Recently, this rule got put into effect

“For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of a Driver is permitted in deck format.”

There seems to be a high level of concern in the community in regards to this rule. 

I would like to ask the community if it would be interested in forming a counter proposal to amend the current rule.  I would really like this to be a community initiative. Once a final proposal is reach, I will present it to the staff for a vote. 

Let’s all try to make relevant, meaningful, and polite posts.  Let’s give this thing 48 hrs and see where we are at.  We can always add more time for discussion if needed.  Remember, the goal here is to end with a working proposal, so bring out your appetite for compromise and take initiative.  

To get things started, “what is the biggest problem with the current iteration of the driver variants rule if any?  How do we fix it?”

Ideally, the final proposal the community arrives at is something that staff can vote For/Against/Abstain as oppose to options.  It’s okay if we end up with a couple of options, because I can just propose both I suppose.  Ideally, the community can reach one singular proposal.

Thank you for doing this, having this consultation, even if it is a bit late, assuages many of my criticisms from the other thread and discord.

The primary counter-proposal I would make is to delay implementation until we have more data. We haven't even had a month at this point to see the impact, and I note one of the big pro ban arguments states they were KOd with their Double-Drift Deck. Perhaps hitting mixed MX and X' then is actually harmful when people can run Dr, ZN'+Z and Br' simultaneously while Qc' and Jl' aren't as good as X'/MX on Guilty or Savior IMO, and both of them need as much as they can get to overcome the heavy spamina. Give people actual time to counter this stuff because I think this is hamstringing attack more than it is spamina - it may actually be making our issue worse rather than better, and we may actually already have an answer for it that we will never see because we've jumped to this too quickly.

Next, maybe I can understand banning dash/non-dash/metal, perhaps. However, we are also banning very different drivers. Are you telling me Linear-H and Liner provide similar function? That Xc-SPM and Xc' are more similar than Xc' and Zn'? I don't see it at all. And the former amongst others could come up in say Limited. Did anyone compare these parts with the hasbro ones before adding them (this is a legitimate question, not facetious). Even High versions act significantly differently from their non-high counterparts. More importantly, have these variations even come close to being an issue? I feel like no?

In classic, this removes the ability to run V2 X' and Balar X in the same deck which sucks - we get the big hasbro attack boy and can't run a high level dual attack? Rough.

Basically my proposal is just wait a bit and see what metas (especially ones that use rubber) can do about it, if it even is a problem. From the WC list it doesn't look like one. Run some test tournaments with the rule like other proposals generally require.

In addition, if only some double-ups seem overpowered, I would suggest we target the ban rather than dragging down the whole game significantly when we could just deal with a couple of small problems directly instead of taking a shotgun to the entire meta. Personally I don't think they really are, but say you ban MDr/Dr and Br'/Br/HasBr in the same deck, then so be it.

tl;dr my proposal is to delay implementation and then if implemented target specific combinations rather than a blanket approach, as well as to immediately remove the hasbro gimmmick variations and High versions from the conflict list.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I think if a rule gets added without much community input, and then a lot of concern comes from it being added, then it should be removed. Whether it gets replaced with something better later down the line depends on what happens afterwards.

The rule should just go back to the way it was before, since in an ideal meta, duplicate parts shouldn't be viable as the player is limiting the coverage of their deck. If duplicate parts are viable, its either indicative of high flexibility (which isn't really a problem unless its centralizing) or being overpowered (in which case it should be banned).

The current rule, in my opinion, exists simply to prevent decks with double Bearing or double Drift, which only acts as a band-aid without addressing whether these parts are overpowered or not.

---

Give us Assault' re-release, Iron', and Charge'. Give a non-limited re-release of Cho-Z Achilles.
Legend Spriggan on tall attack drivers for Burst Limited is fun.
Against layer powercreep in Burst Limited.

I'm all in favor if it helps for the better good but I do think we need tournament data to back this up since it felt too rushed, like generally in standard how much of an advantage do you have? and how often does having the deck made with those drivers really get into WC?

Like others have said we should at the very least wait to see what the WC are and then act accordingly, I get the team too has good intentions with passing the rule I just hope we can have a process like this before it gets finalized.

