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.

That requires getting the first point though, and you still have other outs to fight it even then (assuming you built your deck sensibly). I do think it's LAD is slightly overhyped (some people act like it will win any LAD matchup it's in 100%, which is simply untrue), but even then if it's still just too safe, deal with just what is problematic. Even then, I'm only aware of two instances of double Drift decks and one of them lost rather poorly with it, so so far these fears are still unfounded and not proven effective.

Still, if you really believe that double Drift and double Bearing is a problem I am more open to restricting those specifically over restricting everything as has been done currently, and I'm not the only one that seems to agree with this plan so far looking above. It's the middle ground between the full removal of this rule and leaving it as-is, and hits the heart of the issue people are afraid of more accurately without making a mess with everything else too.

The fewer restrictions the better in my opinion, at least for Standard which is likely going to see more play than the legacy formats. Let's keep it easy and accessible.

---

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...

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.

That requires getting the first point though, and you still have other outs to fight it even then (assuming you built your deck sensibly). I do think it's LAD is slightly overhyped (some people act like it will win any LAD matchup it's in 100%, which is simply untrue), but even then if it's still just too safe, deal with just what is problematic. Even then, I'm only aware of two instances of double Drift decks and one of them lost rather poorly with it, so so far these fears are still unfounded and not proven effective.

Still, if you really believe that double Drift and double Bearing is a problem I am more open to restricting those specifically over restricting everything as has been done currently, and I'm not the only one that seems to agree with this plan so far looking above. It's the middle ground between the full removal of this rule and leaving it as-is, and hits the heart of the issue people are afraid of more accurately without making a mess with everything else too.

The fewer restrictions the better in my opinion, at least for Standard which is likely going to see more play than the legacy formats. Let's keep it easy and accessible.

Well I think that is why the staff has made the decision they have. Right now the main issue is the fact that it is drift and bearing able to see multiple in the deck. However, rather than just restricting those 2 and then say 6 months from now we get a metal bearing, or say some new high LAD driver comes out and then they come out with a metal version, and then the staff has to evaluate weather or not 2 of those should be allowed in a deck or not could come up again and this happens all over again. At least this way even before someone gets the part they know they have to choose one over the other. Like you said keep it simple. Doing that is keeping it simple rather than having a list of parts that can’t be used together.

---

That requires getting the first point though, and you still have other outs to fight it even then (assuming you built your deck sensibly). I do think it's LAD is slightly overhyped (some people act like it will win any LAD matchup it's in 100%, which is simply untrue), but even then if it's still just too safe, deal with just what is problematic. Even then, I'm only aware of two instances of double Drift decks and one of them lost rather poorly with it, so so far these fears are still unfounded and not proven effective.

Still, if you really believe that double Drift and double Bearing is a problem I am more open to restricting those specifically over restricting everything as has been done currently, and I'm not the only one that seems to agree with this plan so far looking above. It's the middle ground between the full removal of this rule and leaving it as-is, and hits the heart of the issue people are afraid of more accurately without making a mess with everything else too.

The fewer restrictions the better in my opinion, at least for Standard which is likely going to see more play than the legacy formats. Let's keep it easy and accessible.

Well I think that is why the staff has made the decision they have. Right now the main issue is the fact that it is drift and bearing able to see multiple in the deck. However, rather than just restricting those 2 and then say 6 months from now we get a metal bearing, or say some new high LAD driver comes out and then they come out with a metal version, and then the staff has to evaluate weather or not 2 of those should be allowed in a deck or not could come up again and this happens all over again. At least this way even before someone gets the part they know they have to choose one over the other. Like you said keep it simple. Doing that is keeping it simple rather than having a list of parts that can’t be used together.

I said keep it easy and accessible, to say that a balance must be struck between ease and accessibility. This is maximum ease at the cost of a massive chunk of accessibility. I think this is trading way too much accessibility for this ease, hence why I'd rather aim for the middle ground between the two and want at least some sort of change over doing nothing.

---

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...

Crisis, you were credited with a lot of this decision, so sorry if this sounds pointed. So far you've said you used double drift and lost via "lucky KO" - attack is a major drift counter and this new rule actually hurts it significantly. The inexperienced blader with a double strategy made only top 8 (which is easy enough to do with using a variety of non doubled lad drivers). You've talked about theoretical advantages but there's no numbers that show it being markedly better than using multiple different lad drivers etc and the game hasn't had enough time to see if this becomes a problem past what the hype will get people to try out.

