Thanks so much for your thoughts @[Thunder Dome], particularly on 2-point bursts in deck format. I think this is the first time someone who played it was unhappy with it, so looking forward to hear thoughts from others at the event as well.

We've already collected a lot of awesome feedback and ideas from just a few tournaments, so I feel happy with this so far haha

swiss format was really fun it would be awesome to make it an official format for tounaments

---

As mentioned in our recent news post, we've revised the Experimental Format rules as per the feedback we've received through our first two experimental events in Toronto and North America, and through this discussion thread. Please review the new rules below:

Experimental Format Rules v2 - September 2016

New Format Guidelines
7–11 players - Round Robin
6–10 round first stage / Top 4 single elimination deck rotation finals (+3rd Place BeyBattle)

12–16 players - Block Round Robin
5–7 round first stage / Top 4 single elimination deck rotation finals (+3rd Place BeyBattle)

17+ players - Swiss
5+ rounds first stage / Top 8 single elimination deck rotation finals (+3rd Place BeyBattle)

Deck Rotation Final Stage
Deck Rotation to be used in final stage with the following new rule modifications:

1. Players present decks at the beginning of match, then select first bey in secret
2. 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.

Seeding by BeyRank
Seeding based strictly on BeyRank in the following order:

1. Rank of registered attendees, collected from the website the night of/morning before an event.
2. Existing WBO players with unknown ranks
3. New players

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.

Challonge
Challonge usage is mandatory (only for this trial — pen + paper templates will be provided later)

No banned parts
There are no banned parts in this experimental format, which means that Odin is legal.

Any feedback is welcome!

---

This new format looks much better to me, I felt that having to do Swiss format with only 9 people at our event was very bad as 4 people only got to play 3 rounds.
Also is there going to be any change to the 2-point Burst system?

---

Not my WBO

This new format looks much better to me, I felt that having to do Swiss format with only 9 people at our event was very bad as 4 people only got to play 3 rounds.
Also is there going to be any change to the 2-point Burst system?

Currently we've only heard Thunder Dome comment on it negatively, and it was after we'd mostly locked in the next draft of rules. But we're open to try changing this in the next revision. If you or other players from that event have feedback, please share it here so we can use it to keep improving this

Winner switches first (or chooses not to switch) without concealing their choice. Then loser switches in response.

But doesn't this just allow the loser to counterpick anyway? I feel like that's why people dislike the system in the first place. (Though I would say again that it hasn't really come up when we've played deck so far.)

Yeah, you're absolutely right. But this is precisely the point. It makes mathematical sense for the winner to not-switch, because this keeps each round fair. But as it turns out, artificially levelling the playing field by handicapping the winner is counter-intuitive to the normal psychology of winning. The winner should receive positive reinforcement - not negative punishment. This is why the winners complain.

Allowing the winner to switch gives the winner the proactive power to control the pace of the match. For example, if they notice the loser has a weak launch, they might switch their blade to suit - even though they just won with the blade they're already using. This limits the loser's ability to adapt to the scenario, without crippling them completely. Even if the loser is still given the mathematical advantage in this scenario (by switching second), the winner is given the power to influence the loser's choice... Which is, psychologically, just as gratifying as any other form of reward.

The winner switching will always be less mathematically "fair" than just letting the loser switch. But keeping everyone happy is far more important (to me, in a game about fun) than punishing the winner in the name of fairness. A subjective notion perhaps - and I originally felt the same way as you - but that's why I feel the test of time seems so important in this discussion.

Although I agree that giving an advantage to the loser is the most fair setup, I think that the rules in their current state go too far, even after the latest revision. Allowing either Blader to see the opponent's next combo, then switch in response to that information does not feel fair, especially in a game which is, at its core, rock-paper-scissors. Each Blader simply alternates playing good and bad matchups, with the tiebreaker being one of two things:

A) Whoever managed to win the first round will be ahead
B) One of the players wins a match that common knowledge says they shouldn't have and moves ahead

Neither of these options seems very competitively balanced, but at least a contest of "who makes the least mistakes" is more of a competition than pure double blind, where at best it's a matter of scouting and mind games, and at worst it's a coin toss with the additional possibility of mistakes during the game throwing off the results. I think that the ideal plan for Deck Format sits between these two - less structured and forced than the current picking rules, but more predictable than the randomness of blind picks.


So here's my latest idea to try and find some middle ground:

- Both Bladers reveal their decks before choosing for the first match.
This allows both Bladers to make informed decisions about one another's deck. Just like how you mentioned responding to another Blader's strengths and weaknesses, it's possible to respond to the strengths and weaknesses of a specific deck setup - did they sacrifice Attack power to use a more flexible combo? Are they using pure Attack/Defense/Stamina or are they using more versatile Balance oriented combos?
- Picking for the first match is done by a double-blind pick.
Because of the dramatically reduced pool of possibilities, this is an easier pick than a true blind pick during the qualifying rounds. In this case there are three possible combos you may face, as opposed to anything in your opponent's collection.
- After the match, the winner declares whether they will switch combos, then both Bladers choose their next Beyblade in secret.
Here the winner is forced to give out information about their next choice, making it easier for the loser to counterpick, but without making it feel like the winner is being crippled by it, and without giving an extreme advantage to the loser. If the winner sticks with their combo (for example, if they think their opponent's whole deck is vulnerable to that one combo) then they are putting themselves willingly at risk of a well-informed counterpick. If the winner declares that they are switching, the loser will have a harder time countering because they have two possibilities to consider, but it's not impossible to counter both. The loser will most likely have at least one combo that can beat one of the two and tie against the other, giving a clear direction to go while not completely limiting the winner's options. Basically, the winner can either stick with the combo that won them the last round, but probably be countered in the next one, or they can go the safer, harder to predict route and choose one of the two unused combos.

Ideally I would also include Bey Brad's idea as an additional clause before the winner can swap combos (loser gets to choose whether both players get to switch or not) but that would probably make the rules too complicated and confusing XD

---

Threads and combos!

