Honestly you can use Heavy, Gravity and Ring invariably now, for the most part, so it is not like we would see use of Boost or Oval out of nowhere: it would still be all the same top-tier, heavy Disks anyway. Allowing same Disks or not makes very little difference.
New Format Idea: "Deck Rotation System"
Glad to see such a positive reaction to this! After playing my first match using this format with Brad it didn't take me long to understand how it is superior to our current format in pretty much every way. Don't have much to add than has already been said about it, but the simple fact that it lowers some of the pressure to choose the ultimate single versatile combo that will defeat your opponent is what makes this format a win for me.
The only thing I would say that is that as great as this format is, there is something to be said for playing a full five-round BeyBattle with someone using the same Beyblades and adjusting launch techniques along the way as you adapt to your opponent's strategy ... Just think of all of the battles that end in a score of 3-2. That said, for as many 3-2 battles as there is, there is probably just as many 3-0 battles ... In the end, I think it's more important to eliminate those. In this new format, it's very difficult to win a battle 5-0 (although, I did do it to Brad once lol), which is ideal.
hahaha
Of course you wouldn't see bad Disks. You probably won't see Trident or Quake either. Even if Heavy and Gravity are used, isn't that still better than seeing Heavy or Gravity on everything? It's the same issue as we are having with Revolve; before it came out Gyro and Defense were basically equal and did the same thing, but the metagame felt more diverse because they were both highly usable.
In any case, I don't think the Disk selection would be as narrow as you think. Heavy, Gravity, Ring, Spread, Knuckle, Limited, Force, Armed, and maybe some others I'm forgetting are all usable.
Forcing players to choose three Disks also means that there will be some more interesting match-ups given that the chances of two identical combos playing each other is lowered even further since users will for example have to think carefully about which combo to place Heavy on.
The only thing I would say that is that as great as this format is, there is something to be said for playing a full five-round BeyBattle with someone using the same Beyblades and adjusting launch techniques along the way as you adapt to your opponent's strategy ... Just think of all of the battles that end in a score of 3-2. That said, for as many 3-2 battles as there is, there is probably just as many 3-0 battles ... In the end, I think it's more important to eliminate those. In this new format, it's very difficult to win a battle 5-0 (although, I did do it to Brad once lol), which is ideal.
(Jun. 01, 2016 12:40 AM)1234beyblade Wrote: Liked, Favorited, and Subscribed.
hahaha
(Jun. 01, 2016 7:40 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Honestly you can use Heavy, Gravity and Ring invariably now, for the most part, so it is not like we would see use of Boost or Oval out of nowhere: it would still be all the same top-tier, heavy Disks anyway. Allowing same Disks or not makes very little difference.
Of course you wouldn't see bad Disks. You probably won't see Trident or Quake either. Even if Heavy and Gravity are used, isn't that still better than seeing Heavy or Gravity on everything? It's the same issue as we are having with Revolve; before it came out Gyro and Defense were basically equal and did the same thing, but the metagame felt more diverse because they were both highly usable.
In any case, I don't think the Disk selection would be as narrow as you think. Heavy, Gravity, Ring, Spread, Knuckle, Limited, Force, Armed, and maybe some others I'm forgetting are all usable.
Forcing players to choose three Disks also means that there will be some more interesting match-ups given that the chances of two identical combos playing each other is lowered even further since users will for example have to think carefully about which combo to place Heavy on.
![[Image: beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/VLksgt2k/beybase-signature-is-beyblade-a-sport-Article.jpg)
Well, Disk-wise if you really think we would be forcing players to select something other than Heavy, Gravity and Ring, then that definitely screws up the accuracy of the statistics you are making with the winning combinations. Just something to take note of, because so far that data seemed interesting, but now we will see some unusual choices (or at least the less popular pieces will surge) and the only reason they would be used is because they were forced to vary, not because they wanted to and it was the best part in their opinion.
Though, conversely, it may encourage people to use parts other than Gravity and Heavy in situations where Gravity and Heavy are not necessarily the best choice, but players default to them anyways because it's simpler and easier to rely on those commonly-used Disks.
(Jun. 01, 2016 8:46 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Well, Disk-wise if you really think we would be forcing players to select something other than Heavy, Gravity and Ring, then that definitely screws up the accuracy of the statistics you are making with the winning combinations. Just something to take note of, because so far that data seemed interesting, but now we will see some unusual choices (or at least the less popular pieces will surge) and the only reason they would be used is because they were forced to vary, not because they wanted to and it was the best part in their opinion.
Well, since this format plays completely differently from the standard format, you can't really compare the results anyway.
FWIW, I never felt limited by this restriction.
I had a similar idea a while ago but that's by far the most awesome and fun format I've ever seen! 
I'm so amazed and I would love to organize a tournament in Germany if I get the money, time and the 7 participants together. My friends and me will defenetly try it out at our school! ^-^
I'm so amazed and I would love to organize a tournament in Germany if I get the money, time and the 7 participants together. My friends and me will defenetly try it out at our school! ^-^
(Jun. 01, 2016 8:46 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Well, Disk-wise if you really think we would be forcing players to select something other than Heavy, Gravity and Ring, then that definitely screws up the accuracy of the statistics you are making with the winning combinations. Just something to take note of, because so far that data seemed interesting, but now we will see some unusual choices (or at least the less popular pieces will surge) and the only reason they would be used is because they were forced to vary, not because they wanted to and it was the best part in their opinion.
Looking at it like this, I definitely agree. I think Brad made a similar point on Sunday. It makes more sense to me to not limit the disk so that you can have a strong deck of three instead of two strong beys and one mediocre one. Maybe some more comparable disks will come out, or disks with different uses.
![[Image: IkkiSignature.jpg]](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v653/Gigamew/IkkiSignature.jpg)
But people already consider Ring basically on-par, so there would not even really be a mediocre option. The only people who would get forced or restriced are those who will not have been able to afford buying those three fine options.