I personally think we should get rid of this rule for now. As th!nk said, we haven’t even had 1 month to try things out, counter it etc… and really the only beys that people feel the need to enhance this rule for are metal drift+drift and bearing’+bearing. Now let me ask you something. What beats 2 drifts regardless of spin direction, or at least has an equal chance against both? Another drift. What beats 2 bearings or has an equal chance against both? Another Bearing. So depending on your opponent and what you think they’ll use, simply having a bearing and/or drift combo easily makes these combinations easier to deal with. Plus, it shuts down attack much more. Now people can’t use my/x’/x. They can’t even use destroy’ and destroy. Like come on! I say shut this rule down for now. But if we need to make adjustments then I say you can’t use metal drift, or bearing’ along with another variant. Other than those 2 it’ll be fine. And even with those 2 it’s easy to deal with. For me personally it isn’t seeing as I don’t own bearing or bearing’ and my drift is semi-awoken sacrificing same spin but I’ll work around it. That’s just my 2 cents

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

As I see things, herein lie the current large issues with this rule as it stands:

1: It hits too many things in the crossfire, limiting the ability for bladers with fewer parts to stand upright on their own as well.
2: It's almost impossible to determine whether Hasbro parts that "share a line" with a respective TT part qualify as a variant. This results in a great deal of confusion, especially concerning Hypersphere parts in particular amid similar renditions that are still quite different from the TT releases such as Speedstorm.
3: The ban has hit with no currently known issues in the meta to warrant such a ban in the first place (a.k.a. the ban hit before proper data could be collected).

Point 3 is rather unfixable without immediately reverting the ban altogether so that we can gather more data, because in the end it's a problem of having an insufficiently small sample size. There simply is not enough evidence that two Drifts or two Bearings in a deck is even slightly problematic yet, though the future would have provided an answer if this rule were not already in place. Not much we can do here, but it does hint that perhaps it may be fair to try removing this rule temporarily until we can gather more data on its fairness, and so that people can try to build counters to these strategies more and/or more parts come out that might improve the odds of beating these drivers.

Point 1 is where it hurts the most though for the tournament attendees. Though not the most common there are some kids that rely on their Atomic and Atomic-S combos to roll their way to victory, or Attack type enthusiasts that find Quick' and Jolt' too inconsistent but can work well with Xtreme' and Metal Xtreme. In this sense, I think it is best to focus solely on disallowing duplicates of parts that might actually cause balance issues, such as Bearing and Drift, and not a blanket ban if a ban is called for at all. Blanket bans crush creativity far more than just specific part restrictions do, and give the biggest disadvantages to those that don't have the parts to use alternatives effectively. As a group that tries its best to be all-inclusive, we should similarly be aiming to have as few restrictions as possible in our "Standard" format to make it as inclusive as possible, and I see it as a major goal for the WBO in general to maintain this.

Point 2 is mostly a fault of Hasbro design and renaming, especially with Hypersphere where things are the most unclear and the most different, and creates problems with the organizers and parents (who may need explanations on why such a different looking part can't be used at the same time). There's little we can do besides either attempting to maintain a list of what is and isn't the same (which seems like too much busywork to maintain, especially since Hasbro does occasionally change parts names in the app, there's significant differences between some of these "same parts", and the situations where this would be used are rare to begin with)... or we apply the solution to Point 1 and find that by avoiding a blanket ban also avoids this problem entirely.

---

With this much being said I'd propose one of the following 2 solutions to this problem:

Proposed Solution 1: We remove this rule altogether for a span of time as though it had never been added (I'd suggest 1-3 months to start with). If a balance problem occurs within this timeframe, move down and implement Proposed Solution 2 regarding the problematic parts. If everything remains intact after that amount of time, keep an eye and/or Watchlist any parts that might be an eventual problem, then move on and simply keep an eye for any further problems.

Proposed Solution 2: Edit this rule to state "For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of the following Drivers are permitted in deck format: Bearing, Drift". - (edits underlined)

Revise the exact parts as needed further down the line on an as-needed basis (e.g. in case a new DB disk comes out that makes Xtend+ viable alongside High Xtend+' and that starts to become a problem), but ensure that sufficient time has happened since the part's release to ensure the validity of the restriction to avoid running into Point 3.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

As I see things, herein lie the current large issues with this rule as it stands:

1: It hits too many things in the crossfire, limiting the ability for bladers with fewer parts to stand upright on their own as well.
2: It's almost impossible to determine whether Hasbro parts that "share a line" with a respective TT part qualify as a variant. This results in a great deal of confusion, especially concerning Hypersphere parts in particular amid similar renditions that are still quite different from the TT releases such as Speedstorm.
3: The ban has hit with no currently known issues in the meta to warrant such a ban in the first place (a.k.a. the ban hit before proper data could be collected).

