differently. I was thinking to give the loser an advantage by giving them some information in the winner's next choice, but not the exact combo like in v2. I had planned the winner to declare whether they were switching, then both Bladers choose in secret - the loser does not declare whether they are switching. If the loser lets the winner know whether they are switching in response but before the final combo choice is made, the loser doesn't gain much of an advantage, and may actually be at a disadvantage in some cases. When the winner decides whether to switch, they will probably only repeat the same combo if they think they can beat any combo in the loser's deck with it. Alternatively, they limit their choices to the two others. The loser gains the advantage because they are given the ability to respond to the opponent's choice; if the loser needs to reveal their choice before the opponent is locked in, the opponent is now the last one in the chain of responses, and has the picking advantage. Basically, Winner picks --> Loser chooses how they want to counter --> Winner may attempt to counter the counter.
You're definitely right. I think somewhere along the way I got confused when writing the updated rules because the second scenario I described is what I originally recognized the proposed rules to be.
@[Bey Brad], are you OK with it if I update the v3 rules to reflect this and the 1-Point Burst Finish?
That said, I do still prefer the previous rulesets for the reasons I outlined in my previous post.
(Nov. 14, 2016 3:50 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: It's also the case that you played a deck format for an entire tournament. I think that if we're going to do deck format tournaments we should look into doing them in swiss even for smaller sizes, and perhaps eliminating the final stage (since it's just repeats of matches that already happened in deck format).
Yeah, that's a good point. I definitely agree after doing this that if we're going to continue allowing full Deck Format events we should make some rule modifications like you've suggested.
late to the party but toronto tournament was pretty fab ? (´・◡・｀)
1-point Bursts as opposed to the regular 2 was definitely interesting; it did a pretty OK job at encouraging more Attack and seems to become an asset in a deck of three. A bit hard to say whether this was a result of BEYBLADE SWITCH being an unranked event, though. :\
It still stands that being a well-versed, confident, Attack player plays a factor in making use of them. While I included Valkyrie combos in just about most of my decks, there were still very little occasions where I made use of them.
I can definitely see why this was the case. There's a pretty big gap between an 8-1 and a 5-4 score. I know, for sure, that I would be upset knowing that I—the person who would have won about 90% of my matches—had a chance of losing a 1st or 2nd place spot to someone who just barely won 50% of theirs, which would mean a lot if BEYBLADE SWITCH was ranked. In this case, I think it would have been more appropriate to have JesseObre and 1234beyblade play for first and second, while Kei and Naru Blader would have done the same for third, by default. It would have been more questionable to undergo such ruling if Kei and Naru Blader both had a 6-3 score instead, and appropriate to use single elimination finals if they were 7-2. In my eyes, I think we should consider what would make more sense, more so than how ruling of any tournament, of any game would play out.
1-point Bursts as opposed to the regular 2 was definitely interesting; it did a pretty OK job at encouraging more Attack and seems to become an asset in a deck of three. A bit hard to say whether this was a result of BEYBLADE SWITCH being an unranked event, though. :\
It still stands that being a well-versed, confident, Attack player plays a factor in making use of them. While I included Valkyrie combos in just about most of my decks, there were still very little occasions where I made use of them.
Quote:This is how any tournament advancement in any tournament with more than one stage would go, in any game. This could also happen with the existing ruleset. @[1234beyblade] @[JesseObre] What were you expecting here?
Quote:Not related to Deck Format, but 1234beyblade and JesseObre were a little bit upset at the end of the Round Robin today because they were both 8-1 while Naru Blader and I as the third and fourth finalists were 5-4 at the end of the first stage.
I can definitely see why this was the case. There's a pretty big gap between an 8-1 and a 5-4 score. I know, for sure, that I would be upset knowing that I—the person who would have won about 90% of my matches—had a chance of losing a 1st or 2nd place spot to someone who just barely won 50% of theirs, which would mean a lot if BEYBLADE SWITCH was ranked. In this case, I think it would have been more appropriate to have JesseObre and 1234beyblade play for first and second, while Kei and Naru Blader would have done the same for third, by default. It would have been more questionable to undergo such ruling if Kei and Naru Blader both had a 6-3 score instead, and appropriate to use single elimination finals if they were 7-2. In my eyes, I think we should consider what would make more sense, more so than how ruling of any tournament, of any game would play out.
