Would have been nice if in the beylotto you could have separated those who won the face boosters and those who won physical prizes so that you have more chance to win.
Make your suggestions!
Hm, I suppose, but why would you have more chance to win the top and more limited prizes hah? It goes against their nature.
Probably more of a point of "Why should winners be the only people to have a chance to win other stuff?".
I'm hardly going to complain because, honestly, I'm happy for anyone who manages to win in contests like this (it's a great thing that they even happen in the first place!), though I'll admit that it did seem a little odd to pick the winners for physical prizes from a shortlist of people who were...already winners?
It's not a matter of more chance really. It's just a matter of giving fair chance to everyone, and not locking a majority of people out just because they failed an RNG shortlist for a Face Booster, haha.
I'm hardly going to complain because, honestly, I'm happy for anyone who manages to win in contests like this (it's a great thing that they even happen in the first place!), though I'll admit that it did seem a little odd to pick the winners for physical prizes from a shortlist of people who were...already winners?
It's not a matter of more chance really. It's just a matter of giving fair chance to everyone, and not locking a majority of people out just because they failed an RNG shortlist for a Face Booster, haha.
(Jul. 05, 2016 5:11 PM)~Mana~ Wrote: Probably more of a point of "Why should winners be the only people to have a chance to win other stuff?".
I'm hardly going to complain because, honestly, I'm happy for anyone who manages to win in contests like this (it's a great thing that they even happen in the first place!), though I'll admit that it did seem a little odd to pick the winners for physical prizes from a shortlist of people who were...already winners?
It's not a matter of more chance really. It's just a matter of giving fair chance to everyone, and not locking a majority of people out just because they failed an RNG shortlist for a Face Booster, haha.
That's actually not how it worked. We randomized the list of all entrants and those at the top were given priority for physical prizes, with prizes being distributed from the top of the list down. We didn't create a second list from the first list.
Ah no, that is not how it happened hah. That is just how I formatted it in the announcement post, to make it even more of a mystery and make you think it could have been you since you were part of the whole list of thirty winners of a Face Booster hah.
We always take the whole list of participants, multiple entries and all, and run it through random.org/list. Whatever username comes at the top is the one who will win the best price, etc. Then we go down and eliminate doubles until we have thirty people from the top, and those are the ones who, overall, won a Face Booster.
We always take the whole list of participants, multiple entries and all, and run it through random.org/list. Whatever username comes at the top is the one who will win the best price, etc. Then we go down and eliminate doubles until we have thirty people from the top, and those are the ones who, overall, won a Face Booster.
Much better explanation than mine, lol
Ah, so it's really just 20 Face Booster winners, then 10 "Physical Prize + Face Booster"? That makes more sense and is definitely fairer towards people. It just seemed a little iffy when it looked like it was presented as "If you're a winner, you can win more!", haha.
What would need to happen in order to have more Face Contests or things like WBO Idol? Like, even if the prizes were just a small choice of Face boosters or even bragging rights, it would be awesome to have more.
![[Image: 1e99b0b2d972f53cadaf24804bf8fe00.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/1e99b0b2d972f53cadaf24804bf8fe00.png)
![[Image: eeb4f3bafbeab74193aeef19d118e779.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/eeb4f3bafbeab74193aeef19d118e779.png)
(Jul. 05, 2016 6:18 PM)earthwolf1404 Wrote: What would need to happen in order to have more Face Contests or things like WBO Idol? Like, even if the prizes were just a small choice of Face boosters or even bragging rights, it would be awesome to have more.
The biggest roadblock is coming up with ideas for new contests that people will enjoy, rather than just repeating the same few ideas.
If you need help with ideas, why not make a thread where members can come up with ideas and vote on them via poll. If you want, I can help with making the polls.
I know that I at least have an idea where we challenge members to make beys out of random objects around the house. Ooh even a build a Lego Beyblade, that would be cool.
I know that I at least have an idea where we challenge members to make beys out of random objects around the house. Ooh even a build a Lego Beyblade, that would be cool.
(Jul. 05, 2016 5:28 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Ah no, that is not how it happened hah. That is just how I formatted it in the announcement post, to make it even more of a mystery and make you think it could have been you since you were part of the whole list of thirty winners of a Face Booster hah.