I'd like to see where this goes. It sounds fun and interesting, but not something I'd like to become the norm for all formats. Definitely seems like it's fit for Burst the most.
Edit:
Nvm, what Cake said.
Edit:
Nvm, what Cake said.
![[Image: 8mgpgcv.jpeg]](https://i.imgur.com/8mgpgcv.jpeg)
[/font](Jun. 01, 2016 12:07 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [The] deck is kept hidden from the opposing Blader.
Why is the deck kept hidden? I understand why the deck would be chosen in secret to begin with; which places good emphasis on the player's knowledge of the metagame. And I think the automatic double-blind choice to start a battle is good. But what is supposed to be achieved by this ongoing secrecy for the rest of the deck?
One of the things which made Ingulit's format so appealing was the strategy involved in fighting your specific opponent's battle-plan, rather than the entire Beyblade metagame in each round. The idea was that you could build blades which complemented each other strategically (use a stamina blade to force your oppoent to attack, then switch to anti-attack). You could then adjust your plan, depending on what your opponent was likely to be using later in the battle. This was burried in the details of Ingulit's complex format; but the idea itself was good.
By hiding the deck for the entire battle (in Brad's format) you confine this kind of strategy to the last couple of rounds in a five-round battle; which may never even occur, considering the value of points. By revealing the deck before the first-round double-blind choice, you would encourage strategic use of the deck (in addition to its metagame-based strategic selection) from the very first round.
I feel like I've missed some crucial point; but dem's mah thoughts.
![[Image: XloAViQ.png]](https://i.imgur.com/XloAViQ.png)
(Jun. 01, 2016 8:46 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Just something to take note of, because so far that data seemed interesting, but now we will see some unusual choices (or at least the less popular pieces will surge) and the only reason they would be used is because they were forced to vary, not because they wanted to and it was the best part in their opinion.
Might not be fair to compare like Brad said, but if it were up to a lot of players right now, they might choose three combinations with Revolve. We're "forcing" people to vary their Layers and Drivers, so I see no reason to not "force" players to choose different Disks as well. I see it as a good thing to force players to pick and choose where they want to use certain parts (especially the strongest ones). Their choice of where to use a particular part becomes more meaningful, then.
(Jun. 02, 2016 12:08 AM)Kai-V Wrote: But people already consider Ring basically on-par, so there would not even really be a mediocre option. The only people who would get forced or restriced are those who will not have been able to afford buying those three fine options.
I absolutely hate Ring haha. It literally always Bursts or loses in some way whenever I've seen people use it lately. Anyways, I don't think the Disk selection would be as limited as you believe it would be. During BEYBLADE NORTH I saw use of all of the following Disks by highly competitive players: Heavy, Gravity, Spread, Ring, Armed, and Knuckle. I don't think any deck would be made to include a "mediocre" Beyblade because of a Disk restriction, and I certainly never felt that way either when playing under this format on Sunday. It forced me to make decisions, but not decisions that would make my deck feel weak.
Beylon Wrote:By hiding the deck for the entire battle (in Brad's format) you confine this kind of strategy to the last couple of rounds in a five-round battle; which may never even occur, considering the value of points. By revealing the deck before the first-round double-blind choice, you would encourage strategic use of the deck (in addition to its metagame-based strategic selection) from the very first round.
You raise an interesting point, but I also feel like it is a fair advantage for a player to maintain if they can somehow play through the battle using only one or two Beyblades to not have the rest of their deck revealed. It makes switching to another Beyblade more significant because you're revealing more of your battle strategy to your opponent, which can affect not only how the battle plays out, but how the rest of the tournament plays out.
I also wonder how valuable revealing it from the beginning really would be because you know that any competent player will probably have a deck of Beyblades that cover all three of the major types (Attack, Defense, and Stamina) in some way. So if you've seen a Stamina and Defense type from your opponent already, you can definitely bet that he last one will be offensive.
(Jun. 02, 2016 2:17 AM)Kei Wrote:Might be worth it to try both strategies out & see which one people prefer. At the end of the day it still boils down to a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, but even with RPS there are a number of strategies for predicting an opponent's next move and fake-outs to counter them. Knowing all of the possible combinations that a player could face can influence their play, especially because with Beyblade, not all attack/stamina/defense combinations are created equal.Beylon Wrote:By hiding the deck for the entire battle (in Brad's format) you confine this kind of strategy to the last couple of rounds in a five-round battle; which may never even occur, considering the value of points. By revealing the deck before the first-round double-blind choice, you would encourage strategic use of the deck (in addition to its metagame-based strategic selection) from the very first round.
You raise an interesting point, but I also feel like it is a fair advantage for a player to maintain if they can somehow play through the battle using only one or two Beyblades to not have the rest of their deck revealed. It makes switching to another Beyblade more significant because you're revealing more of your battle strategy to your opponent, which can affect not only how the battle plays out, but how the rest of the tournament plays out.
I also wonder how valuable revealing it from the beginning really would be because you know that any competent player will probably have a deck of Beyblades that cover all three of the major types (Attack, Defense, and Stamina) in some way. So if you've seen a Stamina and Defense type from your opponent already, you can definitely bet that he last one will be offensive.
![[Image: jFAMV2B.png]](https://i.imgur.com/jFAMV2B.png)
This format sounds amazing, I'm very intrested to see how this would work with MFB.(Of course if it was to be played with MFB there wouldn't be 2 points for a burst finish.)
This format sounds amazing, I'm very intrested to see how this would work with MFB.(Of course if it was to be played with MFB there wouldn't be 2 points for a burst finish.).
This format sounds amazing, I'm very intrested to see how this would work with MFB.(Of course if it was to be played with MFB there wouldn't be 2 points for a burst finish.).