(Nov. 13, 2016 9:05 AM)Kei Wrote: What I disliked about the switching procedures was that it instilled more uncertainty into the entire battle, making it very difficult to plan any concrete strategy or bait your opponent as you advanced through each round. A sense of logical and easy to understand continuity was sort of lost because there is no ability in the v3 ruleset for the loser to lock their opponent into a selection and respond to that directly, which is a feature of Deck Format that I originally admired.
And even for the winner of any round, if they are given the opportunity to switch and take it, they are picking completely blind just like their opponent is. In the v2 ruleset, even though the loser could respond to their choice directly, the winner could pick something that they felt gave them the best chance in general or exposed a weakness in the opposing players skill level or deck construction, which puts a little bit of pressure on the loser still to determine why they've made a particular choice (especially if they sense the winner is trying to bait them into winning the round so they can get the last pick in the following round, which is where the intense mind games can begin throughout a battle).
The biggest challenge in the regular format at our events is the immense pressure placed upon picking the single best combo that you think will counter what your opponent could use from an infinite number of possible combinations. Deck Format reduces this to three combinations and originally also allowed you to respond directly to challenges presented to you after you've lost a round, which in my mind felt extremely fair, kept winners from becoming complacent, and allowed losers to feel like they have a fighting chance if they've constructed their deck properly. The v2 rules that allowed the winner some agency by allowing them to pick another combination in their deck for the loser to respond to rather than being locked into the one they just won with seemed like a good compromise to me.
In this new v3 ruleset, every time you lose you have an opportunity for a replay–which I think is fair and we could perhaps keep in a v4 of these rules if everyone else agrees, although it does add another layer of complexity into everything–but if you decline that, and your opponent chooses to switch (which happens most of the time) you're kind of put yet again into a guessing game which is discouraging after having just lost. Granted, it is only a guessing game between the two Beyblades remaining in their deck, but I found this uncertainty alone made it difficult to create a solid strategy in comparison to the previous rules where when thinking ahead a round or two, you don't necessarily know what Beyblade they will use after you've lost a round, but you can guess while also knowing that you can respond directly to whatever it ends up being, which allows you to make more strategically sound calculations and evaluations mentally.
So for me, the best ruleset at the moment was v2 because it offered the least amount of uncertainty throughout the battle and allowed for more strategic planning than any of the other rulesets we've tried where there is more double-blind picking or when the decks were hidden. Considering we are still going to maintain a high level of "uncertainty" in the first stage of our tournaments using the regular format, I like the idea of instilling a greater level of certainty and continuity to the battles conducted using Deck Format in the finals by displaying decks and allowing the loser of each round to respond directly to the winner's next combo.
When I originally listed the rules for this iteration I intended for the loser to state whether they were switching, but I guess "using the same rules as A did in the previous step" wasn't explicit enough of a description, sorry! I agree with the point Brad makes here:
(Nov. 14, 2016 3:50 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: However I was also surprised to read you say Scott that the loser doesn't have to declare if they're switching — even though I wrote that they did? Otherwise the loser can simply stay with their existing combo. If the loser has to declare whether they're switching or not before the switching phase begins, then the winning player can know which two combos they need coverage for (or, if the loser isn't switching, how to counter their previous combo). Playing it like you did, it definitely does become a bit of a guessing game.
But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
I agree that it becomes a lot more of a guessing game on the winner's part if they have no idea what the loser is going to do, though I do think "completely blind" is a bit of an exaggeration. They effectively have to try and cover against all three of the opponent's combos, and will almost always switch to at least give the opponent some degree of uncertainty. But from there, it's mostly just a random choice since they have no information to go off of. However, if both players reveal whether they are switching before the actual combo selection is made, they are both responding to the information the other has disclosed.
When the winner chooses to switch, they are locking themselves out of the combo they just used, meaning that it becomes at least somewhat of a safer choice for the loser to stay with what they have. However, the loser makes the decision to stay while also accepting that the winner will know exactly what they will be using, and can make a pretty educated guess on how the winner will respond. In this sense the loser can "bait" the winner into making a bad decision because they are the one that makes the decision second. For example, if Player A has just OSed Player B's Wyvern Heavy Revolve with Deathscyther Spread Revolve, they might expect some Attack combo in response and decide to switch. However, by doing so they have locked themselves out of their combo that can beat WHR, which can allow B to stay with that combo and force A to play a less-than-optimal matchup against Wyvern. But at the same time, A must also be aware that switching off DS removes their option that can reliably beat Wyvern, while staying leaves them open to some kind of counter. It's when both players decide to switch that those intense mindgames you mentioned happen - each player has to decide which of their two remaining options has the coverage against both of the opponent's combos, while also being aware that their opponent is thinking the same thing, and decide their next combo based on that.
