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

Official Limited Ban List Discussion

Jan. 14, 2014  7:00 PM
 
Yeah, I just read that, and and one test with a Scythe 230D beating a Burn F230CS by Tri, but I'm not sure how meaningful that is (Hasbro F230, unknown Scythe mold, unknown CS wear/movement), and one test with a Libra 85RF beating Scythe (unknown) CH120RF by Coach, and now a series of tests by Leone19 beating Scythe (unknown) consistantly.

*sigh*, I don't like relying on statistics with no hands-on experience with parts, but it seems I have to. I guess there's enough testers in the other threads, even if it often boils down to only one test involving Scythe, and we have at least 3 persons having better results with AA2 batch molds. My opinion probably doesn't hinge on the decision, but if Coach and Leone19 (and anyone else providing tests where Scythe gets beaten handily) are beating AA2 (or AA4, apparently nevermind, can't seem to find that much information about that one after all) Scythes, then I suggest we wait for more conclusive results, if they're not, than I'll vouch for emergency banning it for the time being.

And I don't believe that testing isn't valuable, but I do believe there is a point where a single person's tests become meaningless: 400 tests or 1000, you're still one tester with the same technique, same stadium, same launcher, same play surface, etc. At some point, it just becomes redundant to test a single thing, where the 100 tests just confirm that the validity of your tests is still as valid as when you did the earlier 100 tests.
Jan. 14, 2014  7:14 PM
 
I know exactly what you mean on all counts (especially about not wanting to rely on statistics without hands on experience). If nothing more comes up by tomorrow in terms of mold numbers I'll get onto messaging people about it and so on. AA4, judging from what Ingulit has told me, doesn't seem to be as good as AA2, but I am not sure if he's tested the specific combinations extensively or whatever.

Oh, yes that part of my post wasn't aimed at you at all, more just a general observation/response to what seems to be a particular "school of thought" in a few of the people I've spoken to about it and felt I should voice it formally/officially. I completely understand what you meant in your original post with regards to the pointlessness of further testing from me on Scythe, and agree with your opinion there.

EDIT: Don't feel like doubleposting for this, but I'm still kinda torn about this whole gravity ban business. While it's dominated a few tournaments and so on, and is an awesome attack wheel, I'm still not sure if removing it is actually the best idea for the format. The thing is the fact it is dual spin, decently heavy, has a good weight distribution and nice shape means it has a lot of potential for a broad range of customizations that I'm not sure anything else in the format can really pull off. I mean those same factors are part of why it's so dominant but at the same time, it's so versatile I almost feel like we could actually lose variety of non-MW parts without it.
It's also kinda annoying from a testing standpoint, as while gravity's contact points are slightly different in either spin direction, it's still really good for comparing how a combo handles left/right spin opponents while keeping other variables as close as possible. Plus, personally speaking I'm pretty consistent with Gravity so it's nice for benchmarks.
Plus, as I've said, if people want to hold off on a Scythe ban for whatever reason I'd very strongly suggest leaving Gravity unbanned for the sake of type balance.
Jan. 16, 2014  12:00 AM
 
So Limited has really taken off, and the format has evolved much faster than originally expected! As such, after talking with a number of members, we're changing the update schedule so that updates to the ban list will be monthly rather than bimonthly! That way we can experiment more readily based on the large amount of tournament data that's been coming in!

Not only that, but a number of members have been suggesting that since we already have a lot of tournament data and a couple of widely-agreed-upon changes already proposed, it might be a good idea to push a late January update before the scheduled one on February 1st. It'd essentially be a belated January 1st, 2014 update (which didn't happen since the format was so new). These are the changes that were being discussed for the January update:

January 2014 Update PROPOSAL Wrote:Newly Banned
  • WHEEL: Gravity
Newly Unbanned
  • WHEEL: Omega
  • BOTTOM: RB

Unbanning Omega and RB both seem to have wide support, so those two changes seem very logical.