I think I prefer Ingulit's format plan, where the combos are revealed before the first round; I see no reason to go in completely blind at the start of the game, as that will simply encourage the use of the same "safe" combos the format is intended to help reduce. Forcing the winner to continue using the same combo is also probably not a good plan, especially if 2-point KOs and/or Bursts are a thing, since an opponent that wins one round using anything but Defense is almost guaranteed to be put a point behind after being locked into that same combo, at which point their opponent is free to go for a Burst or KO using Attack or Anti-Attack the next round. Locking the winner's combo is most likely just going to cause a back-and-forth battle between counters, to be decided either by a lucky pick in the first round or a mistake on the part of one Blader, neither of which are satisfying and competitive outcomes. Finally, returning to the concept of a reveal before the first round, I think that such a reveal, possibly with time to inspect and analyze each other's deck, would be very useful as an educational tool - newer Bladers could see examples of a competitive lineup (and a look into advanced strategy) and experienced Bladers could experiment with and learn about different synergies between combos and picking strategy.
wow i really liked this format. can i ask who's idea it was? [just wanted to know who had such a awesome idea]
we will definitely try this in free play before event [on June 5th]
we will definitely try this in free play before event [on June 5th]
![[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)
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: I think I prefer Ingulit's format plan, where the combos are revealed before the first round; I see no reason to go in completely blind at the start of the game, as that will simply encourage the use of the same "safe" combos the format is intended to help reduce.
A "safe" combo in the first round is just as viable as a more "risky" Attack combo because of the ability you would have to take a two point lead with an Attack type. I'm of the opinion that you would see a decent representation of both sides depending on the context and the players battling.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: Forcing the winner to continue using the same combo is also probably not a good plan, especially if 2-point KOs and/or Bursts are a thing, since an opponent that wins one round using anything but Defense is almost guaranteed to be put a point behind after being locked into that same combo, at which point their opponent is free to go for a Burst or KO using Attack or Anti-Attack the next round.
This format is indeed slightly hostile to Stamina types because of the two-point KOs and Burst Finishes it affords, and the fact that they can be easily countered after one round as you said. They still would have a place, but you have to be more strategic in your usage of them knowing that your opponent can follow it up with something that will likely Burst or KO you. I think this is a great thing. Let me give you an example of one good way to use a Stamina type in this format, though:
User A vs. User B
Round 1: DHR vs WSZ - DHR Wins (1-0)
Round 2: DHR vs. VHR - VHR Wins (1-2)
Round 3: VGX vs VHR - VGX Wins (3-2)
Not going to finish this example since it could go anywhere from here. The point is that a strategic use of DHR in the first round set up User A to take a lead despite knowing they would lose the second round. Being locked into Attack for the next round is not necessarily a bad thing because even if they lose to a Defense type and the battle becomes tied 3-3 in the next round, they would still have several chances to get it right since all they would need is one round win by Burst or KO to finish the battle. But that's just one way this battle could play out. Another example:
User A vs. User B
Round 1: NHR vs VGR - NHR Wins (1-0)
Round 2: NHR vs. DHD - DHD Wins (1-1)
Round 3: VLX vs DHD - VGX Wins (3-1)
Round 4: VLX vs NSG - NSG Wins (3-2)
In this case, User A has a choice to make after Round 4. Do they stick with VLX to go for the win and risk losing and tying the battle at three points each, or do they switch to a Stamina combo that will beat NSG to bring them to four points, knowing that there is a good chance the battle could be tied at 4-4 in the next round when their opponent counters them with VGR? Despite being down one point, User B is actually in a decent position here because User A is being forced into taking the "risk" of using VLX again, or the "risk" of switching to Stamina. Both choices give User B a reasonable chance to ultimately earn points and catch up or pass User A.
There an infinite number of ways these battles can play out–players can make mistakes, Beyblades can overcome type disadvantages in the hands of skilled players, and so on–so this might not be the best example, but the point here is that being down by one point does put you at a disadvantage, but it is not a deficit that is insurmountable. The drawbacks of giving up two points versus the benefits of being able to find yourself on the winning end of a Burst Finish or KO balance themselves out in the end.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: Locking the winner's combo is most likely just going to cause a back-and-forth battle between counters, to be decided either by a lucky pick in the first round or a mistake on the part of one Blader, neither of which are satisfying and competitive outcomes.
What is less satisfying: picking a combo in the current format, turning around, and knowing there is a high probability you will lose 3-0 ... or in this new format, ultimately losing a battle you could have won because you made a mistake in your launch or selection of counter? I'd say the current format is less satisfying by a long shot. The new format gives you a chance to respond. I would feel less satisfied knowing that I lost a battle mostly because I made the wrong choice in a double-blind selection than I would knowing that I lost because I made a mistake with a combo that should have beat my opponent during an actual round.
The current format is very unforgiving in comparison and too highly encourages the use of safe, versatile combos over more risky, specialized combos because competitive players know that consistent use of risky, specialized combos that only earn you one point per round win are not how you ultimately win tournaments.
Both types of combos have a place in this new format, and there would indeed be some back-and-forth countering, but that sounds like a lot of fun in my books! And even so, with the addition of the two-point Burst Finish/KO there will always be a way to take a greater lead or to make a quick comeback which will subsequently affect the rest of the battle as the opposing player adjusts their strategy.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: Finally, returning to the concept of a reveal before the first round, I think that such a reveal, possibly with time to inspect and analyze each other's deck, would be very useful as an educational tool - newer Bladers could see examples of a competitive lineup (and a look into advanced strategy) and experienced Bladers could experiment with and learn about different synergies between combos and picking strategy.
I don't know if this is something that should really be considered when deciding if a format is competitively viable. Players would ideally learn by doing (both practice and tournament battles) more than anything. After a couple battles, you'll definitely start to learn more about how this format works, and what strategy works best for you.
Plus, this format might already add a little bit of time onto the duration of events since players have to choose and construct three Beyblades instead of one (at least for Burst it is very easy/fast to assemble Beyblades), so allowing some unspecified amount of time for opponents to "inspect" their opponent's deck might not be a good idea.