I think all the mental calculations and strategic depth is still there, but it might just take a different form that isn't as immediately apparent as it would be in the previous iterations where there was always certainty in how players respond to different combos. While I was thinking through how to reply to this, I consulted with Cake, and he pointed out that we may just fundamentally disagree on what a Deck Rotation battle should be, as well as certainty vs branching possibilities: You bring up how the battles lack continuity several times, and I can definitely see where you're coming from - in a ruleset where it's a distinct possibility that the next two Beyblades in the dish could be completely different from the last two, I can understand how each individual round could feel disconnected from the rest, and how the battle feels less like a cohesive whole. However, the way I've been viewing these battles has been as a series of "encounters" with the same opponent where each one might involve different Beyblades, but is still heavily influenced by the previous encounter. The way I see it, the way to win the battle is to keep monopolizing your opponent with these encounters. This is also the reason I had such a problem with the v1 and v2 rulesets where the loser just gets to counterpick - I believe that the winner should be able to keep their lead by outsmarting their opponent, and in order to do that, they need some degree of uncertainty. Maybe the degree of uncertainty I want Deck Rotation to end up with is just higher than one you are comfortable with, but that doesn't necessarily make one right or wrong.
(Nov. 18, 2016 11:13 PM)Mitsu Wrote: I can definitely see why this was the case. There's a pretty big gap between an 8-1 and a 5-4 score. I know, for sure, that I would be upset knowing that I—the person who would have won about 90% of my matches—had a chance of losing a 1st or 2nd place spot to someone who just barely won 50% of theirs, which would mean a lot if BEYBLADE SWITCH was ranked. In this case, I think it would have been more appropriate to have JesseObre and 1234beyblade play for first and second, while Kei and Naru Blader would have done the same for third, by default. It would have been more questionable to undergo such ruling if Kei and Naru Blader both had a 6-3 score instead, and appropriate to use single elimination finals if they were 7-2. In my eyes, I think we should consider what would make more sense, more so than how ruling of any tournament, of any game would play out.
I understand this sentiment, but besides the fact that players need to accept that the point of the first stage is to determine who earns the right to play in the finals and not who wins the tournament in any way, I think we all also need to understand that to create a formal system with defined rules that are easy to understand and cover as many possible scenarios as possible fairly, there is inevitably going to be some edge case scenarios where maybe it feels like something a bit more custom would have been better (like what you're suggesting). Ultimately, in the interest of making our organized play rules more defined, easier to understand, and regulate, I think doing what we've proposed so far in terms of how the first stage and final stages of tournaments are conducted is appropriate and fair.
Also, it's important to note that in this specific scenario JesseObre and 1234beyblade were given favourable match-ups because they were the top seeds. One thing I do think we need to clarify in the rules however is if tournament records should trump seeding when determining who plays who in the finals. It didn't matter in this case since the top seeds were also the top players in the first stage, but when that isn't the case there may be an argument to be had for determining match-ups for the single elimination final stage based on records instead of initial seed.
(Nov. 21, 2016 6:16 AM)Wombat Wrote: But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
The issue I have in v3 with the idea that the loser has to declare whether they are switching is that it takes away much of the advantage they might have had in previous iterations of the rules. In v1, they could respond directly to the winner's combination and the winner was not allowed to switch. In v2, the winner was allowed to switch, but the loser could then respond to it. In v3, the loser is allowed a rematch which is beneficial sometimes, and they also have the benefit of forcing their opponent to guess between three combinations instead of just two by not having to reveal whether they are switching or not. But, they also have to guess between two combos now, bringing their situation from one of certainty in v1 and v2 to one of uncertainty in v3. If we were to force the loser to also reveal if they were switching in another version of the rules, the only benefit remaining for them as the loser is the ability to invoke a rematch. And sometimes that isn't even worth it. They do get to make their switching decision second as well, which can be significant as you illustrated, but it doesn't feel like enough to me personally based on what I enjoyed about the previous rulesets.
