World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. World Beyblade Organization Discuss worldbeyblade.org

Experimental Tournament Format Changes Discussion

Oct. 30, 2016  2:39 PM
 
(Oct. 30, 2016  6:33 AM)Kei Wrote: Brad and I were talking about this, and our proposed solution therefore is this: tiebreak battles in tournaments would not counted for BeyPoints.

How do you all feel about this idea?

Sounds good to me. On a few occasions I've played as many or more battles in tiebreakers than I played in the actual tournament XD
Oct. 30, 2016  3:12 PM
 
To start my post, I would like to say that I've never been so satisfied to get absolutely destroyed in the finals of an event. In my mind, knowing that you've been outsmarted in a sense feels kind of cool and especially with did Deck Rotation finals.

As someone whose frequently followed with tournaments and briefly participated in one in the osu! community, I can definitely say that strategizing plays a key factor for success. I would like to compare Deck Rotation Finals to an osu! team tournament I participated in earlier this year (and quite frankly got destroyed throughout) which followed a pretty similar ruleset. Studying your opponent from the inside, out, their weak and their strong areas played a big part in this event, likewise it did at burstlimit.

Saying this with only reading a small portion of the past conversations in this topic, I still believe that Burst Finishes should only be worth one point as opposed to two. I would imagine this would encourage KO attack and would also make taking the risk of using it so much more rewarding. This is what I believe is what we should go for, in a game where Deathscyther/D2 mirror matches are literally everywhere.

Definitely surprised to hear Odin was so successful in London, ~Mana~. With Dark Deathscyther in the game and the OG being a fairly consistent counter, I agree that it's good and versatile but I'm confident we can attempt unbanning it. I personally didn't end up using it all and still didn't even under the past ruleset.

tl;dr - Big supporter.

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

YES PLEASE.
Nov. 04, 2016  9:11 AM
 
(Oct. 24, 2016  3:25 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: I would still love to know your thoughts on how we could improve the switching procedure, Wombat. We're obviously looking to tweak things towards the ideal.

I had actually listed them in my last post.
(Oct. 24, 2016  5:05 AM)Wombat Wrote: This is what I think the switching procedure for the next trial should look like:

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

(Oct. 25, 2016  12:07 AM)~Mana~ Wrote: I really hate reading this, and I've seen it pop up a few times. Admittedly, yes, the Experimental format we ran did descend into some form of combination chaos. However, I feel like that was somewhat justified, and that's largely attributed to having Odin unbanned.

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

Fair enough. I guess I had just misunderstood the situation as "let's just carp around in unranked format" from what I had heard earlier. It's strange that Odin was so dominant in the UK, since other regions didn't seem to have very many issues taking it out in experimental format. But what seems stranger to me is that the people in these other regions are now beating Odin with some of the same combos that consistently lost to it before (DHD, V_X/A, etc.). Are they just playing these combinations differently, or playing Odin badly? Or is there some other factor that I'm missing?

(Oct. 30, 2016  6:33 AM)Kei Wrote: Brad and I were talking about this, and our proposed solution therefore is this: tiebreak battles in tournaments would not be counted for BeyPoints.

How do you all feel about this idea?

I'm on board with it, though as far as I know exploiting the 3-person infinite loop to farm points was never an actual thing (it would also trash your winrate Pinching_eyes).

If these tiebreaker battles are unranked, would they also not count toward the "Majority Win" Credit and jewel Faces?
Nov. 04, 2016  2:36 PM
 
(Nov. 04, 2016  9:11 AM)Wombat Wrote: If these tiebreaker battles are unranked, would they also not count toward the "Majority Win" Credit and jewel Faces?

This would make sense IMO, since it's an extra match that isn't really justified by the tournament structure. However, they will also be extremely infrequent anyway ... I hope.

Sorry about that Wombat, I misunderstood what you meant. So the major difference is that the loser can lock the combo setup for the next match ... would love to know how others feel about that.
Nov. 04, 2016  5:50 PM
 
(Nov. 04, 2016  2:36 PM)Bey Brad Wrote:
(Nov. 04, 2016  9:11 AM)Wombat Wrote: If these tiebreaker battles are unranked, would they also not count toward the "Majority Win" Credit and jewel Faces?