While Gravity is more debatable, it is currently overwhelmingly dominating Limited tournaments according to current tournament results, and as such it found its way onto this proposed January update. It wouldn't necessarily be gone for good, but at the moment the thought is that banning it for now would enable this new format to grow, possibly to the point where it could reasonably be unbanned later!

Though it's late in January, if we pushed this update, there would still be plenty more to talk about before February 1st (namely Scythe and continuing to discuss Gravity)!

There are a number of tournaments happening this coming weekend, so we decide to have this late update I personally think it might be wise to wait until Sunday for it to go into effect (unless the tournament organizers want the update now, I suppose, haha!). With that in mind, I'm going to go on ahead and say that unless there is significant opposition to the update, it will go into effect this Sunday at the latest! So, if you have concerns, get discussing! Grin
Jan. 16, 2014  12:10 AM
 
No ban on Scythe? Seeing as no one in this thread has actually opposed it, and opposition to banning it in the public forum has dropped off after the mold performance difference revelation, I think people (myself included) deserve an explanation, seeing as this is not at all representative of prevailing opinion - especially among those of us with what appears to be the "good" mold.

Anyway: adamantly oppose banning gravity or unbanning RB whilst Scythe remains legal, both actions only serve to strengthen its potent ability to completely wreck the viability of Attack types competitively - anyone suggesting doing so is blatantly ignoring the testing on Scythe for defense, which is more than enough to be relevant to this decision.

Again insist Scythe be banned ASAP based on testing both showing the ability of one mold to break the format, and the defensive testing showing it is extremely bad for format health. As someone looking at hosting a Limited Format Tournament soon - heck, one who could use that to their advantage - I don't really want to host until this problem is actually fixed, and especially not if it's going to be made worse by a misinformed and short-sighted update before then.

Also suggest that someone who supports the ban on Gravity actually respond to the vocal opposition to banning it that has dominated the public discussion thread of late, preferably with a simple explanation of why we're (more than likely) going to ban it alongside responses to their major concerns. Simple matter of actually showing people their opinions are heard and valued - after all, an organization is nothing without the people who make it up.
Jan. 16, 2014  2:27 AM
 
About Scythe, I believe we are waiting to see it actually dominate at tournaments first. Right now, it does not appear to be a problem at all in events, which is all Limited is : even if Attack customizations seemed to dominate in the past, that was not the case in tournaments, so they were never banned of course. This Hasbro Scythe involves more than just Attack, but it still has not become problematic outside of tests yet.
Jan. 16, 2014  2:31 AM
 
Scythe is not exactly a common part, let alone the good molds of it, so personally I don't think that's appropriate - and also that it is a very ill-advised risk to take given this is a new format and it needs to make a good impression on attendees.

Anyway, I'm more concerned about the defense results than I am the combination I posted honestly - at least it requires using RF, defensively though the testing should be more than enough to earn it a ban even if it doesn't see tournament usage - it's the same thing as with RS, it should be enough to have a big negative impact on whether people are willing to use attack, even if it isn't practical (though of course, it is very much practical - it'll outspin other defense combos with ease).

At the very least if you're going to hold off til a tourney features it, take my advice and hold off on the changes to Gravity and RB, because both of those things only make it an even worse problem.

We've banned other things as a precaution before the format began, and if we'd done that with this part it would safely be sitting in the "never unban" pile after the results we've seen from testing alone. I'm happy to provide a wider range of defense tests if people feel that much is necessary as Tri was getting similar results with a non-AA2 Scythe.

Just as a rundown, what we're talking about is one of the heaviest wheels in the format, which is clearly one of if not the best stamina wheels, which has also posted extremely impressive defensive results which shut down all but the best left spin attack types, as well as results from one combination where a mold of it breaks the game. Whether or not it's showing up at tournaments, I think that is more than enough, especially as it has turned out that none of the skeptics actually have the most powerful mold, to pass judgement on it.
As per a request, here's the update as I'd like to see it:

January 2014 Update PROPOSAL Wrote:Newly Banned
  • WHEEL: Gravity
  • WHEEL: Scythe (Metal Fury)
Newly Unbanned
  • WHEEL: Omega
  • BOTTOM: RB