(Nov. 21, 2016 6:16 AM)Wombat Wrote: I think all the mental calculations and strategic depth is still there, but it might just take a different form that isn't as immediately apparent as it would be in the previous iterations where there was always certainty in how players respond to different combos. While I was thinking through how to reply to this, I consulted with Cake, and he pointed out that we may just fundamentally disagree on what a Deck Rotation battle should be, as well as certainty vs branching possibilities: You bring up how the battles lack continuity several times, and I can definitely see where you're coming from - in a ruleset where it's a distinct possibility that the next two Beyblades in the dish could be completely different from the last two, I can understand how each individual round could feel disconnected from the rest, and how the battle feels less like a cohesive whole. However, the way I've been viewing these battles has been as a series of "encounters" with the same opponent where each one might involve different Beyblades, but is still heavily influenced by the previous encounter. The way I see it, the way to win the battle is to keep monopolizing your opponent with these encounters. This is also the reason I had such a problem with the v1 and v2 rulesets where the loser just gets to counterpick - I believe that the winner should be able to keep their lead by outsmarting their opponent, and in order to do that, they need some degree of uncertainty. Maybe the degree of uncertainty I want Deck Rotation to end up with is just higher than one you are comfortable with, but that doesn't necessarily make one right or wrong.
Yeah, you hit the nail on the head here with respect to the differences in levels of certainty and uncertainty what we both want from Deck Format battles. I like your view of these battles as a "series of encounters" and can respect why you might prefer this method of the one in the v1 and v2 rulesets.
However, in thinking about how to properly balance the level of certainty and uncertainty, one thing I think that could be done to inject the v2 version of the rules–which is what I'm leaning towards still–with a bit more uncertainty (but not as much as v3) is to remove the Deck Presentation stage of the BeyBattle. While I did enjoy this aspect in both v2 and v3 (especially for v3 it is absolutely necessary), I do think the original iteration of the rules where it was not present allowed for a healthy balance of certainty and uncertainty, allowing players to progressively gain knowledge about their opponent as the BeyBattle progressed.
In the first stage of our events, players are challenged with the most difficult level of uncertainty before every battle. By the time the top players reach the finals, they've gone through an entire tournament of this. At this point, I think it is fair to allow for the Deck Format being played to inject some certainty into the match-ups. If a new ruleset had the v1 rule of hidden decks, v2 rule of winners being able to switch but must present their Beyblade to the loser, the v1/2 rule of 2-point Burst Finish, and the v3 rule of the loser being able to invoke a rematch (if we decided to keep this, I think the loser would have to switch if they didn't request the rematch. Or else they could say "no rematch" just to see if the opponent is going to switch), I think it would allow for the top players in an event to play within a framework that rewards not only their deck-building skill and ability to predict their opponent at the beginning of the battle and what actions they'll take throughout as they learn more about the opponent and their deck, but their ability to make informed reactions that then rely on their skill to win the battles that they should win. If they lose, it will more often be due to their inability to execute their launch properly or construct their deck properly than it would be due to luck and guesswork. I talked about this earlier in the thread:
Kei Wrote:One of my favourite aspects of Deck Format after having played in full events using it is that you have a chance to make informed and meaningful responses; if you choose wrong after losing there's a good chance you either didn't pick the right combo and need to study how parts interact with each other, you didn't construct it with care (ie. checking the balance of the parts), or you didn't launch well. Whatever it is, it's hard to be as frustrated with losing because the choices you made weren't based on luck or at least the same level of luck as they are in double-blind picks. They're based more on skill and preparation. Double-blind works perfectly as the opener to a Deck Format BeyBattle because it's the only fair way to start; keeping some level of guessing based on what you know about the opponent is still challenging and rewarding in its own way as a smaller, but still important part of the BeyBattle in comparison to regular BeyBattles where your choice is much more critical because you only have one shot to get it right.
With rules similar to what I'm proposing above, the winner still maintains some agency in their ability to choose another Beyblade after winning, while allowing the loser a chance to fight back with the pressure on them to choose and execute properly, and both players have the benefit of not revealing their decks immediately. And with winners having the opportunity to reveal more of their deck after winning a round or choosing to stay with their Beyblade perhaps partially to avoid revealing other aspects of their deck in that moment makes for an even more meaningful and difficult decision after every round.