Spoiler (Click to View)

[LTD] MF Jade Horogium 85RSF
[LTD] RB / RSF Attack
[LTD] Ronin Genbull (Crystal Up) 85RF
MF-H Phantom (Attack) Cancer 85RB
MSF-H Wyvang Ifraid GB145RF {Alternative to Wyvang^2 with more Upper Attack}
MSF-H Genbull Genbull 85RSF {Improved version of the above Phantom combo}
Balro Begirados 100RF {LTAC with both Upper Smash and regular Smash}
[LTD] MF-H Lightning L-Drago 85RB {more controllable Lightning LTAC}
[LTD] Burn Orion 105SF {Destabilizer}

I'm sorry if I'm speaking out of turn as I haven't even introduced myself on the forums yet, but I was planning to suggest the same thing that Cake suggested once I had introduced myself. Also as a disclaimer, I've read all of the competitive burst discussion I can find, but obviously I don't have firsthand experience. Anything I say here is reflective of what I've gathered from this thread and others and not my own experience.

I really like the idea of the winner choosing whether or not to switch before the loser, but not showing which Beyblade they change to. With these rules the winner could either stick with their current Beyblade and leave themselves open to hard counters, or switch to one of two other predetermined Beyblades which gives the loser information but doesn't completely disadvantage the winner as revealing which Beyblade they change to seems to. This allows the losing player to make an informed decision without reducing the match to "rock paper scissors with tactical shooting" as Wombat and Bey Brad pointed out on page 2. Further, it reduces the randomness from repetitive double-blind picking. This option seems like it would be a good compromise between the current/past format that encouraged mostly safe combos (Deathscyther Heavy Revolve) and a deck format that allows players to build more diverse combinations. Additionally this could allow players to focus their deck on solid custom Beyblades, countering whatever your opponent brings to the battle, or something I haven't even thought of.

This ruleset reminds me of side-boarding in Magic: The Gathering, which I've only ever heard praise for. The way side-boarding works in Magic is that between games during a best of three match players can exchange cards between their deck and a predetermined 15-card sideboard as long as the number of cards in their deck at the start of each game is the same. At Magic tournaments you're sitting across the table from your opponent and can watch to see if they change any of the cards in their deck, but they aren't required to show you which cards they remove or add. Even without knowing what cards your opponent changes the fact that they are changing cards can influence whether you decide to do the same or not.

Of course things are different in Magic as what cards a player has in their deck is private information (something I prefer about the proposed Beyblade rules as compared to Magic) and side-boarding is done simultaneously for both players. However, I think that it allows for an apt comparison to Beyblade in the way that side-boarding can completely alter deck archetypes in the same way that changing an attack Beyblade for a defense Beyblade completely changes a player's goals for the next game (round? match? battle? these terms aren't in the Glossary thread yet, sorry).

In conclusion, I agree with Cake and I was a little surprised that nobody else mentioned that option, though you all have more experience than I do and so there may be something obviously wrong with this proposed change that I'm missing.

There is no way to even consider that you speak out of turns with well-thought replies like that, hah. Welcome to the World Beyblade Organization, Voqics. Never hesitate to post like this.

It's definitely an awesome post. Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts here

I think there is a lot of nuance about the original design of deck rotation that doesn't get appreciated. That doesn't mean I think it's the best format (and we're testing pretty much all of the suggestions we're getting, too), but I do want to explain why it was conceived that way.

Specifically, it wasn't meant to simply extend the traditional Beyblade gameplay from 1 top to 3; it was meant to change the perspective of the game entirely, to make typically-safe combos risky to use, to take more risks with offensive maneuvers, and to force players to plan ahead and even expect to lose rounds as part of their strategy. These are huge changes to what's typically expected from a Beyblade match, and it's possible it's too big of a change.

I have a specific problem with proposals that keep both combinations concealed is that it does little to address the most frustrating aspect of Beyblade, which is when winning or losing a match comes down to a guess. Sure, you have more information in that you know what two combos your opponent has, but there's no way to guess which one they will select with any level of accuracy beyond blind luck. Chances are that decks will standardize across the format (as is normal in a metagame where certain elements inevitably surface as the strongest) and everyone will have counters to all of the same things in their deck, anyway, so it will really come down to which one of you guesses right.

I actually don't have any problem with describing Beyblade as "rock paper scissors with tactical shooting." Let's be honest; in practice, this is what it is. What else is there? Certain parts are more effective against certain other parts. The only way you can enhance their effectiveness is by launching well. The only skill missing here is actually building the right combos, but that happens before the match anyway.

But in a totally unconcealed format — or in a format where the winner of the previous round is left at a disadvantage — both players understand that they have equal advantages at all times, and that they understand what could happen next at all times. This forces them to adapt to this inevitability, rather than to rely on just picking the right combo in a blind selection.

I'm curious to see how the current variation we're testing will go versus the original. After that, it's likely we'll test something another variant based on the feedback here, and it might look a lot like what you're suggesting. But I'm hoping we can finalize it pretty soon and get real ranked tournaments running with it.

I have a specific problem with proposals that keep both combinations concealed is that it does little to address the most frustrating aspect of Beyblade, which is when winning or losing a match comes down to a guess. Sure, you have more information in that you know what two combos your opponent has, but there's no way to guess which one they will select with any level of accuracy beyond blind luck. Chances are that decks will standardize across the format (as is normal in a metagame where certain elements inevitably surface as the strongest) and everyone will have counters to all of the same things in their deck, anyway, so it will really come down to which one of you guesses right.

Agreed. 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.

But in a totally unconcealed format — or in a format where the winner of the previous round is left at a disadvantage — both players understand that they have equal advantages at all times, and that they understand what could happen next at all times. This forces them to adapt to this inevitability, rather than to rely on just picking the right combo in a blind selection.

Exactly. BeyBattles in Deck Format are always as much about the current round as they are about the next and the next and the next; everything is interconnected and players go into it knowing this (if they're thinking critically, that is). Nobody expects to win a Deck Format BeyBattle 5-0 because it isn't typically possible between two players that are at least somewhat skilled and are responding appropriately. And that's OK just like it's OK to lose a couple rounds in a regular best of five BeyBattle as you read your opponent or adjust your launch technique.