So, I'm still in favour of the hidden deck. Revealing the entire deck would be like mandating that in a Trading Card Game, players would be allowed to review their opponents entire deck before their match began. Sure, you'd definitely get a better idea of what your opponent's battle strategy is, but how long would that take to formulate something coherent out of that? To me, it makes more sense to formulate a basic understanding of what successful Deck Rotation lineups look like, study your opponent's tendencies over time so you can roughly anticipate what they will do before during the selection process and during a battle, and then have your opponent's deck revealed to you round-by-round, reacting to that as it becomes necessary.
During our practice this past weekend I never really caught myself wondering "Geez, I wonder what my opponent's last Beyblade is ..."; my assumptions about players trying to balance their decks to respond to any situation were always mostly correct (what would be the point of having three Stamina Beyblades in your deck, for example?). The questions were sometimes just things like: "Is it Stationary Attack or not?", which are things you can guess with some degree of accuracy once you've studied a certain player's tendencies. That has still remained important in being able to choose the proper Beyblade for the opening round, but I also think it is still important to remain as part of the game for the subsequent rounds to one degree or another as well with the decks remaining hidden until the losing player chooses to reveal more.
Important to note that when you look at things statistically, after the first round if the losing player switches their Beyblade, at that point 50% of both decks combined will have been revealed (3/6 Beyblades). And the chances of someone sticking with a single Beyblade after losing more than once with it are quite low unless it is an Attack type, I would think. Players usually reveal the first two Beyblades of their deck relatively quickly. It would be rare to see someone win a BeyBattle in this format with a single Beyblade, so I just question whether it is really worth it to reveal the decks which would, a) Add even more time onto the total time it takes to complete a BeyBattle by having a designated "deck inspection" time and b) Diminish some of the importance of studying your opponent's tendencies to get a read for what their deck might contain. We're already diminishing it significantly (but in a good, fair way) by allowing you to have a deck in the first place that can respond to a bad match up. I don't know if I want to take that next step.
After some deliberation, I think I still prefer Ingulit's method of revealing your deck/team of three Beyblades before the battle begins. I feel like it rewards knowledge and skill a little more than Brad's method, at least in the first matchup if not the rest of tha match. Rather than entering the first round completely double-blind, both players enter the match with equal knowledge of what their opponent might use, and can make their first pick accordingly based on what combo they think will have the most coverage against their opponent or what they think their opponent will make as a safe pick. This rewards knowledge of how combos match up, as well as skill with different launching techniques that can be used to win otherwise unfavorable matchups. I would strongly encourage anyone to read his thread in its entirety before weighing in here (should this be merged to that thread?)
I know this ruleset was designed for only Burst, but if this part was used for other formats I would have to say I would support using repeat parts. Using the same example I gave in the other thread MSF-H Bahamdia Dragooon BD145R2F and MSF-L Girago Dragooon B:D are two very different combos that just happen to use the same part.
As for the issue of putting Heavy on everything: while I won't deny that Heavy is a great Disk, but is it really the best at anything vs a more specialised option? Gravity is just as heavy, but spins longer due to more OWD and less of a compact shape, Spread and Ring have those smooth outer edges that can give you the last half a second needed to win a Stamina battle, and many users have found that Armed is the hardest Disk to Burst. ZachBob and several other users think that Force is a better option on Valkyrie than Heavy, and I know Kei has used the similarly-shaped Limited to some success.
If someone chooses to walk into a battle using VHR, NHR, and DHR, good for them, they're all set to deal with pretty much any Burst-based opponent. However, all of those combos are weak to Xtreme-based KO Attackers, and someone more skilled with Xtreme than me would probably blow them out of the water. In my opinion, using repeat parts just limits the amount of combos you will have coverage against, at least in Burst where most parts are generally restricted to use in one type.
I am still on the fence about 2 point Bursts and KOs (especially Bursts), but I decided to keep my mouth shut on the issue until after AN (for obvious reasons). Kinda leaning towards keeping the rules the same seeing as even my subpar use of Attack types was able to do decently, so I would imagine that more skilled users could easily overcome Revolve. Also Dark Deathscyther _____ Orbit also defeats (some?) Revolve combos consistently, which like 4 different people discovered independently at the same time lol. Not sure about the best Disk or other applications since I haven't had too much time to look into it, but it's definitely a safer non-Revolve alternative to KO Attack.
Like I stated earlier, while I do think there is some strategic value in keeping your combos hidden, I also think it is outweighed by the strategic value of presenting the combos at the beginning of the battle. In this way, Bladers can plan the course of the match several battles in advance, similarly to how chess players will predict their opponent's reactions to a variety of hypothetical moves.
A good example of this would be the trial battle I had with 1234beyblade. I forgot what exact combos he was using, aside from D2GO, but I had VSZ, NKR, and D2GO. He had just defeated my VSZ with something to put himself at 4 points while I was down at 2. While I remember knowing I could have counter-picked that combo easily using NKR to win by OS, I knew that if I had made that move he would have just switched to D2GO and taken the win. Instead of making that game-ending play, I decided to bank on a sketchier matchup and ended up only losing 5-4 instead.
EDIT:
Round 5: A switches to Stamina (I assume it's a Deathscyther combo since you mentioned VGR would counter it), and OSes NSG to make the score 4-2.
Round 6: B counterpicks with VGR to make it 4-4.
Round 7: A switches to NHR and wins 5-4.
Alternatively, B might realize that VGR is a bad move in Round 6 (like I did against 1234) and bank on using DHD to either Burst or OS A's Stamina combo, putting the match at either 4-4 or 4-3, best case scenario. (B loses 5-2 or 6-2 if DHD bursts or has less Stamina than A's combo). If DHD beats A's Stamina combo, Player B then has to pray that Player A messes up using VLX somehow (twice if DHD wins by OS against VLX and the Stamina combo).