Point 3 is rather unfixable without immediately reverting the ban altogether so that we can gather more data, because in the end it's a problem of having an insufficiently small sample size. There simply is not enough evidence that two Drifts or two Bearings in a deck is even slightly problematic yet, though the future would have provided an answer if this rule were not already in place. Not much we can do here, but it does hint that perhaps it may be fair to try removing this rule temporarily until we can gather more data on its fairness, and so that people can try to build counters to these strategies more and/or more parts come out that might improve the odds of beating these drivers.

Point 1 is where it hurts the most though for the tournament attendees. Though not the most common there are some kids that rely on their Atomic and Atomic-S combos to roll their way to victory, or Attack type enthusiasts that find Quick' and Jolt' too inconsistent but can work well with Xtreme' and Metal Xtreme. In this sense, I think it is best to focus solely on disallowing duplicates of parts that might actually cause balance issues, such as Bearing and Drift, and not a blanket ban if a ban is called for at all. Blanket bans crush creativity far more than just specific part restrictions do, and give the biggest disadvantages to those that don't have the parts to use alternatives effectively. As a group that tries its best to be all-inclusive, we should similarly be aiming to have as few restrictions as possible in our "Standard" format to make it as inclusive as possible, and I see it as a major goal for the WBO in general to maintain this.

Point 2 is mostly a fault of Hasbro design and renaming, especially with Hypersphere where things are the most unclear and the most different, and creates problems with the organizers and parents (who may need explanations on why such a different looking part can't be used at the same time). There's little we can do besides either attempting to maintain a list of what is and isn't the same (which seems like too much busywork to maintain, especially since Hasbro does occasionally change parts names in the app, there's significant differences between some of these "same parts", and the situations where this would be used are rare to begin with)... or we apply the solution to Point 1 and find that by avoiding a blanket ban also avoids this problem entirely.

---

With this much being said I'd propose one of the following 2 solutions to this problem:

Proposed Solution 1: We remove this rule altogether for a span of time as though it had never been added (I'd suggest 1-3 months to start with). If a balance problem occurs within this timeframe, move down and implement Proposed Solution 2 regarding the problematic parts. If everything remains intact after that amount of time, keep an eye and/or Watchlist any parts that might be an eventual problem, then move on and simply keep an eye for any further problems.

Proposed Solution 2: Edit this rule to state "For formats with multiple beyblade selection(P3C1/3on3/Deck), only one version(for example regular/Dash/SlingShock/Hypersphere/Metal/High etc.) of the following Drivers are permitted in deck format: Bearing, Drift". - (edits underlined)

Revise the exact parts as needed further down the line on an as-needed basis (e.g. in case a new DB disk comes out that makes Xtend+ viable alongside High Xtend+' and that starts to become a problem), but ensure that sufficient time has happened since the part's release to ensure the validity of the restriction to avoid running into Point 3.

This is literally perfect. I agree 100% also because this is similiar to my opinion on things. Yeah, don’t do a blanket ban. That’s just dumb. I really think it should just be drift and bearing not allowed to be 2 in a deck. Possibly with high Xtend+‘ coming out that may be on the list if people do Xtend+ and high Xtend+’ maybe? But probably not.

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

I am honestly confused by this change & how it seemingly came overnight. I’ve seen some “explanations” and it’s all very assumptive. Where are the facts?

Is there tournament data to back the change?
Have we seen a large influx of “same” drivers in single decks in the Winning Combo thread?
Did we think about the unintended consequences of the change?

There seems to be this great fear of Dr/MDr & Br/Br’ and I don’t get it. I can think of 5 drivers just off the top of my head that can hard counter them in a deck. Are we really going to take the “easy/lazy” way out here? This change severely limits accessibility by wiping out a whole list of drivers - some that perform nothing like the other drivers they share a name with. It also puts undo stress on Judges/Organizers. I would consider myself an experienced member of the community and I have spoken with several others who are as well, and we all struggle to identify HS tips. The Beywiki is incomplete as well, so using that for a reference is futile. So we now have Staff that can’t identify these parts but we expect little Timmy to be able to so he doesn’t make a mistake and cause his tournament to go unranked? Seems totally fair 🤦🏻‍♂️.