In the first stage of our events preparation is arguably more important than execution because of how important picking the right single Beyblade is based on what your know about your opponent's tendencies. In the final stage of our events now with Deck Format rules similar to what I'm suggesting here, I feel as if it is the execution that takes a slightly more important role than the preparation because of the increased level of certainty that comes with being able to react directly to threats upon losing a round. Of course, in both cases each is still of vital importance, but I think the balance is tipped one way or another depending on which stage you're talking about.
Ultimately, I feel like this discussion could keep going on for a long time ... it's been one of the most interesting discussions we've had on the WBO that I can remember. There's just so many interesting variations we could test (even though I didn't love v3 for instance, I enjoyed testing it and can see why people like Wombat like the idea of it!), but frankly at this point it is better for us to decide on something knowing that it is credible and fair to be used in ranked tournaments so that we can move forward and then later on consider perhaps making tweaks once the entire community has had a chance to use it in some real ranked tournaments for some time.
So, we will be announcing a finalized version of the experimental tournament format changes in the near future. With regards to Deck Format it may or may not be something like what I've described above; that isn't necessarily set in stone, but we'll be making a decision soon so if you have any final thoughts before we move ahead with that, please let us know by the end of this week!
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: However, in thinking about how to properly balance the level of certainty and uncertainty, one thing I think that could be done to inject the v2 version of the rules–which is what I'm leaning towards still–with a bit more uncertainty (but not as much as v3) is to remove the Deck Presentation stage of the BeyBattle. While I did enjoy this aspect in both v2 and v3 (especially for v3 it is absolutely necessary), I do think the original iteration of the rules where it was not present allowed for a healthy balance of certainty and uncertainty, allowing players to progressively gain knowledge about their opponent as the BeyBattle progressed.
The problem is that the uncertainty from not presenting Decks and the uncertainty of picking against two known possibilities are very, very different types of uncertainty. Removing the presentation stage is in no way equivalent to removing the requirement for the winner to directly reveal their combo. Not revealing decks strongly penalizes both players during the first few matches because they must make almost completely uninformed decisions about what to pick. If the winner decides to switch under v3 rules, the loser is not certain what exactly the winner will pick, but they are fully aware of the composition of both possibilities, and can respond accordingly. Not having to reveal your deck does open up some strategic options, like allowing you to use a secret combo more effectively, or making Decks with incomplete type coverage potentially viable, but it's at the cost of having absolutely no information on your opponent for the first match, and having little or incomplete information for the next few matches.
The biggest problem I have with not revealing Decks at the start of the round is that it provides uncertainty at a point where uncertainty is already at the highest it will be for the entire round. The v3 rules provide some level of uncertainty on every match after the first to protect the winner more than v1 or v2 does, but during the first match both players know exactly what their opponent can put up against them. They don't know exactly which one their opponent will use (so knowing your opponent is still very important) but they at least have some idea of what they have to deal with. If the game rules won't provide any information to the players, they will simply resort to using information gathered outside the game (scouting and area knowledge). These are important, and do have a place in competitive Beyblade, but it should at least be possible to play in the finals without meticulous knowledge of every single possible opponent's combo preferences and perception of other players. Winning the first match is especially important if the rules are like v1 or v2 where the winner reveals their combo before the loser picks, because it's very difficult to pull off two upset victories to turn around one bad pick at the start of the game. v3 greatly reduces this problem by making it much more even between the winner and loser, so there is less of an expectation for one player or the other to win that match. Instead, both have the ability to win any given match by playing skillfully and using well-constructed decks, and not just because they were handed a massive advantage at the start of the match.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: In the first stage of our events, players are challenged with the most difficult level of uncertainty before every battle. By the time the top players reach the finals, they've gone through an entire tournament of this. At this point, I think it is fair to allow for the Deck Format being played to inject some certainty into the match-ups.I agree with this completely.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: New ruleset idea:I mostly agree with this. I've already explained why I think decks absolutely should be revealed, but otherwise this what I would suggest for a modified v2 ruleset. Although I think that a game without directly revealing the winner's combo would be better, v2 was much better than v1 in terms of both fun and competitive value. Giving the winner some options makes a world of difference, and I think v2's rules could definitely lead to some great competitive gameplay; adding in a rematch clause like v3 had would be my suggested addition to v2. Although I don't quite understand your reasoning behind the addition to the rematch clause you're suggesting, blocking the loser from repeating the same combo if they don't want to rematch also provides the winner with a bit of breathing room, since they don't have to worry about the combo the loser picked in the last round.