(Jun. 02, 2016 2:17 AM)Kei Wrote:(Jun. 01, 2016 8:46 PM)Kai-V Wrote: Just something to take note of, because so far that data seemed interesting, but now we will see some unusual choices (or at least the less popular pieces will surge) and the only reason they would be used is because they were forced to vary, not because they wanted to and it was the best part in their opinion.
Might not be fair to compare like Brad said, but if it were up to a lot of players right now, they might choose three combinations with Revolve. We're "forcing" people to vary their Layers and Drivers, so I see no reason to not "force" players to choose different Disks as well. I see it as a good thing to force players to pick and choose where they want to use certain parts (especially the strongest ones). Their choice of where to use a particular part becomes more meaningful, then.
I know this ruleset was designed for only Burst, but if this part was used for other formats I would have to say I would support using repeat parts. Using the same example I gave in the other thread MSF-H Bahamdia Dragooon BD145R2F and MSF-L Girago Dragooon B:D are two very different combos that just happen to use the same part.
As for the issue of putting Heavy on everything: while I won't deny that Heavy is a great Disk, but is it really the best at anything vs a more specialised option? Gravity is just as heavy, but spins longer due to more OWD and less of a compact shape, Spread and Ring have those smooth outer edges that can give you the last half a second needed to win a Stamina battle, and many users have found that Armed is the hardest Disk to Burst. ZachBob and several other users think that Force is a better option on Valkyrie than Heavy, and I know Kei has used the similarly-shaped Limited to some success.
If someone chooses to walk into a battle using VHR, NHR, and DHR, good for them, they're all set to deal with pretty much any Burst-based opponent. However, all of those combos are weak to Xtreme-based KO Attackers, and someone more skilled with Xtreme than me would probably blow them out of the water. In my opinion, using repeat parts just limits the amount of combos you will have coverage against, at least in Burst where most parts are generally restricted to use in one type.
(Jun. 02, 2016 2:17 AM)Kei Wrote:Beylon Wrote:By hiding the deck for the entire battle (in Brad's format) you confine this kind of strategy to the last couple of rounds in a five-round battle; which may never even occur, considering the value of points. By revealing the deck before the first-round double-blind choice, you would encourage strategic use of the deck (in addition to its metagame-based strategic selection) from the very first round.
You raise an interesting point, but I also feel like it is a fair advantage for a player to maintain if they can somehow play through the battle using only one or two Beyblades to not have the rest of their deck revealed. It makes switching to another Beyblade more significant because you're revealing more of your battle strategy to your opponent, which can affect not only how the battle plays out, but how the rest of the tournament plays out.
I also wonder how valuable revealing it from the beginning really would be because you know that any competent player will probably have a deck of Beyblades that cover all three of the major types (Attack, Defense, and Stamina) in some way. So if you've seen a Stamina and Defense type from your opponent already, you can definitely bet that he last one will be offensive.
I am still on the fence about 2 point Bursts and KOs (especially Bursts), but I decided to keep my mouth shut on the issue until after AN (for obvious reasons). Kinda leaning towards keeping the rules the same seeing as even my subpar use of Attack types was able to do decently, so I would imagine that more skilled users could easily overcome Revolve. Also Dark Deathscyther _____ Orbit also defeats (some?) Revolve combos consistently, which like 4 different people discovered independently at the same time lol. Not sure about the best Disk or other applications since I haven't had too much time to look into it, but it's definitely a safer non-Revolve alternative to KO Attack.
Like I stated earlier, while I do think there is some strategic value in keeping your combos hidden, I also think it is outweighed by the strategic value of presenting the combos at the beginning of the battle. In this way, Bladers can plan the course of the match several battles in advance, similarly to how chess players will predict their opponent's reactions to a variety of hypothetical moves.
A good example of this would be the trial battle I had with 1234beyblade. I forgot what exact combos he was using, aside from D2GO, but I had VSZ, NKR, and D2GO. He had just defeated my VSZ with something to put himself at 4 points while I was down at 2. While I remember knowing I could have counter-picked that combo easily using NKR to win by OS, I knew that if I had made that move he would have just switched to D2GO and taken the win. Instead of making that game-ending play, I decided to bank on a sketchier matchup and ended up only losing 5-4 instead.
EDIT:
(Jun. 02, 2016 6:25 AM)Kei Wrote: User A vs. User BPlayer A most likely ends up winning the battle, while B is not actually in a decent position at all, requiring luck and Player A making errors to secure the victory, while Player A does not have to expend too much skill and effort to take the match.
Round 1: NHR vs VGR - NHR Wins (1-0)
Round 2: NHR vs. DHD - DHD Wins (1-1)
Round 3: VLX vs DHD - VGX Wins (3-1)
Round 4: VLX vs NSG - NSG Wins (3-2)
In this case, User A has a choice to make after Round 4. Do they stick with VLX to go for the win and risk losing and tying the battle at three points each, or do they switch to a Stamina combo that will beat NSG to bring them to four points, knowing that there is a good chance the battle could be tied at 4-4 in the next round when their opponent counters them with VGR? Despite being down one point, User B is actually in a decent position here because User A is being forced into taking the "risk" of using VLX again, or the "risk" of switching to Stamina. Both choices give User B a reasonable chance to ultimately earn points and catch up or pass User A.
Round 5: A switches to Stamina (I assume it's a Deathscyther combo since you mentioned VGR would counter it), and OSes NSG to make the score 4-2.
Round 6: B counterpicks with VGR to make it 4-4.
Round 7: A switches to NHR and wins 5-4.
Alternatively, B might realize that VGR is a bad move in Round 6 (like I did against 1234) and bank on using DHD to either Burst or OS A's Stamina combo, putting the match at either 4-4 or 4-3, best case scenario. (B loses 5-2 or 6-2 if DHD bursts or has less Stamina than A's combo). If DHD beats A's Stamina combo, Player B then has to pray that Player A messes up using VLX somehow (twice if DHD wins by OS against VLX and the Stamina combo).