At this point I think we're definitely still open to trying more new things, but like Brad I'm most interested right now to see how the new variation we've implemented where the winner can choose to switch or not and the loser can respond to that goes.

---

I think there is a lot of nuance about the original design of deck rotation that doesn't get appreciated. That doesn't mean I think it's the best format (and we're testing pretty much all of the suggestions we're getting, too), but I do want to explain why it was conceived that way.

Specifically, it wasn't meant to simply extend the traditional Beyblade gameplay from 1 top to 3; it was meant to change the perspective of the game entirely, to make typically-safe combos risky to use, to take more risks with offensive maneuvers, and to force players to plan ahead and even expect to lose rounds as part of their strategy. These are huge changes to what's typically expected from a Beyblade match, and it's possible it's too big of a change.

If this was directed more towards Voqics, just skip over this part of my response

I'm pretty sure I understand what the intention of the original design was - a strong emphasis on improving the strategic elements of Beyblade, rewarding risky and skillful plays, reducing randomness during picking (which is undeniably frustrating) and allowing for some back-and-forth counterplay between players. I agree completely with all of those goals, and even the original design was certainly an improvement over blind pick matches. However, I still think that Deck Format is far from where it could or should be in terms of those goals.

I actually don't have any problem with describing Beyblade as "rock paper scissors with tactical shooting." Let's be honest; in practice, this is what it is. What else is there? Certain parts are more effective against certain other parts. The only way you can enhance their effectiveness is by launching well. The only skill missing here is actually building the right combos, but that happens before the match anyway.

Agreed - for better or for worse, Beyblade is pretty much rock-paper-scissors. The key distinction, though, is that you can build something that beats both rock and scissors at the same time. Innovative launches also provide a way to subvert the usual type triangle, and as almost everyone knows by now, attempting to stick a quantitative Attack/Defense/Stamina/Balance rating to parts rarely results in an accurate or complete description of its performance. Beyblade is rock-paper-scissors, but it's not only Attack beats Stamina beats Defense beats Attack.

I have a specific problem with proposals that keep both combinations concealed is that it does little to address the most frustrating aspect of Beyblade, which is when winning or losing a match comes down to a guess. Sure, you have more information in that you know what two combos your opponent has, but there's no way to guess which one they will select with any level of accuracy beyond blind luck. Chances are that decks will standardize across the format (as is normal in a metagame where certain elements inevitably surface as the strongest) and everyone will have counters to all of the same things in their deck, anyway, so it will really come down to which one of you guesses right.

My older statements/ideas supporting a Deck Format with a blind pick among all 3 combos are, in hindsight, incorrect. Countering 3 combos at once is at best difficult, and any deck worth its salt would have no clear weakness. However, dealing with 2 of the 3 is certainly attainable, especially considering the "no repeated parts" rule, which ensures that none of the parts used on the third combo will be present in the first two, reducing the threat of safe combo spam. You don't have to know exactly which combo they will use next round - one of your three available combos should be distinctly better overall against their two. If the two are Attack and Stamina, playing Attack yourself will beat Stamina and give even odds against their Attack (though decisions will be heavily influenced by exact part choice, as switching from stationary to mobile Attack makes a world of difference). If they have some Defense/Stamina hybrid backed up by something like VST, you could try and out-launch their hybrid with your own, while also being able to resist their Attacker should they choose it instead. Most of the time, there will be one option that allows for one possible matchup to be evenly matched, while being able to win the other matchup. Knowing the habits, strengths, and weaknesses of your opponent also make the decision easier. There are definitely problems with my idea - it gives winners a little too much leeway and makes it somewhat difficult to break winning streaks without being more skilled than your opponent, but I certainly don't like locking in anyone - winners or losers - and letting their opponent counterpick without giving them options to respond.

But in a totally unconcealed format — or in a format where the winner of the previous round is left at a disadvantage — both players understand that they have equal advantages at all times, and that they understand what could happen next at all times. This forces them to adapt to this inevitability, rather than to rely on just picking the right combo in a blind selection.

whoa whoa whoa

both players understand that they have equal advantages at all times

My #1 problem with Deck Format's current and past rules is that its solution to the problem of largely random blind picks is an alternating series of disadvantageous/advantageous matchups determined by an initial largely random blind pick. After each round, the loser is handed the opportunity to have the best possible matchup they can have - which naturally means that the winner is at a huge disadvantage. Would you ever say "Okay, you won the last rock-paper-scissors throw, so tell your opponent what you're using next"? That's ridiculous, because the loser will obviously just pick to beat the winner's throw and win, thus repeating the cycle. As I said earlier, Beyblade isn't as binary as rock-paper-scissors is, with plenty of ways for rock to turn around and beat paper, but from my limited experience with Deck Format testing it out with my brothers, it seems to me that unexpected wins are more often due to bad launches, random chance, or other mistakes than any particularly skillful play by the surprise winner. That's why my proposed format evens the odds somewhat; rather than an alternating series of very good/very bad matchups, having to deal with two possibilities makes picking much more challenging, encourages the use of flexible hybrids and Balance types in addition to dedicated counters, and increases the frequency of close matches (though not necessarily the ever-dreaded mirror matches). More versatile combos are more receptive to unique strategies and skillful play, and are less likely to encounter matches with almost no hope of winning. Rather than running players through a gauntlet of highly one-sided battles, my idea intends to make battles in general closer and more focused on skillful, innovative play to pull ahead. By giving winners more options, they are able to continue winning streaks if they are skilled enough. The loser of each match will always have at least a slight advantage over the winner, but it will require a show of skill to turn the tide in their favor, as opposed to just being handed a favorable matchup after their loss.

I'm curious to see how the current variation we're testing will go versus the original. After that, it's likely we'll test something another variant based on the feedback here, and it might look a lot like what you're suggesting. But I'm hoping we can finalize it pretty soon and get real ranked tournaments running with it.