Two things WBO has been very consistent with, when it comes to making changes are - “Accessibility matters” & “it will show itself to be a problem in tournaments”.

So….why is this being done differently? Quite odd. 🤔

Anyways, as a possible counter proposal I see a few options:

1) Ban just Br/Br’ & Dr/MDr from being used in the same deck. This is 99% what people care about. No need to sacrifice everything else.

2) Keep the rule as is but whitelist the HyperSphere variants

3) Keep the rule as is but whitelist HyperSphere & High variants

These options seem to address the main issue (which we all know are those scary drivers showing up in the same deck🙄) while allowing accessibility to remain high and making things easier on Judges/Organizers.

---

WBO Staff Member, South Florida Organizer & member of Team Plus Ultra

Just a few days ago we were talking about transparency in the decision making process and then we get hit by this random rule which seems to have even surprised some staff members. The irony in the situation is amusing. 

Also, even a cursory glance through the winning combination thread suggests that drift/bearing combos, while popular, don't dominate and only one or maximum two such combos can be seen. I really do not get where the staff had the idea that the existence of drift and metal drift in a deck will suddenly change everything with the meta?! 

Like others have mentioned, there is a complete lack of proper tournament data. Yes, drift is annoying to deal with but is it that difficult?

I think the solution is pretty evident, let us be patient and wait for some upcoming tournaments to get a better and more complete picture. Decisions with half-baked knowledge are never good decisions.

This is literally perfect. I agree 100% also because this is similiar to my opinion on things. Yeah, don’t do a blanket ban. That’s just dumb. I really think it should just be drift and bearing not allowed to be 2 in a deck. Possibly with high Xtend+‘ coming out that may be on the list if people do Xtend+ and high Xtend+’ maybe? But probably not.

I don't see High Xtend+' being an issue unless somehow Xtend+ itself comes back into vogue, but with so many issues with DB disk scrapes on it I just don't foresee that at all. We'd need a new disk which Xtend+ works with better for it to really come back, or for some older things to come back where DB disks aren't optimal. Either way, not a current issue and no need to fret for now.

---

I am honestly confused by this change & how it seemingly came overnight. I’ve seen some “explanations” and it’s all very assumptive. Where are the facts?

Is there tournament data to back the change?
Have we seen a large influx of “same” drivers in single decks in the Winning Combo thread?
Did we think about the unintended consequences of the change?

There seems to be this great fear of Dr/MDr & Br/Br’ and I don’t get it. I can think of 5 drivers just off the top of my head that can hard counter them in a deck. Are we really going to take the “easy/lazy” way out here? This change severely limits accessibility by wiping out a whole list of drivers - some that perform nothing like the other drivers they share a name with. It also puts undo stress on Judges/Organizers. I would consider myself an experienced member of the community and I have spoken with several others who are as well, and we all struggle to identify HS tips. The Beywiki is incomplete as well, so using that for a reference is futile. So we now have Staff that can’t identify these parts but we expect little Timmy to be able to so he doesn’t make a mistake and cause his tournament to go unranked? Seems totally fair 🤦🏻‍♂️.

Two things WBO has been very consistent with, when it comes to making changes are - “Accessibility matters” & “it will show itself to be a problem in tournaments”.

So….why is this being done differently? Quite odd. 🤔

Anyways, as a possible counter proposal I see a few options:

1) Ban just Br/Br’ & Dr/MDr from being used in the same deck. This is 99% what people care about. No need to sacrifice everything else.

2) Keep the rule as is but whitelist the HyperSphere variants

3) Keep the rule as is but whitelist HyperSphere & High variants

These options seem to address the main issue (which we all know are those scary drivers showing up in the same deck🙄) while allowing accessibility to remain high and making things easier on Judges/Organizers.

Well, maybe around 60% of the people want it at least. I recall the old poll was somewhere around 60/40 in favor of watching out for them before their release, but that only accounts for people who went to that poll and voted to begin with... but it's still not as one-sided as some would lead you to believe if around 40% of the community didn't think them a threat to the meta.