This seems like a great idea, but why the switch from best of 5 rounds to first to 5 points? It seems like it would just make things more complicated to keep track of. Is it just to promote attack types since, from what I understand after being in and out of the metagame, attack isn't very prevalent?
Thanks everyone for the lively discussion so far. Kei has done a pretty good job explaining the logic behind why I designed it this way, so I am not sure there's a ton left for me to add. However, I'll go into a few things:
Regarding a concealed deck versus a deck presented at the beginning of the match, it's a big of a pragmatic decision (it keeps the match moving briskly) as well as one that's intended to add some intensity to the match. I don't think either approach is necessarily more or less strategic, but they're different kinds of strategies. It's also intended to keep a bit of the intensity of selecting a combo before the match that exists in the current metagame.
As Kei said, in a game where the top-tier combos are limited in number and known by most serious players, you can make a pretty solid guess at what an opposing Blader's deck might contain. But Bladers who are willing to tread off the beaten path and make inclusions in their deck that are surprising and unorthodox should have the opportunity to benefit from the element of surprise. Having to plan ahead and make educated decisions about the unknown is not less strategic than seeing everything up-front and making decisions based on that. It's just a different kind of strategy.
This is compensated for by the fact that when you lose a round, you can switch into a new combo that ideally counters the opponent. I realize this mechanic seems weird considering the current metagame is often based around using combos that win like 90% of the time and praying your opponent doesn't use their 10%-counter, but this format would inevitably favour more well-rounded combinations and decks than the current metagame does. For example, you might not want to run Deathscyther at all due to its ease of being countered. Either way, this system means that you are never permanently locked into a losing matchup like you might be in Ingulit's format if you make the wrong guess — there is always an opportunity to recover for as long as the match is going.
Beyblade always heavily involves luck and errors on behalf of the opponent. And pretty much all competitive games are just as much about your opponent's mistakes as they are about your own strengths.
Overall, this format certainly encourages a bolder, more aggressive style of play that might not sit well with every player. The decision to use 2 points for Bursts and KOs is to incentivize Attack-types and reward skillful play, not to mention it prevents a match from becoming a carp-for-tat that heavily favours whoever wins the first round. You can make big strides if you play boldly, or you can slowly whittle down the opponent by playing conservatively.
Ultimately, this is just a proposal at this point in time and it could be changed drastically or not implemented at all. I'd encourage everyone to try it out with other skilled players — and also try it out with their own proposed modifications — and report back here. I think there's a lot of nuance to this format that can't be conveyed just writing about it.
Regarding a concealed deck versus a deck presented at the beginning of the match, it's a big of a pragmatic decision (it keeps the match moving briskly) as well as one that's intended to add some intensity to the match. I don't think either approach is necessarily more or less strategic, but they're different kinds of strategies. It's also intended to keep a bit of the intensity of selecting a combo before the match that exists in the current metagame.
As Kei said, in a game where the top-tier combos are limited in number and known by most serious players, you can make a pretty solid guess at what an opposing Blader's deck might contain. But Bladers who are willing to tread off the beaten path and make inclusions in their deck that are surprising and unorthodox should have the opportunity to benefit from the element of surprise. Having to plan ahead and make educated decisions about the unknown is not less strategic than seeing everything up-front and making decisions based on that. It's just a different kind of strategy.
This is compensated for by the fact that when you lose a round, you can switch into a new combo that ideally counters the opponent. I realize this mechanic seems weird considering the current metagame is often based around using combos that win like 90% of the time and praying your opponent doesn't use their 10%-counter, but this format would inevitably favour more well-rounded combinations and decks than the current metagame does. For example, you might not want to run Deathscyther at all due to its ease of being countered. Either way, this system means that you are never permanently locked into a losing matchup like you might be in Ingulit's format if you make the wrong guess — there is always an opportunity to recover for as long as the match is going.
Quote:Player A most likely ends up winning the battle, while B is not actually in a decent position at all, requiring luck and Player A making errors to secure the victory.
Beyblade always heavily involves luck and errors on behalf of the opponent. And pretty much all competitive games are just as much about your opponent's mistakes as they are about your own strengths.
Overall, this format certainly encourages a bolder, more aggressive style of play that might not sit well with every player. The decision to use 2 points for Bursts and KOs is to incentivize Attack-types and reward skillful play, not to mention it prevents a match from becoming a carp-for-tat that heavily favours whoever wins the first round. You can make big strides if you play boldly, or you can slowly whittle down the opponent by playing conservatively.
Ultimately, this is just a proposal at this point in time and it could be changed drastically or not implemented at all. I'd encourage everyone to try it out with other skilled players — and also try it out with their own proposed modifications — and report back here. I think there's a lot of nuance to this format that can't be conveyed just writing about it.
The whole format sounds great so far. One suggestion I do have that could solve the "reveal" issue could be to meet in the middle really. Say, only the Layer of each Bey is revealed at the start. That means that, while you know the Layers of your opponents Bey, you have to actively think about what that Layer could intail that the combo actually is. E.g: Deathscyther is revealed, but is not clear the intention of the combo that it's being used in. Could be attack-focused, could be used for Defense. Layers typically have potential in multiple areas anyway.
Alternatively, if the format went live across the WBO eventually, let organisers or the players in a match choose whether to go blind or not. Personally, I can't see how revealing anything would make any difference at all because the deck contents are already set in stone, and I like the element of surprise as well, but I can understand if people would want to know in advance.
Alternatively, if the format went live across the WBO eventually, let organisers or the players in a match choose whether to go blind or not. Personally, I can't see how revealing anything would make any difference at all because the deck contents are already set in stone, and I like the element of surprise as well, but I can understand if people would want to know in advance.
Kind of mentioned this before, but while the format is still in trial mode, can't we just try both rulesets & see which one the players themselves prefer?