We always take the whole list of participants, multiple entries and all, and run it through random.org/list. Whatever username comes at the top is the one who will win the best price, etc. Then we go down and eliminate doubles until we have thirty people from the top, and those are the ones who, overall, won a Face Booster.
Okay so everything is decided based on what's on the top of the list? So unless you were near the top you had no chance of winning anything?
(Jul. 05, 2016 7:05 PM)Ultra Wrote: Okay so everything is decided based on what's on the top of the list? So unless you were near the top you had no chance of winning anything?
We take the list of participants (including duplicates for those who earned more than one entry into the BeyLotto) and randomize it. The order of the list after randomizing is the order we use for determining the winners. So if you're at the top of the randomized list, you win first place, second you win second place, and so on. If someone who earned multiple entries appears multiple times in a position to win a prize, we take their highest spot on the list to determine what they win and then remove the rest, bumping others up.
![[Image: beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLksgt2k/beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg)
(Jul. 05, 2016 7:53 PM)Kei Wrote:(Jul. 05, 2016 7:05 PM)Ultra Wrote: Okay so everything is decided based on what's on the top of the list? So unless you were near the top you had no chance of winning anything?
We take the list of participants (including duplicates for those who earned more than one entry into the BeyLotto) and randomize it. The order of the list after randomizing is the order we use for determining the winners. So if you're at the top of the randomized list, you win first place, second you win second place, and so on. If someone who earned multiple entries appears multiple times in a position to win a prize, we take their highest spot on the list to determine what they win and then remove the rest, bumping others up.
What I was getting at is that randomizing it for the physical prizes and the face boosters would have made it fairer (and the same people clearly wouldn't have won again just based on their place in the list)
Random is random. Randomizing the list this way is the same as pulling names randomly from a hat or something, so no, if you weren't near the top of the randomized list you had no chance of winning anything, just like if your ticket was not one of the first to be called at a raffle, you also have no chance of winning anything.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that there were — or were intended to be — separate prize pools for Face Boosters; there wasn't. It's more like that out of all the winners, some only get Face Boosters. Others get physical prizes. There was one prize draw, not two.
If you think this system is unfair, then we welcome the feedback. But wanted to make clear how we did it this way.
There seems to be a misunderstanding that there were — or were intended to be — separate prize pools for Face Boosters; there wasn't. It's more like that out of all the winners, some only get Face Boosters. Others get physical prizes. There was one prize draw, not two.
If you think this system is unfair, then we welcome the feedback. But wanted to make clear how we did it this way.
Just set your mind to probabilities and statistics: both procedures lead to the same amount of fair randomness. Doing it our way simply ensures that one name/number does not keep popping up out of an enormous amount of luck and it is much easier to notice duplicates who have multiple entries.
I was discussing hosting tournaments with Sara, and we were thinking about hosts being overwhelmed by a high number of participants, especially if it's a new host. We came up with the idea of having a participant cap on tournaments hosted by hosts that don't have a lot of experience running tournaments yet.
Aside from new hosts though, what is the Committee's stance on a host implementing a participant cap? I feel like it would force people to arrive on time. I also feel like tournaments would just run more smoothly.
Aside from new hosts though, what is the Committee's stance on a host implementing a participant cap? I feel like it would force people to arrive on time. I also feel like tournaments would just run more smoothly.
![[Image: IkkiSignature.jpg]](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v653/Gigamew/IkkiSignature.jpg)
Oh jeez this does remind me 4 years ago.....50 people and it was my first time hosting.....the pressure was so unreal.
(Jul. 06, 2016 6:27 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: I was discussing hosting tournaments with Sara, and we were thinking about hosts being overwhelmed by a high number of participants, especially if it's a new host. We came up with the idea of having a participant cap on tournaments hosted by hosts that don't have a lot of experience running tournaments yet.
Aside from new hosts though, what is the Committee's stance on a host implementing a participant cap? I feel like it would force people to arrive on time. I also feel like tournaments would just run more smoothly.
As Burst begins in North America soon, then internationally, I feel as though larger communities are going need caps.It will have to be felt out, but it will be necessary soon.
I feel like this is being worked on, or we already have it but I haven't noticed it yet, but can we have Gold, Silver, and Bronze Driver faces for Burst tournaments? I like the idea of distuguishing between if you placed in Burst versus if you placed in MFB.