Still, the fact that staff like you were this unaware that this was going to happen is a severe problem within the staff ranks. I really hope they find a way to resolve that for the future and not scare their own people like that.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

You can do some pretty decent Wh Xt+ High Mode combos. I've actually considered Dangerous+F+L Phoenix Wheel Xt+ as a deck option as I would likely use Over on Rage and Giga on Savior (it does make use of the attack mode tho so it's not really spamina). That brings up my actual point though - my current deck was Guilty Longinus Over Mx-2 and Savior Belial2 Gravity X'-0, plus a third which is likely the above. However, I don't like Qc'/V'/Ev' in standard, and don't have Jl' (and I am not sure I will like it), so this change actually forces me to use Spamina instead of Attack for a slot and makes my deck less capable of countering spamina - this seems counter to the idea of the rule I think? Unless we do actually want less attack and more Dr/Br? I suspect similar goes for Dan, who also ran a Dr/Br free deck for various matches in TO.

Of course, with the current rule we will never know if Xt+ and HXt+' would see use together, which is deeply unfortunate.

Just so we're keeping track, it seems so far that the proposals made have been primarily to delay the implementation and then if it is actually needed, pare back the implementation of the rule - the former is quite unanimous against those who dislike the rule, the latter also being the fall back should staff not agree to do so. May need to be proposed as a two part question - Should we Delay Implementation. If No above, should we utilise a targeted list rather than a blanket ban.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Forgot to mention this in the opening will add.

Ideally, the final proposal the community arrives at is something that staff can vote For/Against/Abstain as oppose to options. It’s okay if we end up with a couple of options, because I can just propose both I suppose. Ideally, the community can reach one singular proposal.

Given the primary proposal so far is "delay implementation until it actually becomes a problem" I think it will end up being a two part. The second choice for people seems to also be a targeted ban of use of certain parts in the same deck to deal with actual problem parts rather than dealing horrendous collateral damage to the metagame.

No shared parts already limits certain creativity in combos (eg you can't use certain layers and drivers because other safer things are already using your giga/over) so making it worse is a weird move - if we have to, let's just limit the impact as much as possible.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I personally think we should get rid of this rule for now. As th!nk said, we haven’t even had 1 month to try things out, counter it etc… and really the only beys that people feel the need to enhance this rule for are metal drift+drift and bearing’+bearing. Now let me ask you something. What beats 2 drifts regardless of spin direction, or at least has an equal chance against both? Another drift. What beats 2 bearings or has an equal chance against both? Another Bearing. So depending on your opponent and what you think they’ll use, simply having a bearing and/or drift combo easily makes these combinations easier to deal with. Plus, it shuts down attack much more. Now people can’t use my/x’/x. They can’t even use destroy’ and destroy. Like come on! I say shut this rule down for now. But if we need to make adjustments then I say you can’t use metal drift, or bearing’ along with another variant. Other than those 2 it’ll be fine. And even with those 2 it’s easy to deal with. For me personally it isn’t seeing as I don’t own bearing or bearing’ and my drift is semi-awoken sacrificing same spin but I’ll work around it. That’s just my 2 cents

This goes the same in some TCG's. In competitive YUGIOH: if your opponent knows what your playing and how your playing it, your gonna lose or have a serious disadvantage. Just like in a TCG, the more we play with these combos and the more attention a deck combo gets, it will be easier to beat. I think one of the best things about the WBO is that we do not have a ban-list right now. If individual drivers start getting banned it could be like YUGIOH where we are always waiting on the next ban and arguing for future ones. Also adding a ban list hurts the accessibility of the game. I.E Why should Timmy need to remember that drift, bearing, and whatever else we boogieman that month are banned? Banning individual parts hurts accessibility and i don't think it should be considered as a proposal. My hypothesis: The more competitive success double drift and bearing decks have the easier they will be to beat.
My proposal: We should postpone implementing the newest rule by 1-3 months, so we can get more data on the meta and its counters.

So as far as everything’s going we’ve got 2 options

1- Only ban drift and bearing variants, whitelist hypersphere drivers= Keep rule
2- Impliment rule until more data is gathered- Get rid of rule

Should someone create a voting thread of these 2 options? Or maybe Shindog you can create a poll with these 2 options

---

Blader for 8+years, CA Organizer, hoping to improve at the game and meet more people along the way. Let It Rip!

So as far as everything’s going we’ve got 2 options

1- Only ban drift and bearing variants, whitelist hypersphere drivers= Keep rule
2- Impliment rule until more data is gathered- Get rid of rule

Should someone create a voting thread of these 2 options? Or maybe Shindog you can create a poll with these 2 options

I don’t know that polling/voting thread is entirely necessary yet.  Let’s give ppl more time to discuss.  Perhaps voting or polling won’t be all that necessary anyway.  So far, the suggestions here are all really good imo and they really aren’t that far apart.