You can do whatever you want; we tried this format and a few of us felt like it was worth exploring further, so I proposed it here. But there's a lot more than just two rulesets being proposed by other people in here, so you'd have to clarify what you mean 
(Jun. 02, 2016 7:31 AM)Dual Wrote: This seems like a great idea, but why the switch from best of 5 rounds to first to 5 points? It seems like it would just make things more complicated to keep track of. Is it just to promote attack types since, from what I understand after being in and out of the metagame, attack isn't very prevalent?I don't think it is to promote attack because best of 5 rounds promotes attack even more. I think it might be a concession to the people that are against KO and Burst being worth 2 points. If the matches are first to 5 it seems like a good middle ground between both sides of that argument.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:05 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: As Kei said, in a game where the top-tier combos are limited in number and known by most serious players, you can make a pretty solid guess at what an opposing Blader's deck might contain. But Bladers who are willing to tread off the beaten path and make inclusions in their deck that are surprising and unorthodox should have the opportunity to benefit from the element of surprise.
This! This so much! Players like Kei, 1234beyblade, and Wombat do spectacularly well because of this. It also encourages players to test more parts instead of relying just on the tier list.
I think Deck Rotation could be installed into every existing format we have, not just burst. this could spawn a whole new list of combos, as 3 beyblade teams that work well in the system.
I'm failing to make this post succinct, so apologies in advance if I sound overtly direct or insensitive; I'm just trying to get my point across with a minimum of fuss.
Can we all agree that revealing the deck does not require an "inspection" process? Inspection is a relic from Ingulit which we can safely abandon forever. Just choose your three blades, put them in plain sight (upside down if you must) and get on with the game; you either understand what your opponent is using from this, or you don't.
With this in mind, the pragmatism of the hidden deck is debatable. Consider the logistics of keeping your blades a secret for the entire battle (what is physicaly involved in that) versus just choosing them and being done with it.
I'm happy with this. I will continue to argue the strategic and logistical merits of revealing the deck because I can judge the maths involved without actually playing a game. But if the question is one of "intensity" then I can only trust you're correct in saying a hidden deck is more "intense" than a revealed one.
In following the crux of Kei's argument, I guess you're talking about the difference between mathematical strategy and political strategy. To be clear, the difference between "attack" and "defense" is an example of mathematical strategy. Scoping your opponent to learn what they're likely to use against you is an example of political strategy.
I do not like political strategy. This debate has raged for years. The basic problem with political strategy is that it encourages a certain type of "person" rather than a certain type of "play" in a game.
For example, Cards Against Humanity is a political game which rewards naturally funny people. But I cannot simply choose how funny I am. This feature of my personality is defined by the entire collective experience of my life so far. If I am not naturally funny to begin with, then I am naturally disadvantaged and there is nothing I can reasonably do about it. To win this game, I must change the very fabric of who I am by becoming funnier. Encouraging me to be anything but myself is an unreasonable expectation of any game.
It is all very well for the funniest person in the room to expect everyone else to be just as funny as they are; but in the grand scheme of game design, this expectation is totally unreasonable. The funniest person in the room is naturally the funniest and has an inbuilt natural advantage over everyone else.
Cards Against Humanity gets away with this unfair system of play because there is always something to be gained (as a social group) by having a funny person in the room. But Beyblade is different because its politics (scoping the enemy) can only ever be used to benefit just one person in the group at a time.
Scoping out your opponent is something which naturally comes easier to some people than others. Typically, an outgoing extrovert will be better at scoping their opponent than a shy introvert. This might be hard for the "funniest person in the room" to understand, but all the shy introverts of the world will agree with me. Scoping your opponent gives certain players a natural advantage over others and inventing a rule which specifically encourages this behaviour is totally unfair for everyone else; particularly as this rule appears to have been invented by the very people it benefits most.
It is all very well for the outgoing extroverts to say everyone else would just be better off extroverted too; but in the grand scheme of humanity and social equality, this expectation for people to actively change their own personalities is totally unreasonable. Deliberately designing interactive rules which put certain personality types at a natural disadvantage is not good play.
The whole purpose of any game (the very definition of a game, in fact) is to provide a system of interactive rules which allow for fair play. Politics universally ruins this concept and although it can be fun in satirical games like Cards Against Humanity or Cludo, Beyblade will never benefit from this in the same way.
I do not doubt that players who are naturally good at politics will gain an advantage in Beyblade anyway. The same can be said of players who are physically stronger than others. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with actually becoming physically stronger or more politically cunning as a person; these are good qualities for a person to have. But to actually expect players to change who they are, in favour of these qualities, as a basic function of competition in the game, and to use this concept specifically to inform design decisions in a system of interactive rules, is just universally not cool.
Clearly there are many other good reasons for the deck to remain hidden; but using the hidden deck to encourage opponent-scoping is not a reasonable argument. Politics will always have its place in any game involving humans; but this does not mean we should strive to incorporate such concepts directly into the core fabric of the rules. The whole point of "rules" in the first place is to overcome such naturally unfair human inconsistencies.
Let us assume that A) and B) are the two major counters from Kei against revealing the deck. Let us also assume there is no annoying deck "inspection"; which essentially solves A) to a reasonable degree.
But otherwise this is exactly what I mean when I criticise political play. Studying your opponent should not be an integral part of the game. By all means, do it. Benefit from it. Go forth and be awesome! But don't write the actual rules with a mind to encouraging a style of play exclusive of an extroverted minority; try to be open minded about how your ability to scope your opponents may be a rare and unusual skill which people outside your usual Beyblade crew cannot reasonably benefit from in the same way.
At the very least, you're still selecting your deck blind. Predicting three blades at once is statistically more difficult than predicting one in a set metagame, no? Plenty of room to exercise your political whimsy in that respect.