- the v1 rule of hidden decks
- the v2 rule of winners being able to switch but must present their Beyblade to the loser
- the v1/2 rule of 2-point Burst Finish
- the v3 rule of the loser being able to invoke a rematch (if we decided to keep this, I think the loser would have to switch if they didn't request the rematch. Or else they could say "no rematch" just to see if the opponent is going to switch)
In conclusion: (For now, that is; I agree that we could continue to discuss this for much, much longer XD)
I think that a modified version of ruleset v2 featuring v3's rematch clause would be an excellent competitive option for Deck Format. Aside from the inclusion of v1's un-revealed Decks, I support the proposed v4 rules Kei put up.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: Also, it's important to note that in this specific scenario JesseObre and 1234beyblade were given favourable match-ups because they were the top seeds. One thing I do think we need to clarify in the rules however is if tournament records should trump seeding when determining who plays who in the finals. It didn't matter in this case since the top seeds were also the top players in the first stage, but when that isn't the case there may be an argument to be had for determining match-ups for the single elimination final stage based on records instead of initial seed.
Just to clarify, what exactly did you mean by this? From what I had read of your thoughts on this event it sounded like a Round Robin tournament, where seeds don't become significant until the finals as everyone plays a match against everyone else. And even then, I wouldn't really consider being up against you or Mitsu as opposed to Jesse or 1234 a 'favorable matchup', haha.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote:(Nov. 21, 2016 6:16 AM)Wombat Wrote: But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
The issue I have in v3 with the idea that the loser has to declare whether they are switching is that it takes away much of the advantage they might have had in previous iterations of the rules. In v1, they could respond directly to the winner's combination and the winner was not allowed to switch. In v2, the winner was allowed to switch, but the loser could then respond to it. In v3, the loser is allowed a rematch which is beneficial sometimes, and they also have the benefit of forcing their opponent to guess between three combinations instead of just two by not having to reveal whether they are switching or not. But, they also have to guess between two combos now, bringing their situation from one of certainty in v1 and v2 to one of uncertainty in v3. If we were to force the loser to also reveal if they were switching in another version of the rules, the only benefit remaining for them as the loser is the ability to invoke a rematch. And sometimes that isn't even worth it. They do get to make their switching decision second as well, which can be significant as you illustrated, but it doesn't feel like enough to me personally based on what I enjoyed about the previous rulesets.
True, the loser loses a bit of the advantage by being forced to reveal whether they will switch as well, but it also takes some of the pressure and uncertainty away from the winner. I think you may be underestimating the power of observation the loser has by making their switching decision second (or maybe I'm overestimating it) - if the winner chooses not to switch, the loser gets to counterpick them. If the winner does choose to switch, the loser then has the opportunity to 'direct' their next combo selection with the information they provide: by staying with the same combo they might force the winner to choose between two not-so-great matchups (as the winner is locked out of their counter), or by switching as well they can 'bait' the opponent in a sense and then predict their next combo with relative accuracy.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: If a new ruleset had the v1 rule of hidden decks, v2 rule of winners being able to switch but must present their Beyblade to the loser, the v1/2 rule of 2-point Burst Finish, and the v3 rule of the loser being able to invoke a rematch (if we decided to keep this, I think the loser would have to switch if they didn't request the rematch. Or else they could say "no rematch" just to see if the opponent is going to switch)
I definitely agree with keeping the rematch/replay idea, and would be fine with having the winner reveal their combo before the loser decides to switch. Still kinda on the fence on 1 point vs 2 point Bursts because losing a Deathscyther/D2 mirror match due to a random Burst and the opponent getting 2 points for that doesn't really sit well with me, so I think it's something we should be open to possibly changing in the future depending on how the format plays with both rules. The part I bolded was what I meant earlier with the 'power of observation' the loser has by making their decision to switch second. I don't think forcing the loser to switch if they decline the rematch is a good idea, since it would take away some of that advantage.