As much as I do protest about Deck Format, I really just want to make sure that it's fair, competitive, and most of all, fun. I hope it gets finalized soon as well

---

Threads and combos!

Spoiler (Click to View)

[LTD] MF Jade Horogium 85RSF
[LTD] RB / RSF Attack
[LTD] Ronin Genbull (Crystal Up) 85RF
MF-H Phantom (Attack) Cancer 85RB
MSF-H Wyvang Ifraid GB145RF {Alternative to Wyvang^2 with more Upper Attack}
MSF-H Genbull Genbull 85RSF {Improved version of the above Phantom combo}
Balro Begirados 100RF {LTAC with both Upper Smash and regular Smash}
[LTD] MF-H Lightning L-Drago 85RB {more controllable Lightning LTAC}
[LTD] Burn Orion 105SF {Destabilizer}

Aha, of course I understand that you just want the best outcome possible as well. Thank you for taking the time to write all of this, it changed my perspective on things quite a bit. Especially this part:

You don't have to know exactly which combo they will use next round - one of your three available combos should be distinctly better overall against their two. If the two are Attack and Stamina, playing Attack yourself will beat Stamina and give even odds against their Attack (though decisions will be heavily influenced by exact part choice, as switching from stationary to mobile Attack makes a world of difference). If they have some Defense/Stamina hybrid backed up by something like VST, you could try and out-launch their hybrid with your own, while also being able to resist their Attacker should they choose it instead. Most of the time, there will be one option that allows for one possible matchup to be evenly matched, while being able to win the other matchup. Knowing the habits, strengths, and weaknesses of your opponent also make the decision easier.

I hope we can try it out soon.

At the end of the day, I just want this format in the simplest, fairest form it could be. My biggest fears are that Deck could isolate people first getting into competitive blading (which is solved since it is only used in the finals) and that we will spend so much time trying to figure it out that when it is legalized, Burst will have been in its second season. But I guess that this will take its time.

The only way I can really think of avoiding the counter pick problem is by revealing the deck in the beginning, then allowing the loser to say if they want to switch or not. If the loser decides not to switch, then neither can the winner. If the loser does decide to switch, the winner must also declare if they are switching or not.

This allows for the loser to determine his/herself if (s)he was at fault or if the match-up was bad. If it is a mistake that can be corrected that was the cause of the loss, the person can rematch it, but the winner also has the confidence that they can repeat with results similar. If the match-up is bad, then the loser can go with an educated guess about what the opponent will us and which combo can counter it. If the winner decides not to switch, then the person only has to worry about the one combo their opponent has, If the opponent does switch, then the person has to pick make an educated guess between the two combos remaining in their opponent's deck. At the end of it, neither the winner nor the loser is really punished and they try to counter each others' strategies more than the combos themselves.

---

Do you live in SoCal near LA? Click here to find out if there is a LA Tournament near you soon!
Credits go to Mitsu for making these awesome avatar and signature!

My older statements/ideas supporting a Deck Format with a blind pick among all 3 combos are, in hindsight, incorrect.

Well, my forthcoming point may already be addressed but I figure I'll put it forward anyway. I'm calling Cake out on a contradiction (I still love you, Cake) because I think it illustrates my point more clearly than I could alone. It relates to his A and B arguments against the function of the Deck Format:

Although I agree that giving an advantage to the loser is the most fair setup, I think that the rules in their current state go too far, even after the latest revision. Allowing either Blader to see the opponent's next combo, then switch in response to that information does not feel fair, especially in a game which is, at its core, rock-paper-scissors. Each Blader simply alternates playing good and bad matchups, with the tiebreaker being one of two things:

A) Whoever managed to win the first round will be ahead
B) One of the players wins a match that common knowledge says they shouldn't have and moves ahead

Neither of these options seems very competitively balanced, but at least a contest of "who makes the least mistakes" is more of a competition than pure double blind, where at best it's a matter of scouting and mind games, and at worst it's a coin toss with the additional possibility of mistakes during the game throwing off the results. I think that the ideal plan for Deck Format sits between these two - less structured and forced than the current picking rules, but more predictable than the randomness of blind picks.

I actually don't have any problem with describing Beyblade as "rock paper scissors with tactical shooting." Let's be honest; in practice, this is what it is. What else is there? Certain parts are more effective against certain other parts. The only way you can enhance their effectiveness is by launching well. The only skill missing here is actually building the right combos, but that happens before the match anyway.

Agreed - for better or for worse, Beyblade is pretty much rock-paper-scissors. The key distinction, though, is that you can build something that beats both rock and scissors at the same time. Innovative launches also provide a way to subvert the usual type triangle, and as almost everyone knows by now, attempting to stick a quantitative Attack/Defense/Stamina/Balance rating to parts rarely results in an accurate or complete description of its performance. Beyblade is rock-paper-scissors, but it's not only Attack beats Stamina beats Defense beats Attack.

Can we all see what happened there?

As I said earlier, Beyblade isn't as binary as rock-paper-scissors is, with plenty of ways for rock to turn around and beat paper, but from my limited experience with Deck Format testing it out with my brothers, it seems to me that unexpected wins are more often due to bad launches, random chance, or other mistakes than any particularly skillful play by the surprise winner.

Unfortunately, Cake's definition of "skill" must necessarily be wrong. In a zero-sum game (where one person winning means the other loses) skill can only be measured by a direct comparison between the players present. A blader may be absolutely woeful at launching but still win the game if his opponent is even worse. Neither player is skillful here (in the grand scheme of Beyblade) but the only thing that matters to the result is the comparison. When you localize the concept of skill to just one battle and just two bladers (which you must, to remain objective) then yes, the universal definition of "skill" is indeed: the player who makes fewer mistakes.

Every zero-sum game in the universe works this way.

Take Golf, for example. The best player scores a hole-in-one on every hole, making for a score of 18 out of 18. A perfect score. They cannot get any better a score than this. Everyone playing the same game has the exact same opportunity to achieve this score as well. But they don't. The question is not how skilled the players are - but how many mistakes they will make.