Here is the issue with this rule for me:
Currently, the rule is too strict, and drivers that are completely different from other variants are being barred from being used in the same deck. But that’s not all. I don’t think all types of drivers need to be banned. It’s simply something that I don’t see as an issue. What needs to be banned from happening, currently, is the usage of repeating same balance type, defense, and stamina drivers, since those drivers are the main issue ones. I don’t think attack drivers need to be banned from being repeated. I simply don’t see it as an issue.

I also have began to wonder if it is too soon to put this rule in place. Maybe give it another month or two and see if the meta is seriously negatively affected by double drift or double bearing. I’m not denying it’s an issue, I think it is, but maybe we do need to wait and see if it actually is an OP deck strategy before banning the same driver usage of these drivers.

---

Hey there! My name is BuilderROB and I am an organizer who hosts tournaments in North Carolina.

Spoiler (Click to View)

Spoiler (Click to View)

Here is the issue with this rule for me:
Currently, the rule is too strict, and drivers that are completely different from other variants are being barred from being used in the same deck. But that’s not all. I don’t think all types of drivers need to be banned. It’s simply something that I don’t see as an issue. What needs to be banned from happening, currently, is the usage of repeating same balance type, defense, and stamina drivers, since those drivers are the main issue ones. I don’t think attack drivers need to be banned from being repeated. I simply don’t see it as an issue.

I also have began to wonder if it is too soon to put this rule in place. Maybe give it another month or two and see if the meta is seriously negatively affected by double drift or double bearing. I’m not denying it’s an issue, I think it is, but maybe we do need to wait and see if it actually is an OP deck strategy before banning the same driver usage of these drivers.

I wouldn't even consider typing here, as the driver's typing isn't always related to its purpose (e.g. Atomic being a same-spin Stamina driver). As a result I think the only "issues" are drivers with both respectable Stamina and top-tier LAD, regardless of their typing. So far the only things that fit that description with a known alternate are Bearing, Drift, and Xtend+ due to the upcoming release. Using Xtend+ already has serious issues in DB due to requiring both High Mode and a non-DB disk and may not require any restrictions at all just because of that. It's just not viable by design.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Here is the issue with this rule for me:
Currently, the rule is too strict, and drivers that are completely different from other variants are being barred from being used in the same deck. But that’s not all. I don’t think all types of drivers need to be banned. It’s simply something that I don’t see as an issue. What needs to be banned from happening, currently, is the usage of repeating same balance type, defense, and stamina drivers, since those drivers are the main issue ones. I don’t think attack drivers need to be banned from being repeated. I simply don’t see it as an issue.

I also have began to wonder if it is too soon to put this rule in place. Maybe give it another month or two and see if the meta is seriously negatively affected by double drift or double bearing. I’m not denying it’s an issue, I think it is, but maybe we do need to wait and see if it actually is an OP deck strategy before banning the same driver usage of these drivers.

I wouldn't even consider typing here, as the driver's typing isn't always related to its purpose (e.g. Atomic being a same-spin Stamina driver). As a result I think the only "issues" are drivers with both respectable Stamina and top-tier LAD, regardless of their typing. So far the only things that fit that description with a known alternate are Bearing, Drift, and Xtend+ due to the upcoming release. Using Xtend+ already has serious issues in DB due to requiring both High Mode and a non-DB disk and may not require any restrictions at all just because of that. It's just not viable by design.

I still think high Xtend+’ is gonna be helpful in making that driver viable on DB Beys. Since it’ll be a bit higher, it may be able to prevent scraping.

The reason I consider typing here is because it makes things less confusing. If you ban entire types, then you don’t run into the issue of constantly having to add drivers that can’t be repeated that would pose a threat. I am aware typing isn’t related to its purpose, but almost all the problematic drivers are from those three types.

---

Hey there! My name is BuilderROB and I am an organizer who hosts tournaments in North Carolina.

Spoiler (Click to View)

Spoiler (Click to View)

I wouldn't even consider typing here, as the driver's typing isn't always related to its purpose (e.g. Atomic being a same-spin Stamina driver). As a result I think the only "issues" are drivers with both respectable Stamina and top-tier LAD, regardless of their typing. So far the only things that fit that description with a known alternate are Bearing, Drift, and Xtend+ due to the upcoming release. Using Xtend+ already has serious issues in DB due to requiring both High Mode and a non-DB disk and may not require any restrictions at all just because of that. It's just not viable by design.