This would make sense IMO, since it's an extra match that isn't really justified by the tournament structure. However, they will also be extremely infrequent anyway ... I hope.

Sorry about that Wombat, I misunderstood what you meant. So the major difference is that the loser can lock the combo setup for the next match ... would love to know how others feel about that.

Wombat actually proposed two major rules changes - the loser getting to choose to rematch; and the winner not revealing their combo, but instead declaring whether or not they are switching.

Allowing the loser to repeat the same matchup makes it a little safer for risky combos, since if you make a mistake or your opponent manages to get a surprise upset, you can at least cut your losses by re-trying the match and (hopefully) securing a win that time around.

I feel that the other alteration - not directly revealing the combo to the loser after each match - would solve one of your complaints about the current rules iteration:

(Oct. 21, 2016  3:34 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: When I won rounds, I didn't really feel incentivized to switch, which I guess was Beylon's point — the idea is to keep the loser at the advantage while also empowering the winner. But usually it just means stick with what works, unless you used something easily burst-able to win the previous round, in which case maybe pick something else. But I found this even more annoying than just being locked into my combo, and that it also removed a lot of the risk/reward elements and the necessity of planning ahead.

Under the current rules, the loser sees what combo you are using and gets to counterpick no matter whether you switch or keep the same combo. Sticking with what works makes sense. However, if the information provided to the loser is just "I'm switching"/"I'm not switching", it offers the winner some incentive to switch combos, because picking against two possibilities is more difficult than one (though it's still possible, and much easier than a blind pick).
Nov. 04, 2016  7:13 PM
 
Quote:and the winner not revealing their combo, but instead declaring whether or not they are switching.

Yes, but since we were discussing the next iteration being a blind-switch already I didn't mention it again. Just want to be clear that I did understand that! When I asked Wombat about how he would improve the switch system it was because I was asking about the current active ruleset, not the next draft ... sorry for causing so much confusion. haha

But is this a concession to what people think we want — which is to put the winner at a disadvantage — or would players rather see a fresh selection after each round (with players needing to declare if they're switching)? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I really want the next iteration we test to represent what the majority of players want to see us try.
Nov. 05, 2016  4:55 AM
 
(Nov. 04, 2016  7:13 PM)Bey Brad Wrote:
Quote:and the winner not revealing their combo, but instead declaring whether or not they are switching.

Yes, but since we were discussing the next iteration being a blind-switch already I didn't mention it again. Just want to be clear that I did understand that! When I asked Wombat about how he would improve the switch system it was because I was asking about the current active ruleset, not the next draft ... sorry for causing so much confusion. haha

But is this a concession to what people think we want — which is to put the winner at a disadvantage — or would players rather see a fresh selection after each round (with players needing to declare if they're switching)? That's what I'm trying to figure out. I really want the next iteration we test to represent what the majority of players want to see us try.

Personally, I like the "winner declares if switching" rule because it does three things:

1) It gives a moderate advantage to the loser. Although I'm not super fond of the back-and-forth this can create, handicapping the winner somewhat makes the games longer and closer, which means more fun for everyone.
2) It discourages spamming by making switching potentially a "safer" option, as opposed to using the same "safe" combo. If the winner sticks with the same combo, the loser gets to take their best shot at countering it. If the winner changes, the loser will be forced to deal with two possible options, which is considerably more difficult to deal with.
3) It operates only by providing limited information. Both players are free to choose whatever combos they want (barring the rematch clause, that is). The motivation for each player's strategic decisions comes from information revealed during the course of the game, not because the rules say they have to act in a certain way.

Historically, most information and strategy has been the result of pre-game scouting and knowing your opponent's preferences; although this would still be the case in pretty much any set of revised rules we come up with, I think that making scouting and area knowledge less essential would greatly reduce the barriers to entry for competitive play. On the other side, providing too much information makes it extremely difficult to gain the upper hand in a game, because your opponent knows what you're doing and can respond in turn. Avoiding that kind of stalemate requires limiting each player's ability to know the other's actions. Provide too little information, and players will seek to gain an advantage through whatever information they can find, provide too much information and players will try to gain an advantage by hiding as much as they can. Providing an avenue for players to both learn and conceal information about one another largely eliminates the incentive to engage in dubiously legal/ethical practices to do the same.
Nov. 10, 2016  8:19 AM
 