Likewise, and less obviously, everyone with hips has the opportunity to run as fast as Usain Bolt. We're all human, running on the same track. Bolt gets older at the same speed as the rest of us. He gets the same flu. He has money to buy alcohol and chocolate. But nobody runs as fast as he does. He (and his genetic ancestors) made fewer mistakes.

Yes, it is a depressing notion. Skill is not about how good you are but about how bad you are not. Which is why we usually frame sport to applaud the winner instead of punishing the loser. It just feels better to rejoice in winning! So:

B) One of the players wins a match that common knowledge says they shouldn't have and moves ahead

Whichever way you look at it, a player winning a match that common knowledge says they shouldn't is actually a good thing - both competitively and as entertainment. If the win was a fluke, say, if the more-skilled player just launched badly or made some understandable mistake... Then it wasn't a fluke. The so-called "more skillful" player lost. They made one more mistake than their "less skillful" opponent in the local setting of the battle - which is all that matters. Similarly, if a player repeatedly beats an attack combo with his stamina combo, and nobody else is able to do the same... Then surely we can chalk this up to skill, right? It is a good thing. Not a bad thing.

Either way, the players' skill is measured by how well they perform in the local setting of the battle and we can quantify this by looking at how many mistakes they make. If they were both perfect players, we'd get endless simultaneous spin-finishes. The only question then would be: who will make the first mistake?

A) Whoever managed to win the first round will be ahead

This is the more pressing issue. I've done the maths on this system a thousand times (literally, I have a whole book just for crunching these numbers) and the most mathematically accurate way of determining a winner is Brad's original Deck Format where the winner keeps their blade and the loser switches. However:

My #1 problem with Deck Format's current and past rules is that its solution to the problem of largely random blind picks is an alternating series of disadvantageous/advantageous matchups determined by an initial largely random blind pick. After each round, the loser is handed the opportunity to have the best possible matchup they can have - which naturally means that the winner is at a huge disadvantage. Would you ever say "Okay, you won the last rock-paper-scissors throw, so tell your opponent what you're using next"? That's ridiculous, because the loser will obviously just pick to beat the winner's throw and win, thus repeating the cycle.

Absolutely. This is the exact issue I set out to solve with WarShell in 2014 and it is the whole reason I continue to rant about WarShell here, even when it's simply not the same game. Assuming battles last either 3 or 5 rounds, you are correct in saying that the winner of the double-blind gains an advantage for the whole battle. No matter which combination of switching the players have access to, the winner of the double-blind has the initiative in perpetuity. That's bad.

Sadly, it is also mathematically inevitable. Here is why:

Tennis is the only game in the world where a winner can be determined fairly. In Tennis, the winner basically has to win two "battles" in a row. This repeating of the win demonstrates that the original win was not a fluke and gives the opponent reasonable time in which to respond. A sound beating is the only real beating! But there are obvious logistical problems with this so-called "French" system:

A game of Tennis keeps going until there is a winner. Traditionally, Tennis simply will not end until one player soundly beats the other. It could go on forever! And this obviously cannot work in Beyblade (or any reasonable competitive game) because we have real-world time-constraints. Any game in which there absolutely "must" be a winner in a limited time-frame (ala, basically all games designed and played in North America) can only be determined by unfairly biasing one player or the other. Usually this is done by flipping a coin. In Beyblade, it is double-blind.

The alternative is to fully resign to the realities of winning: sometimes there is no clear winner. This is the so-called "English" system where basically all games can be drawn. Drawn games are the devil - and designers have worked for centuries to overcome the problem. My original solution in WarShell was have two best-of-three battles ("fights") where, for each battle, each player was given the initiative for the first round (choosing their blade second, after their opponent and switching in subsequent rounds as usual). To win the battle, a player had to win both "fights" to demonstrate they could win both with the initiative and without. It was fair, from beginning to end. The winner was the player who beat their opponent, even when they were at a disadvantage. Perfect.

But the harsh reality is, people love a winner. Even if using double-blind to bias that winner, people still seem to prefer the biased win over the fair draw. I guess they figure if they lose while the initiative is against them (they lose the double-blind) then that's all the more reason to want to play again, hopefully with the tables turned.

Sure, starting with double-blind is not totally necessary. You could flip a coin and give the winner the advantage that way. But it makes no mathematical difference. If you randomly determine someone to have the advantage from the beginning, the end will always be skewed. The only question is whether the vast majority of players actually care... And I have found they do not.

Moving on to another point...

I also think that the argument to encourage more versatile combos is flawed. I accept that versatile combos can theoretically be more combat-effective than specialized combos (full-attack, full-defense, full-stamina) but this really only takes form once there are SO MANY combos that you cannot accurately predict what your opponent will use (like in Limited or WarShell). In Burst, the top-tier is so obvious, it imparts basically no advantage not to just build a deck which specializes in each dojo. I feel the deck format itself capitalizes on this in a closed-gameplay system that is inherently limited by the number of official releases from the game's designers. Versatile combos should, in theory, work best with double-blind (as Cake basically suggests) but even then, people tend to stick with a single combat aspect in their designs to maximize their chances if they get lucky in their choice. In practice, versatile combos just don't work the way they should. I would, however, be interested to actually see this in action - if only to prove or disprove my point.

---

Can't wait until we have a like button here. This thread has some of my favourite posts ever.

No matter which combination of switching the players have access to, the winner of the double-blind has the initiative in perpetuity.

Compared to the standard format of playing where selecting the right or wrong Beyblade can basically determine the match outcome, I would say this is an improvement, no?

Can't wait until we have a like button here. This thread has some of my favourite posts ever.

No matter which combination of switching the players have access to, the winner of the double-blind has the initiative in perpetuity.

Compared to the standard format of playing where selecting the right or wrong Beyblade can basically determine the match outcome, I would say this is an improvement, no?

I mean, of course, it is an improvement but isn't the goal overall to have it as its absolute fairest possible? I'm just super impatient about it because waiting too long on it is gonna kill it, imo. But I do understand why it will take so much time.