However, I am completely against keeping the Decks hidden, for a lot of the reasons Cake stated:
(Nov. 25, 2016 5:06 PM)Cake Wrote: The problem is that the uncertainty from not presenting Decks and the uncertainty of picking against two known possibilities are very, very different types of uncertainty. Removing the presentation stage is in no way equivalent to removing the requirement for the winner to directly reveal their combo.If you have no prior knowledge of what an opponent might use outside of the Competitive Combos list and the standard Attack - Defense - Stamina triangle, you're going to have a rough time planning any sort of strategy or thinking multiple rounds ahead of your opponent. In fact, I'm positive that the uncertainty between rounds in the v3 ruleset is much less than the uncertainty between the first few rounds of a ruleset with concealed Decks - trying pick the best option against two or three known combos is a lot easier than trying to pick the best option against one or two known combos and who knows what else, with the first selection in a concealed-Deck ruleset essentially being the "most difficult level of uncertainty" that we're trying to avoid.
The biggest problem I have with not revealing Decks at the start of the round is that it provides uncertainty at a point where uncertainty is already at the highest it will be for the entire round. The v3 rules provide some level of uncertainty on every match after the first to protect the winner more than v1 or v2 does, but during the first match both players know exactly what their opponent can put up against them. They don't know exactly which one their opponent will use (so knowing your opponent is still very important) but they at least have some idea of what they have to deal with. If the game rules won't provide any information to the players, they will simply resort to using information gathered outside the game (scouting and area knowledge).
Here's what I'd like to see as the v4 'compromise' ruleset:
- the v2/3 rule of revealed decks
- the v2 rule of winners being able to switch but must present their Beyblade to the loser
- the v1/2 rule of 2-point Burst Finish
- the v3 rule of the loser being able to invoke a rematch
Like Cake said, I think I've given a pretty compelling argument for why Decks should be revealed, and also explained the significance of not forcing the loser to switch should they decline the rematch. With this ruleset, it essentially becomes "v2 but with rematches" or "v3 but the winner reveals their combo" which seems like a fair compromise to me.
Is this mandatory for MFH formats?
(Nov. 27, 2016 11:59 AM)Ninja Blader Wrote: Is this mandatory for MFH formats?
No, so far this discussion has only been for Beyblade Burst. From what the past few posts have said, I'd imagine the Committee is looking to finalize the ruleset for it rather soon, so tournaments run in Experimental Format can finally count for points/rank alongside all the other ranked formats. As of now, there's no Experimental Format for MFB, though at some point in the future I would like to try and write up a slightly different ruleset that's better suited to Standard/Limited/Zero-G.
I was actually talking about Experimental Format with a few others, and they brought up some slightly "out of the box" rule changes that are worth thinking about, though it's probably too late to suggest modifications that fundamentally change the gameplay so much:
- Increasing the number of Beyblades in a Deck from 3 to 4: Ever since Ingulit drafted the original Deck Rotation format idea years ago, we've always just kinda accepted the fact that a Deck has 3 Beyblades. The logic behind this was probably something like "three Beyblades, one of each type", and while that's generally the situation for modern decks, with all the weird subtypes and hybrids we have running around nowadays there's a lot of flexibility in Deck composition outside of the general triangle (which is arguably 2 triangles now). Having 4 Beyblades would give you much wider coverage against opponents, but would make prediction more difficult and it would also make it more difficult to poke holes in the opponent's Deck. It also puts more pressure on people to be able to build four usable combos, which might not always be possible.
- Limiting the use of a Beyblade to three times per battle: This could increase the strategic depth of the format, and also make "safe" options a lot less safe as you have to make sure not only your combo choices, but the time when you use them is meaningful. It might be tough to keep track of, and the number of uses might need to be tweaked a little (as of now it just allows for the maximum amount of battles, 9).
Again, not suggesting these be added, just food for thought. I would be especially interested in trying out limiting the use of a Beyblade at some point personally.
Just to bring a correction, Deck Format has existed in Beyblade for a long time and it was TAKARA-TOMY that came up with it in Beyblade first. Deck Cases have always been for three Beyblades and there were even sometimes restrictions on the Wheels or types. This is why, more than what Ingulit proposed, we are in the mentality that Decks must consist of three Beyblades.
This isn't necessarily a change to any existing Format but a proposal for another one. Back in the Plastic gen day when I first played there was Team Formats that was used for local tournaments and I updated them a bit to fit in to Burst. Here is a Video explaining it:
https://youtu.be/YKqXoverMhg
https://youtu.be/YKqXoverMhg