Explanation:
Scythe is arguably the best Stamina, Defense, and Balance wheel in the format - it's one of the heaviest and it has a massive flywheel effect (which seems to vary depending on the code underneath - AA2 being the best). As a defense wheel, only Gravity and Lightning really stand up to it, and against the latter a more aggressive launch can cause problems because it is rather light and Scythe is rather heavy - this also causes problems for Pegasis, even if it uses CH120 for a good height matchup. It basically does to Attack what RS does, except instead of being outspun by other defense types, it outspins them (CS being balance rather than defense in Limited). RB would only further strengthen its defensive capabilities, especially with its somewhat aggressive tendencies which will likely make it even more problematic for most of the Attack spectrum, and as Gravity is by far its best counter, banning it while leaving Scythe around is a poor idea. Then of course there's MF Scythe PegasisII CH120RF - I can understand wanting to see tournament results even if I feel it's a very misguided approach given Limited's particular circumstances, but the fact its winrates against defense are equal to the best attack types in the format should be more than enough to show that Scythe is broken - it excels at literally everything.

Everything else is as per Ingulit's explanations.

The second option I see, if you want to hold off banning Scythe, is the following:

January 2014 Update PROPOSAL Wrote:Newly Unbanned
  • WHEEL: Omega

Explanation: As changing the legality of RB and Gravity will only exaggerate Scythe's dominance and further reduce the viability of Attack types, this is a safer alternative if you want to hold off on banning Scythe. It's basically the "play it safe" route, and also gives us more time to see if Gravity usage drops down at all, which some people in the public discussion thread have advocated (I certainly wouldn't mind).
Jan. 16, 2014  4:27 AM
 
As I said previously, I don't believe we have enough testers to make an absolute ban case against Scythe, but we do have enough to determine that it could be problematic, and possibly very much so. If I get the mold numbers I wanted to see, it would help thinning the variables out of the "could."

As a sort of compromise, my suggestion would be to take a "prévenir plutôt que guérir" approach (being proactive basically; prevent rather than mend): we emergency ban it now to give ourselves time for more testers to contribute and to solidify our understanding of mold differences. Then, come the March update (since you insist on a schedule), if results are lends themselves to it or if nothing significant was done, we unban it, and then let the tournaments decide whether it's broken or not (assuming the second option). That way, we'll have at least given a chance for the community to assess the risks of it being absolutely game-breaking or not, rather than giving it a free pass to break it before we intervene (assuming it can).

To me, that would seem fair for both sides.
Jan. 16, 2014  5:32 AM
 
That would be better than the alternative, for sure - at this point in the format's existence I definitely agree that prevention is better than cure, though I am uneasy about the result of no further information being to unban it, just because so far those who don't have the good mold have been reluctant to formally test it for anything other than stamina (if you guys read this - defense testing would be real good!)
I've messaged both Coach and Shining Dog MS to ask what the numbers on theirs are about 7 hours back so I'm sure we'll at least know that soon enough.
Jan. 17, 2014  6:28 AM
 
This topic reminds me that I didn't respond to this late january update thing.

While I support monthly updates, I oppose pushing out an update before February, and even moreso before this weekend. This rushed update thing came completely out of the blue only days before it was supposed to take effect, with no real community input or discussion or anything. That is absolutely not how this format should operate, and I feel it's also not a respectful way to approach things.

On a more practical level, people do need time to prepare for tournaments, so we should always aim to give sufficient notice before a banlist change takes effect, obviously excluding the rare occasion where something is truly gamebreaking (though as we've seen, discussions on that tend to take a while anyway, and frankly I don't expect any further issues with that once Scythe is sorted out). Stuff like the discussion I linked are the reason this is a good idea, and I feel that especially with Feb 1st being relatively close, rushing an update out now provides relatively little benefit while being a very unprofessional move.