I feel as though my post above @[Beylon]'s solves the issue of "skill". Answering this with strategy is the idea. When both players have to adjust to what the other player does. There are questions that they have to ask themselves:

"Was it the match-up that was bad, or did I just make a mistake that could be adjusted?"
"If I do decide to switch, what will my opponent do?"
"As the winner, should I switch or stay with the same combo?" (Based on the knowledge that they know the other two combos their opponents have with deck reveal)
"What do I have that counters the combo that I just faced?" (If winner doesn't switch)
"What do I have to counter his other two combos?" (If both switch) (Must use combo not used yet until deck has run out)
"After being Bursted, is it more important to go with a Burst resistant combo, or a combo that may Burst my opponent?"
"What weakness in my opponent's deck can I exploit with my own deck?"

But at the end of the day, someone somehow always has the advantage. When it comes to Beyblade, one on one basketball, martial arts, or five versus five basketball a person or te4am has an advantage. Deck Format, along with many team sports, just aims to lessen that gap, I guess

BTW: Great post as always, Beylon. Really enjoy reading your views.

---

Do you live in SoCal near LA? Click here to find out if there is a LA Tournament near you soon!
Credits go to Mitsu for making these awesome avatar and signature!

Yes, in any zero-sum scenario, where one person wins, someone else must lose. But the manner in which someone wins or loses is important. Obviously, everyone strives to play a "perfect" game, but realistically everyone will play imperfectly on average. With Beyblade, consider a benchmark for a certain matchup; the Blader will do their 20 rounds of testing, giving them a percentage approximation of their typical odds in such a matchup. To go along with your golf example, this is their average score for the course; it may be better or worse than the "par" declared by the community's tests, but it is fairly representative of their skill level.

Now, consider a game of golf between two equally matched players. Both typically score approximately the same on a particular course, and in this game they have reached the final hole with equal scores. The final hole is a par 5, and both players are average, somewhat casual players who tend to score at around par. Consider two scenarios:

1) Golfer A scores eagle, while Golfer B makes par. Golfer A wins by 2 strokes.
2) Golfer A makes par, while Golfer B botches a shot badly and ends up at double bogey. Golfer A wins by 2 strokes.

In both cases, Golfer A wins by the same margin. Mathematically, the results are equally. However, the two scenarios are not equally fun or rewarding, both for A and B. Playing well feels good for A, and even B can appreciate and/or respect A for doing a good job. If B loses due to a bad shot, they will naturally be unhappy about choking on the final hole, and A can't enjoy their win as much, knowing that it was due to B playing worse than usual, and not A playing better than usual. This is what I mean by skillful play vs. mistakes; both players made mistakes and didn't score perfect games, but there's a significant psychological difference between winning because you played at above average vs. winning because your opponent played below average.

The reason that I think Deck Format is not particularly fun right now is that the positive stimulus from winning is greatly outweighed by the negative stimulus from losing. When the game is so focused on directly countering your opponent's pick, the one with the picking advantage is expected to win. The excitement comes from the upsets, then; but how common are the "clever strategy / last-ditch play wins against all odds" upsets relative to "poor execution results in a loss" kind? At higher levels of play, the second (mistakes) type becomes less and less common, but thanks in large part to [url="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias"]negativity bias[/url], the second type also tends to have more of an effect.

Another issue is that while testing provides odds in the form of a percentage, in a tournament setting it's binary. You either win or lose the round, succeed or fail, 100% or 0%. If you manage to train and train and train until you hit 90% win rate in a certain matchup, that still means you'll fail 10% of the time in a tournament. This is a good example of why a clause that allows the loser to repeat a matchup (as ThaKingTai mentioned) is definitely a good idea, because it allows Bladers to make up for that 1-in-10 mistake.


PS: I have a lot of things I want to say, but I need to get things sorted out in my head first, which may take a while. I'm less and less sure that I'm not steering myself down the wrong path here, and I need to make sure that I'm not just defending my ideas for the sake of my own ego, self-interest, or other bias. I'd rather have something coherent ironed out tomorrow than stay up all night pacing and babbling online

---

Threads and combos!

Spoiler (Click to View)

[LTD] MF Jade Horogium 85RSF
[LTD] RB / RSF Attack
[LTD] Ronin Genbull (Crystal Up) 85RF
MF-H Phantom (Attack) Cancer 85RB
MSF-H Wyvang Ifraid GB145RF {Alternative to Wyvang^2 with more Upper Attack}
MSF-H Genbull Genbull 85RSF {Improved version of the above Phantom combo}
Balro Begirados 100RF {LTAC with both Upper Smash and regular Smash}
[LTD] MF-H Lightning L-Drago 85RB {more controllable Lightning LTAC}
[LTD] Burn Orion 105SF {Destabilizer}

Wow, this is a lot to absorb in the limited amount of time I have, so I apologize if I don't address a point that I should have. I have a few other things I want to reply to also (DS ban is next) and I'm kinda distracted atm so this post will probably be kinda disorganized and short. I might edit it later. EDIT: finished editing for now, tagging other participants so they don't miss what I changed @[Bey Brad] @[Cake] @[Beylon] @[ThaKingTai] @[Kei]

Basically I agree with pretty much everything Cake has said today (along with admitting that my past ideas about having double blind every round were wrong).