I still think high Xtend+’ is gonna be helpful in making that driver viable on DB Beys. Since it’ll be a bit higher, it may be able to prevent scraping.

The reason I consider typing here is because it makes things less confusing. If you ban entire types, then you don’t run into the issue of constantly having to add drivers that can’t be repeated that would pose a threat. I am aware typing isn’t related to its purpose, but almost all the problematic drivers are from those three types.

Yes, but the most likely drivers I see someone repeating with a restricted pool also falls within those typings as well (especially Atomic and Atomic-S in Limited). Better to focus on actual "problematic" drivers instead of simply narrowing the blanket ban to ignore Attack. That just doesn't solve the issues well enough.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

So I am 100% pro to this ruling change. However, I will say not in the way it was done. When I was proposing this rule change I was 100% only thinking about regular, dash, and metal versions of the drivers. We have a rule stating that parts cannot be repeated in a deck and as far as I have been considered, just because one has a tighter spring in it doesn’t change how the driver preforms. I can launch both my xtream dash and metal xtream and the both preform the exact same way. Same goes for my drift and metal drift, bearing and bearing dash, destroy, destroy dash, and metal destroy. So my whole argument is mostly that it’s really no different than using 2 of the same part, just one has a tighter spring. I can also see the rule not allowing you to use a driver from hasbro that is the same as a TT version. Such as Evolution and evolutional, xtend+ and pro series xtend+.

I do think this rule is a little to strict in the fact that a hyper sphere version or sling shock version of a driver is in no way going to work the same way as a regular driver. I could even argue that the high versions of drivers will preform differently than the regular version.

From what I understand this rule was actually once in place and was then removed. It was probably removed because there weren’t really any good drivers at the time that you would want to use 2 different versions of. Like assault and assault dash. Attack types had a big burst problem then and once the dash drivers came out you never thought about using the regular version again. However, now TT is starting to release drivers that we know for a fact are super good in their regular versions and now giving these upgraded versions just allow us to abuse them more. Yea right now it’s early but I think the staff would rather deal with a problem like this now rather than wait and get to see it become an issue. Then you will have people yelling at the staff saying “why did you guys remove the multiple versions of drivers rule way back when?!” This honestly seems more like an attempt to stop something ahead of time/to prevent future issues. With a rule like this in in play the staff doesn’t have to worry about future releases of other drivers like these again.

Some people have to remember, TT makes these parts based on their version of the game. (3g and 5g) In these formats the order in which you play is completely random for both you and your opponent. This will allow for the use of multiple versions of drivers to have less of an impact because you don’t know what kind of spin your drift is going to go against. For the rest of us we use the Deck format, where after the first battle we get to pick what beys we want to use against an opponents bey. This is where the issue comes in and why this rule was created.

So like I said I am all for this rule change. I just think maybe it needs to be revamped a little bit.

---

So I am 100% pro to this ruling change. However, I will say not in the way it was done. When I was proposing this rule change I was 100% only thinking about regular, dash, and metal versions of the drivers. We have a rule stating that parts cannot be repeated in a deck and as far as I have been considered, just because one has a tighter spring in it doesn’t change how the driver preforms. I can launch both my xtream dash and metal xtream and the both preform the exact same way. Same goes for my drift and metal drift, bearing and bearing dash, destroy, destroy dash, and metal destroy. So my whole argument is mostly that it’s really no different than using 2 of the same part, just one has a tighter spring. I can also see the rule not allowing you to use a driver from hasbro that is the same as a TT version. Such as Evolution and evolutional, xtend+ and pro series xtend+.

I do think this rule is a little to strict in the fact that a hyper sphere version or sling shock version of a driver is in no way going to work the same way as a regular driver. I could even argue that the high versions of drivers will preform differently than the regular version.

From what I understand this rule was actually once in place and was then removed. It was probably removed because there weren’t really any good drivers at the time that you would want to use 2 different versions of. Like assault and assault dash. Attack types had a big burst problem then and once the dash drivers came out you never thought about using the regular version again. However, now TT is starting to release drivers that we know for a fact are super good in their regular versions and now giving these upgraded versions just allow us to abuse them more. Yea right now it’s early but I think the staff would rather deal with a problem like this now rather than wait and get to see it become an issue. Then you will have people yelling at the staff saying “why did you guys remove the multiple versions of drivers rule way back when?!” This honestly seems more like an attempt to stop something ahead of time/to prevent future issues. With a rule like this in in play the staff doesn’t have to worry about future releases of other drivers like these again.