Still meaning to reply more comprehensively soon, but for now can we agree that the rule modifications proposed by Wombat are worth trying as perhaps our final variation for this experiment, @[Bey Brad]?: https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Experim...pid1350420

I'd like to try them out at BEYBLADE SWITCH this weekend in Toronto, which is going to be a full Deck Format event. Kind of wish we could have had a longer look at the current rule set in an event like this, but I also know we want to wrap this up soon and determine the standard. The event this weekend seems like a good opportunity to test out this last Deck Rotation variant.
Nov. 10, 2016  3:48 PM
 
Sure, I actually wanted to propose this as well. However, I also wanted to try a version without the loser deciding if a switch can happen at all, but simply the winner declaring if they will switch without showing their new combo (like Cake just wrote about) ... any thoughts?
Nov. 10, 2016  3:56 PM
 
Ideally, I would prefer a rules set featuring the "loser chooses whether anyone switches" clause, but I had removed it from some of my earlier proposals because I was worried it might add too much complexity to the system. I don't really think that's the case anymore, so I think that going ahead with Wombat's rules set would be just fine.
Nov. 10, 2016  4:33 PM
 
(Nov. 10, 2016  3:56 PM)Cake Wrote: Ideally, I would prefer a rules set featuring the "loser chooses whether anyone switches" clause, but I had removed it from some of my earlier proposals because I was worried it might add too much complexity to the system. I don't really think that's the case anymore, so I think that going ahead with Wombat's rules set would be just fine.

Trying it is the best way to find out Grin Cool, we will update the rules in short order and use this format at the next event in Toronto.
Nov. 10, 2016  8:40 PM
 
Thanks guys! I will try to post the official update tonight.
Nov. 11, 2016  2:29 AM
 
Experimental Format Rules v3 - November 2016
Quote: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 UPDATED
Deck Rotation to be used in final stage with the following new rule modifications:

1. Points Awarded
Knockout: 2 Points
Burst Finish: 1 Point
Outspin: 1 Point

2. Deck Presentation
Bladers present their deck to the judge and to the opposing player. Then each blader selects their first bey in secret.

3. Replays
The loser of each round is asked if they want to replay using the same bey as in the previous round. If a replay is requested, neither blader can switch their bey for the next round. Replays do not affect the result of the previous round.

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.

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 UPDATED
Ties when advancing to the final stage are broken by the outcome of previous matches in the tournament between two tied players [winner moves on]. If players are still tied after this, proceed to the second tiebreak procedure:

Round Robin/Group Round Robin: Perform a tiebreak BeyBattle (or round robin in the case of three or more tied participants) to determine who will advance to the finals. Note these battles separately from Challonge. They will not count for BeyPoints when these rules are moved out of the experimental stage, but should be included when submitting results afterwards.

Swiss: Median-Buchholz score in Challonge. Whichever player has a higher score will advance to the finals.

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.

Sections with changes are denoted by the UPDATED label.

Any feedback is welcome!
Nov. 11, 2016  2:45 AM
 
Just some small suggestions to tighten up the rules. I also think things will go smoother if we just have the judge ask the loser immediately following the round.

1. Deck Presentation
Bladers present their deck to the judge and to the opposing player. Then each blader selects their first bey in secret.

2. Replays
The loser of each round is asked if they want to replay using the same bey as in the previous round. If a replay is requested, neither blader can switch their bey for the next round. Replays do not affect the result of the previous round.

3. 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. The loser must declare whether they will switch in response. Both bladers then select their next bey in secret. If you say you will switch, you have to switch.
Nov. 11, 2016  2:49 AM
 
Awesome. I'm thinking of keeping this format in Jan 2nd week here in Mumbai Smile

I don't understand "rematch clause) can someone explain me? Thanks in advance
Nov. 11, 2016  2:51 AM
 
(Nov. 11, 2016  2:49 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: Awesome. I'm thinking of keeping this format in Jan 2nd week here in Mumbai Smile

I don't understand "rematch clause) can someone explain me? Thanks in advance

Try reading my rewritten version above.
Nov. 11, 2016  3:04 AM
 
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. I'm eager to see the results from the next few tournaments Grin
Nov. 11, 2016  3:04 AM
 
(Nov. 11, 2016  2:51 AM)Bey Brad Wrote:
(Nov. 11, 2016  2:49 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: Awesome. I'm thinking of keeping this format in Jan 2nd week here in Mumbai Smile

I don't understand "rematch clause) can someone explain me? Thanks in advance

Try reading my rewritten version above.