Personally, I find the reasoning that a hidden deck is just naturally more entertaining (presumably because of the constant tension this unknown factor embues) to be far more palatable. I can make mathematical allowances for the basic play-tested fun factor. If it is simply more fun to keep the deck hidden, then okay. But I do not buy the argument that politics are more fun or fair or reasonable and I really wish the pro-political argument would just go to sleep forever.
Succinct fail!
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:05 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: Regarding a concealed deck versus a deck presented at the beginning of the match, it's a big of a pragmatic decision (it keeps the match moving briskly) ...
Can we all agree that revealing the deck does not require an "inspection" process? Inspection is a relic from Ingulit which we can safely abandon forever. Just choose your three blades, put them in plain sight (upside down if you must) and get on with the game; you either understand what your opponent is using from this, or you don't.
With this in mind, the pragmatism of the hidden deck is debatable. Consider the logistics of keeping your blades a secret for the entire battle (what is physicaly involved in that) versus just choosing them and being done with it.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:05 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: ... as well as one that's intended to add some intensity to the match.
I'm happy with this. I will continue to argue the strategic and logistical merits of revealing the deck because I can judge the maths involved without actually playing a game. But if the question is one of "intensity" then I can only trust you're correct in saying a hidden deck is more "intense" than a revealed one.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:05 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: I don't think either approach is necessarily more or less strategic, but they're different kinds of strategies.
In following the crux of Kei's argument, I guess you're talking about the difference between mathematical strategy and political strategy. To be clear, the difference between "attack" and "defense" is an example of mathematical strategy. Scoping your opponent to learn what they're likely to use against you is an example of political strategy.
I do not like political strategy. This debate has raged for years. The basic problem with political strategy is that it encourages a certain type of "person" rather than a certain type of "play" in a game.
For example, Cards Against Humanity is a political game which rewards naturally funny people. But I cannot simply choose how funny I am. This feature of my personality is defined by the entire collective experience of my life so far. If I am not naturally funny to begin with, then I am naturally disadvantaged and there is nothing I can reasonably do about it. To win this game, I must change the very fabric of who I am by becoming funnier. Encouraging me to be anything but myself is an unreasonable expectation of any game.
It is all very well for the funniest person in the room to expect everyone else to be just as funny as they are; but in the grand scheme of game design, this expectation is totally unreasonable. The funniest person in the room is naturally the funniest and has an inbuilt natural advantage over everyone else.
Cards Against Humanity gets away with this unfair system of play because there is always something to be gained (as a social group) by having a funny person in the room. But Beyblade is different because its politics (scoping the enemy) can only ever be used to benefit just one person in the group at a time.
Scoping out your opponent is something which naturally comes easier to some people than others. Typically, an outgoing extrovert will be better at scoping their opponent than a shy introvert. This might be hard for the "funniest person in the room" to understand, but all the shy introverts of the world will agree with me. Scoping your opponent gives certain players a natural advantage over others and inventing a rule which specifically encourages this behaviour is totally unfair for everyone else; particularly as this rule appears to have been invented by the very people it benefits most.
It is all very well for the outgoing extroverts to say everyone else would just be better off extroverted too; but in the grand scheme of humanity and social equality, this expectation for people to actively change their own personalities is totally unreasonable. Deliberately designing interactive rules which put certain personality types at a natural disadvantage is not good play.
The whole purpose of any game (the very definition of a game, in fact) is to provide a system of interactive rules which allow for fair play. Politics universally ruins this concept and although it can be fun in satirical games like Cards Against Humanity or Cludo, Beyblade will never benefit from this in the same way.
I do not doubt that players who are naturally good at politics will gain an advantage in Beyblade anyway. The same can be said of players who are physically stronger than others. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with actually becoming physically stronger or more politically cunning as a person; these are good qualities for a person to have. But to actually expect players to change who they are, in favour of these qualities, as a basic function of competition in the game, and to use this concept specifically to inform design decisions in a system of interactive rules, is just universally not cool.
Clearly there are many other good reasons for the deck to remain hidden; but using the hidden deck to encourage opponent-scoping is not a reasonable argument. Politics will always have its place in any game involving humans; but this does not mean we should strive to incorporate such concepts directly into the core fabric of the rules. The whole point of "rules" in the first place is to overcome such naturally unfair human inconsistencies.
(Jun. 02, 2016 6:25 AM)Kei Wrote: It would be rare to see someone win a BeyBattle in this format with a single Beyblade, so I just question whether it is really worth it to reveal the decks which would, a) Add even more time onto the total time it takes to complete a BeyBattle by having a designated "deck inspection" time and b) Diminish some of the importance of studying your opponent's tendencies to get a read for what their deck might contain. We're already diminishing it significantly (but in a good, fair way) by allowing you to have a deck in the first place that can respond to a bad match up. I don't know if I want to take that next step.
Let us assume that A) and B) are the two major counters from Kei against revealing the deck. Let us also assume there is no annoying deck "inspection"; which essentially solves A) to a reasonable degree.
But otherwise this is exactly what I mean when I criticise political play. Studying your opponent should not be an integral part of the game. By all means, do it. Benefit from it. Go forth and be awesome! But don't write the actual rules with a mind to encouraging a style of play exclusive of an extroverted minority; try to be open minded about how your ability to scope your opponents may be a rare and unusual skill which people outside your usual Beyblade crew cannot reasonably benefit from in the same way.
At the very least, you're still selecting your deck blind. Predicting three blades at once is statistically more difficult than predicting one in a set metagame, no? Plenty of room to exercise your political whimsy in that respect.
Personally, I find the reasoning that a hidden deck is just naturally more entertaining (presumably because of the constant tension this unknown factor embues) to be far more palatable. I can make mathematical allowances for the basic play-tested fun factor. If it is simply more fun to keep the deck hidden, then okay. But I do not buy the argument that politics are more fun or fair or reasonable and I really wish the pro-political argument would just go to sleep forever.
Succinct fail!