![[Image: THEKINGTAISIG.png]](https://s32.postimg.org/h1cevt2z9/THEKINGTAISIG.png)
![[Image: 1a1bfc1f08f30f84ebbe6f28c4017c7b.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/1a1bfc1f08f30f84ebbe6f28c4017c7b.png)
(Jul. 06, 2016 6:27 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: I was discussing hosting tournaments with Sara, and we were thinking about hosts being overwhelmed by a high number of participants, especially if it's a new host. We came up with the idea of having a participant cap on tournaments hosted by hosts that don't have a lot of experience running tournaments yet.
Aside from new hosts though, what is the Committee's stance on a host implementing a participant cap? I feel like it would force people to arrive on time. I also feel like tournaments would just run more smoothly.
Well, right now we are not experiencing that issue at all. What would you say is a "high number of participants" though? Technically I prepare all hosts to know how to organise a tournament of any size, to base the format of the tournament on the number of participants and to know how all those formats run even if all they ever host is eight-player events.
In concept, it makes sense to have a participant limit for new hosts, I agree, but it would have to be made extremely clear in the tournament topic so that nobody misses that, because it would be horrible to have someone show up and be told that they cannot play, even if they are on time. This is something we really want to avoid.
(Jul. 06, 2016 6:33 PM)Yami Wrote: Oh jeez this does remind me 4 years ago.....50 people and it was my first time hosting.....the pressure was so unreal.
Really? What tournament was that hah?
(Jul. 06, 2016 6:38 PM)Kai-V Wrote:Beyday 2012 https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Sliver-...Day--49642(Jul. 06, 2016 6:33 PM)Yami Wrote: Oh jeez this does remind me 4 years ago.....50 people and it was my first time hosting.....the pressure was so unreal.
Really? What tournament was that hah?
I couldn't find the challonge for that tournament .....oh well
I just figure that after the global release of Burst, a big city like NYC can easily get a tournament with a 30+ turnout, and that perhaps a younger host can be overwhelmed by that at first.
And I agree. It definitely needs to be made absolutely clear in the thread. I definitely see your point about being on time and not being able to play though. It's hard to figure out a way around that. Not everyone can supply incentives to come aside from just playing in the tournament.
And I agree. It definitely needs to be made absolutely clear in the thread. I definitely see your point about being on time and not being able to play though. It's hard to figure out a way around that. Not everyone can supply incentives to come aside from just playing in the tournament.
(Jul. 06, 2016 7:49 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: I just figure that after the global release of Burst, a big city like NYC can easily get a tournament with a 30+ turnout, and that perhaps a younger host can be overwhelmed by that at first.
And I agree. It definitely needs to be made absolutely clear in the thread. I definitely see your point about being on time and not being able to play though. It's hard to figure out a way around that. Not everyone can supply incentives to come aside from just playing in the tournament.
Yeah, and didn't you once host a tournament that had like 80+ people and you had to march across Central Park with them? Haha.
I think once Burst has launched internationally it would be a good idea to implement an attendance cap for new hosts on their first event if no other experienced hosts are present. However, at least in the major cities that we've seen host tournaments in the past, hopefully more often than not there won't be a situation where a new host is hosting a tournament without anyone to support him or her. But, it could happen if new communities pop up, so imposing the attendance cap for those specific situations is something worth considering.
Yeah. I wish I got a video for that moment. It would have looked really cool for the youtube channel.
Actually, I just proposed this to give new New York hosts a chance to get their feet wet when it comes to hosting since I really can't host anything frequently, but would like to go to events once in a while.
Actually, I just proposed this to give new New York hosts a chance to get their feet wet when it comes to hosting since I really can't host anything frequently, but would like to go to events once in a while.
can we do a world championship for free please for the six weeks holidays where we don't need to pay and a free passport to go around the world like on beyblade
how about adding a closed thread sub-fourm in Italian fourm?
![[Image: 2aj5k50.jpg]](https://i68.tinypic.com/2aj5k50.jpg)
![[Image: 1fftwi.jpg]](https://i66.tinypic.com/1fftwi.jpg)
![[Image: ig94b9.jpg]](https://i63.tinypic.com/ig94b9.jpg)