Oh got it. It basicly means both bladers have to use same combos for next round if they choose to. Right?
Nov. 11, 2016  3:06 AM
 
(Nov. 11, 2016  3:04 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote:
(Nov. 11, 2016  2:51 AM)Bey Brad Wrote:
(Nov. 11, 2016  2:49 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: Awesome. I'm thinking of keeping this format in Jan 2nd week here in Mumbai Smile

I don't understand "rematch clause) can someone explain me? Thanks in advance

Try reading my rewritten version above.

Oh got it. It basicly means both bladers have to use same combos for next round if they choose to. Right?
Yes, loser may choose to have both Bladers use the same combos in the next round.
Nov. 11, 2016  3:08 AM
 
Is there anything really keeping us back from changing 2 point Burst Finishes to 1 instead? I think it'd be a pretty nice change. (Stated my opinions above and I believe Wombat covered the topic a few months back.)
Nov. 11, 2016  3:14 AM
 
(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. I'm eager to see the results from the next few tournaments Grin

I think as a matter of process it's good if they declare they're switching rather than just suddenly shuffling into their deck. Haha

(Nov. 11, 2016  3:08 AM)Mitsu Wrote: Is there anything really keeping us back from changing 2 point Burst Finishes to 1 instead? I think it'd be a pretty nice change. (Stated my opinions above and I believe Wombat covered the topic a few months back.)

I still think it puts pressure on Deathscyther and promotes attack usage but considering a lot of people have mentioned this by now we should probably try it asap.
Nov. 11, 2016  3:17 AM
 
(Nov. 11, 2016  3:14 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: I still think it puts pressure on Deathscyther and promotes attack usage but considering a lot of people have mentioned this by now we should probably try it asap.

lit fam

Would love to test it out in action in Toronto this weekend!
Nov. 11, 2016  3:39 AM
 
(Nov. 11, 2016  2:45 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: Just some small suggestions to tighten up the rules. I also think things will go smoother if we just have the judge ask the loser immediately following the round.

Thanks! I've updated it.

(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.

(Nov. 11, 2016  3:08 AM)Mitsu Wrote: Is there anything really keeping us back from changing 2 point Burst Finishes to 1 instead? I think it'd be a pretty nice change. (Stated my opinions above and I believe Wombat covered the topic a few months back.)

Maybe with the new "replay" rule in this iteration of the Experimental Format this becomes more viable because if you self-burst with an Attack type and go down two points in the current rules, with this new rule you would at least be able to replay the battle and hopefully get a better outcome. And if Burst Finishes are lowered to 1 point, the prospect of losing twice in a row via Burst Finish isn't as crushing as it currently is, so there might be more incentive to take the replay.

Some players might also take advantage of the replay in the current v3 rules and ask for a replay when they've lost with a Defense type to an Attack type; the chances of them winning the replay are high, which would then erase the advantage the Attack type player just gained from winning before. If Burst Finishes are worth only 1 point, then there is at least a greater chance that they could only gain back 1 point via that or OS since they are less likely to KO the Attack type for 2 points than the Attack type is to KO them for 2 points.

I don't know if that makes sense ... it's complicated to think about all of the scenarios lol. If we're all OK with it, we can add it in to v3 I suppose? Might as well throw more changes in there so we can make more informed decisions soon when finalizing the rules.
Nov. 11, 2016  3:45 AM
 
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.

Quote:Some players might also take advantage of the replay in the current v3 rules and ask for a replay when they've lost with a Defense type to an Attack type; the chances of them winning the replay are high, which would then erase the advantage the Attack type player just gained from winning before.

This is an inevitable consequence of letting a loser lock both players into combo selection in general. Surely everyone supporting it realizes this.
Nov. 11, 2016  4:55 AM
 
Quote: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.)
Prev
Page 5
Next