So here's my latest idea to try and find some middle ground:

- Both Bladers reveal their decks before choosing for the first match.
This allows both Bladers to make informed decisions about one another's deck. Just like how you mentioned responding to another Blader's strengths and weaknesses, it's possible to respond to the strengths and weaknesses of a specific deck setup - did they sacrifice Attack power to use a more flexible combo? Are they using pure Attack/Defense/Stamina or are they using more versatile Balance oriented combos?
- Picking for the first match is done by a double-blind pick.
Because of the dramatically reduced pool of possibilities, this is an easier pick than a true blind pick during the qualifying rounds. In this case there are three possible combos you may face, as opposed to anything in your opponent's collection.
- After the match, the winner declares whether they will switch combos, then both Bladers choose their next Beyblade in secret.
Here the winner is forced to give out information about their next choice, making it easier for the loser to counterpick, but without making it feel like the winner is being crippled by it, and without giving an extreme advantage to the loser. If the winner sticks with their combo (for example, if they think their opponent's whole deck is vulnerable to that one combo) then they are putting themselves willingly at risk of a well-informed counterpick. If the winner declares that they are switching, the loser will have a harder time countering because they have two possibilities to consider, but it's not impossible to counter both. The loser will most likely have at least one combo that can beat one of the two and tie against the other, giving a clear direction to go while not completely limiting the winner's options. Basically, the winner can either stick with the combo that won them the last round, but probably be countered in the next one, or they can go the safer, harder to predict route and choose one of the two unused combos.

Ideally I would also include Bey Brad's idea as an additional clause before the winner can swap combos (loser gets to choose whether both players get to switch or not) but that would probably make the rules too complicated and confusing XD

The only problem I see with the winner controlling the switching is that the winner can lock the loser into a bad matchup. I think the loser needs to decide if a switch is possible for that round, and if they decide that the switch is allowed, the winner must announce whether they are going to switch. They also can't lie about it, kind of like saying if they are attached. EDIT: Yeah basically what ThaKingTai said, he covered it much more thoroughly than I did as well.

Something I might add as well is that while just having the loser switch is a great teaching tool for combo matchups, it encourages "gut reactions" to certain combos and not much strategic thinking beyond that (kinda like rock paper scissors). Giving both players the option to switch allows them to think past these gut reactions and weigh the options they have instead, which makes their choices meaningful as opposed to having usually only one "right" choice in their Deck for a counterpick.

And Beylon, while I still love you, I personally think that Deck Rotation should never be a mathematically perfect game. While the people arguing for revealed decks have always justified this with it being a more "mathematically" fair option than having the decks concealed which is more "politically" based, but I think this is one of the times when we must make a "sacrifice" of mathematical perfection for entertainment's sake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a mathematically perfect game one where the winner is practically determined before the game even begins? While the perfect balance between a mathematically perfect game and one based entirely on what "feels right" is pretty subjective (and is probably also the root of this entire discussion), I think once it's found it will be the solution that will keep the game interesting an "fun".

Yes, it is a depressing notion. Skill is not about how good you are but about how bad you are not. Which is why we usually frame sport to applaud the winner instead of punishing the loser. It just feels better to rejoice in winning!

Either way, the players' skill is measured by how well they perform in the local setting of the battle and we can quantify this by looking at how many mistakes they make. If they were both perfect players, we'd get endless simultaneous spin-finishes. The only question then would be: who will make the first mistake?

1) Golfer A scores eagle, while Golfer B makes par. Golfer A wins by 2 strokes.
2) Golfer A makes par, while Golfer B botches a shot badly and ends up at double bogey. Golfer A wins by 2 strokes.

In both cases, Golfer A wins by the same margin. Mathematically, the results are equally. However, the two scenarios are not equally fun or rewarding, both for A and B. Playing well feels good for A, and even B can appreciate and/or respect A for doing a good job. If B loses due to a bad shot, they will naturally be unhappy about choking on the final hole, and A can't enjoy their win as much, knowing that it was due to B playing worse than usual, and not A playing better than usual.

I definitely agree with both of these points about skill being a matter of who makes less mistakes. There's a difference between getting beat and losing, and I can definitely cite several of my battles (that I'm still salty about due to negativity bias) where I made physical or mental mistakes that cost me a vital match rather than my opponent actually outplaying me. Cake and I have also actually witnessed the psychological effects that he gives in his example firsthand, so we can vouch for their existence

Also, side note: shout out to Voqics for making such a great post right off the bat. I attend MD events occasionally too so I hope I get to battle you one day maybe.

ThaKingTai; sorry bro, I totally missed your post. Let me just cartwheel backward for a moment:

The only way I can really think of avoiding the counter pick problem is by revealing the deck in the beginning, then allowing the loser to say if they want to switch or not. If the loser decides not to switch, then neither can the winner. If the loser does decide to switch, the winner must also declare if they are switching or not.

This allows for the loser to determine his/herself if (s)he was at fault or if the match-up was bad. If it is a mistake that can be corrected that was the cause of the loss, the person can rematch it, but the winner also has the confidence that they can repeat with results similar. If the match-up is bad, then the loser can go with an educated guess about what the opponent will us and which combo can counter it. If the winner decides not to switch, then the person only has to worry about the one combo their opponent has, If the opponent does switch, then the person has to pick make an educated guess between the two combos remaining in their opponent's deck. At the end of it, neither the winner nor the loser is really punished and they try to counter each others' strategies more than the combos themselves.

As well as this:

The only problem I see with the winner controlling the switching is that the winner can lock the loser into a bad matchup. I think the loser needs to decide if a switch is possible for that round, and if they decide that the squitch is allowed, the winner must announce whether they are going to switch. They also can't lie about it, kind of like saying if they are attached.

Yeah, well in combo with Cake's already revised reasoning, I think there's a good argument for this. Just to be clear, the current rules stipulate that the winner can switch (or not switch) and the loser can switch (or not switch) after the winner. With a few "official" test runs out of the way, I fully expect we will get precisely zero feedback on this aspect of the current rules. Which is to say, I expect no one will even notice the rule enough to feel inclined to comment. And that's kind of the point - it should feel so natural, it's invisible. Doesn't necessarily have to be that way, of course, but this was my intention at least.

In the "loser calls" scenario, I expect people will consider it a much more prominent part of the game - because the loser must be introspective and really think about it, rather than just responding. That's okay. But it should probably get an official name at this point, so that everyone understands what we're talking about. Like a "phase" in a card game or whatever. You know... Like... "Switch Out" or something equally Americanesque. I have not played this setup in WarShell (or Beyblade) so I'm interested to see how it works - particularly because:

The reason that I think Deck Format is not particularly fun right now is that the positive stimulus from winning is greatly outweighed by the negative stimulus from losing. When the game is so focused on directly countering your opponent's pick, the one with the picking advantage is expected to win. The excitement comes from the upsets, then; but how common are the "clever strategy / last-ditch play wins against all odds" upsets relative to "poor execution results in a loss" kind? At higher levels of play, the second (mistakes) type becomes less and less common, but thanks in large part to negativity bias, the second type also tends to have more of an effect.