So I'm opposing it on both practical and I guess "ethical" grounds, for lack of a better word. Plus at the rate most of you are responding it's probably going to take us til the February update to actually settle this anyway haha.
Jan. 17, 2014  7:15 PM
 
(Jan. 16, 2014  4:27 AM)Nocto Wrote: As I said previously, I don't believe we have enough testers to make an absolute ban case against Scythe, but we do have enough to determine that it could be problematic, and possibly very much so. If I get the mold numbers I wanted to see, it would help thinning the variables out of the "could."

As a sort of compromise, my suggestion would be to take a "prévenir plutôt que guérir" approach (being proactive basically; prevent rather than mend): we emergency ban it now to give ourselves time for more testers to contribute and to solidify our understanding of mold differences. Then, come the March update (since you insist on a schedule), if results are lends themselves to it or if nothing significant was done, we unban it, and then let the tournaments decide whether it's broken or not (assuming the second option). That way, we'll have at least given a chance for the community to assess the risks of it being absolutely game-breaking or not, rather than giving it a free pass to break it before we intervene (assuming it can).

To me, that would seem fair for both sides.

That actually sounds entirely reasonable given the results Scythe is putting up in testing, and does sound rather fair to both sides of the argument: Scythe would be banned a little pre-emptively with the stipulation that we keep testing it to see if we can unban it safely (similar to how we banned all 4D wheels but are now looking at unbanning Omega after showing it wouldn't hurt the format). Since the format is very young, being cautious now will likely pay off in the long run. I'm totally for this idea.

(Jan. 17, 2014  6:28 AM)th!nk Wrote: This topic reminds me that I didn't respond to this late january update thing.

While I support monthly updates, I oppose pushing out an update before February, and even moreso before this weekend. This rushed update thing came completely out of the blue only days before it was supposed to take effect, with no real community input or discussion or anything. That is absolutely not how this format should operate, and I feel it's also not a respectful way to approach things.

On a more practical level, people do need time to prepare for tournaments, so we should always aim to give sufficient notice before a banlist change takes effect, obviously excluding the rare occasion where something is truly gamebreaking (though as we've seen, discussions on that tend to take a while anyway, and frankly I don't expect any further issues with that once Scythe is sorted out). Stuff like the discussion I linked are the reason this is a good idea, and I feel that especially with Feb 1st being relatively close, rushing an update out now provides relatively little benefit while being a very unprofessional move.

So I'm opposing it on both practical and I guess "ethical" grounds, for lack of a better word. Plus at the rate most of you are responding it's probably going to take us til the February update to actually settle this anyway haha.

I'm 100% in agreement, actually, though I will admit the argument in favor of a late January update (which I was just now made aware of) is compelling: this weekend is the first time Limited tournaments will be processed under the Beypoints system, and there is the worry that parts like Gravity will dominate and cause issues with Beypoints due to people winning with "broken" parts (NOTE: "broken" is in quotes because, while I think Gravity IS ban worthy, I acknowledge that calling it "broken" is very questionable; I just did so for argument's sake). Under that light, pushing an update prior to the tournaments would be beneficial, though it would really suck to have to surprise the tournament hosts/tournament goers with an update before tomorrow :c
Jan. 17, 2014  11:21 PM
 
Unless we are to accept that gravity is actually "broken", which I have a hard time believing though perhaps f230cf would change my mind (can someone get me vids of that thing vs attack?) then there shouldn't be any reason to rush out an update.
I propose we always aim to give at least 5 days notice before any tournament before enacting an update. That should be sufficient time for people to prepare. Seeing as we are not completely settled on what this update will be just yet I think a couple more days would be beneficial to us, too.

Also, Nocto, Coach responded, his Scythe is AA1. Nothing from SDMS yet but yeah, that's another for you.
Jan. 18, 2014  12:09 AM
 
Coach and Leone19's were the ones I mainly wanted to see anyway. With these, I personally think we can go ahead and ban Scythe following this weekend's tournaments (or with the February update, if next weekend tournament participants feel strongly prejudiced by it). Then, as I said before, we can reevaluate Scythe's position come the March update.