Some people have to remember, TT makes these parts based on their version of the game. (3g and 5g) In these formats the order in which you play is completely random for both you and your opponent. This will allow for the use of multiple versions of drivers to have less of an impact because you don’t know what kind of spin your drift is going to go against. For the rest of us we use the Deck format, where after the first battle we get to pick what beys we want to use against an opponents bey. This is where the issue comes in and why this rule was created.

So like I said I am all for this rule change. I just think maybe it needs to be revamped a little bit.

No doubt that they design for their version of the game, but I don't think "deck format choices" are the problem here either. That entire thing is designed to side whoever lost the last point, and it's not unfair in how it does that. Heck, opposite spin Drift isn't impossible to beat either, and actually provides another way you can exploit it. It forces you to think about the deck building process a lot more, adding this accent to reward clever deck builders.

I can't testify to why it was removed the first time, it was before I had any chance to really participate on the tournament level, but they still deemed at the time that doubles of what parts had ' variants at the time we're fine. If this is different now, then it is because of specific parts and not some global part of the game such as deck format.

Still, the real arguments against this rule aren't that they're too similar to one another (or else the rule wouldn't have been removed then). The arguments are that doing so is fine, at least for the vast majority of parts. Two Xtreme drivers is not game-breaking, and despite the strength of Bearing and Drift I'm still arguing that they aren't game-breaking yet either. If they were, then they'd have been banned in the past as a solo part and we wouldn't need this now either. Thusly, why disallow repeat parts short of anything that might be "too safe" like Bearing or Drift?

In the end I think i get what you're going after, I just don't think that dupes are such a threat to warrant restricting like this and that this ban clearly was made to address a different issue altogether (being two specific "safe" parts) than the one you're talking about (and does so abysmally).

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Out of curiosity MagikHorse (I’m not trying to come at you in anyway this is straight my curiosity.) what drivers have you in your personal testing have you found that have a high percentage win rate against an opposite spin drift combo?

---

Out of curiosity MagikHorse (I’m not trying to come at you in anyway this is straight my curiosity.) what drivers have you in your personal testing have you found that have a high percentage win rate against an opposite spin drift combo?

Haven't focused a ton of testing into it, but I have bested it easily in opposite spin with my blue Bearing (which so far has a 75% winrate against it) and with Orbit one time in actual tournament play, the latter to the surprise of everyone involved and was the result of a good tactical decision that paid off. Mostly though I do usually aim to beat Drift in same-spin or by using Guilty, which have served me incredibly well so far.

If there's any real complaints I have about Drift, it's in first stage where it warps my options the most and is hardest to work around. In deck you can build against it better, with one bey you just can't cover nearly as much. In this sense I'm eager to see something like P3C1 come into the first stage to nerf it.

---

Cincinnati-based Organizer, and owner of every single currently released TT Burst bey part in at least one color. Hard to think of anything I don't have from MFB either...

Out of curiosity MagikHorse (I’m not trying to come at you in anyway this is straight my curiosity.) what drivers have you in your personal testing have you found that have a high percentage win rate against an opposite spin drift combo?

Haven't focused a ton of testing into it, but I have bested it easily in opposite spin with my blue Bearing (which so far has a 75% winrate against it) and with Orbit one time in actual tournament play, the latter to the surprise of everyone involved and was the result of a good tactical decision that paid off. Mostly though I do usually aim to beat Drift in same-spin or by using Guilty, which have served me incredibly well so far.

If there's any real complaints I have about Drift, it's in first stage where it warps my options the most and is hardest to work around. In deck you can build against it better, with one bey you just can't cover nearly as much. In this sense I'm eager to see something like P3C1 come into the first stage to nerf it.

Oh I can 100% agree that drift to me was only an issue in first stage single bey format. I never had a problem with it deck. 

I think one issue though is a large amount of people have not found a driver that can consistently beat drift in opposite spin. (I know out of my 3 bearings and 3 bearing’ drivers not one has that high of a win rate against a drift.) and that is why it’s scary in deck format. Because what I’ve been trying to say is that as long as you get that first point with double drifts you are at a high advantage point.

---