I take your point. While I never found the "winner switches" method to be a problem, Brad never found the "loser switches" method to be a problem either. Sound familiar? I arrived at my conclusion (in WarShell) through playtesting and solving complaint-related issues over a period of two years - which is easily enough time to lose sight of how a game "feels" naturally. I expect you personally play Burst far more of than I do and this makes your opinion about the subjective nature of winning-psychology in a Burst tournament far more valuable than mine - just the same way Brad's impression of a more "tense" battle with "hidden" decks is also more valid than my argument for greater strategy in "revealed" decks. If it is more "fun" then that is what you should do, regardless of anything else.

Consider this:

1) Golfer A scores eagle, while Golfer B makes par. Golfer A wins by 2 strokes.
2) Golfer A makes par, while Golfer B botches a shot badly and ends up at double bogey. Golfer A wins by 2 strokes.

In both cases, Golfer A wins by the same margin. Mathematically, the results are equally. However, the two scenarios are not equally fun or rewarding, both for A and B. Playing well feels good for A, and even B can appreciate and/or respect A for doing a good job. If B loses due to a bad shot, they will naturally be unhappy about choking on the final hole, and A can't enjoy their win as much, knowing that it was due to B playing worse than usual, and not A playing better than usual. This is what I mean by skillful play vs. mistakes; both players made mistakes and didn't score perfect games, but there's a significant psychological difference between winning because you played at above average vs. winning because your opponent played below average.

I have never observed any obvious psychological difference in these kinds of win-lose scenarios for a competitive sport. As far as I am aware, the psychology is the same either way. Remember we're playing to win in a competitive tournament, rather than playing to tell a good story (like in a wargame) or show people up with our awesome moves (like in a scoring yoyo competition). But I could be wrong. I haven't tried your proposed method yet and again, I'm interested to see how it plays.

Compared to the standard format of playing where selecting the right or wrong Beyblade can basically determine the match outcome, I would say this is an improvement, no?

Yeah man. After your first proposal, everything else is just fine-tuning. Even if the original deck format design was not open to debate, it'd still be a full-blown success. I think it is a real step-up in future-proofing the entire game.

---

Is burst still taking priority? Because if it is, you should be slapping yourself. If a bursting leads to a ring out it should count as no points, if a burst leads to a sleepout/KO then, again, no points. Bursting should never have priority BECAUSE it's worth so much.

Is burst still taking priority? Because if it is, you should be slapping yourself.

This isn't the first rude post you've made here, but let's both agree that it's your last.

The rules are linked in the first post of the thread, so please feel free to read them before posting if you're confused. Currently, bursts and KOs are worth 2 points each only in the deck rotation (finals) format.

If a bursting leads to a ring out it should count as no points, if a burst leads to a sleepout/KO then, again, no points. Bursting should never have priority BECAUSE it's worth so much.

If a KO occurs at the same time as a burst, it almost certainly means that the impact that triggered the burst also triggered the KO — but since bursting is instantaneous, it means the Beyblade bursted before the other Beyblade exited the stadium. Since it lost first, it's counted as a loss. Typically, players have expected us to be as precise as possible in determining who wins a round. Obviously, we would be willing to reassess it if players asked us too, but I think everyone understands why the burst priority rule is the way it is.

(It's true that sometimes a Beyblade can burst moments after an impact, but this is usually visible with the naked eye and it's still in play until it actually bursts.)

In terms of what it's worth in deck rotation, since KOs and BFs are both worth 2 points, it's more like outspins are counted as less than the others are counted as more. Makes sense; they are typically the easiest wins to achieve (and certainly rely on the "safest" combos). I think this could've worked in the standard format too, but locking someone into the same combo for a match that goes to 5 points is dispiriting (and would also take forever).

With regards to everything else, I seriously think that the analogies are getting so abstract that they cease to have meaning. We don't need to talk about it in hypotheticals; we've already run deck format tournaments in the original design, and nothing about the feedback we received indicated that people didn't find it fun. Part of what makes it fun is the exchange between advantageous and disadvantageous positions. Unless one player is much better (or much luckier) than the other, it will probably be a close battle.

However, I do think the system of 1) revealing decks and 2) giving the winner, and then the loser, the option to switch independently (which we are testing now) is the fairest solution. It doesn't put the winner in a totally invulnerable decision; however, it still applies more pressure to the winner than the loser. I also feel pretty swayed by the arguments to let both players switch in secret, rather than the current implementation in the test rules.

For those of you worrying we'll never get this finalized: I wouldn't worry. I think we're nearly there.

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.

[Image: W8fAdSO.jpg]

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.

This link 404s for me, is there another link I could try?

Sorry, I updated the link in my post.

lol, funny enough, we found a store that sells the issue that comes with the box and I bought it thinking it may be that black Xcalibur instead. I gave it to the person that came in fourth at our last tournament since he did so well.

I think winner chooses whether or not to switch, then the loser can choose as well after is just as good as the idea that I put forward. It's true that which everyone feels more natural is probably best.

Question: A couple of us are planning to meet up before our next official tournament. It'll be three of us most likely. If we decide to test just the Deck Format in different variations, will our results be valid? We have a lot to do in the hours before the tournament and after as well, so it'll probably be a busy day. But I'd really like to see the feel of Deck Format before it is finalized, and it looks like it's getting close.

---

Do you live in SoCal near LA? Click here to find out if there is a LA Tournament near you soon!
Credits go to Mitsu for making these awesome avatar and signature!

They won't have the same weight as a tournament, but the feedback will still be considered just as any other feedback here. Especially if you can compare multiple styles in realtime.