And to clarify, th!nk, my point was not so much about no results, but rather no interest: if nothing happens during the next month (and a half), then at some point I'd rather have an answer than none, even if it comes from tournaments. However, if a month (and a half) is too short (which would be perfectly understandable), I'm definitely not opposed to lengthening the evaluation period.

Also, and unrelated to the topic at hand, the recent debate over the sudden unannounced update has made me curious about how long before a tournament the average blader starts preparing.
Jan. 18, 2014  1:26 AM
 
Yes, your proposal has my full support. A month and a half *should* be plenty, anyway, and as I see it thorough enough defense testing will make it abundantly clear that it shouldn't be around.
Just to explain why I personally feel tournament usage is unnecessary given thorough testing in this particular case, as I know that it is somewhat controversial with certain people here: Scythe has and will continue to put up numbers equal to or usually better than the best wheels for every single type, not just attack, so it's not really a situation where practicality is going to hold it back any more than any other defense or stamina wheel (and keep in mind, exploration into balance combos with it has been limited, but it is a perfect candidate for TH170/230CS which is generally quite spammable if attack types aren't around, I'll look into testing that today) - tournament usage tells us nothing that we can't see from the testing and simple logic, at the cost of potentially having one of the more fragile scenes or people new to Limited see a format dominated by a single wheel and go "welp that sucks not playin that again." Sure, not the biggest risk ever, but given it is for absolutely no benefit, it's still not something I personally consider acceptable, hence my opposition to the idea. Also, it's moreso the idea of banning gravity and introducing RB without getting rid of Scythe that I'm opposed to, as both of those only make it more of a problem than it already is. My mind could be changed if someone were to explain what we could gain from seeing it dominate a tournament that thorough testing cannot provide (assuming said explanation is valid, of course), which I do not think is unreasonable to ask, seeing as I have explained the reasoning behind my position thoroughly.

Is there anything in particular you want to see testing of with regards to Scythe? A specific list would probably help with getting people to test. Personally I'm probably going to work on the th170/230cs thing or something like that just to demonstrate some of the even more "spammable" scythe customs, might still do some defense tests for the heck of it just to show what it is capable of against a broader range of opponents, but yeah.


As for how long it takes people to prepare, that would generally depend on a lot of factors. Personally I would *like* to give a full seven days notice so there is at least a weekend in there, basically we finalize what the update is to be a week in advance (or at least so people have a full week before a tournament where they know what the list will be). In this case though, a few people seem very keen to rush through this gravity thing and seeing as people are aware of what's going on with it, so I can acquiesce to slightly less notice - just not the sub-24 hours we'd be looking at were we to do it for this weekend (which I assume is now not happening given it hasn't been unanimously accepted/has seen some serious criticism).
Jan. 19, 2014  1:31 AM
 
So, all the discussion about Scythe was duly ignored without any public discussion as to why - no actual opposition to banning it in public at least since the mold thing came out, so uh yeah can't say I'm pleased, p disrespectful u no, kinda hoped by now we were past that.

If anyone would like to provide an explanation, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would appreciate it. I mean, I had hoped that after three years and the various things I've done I would at least warrant IDK a reply or whatever. Especially as you know, I'm the one here who, yeah, actually has this wheel and has made quite a few posts trying to get some discussion about it going. Good to know the time I put into stuff is valued guys Wink
Jan. 19, 2014  5:32 AM
 
The OP was updated to reflect v1.1 of the ban list.
Jan. 22, 2014  6:47 AM
 
Just to let everyone know, Jade is probably going to be the only thing we'd be looking at for the March update (we are still doing monthlies right? Helps TO's/attendees know when there might be an update so they can plan ahead etc, so I like the idea).

Here's the discussion thread. So far it doesn't look threatening, given a 3g Clear Wheel it's about the same weight as libra and pretty awfully shaped and I can't say I have high hopes for Jade Force Smash looking at the contact points. More defense tests (i.e. from more people) with comparisons to Libra and some anti-attack/attack vs attack tests would be good, but so far it really doesn't look that threatening.
Jan. 22, 2014  4:19 PM
 
Regarding update schedules, I would PERSONALLY like to see us try to announce a ban list update the first of each month for at least the next few months, even if the "update" doesn't actually have any changes. For example, for structure's sake, I'd really like it if we were to announce an update on February 1st, though I'm imagining it wouldn't have any changes since we just did the whole "late January update" thing. Then, once we get to a decently stable ban list (meaning several months in a row of no changes) we can cut back on the frequency of updates.

Again, that's just my PREFERENCE, since ultimately it'll be up to the committee to announce updates.


I'd love to see Jade unbanned if only to see if the force smash custom I blogged about ages ago would actually work in Limited, haha!
Jan. 23, 2014  3:09 AM
 
Personally, I don't think monthly updates are necessary. They might help push us forward to make decisions, but we need to be careful that we aren't posting updates just for the sake of posting updates. If you're admitting that you want to post "updates" even if there is no actual update ... why would we do them? lol
Jan. 23, 2014  4:12 AM
 
The idea was that it would give a sense of structure to the updates and would give people something to look forward to/could plan tournaments around, primarily to avoid the whole "the update will be pushed with little prior warning a day before a big tournament" thing that happened with this recent out-of-schedule update.
Jan. 23, 2014  5:54 AM
 
I do not think we need to "announce" an update when we have no update to make so much as announce that there won't be any changes. I'm hoping we'll have something for February in Jade, but that is going to come down to the tests being done on time.
Personally, I like that the monthly updates lend a sense of urgency to certain things, so that people can focus on testing the important aspects of parts etc as they know there's a set time after which we would be waiting a whole month, which right now is a beneficial thing. It's also a good framework for possible experimental banlists further down the road which a few of us seem keen on. It also generally provides more certainty to hosts and players, as well as keeping us on our toes etc when there is something to look at.
As long as we have procedures for dealing with legitimately broken parts outside of that, which we do, there is no real downside to it, especially now we've made it monthly. So personally I would like to stick with it.

I would love to have a wheel like Jade in the format, especially with the possibility of it being able to exploit Scythe's aggressive topside. I am mildly concerned with some of the numbers that it could become *too* dominant, but that should hopefully be made clear in further attack vs attack tests with it.
Jan. 24, 2014  7:48 AM
 
Oh, Cake reminded me of something I was going to mention in the event of Gravity's ban. Would it still be acceptable to use gravity for benchmarking? It's an excellent wheel for it, being able to spin both directions and attack in every vertical matchup, and a lot of people have it. I said go ahead but if anyone here has objections to that it would be good to know.
Jan. 24, 2014  6:02 PM
 
I'd say that'd be fine, yeah, as long as Gravity being used for benchmarks in threads doesn't create confusion about its legality in tournament play.
Jan. 24, 2014  8:27 PM
 
And TBD has solved that very elegantly, so that is good.

Ingulit, if you get a chance it would be good to know your thoughts on whether Jade is going to be balanced in the format or not, seeing as you have experience with the setup that is so far showing the most promise (TH170RF/RB) - I'm slightly concerned by the fact it does well against most defense types and is also netting 50%+ against attack on RF, but on the other hand I love force smash and think having it in the format would be pretty neat, and it does seem to get completely destroyed by low tracks so...
Jan. 27, 2014  7:22 AM
 
So guys are we up for putting Jade into the format or not? There's not quite as much testing as I'd like but I doubt it'll be anything more than "strong" at this point.

More importantly (seeing as I'm looking at buying one with my small budget and if it is not likely to be legal I'd be better off buying Omega or something else instead) are there any particular concerns any of you have about it that you would like to see addressed or think will be an issue for legalization? At the very least, even if you are unsure of those concerns it would provide valuable direction for people's testing.
Jan. 29, 2014  6:32 AM
 
After seeing some Jade results, I'm fine with unbanning Jade.

But we have to be careful, we might end up with an overly complicated ban list. Ie, all 4Ds & Hyperblades are banned except Omega, Jade. Synchromes are illegal. Everything else is legal except Basalt, Hell, Gravity, plus tracks and bottoms.
Prev
Page 2
Next