I really do fail to see the problem this solves, let alone why a blanket approach is the best way to do so. As I understand it the wbba does not consider these parts the same, so why are we panicking so suddenly? I've never seen this sort of reaction to a WBO decision before - surely that should make the staff pause for thought whether they like the tone of the reaction or not? People complain about transparency and then this rule comes out of nowhere - I note it wasn't on the watch list - when much of the small debate around it was "come on wait and see if it's a problem".

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Crisis, you were credited with a lot of this decision, so sorry if this sounds pointed. So far you've said you used double drift and lost via "lucky KO" - attack is a major drift counter and this new rule actually hurts it significantly. The inexperienced blader with a double strategy made only top 8 (which is easy enough to do with using a variety of non doubled lad drivers). You've talked about theoretical advantages but there's no numbers that show it being markedly better than using multiple different lad drivers etc and the game hasn't had enough time to see if this becomes a problem past what the hype will get people to try out.

I really do fail to see the problem this solves, let alone why a blanket approach is the best way to do so. As I understand it the wbba does not consider these parts the same, so why are we panicking so suddenly? I've never seen this sort of reaction to a WBO decision before - surely that should make the staff pause for thought whether they like the tone of the reaction or not? People complain about transparency and then this rule comes out of nowhere - I note it wasn't on the watch list - when much of the small debate around it was "come on wait and see if it's a problem".

The lucky KO I lost from was from another drift combo. I also fail to see how this rule hurts attack significantly. Most attack combos right now use either some variant of xtreme, destroy, or drift. And I have yet to see a deck use multible variants of xtreme or destroy. What I’m finding hard to understand as that if you go back through the winning combos page you rarely ever saw 2 variants of the same driver being used in deck combos. However, now with double drift and bearing being possible you are seeing more of that happening. 

Yeah right now it’s early I get that everyone is saying that. But if within the past couple of weeks the amount of decks using double versions of parts is already increasing and being shown in the data, then maybe it really is a problem and this is just being foreshadowed. From when the products were released there have been 4 standard tournaments before this rule was placed. 3/4 of them had at least 1 person in the top 3 use this strategy. 1 was first, 1 was second, and 1 was 3rd. That kind of data shows that it really could become a problem.

Now I will say if most of the backsplash to this rule was coming from hasbro players then I could understand why they would be upset. This rule really constricts the hasbro side of the game.

---

Crisis, you were credited with a lot of this decision, so sorry if this sounds pointed. So far you've said you used double drift and lost via "lucky KO" - attack is a major drift counter and this new rule actually hurts it significantly. The inexperienced blader with a double strategy made only top 8 (which is easy enough to do with using a variety of non doubled lad drivers). You've talked about theoretical advantages but there's no numbers that show it being markedly better than using multiple different lad drivers etc and the game hasn't had enough time to see if this becomes a problem past what the hype will get people to try out.

I really do fail to see the problem this solves, let alone why a blanket approach is the best way to do so. As I understand it the wbba does not consider these parts the same, so why are we panicking so suddenly? I've never seen this sort of reaction to a WBO decision before - surely that should make the staff pause for thought whether they like the tone of the reaction or not? People complain about transparency and then this rule comes out of nowhere - I note it wasn't on the watch list - when much of the small debate around it was "come on wait and see if it's a problem".

The lucky KO I lost from was from another drift combo. I also fail to see how this rule hurts attack significantly. Most attack combos right now use either some variant of xtreme, destroy, or drift. And I have yet to see a deck use multible variants of xtreme or destroy. What I’m finding hard to understand as that if you go back through the winning combos page you rarely ever saw 2 variants of the same driver being used in deck combos. However, now with double drift and bearing being possible you are seeing more of that happening. 

Yeah right now it’s early I get that everyone is saying that. But if within the past couple of weeks the amount of decks using double versions of parts is already increasing and being shown in the data, then maybe it really is a problem and this is just being foreshadowed. From when the products were released there have been 4 standard tournaments before this rule was placed. 3/4 of them had at least 1 person in the top 3 use this strategy. 1 was first, 1 was second, and 1 was 3rd. That kind of data shows that it really could become a problem.

Now I will say if most of the backsplash to this rule was coming from hasbro only players then I could understand why they would be upset. This rule really constricts the hasbro side of the game.

So you're saying Dr can be knocked out? Hm. So a deck full of Dr and Br would be quite prone to being swept by attack? Hm. Generally double drift and double bearing didn't appear because well... Uh... There was only one of each. Variants this similar being viable together are a recent thing due to changes in part design making non-dash more viable and limiting efficacy of slower attack drivers.
It has also only been of concern for a month and people are still experimenting.
Interestingly if this has changed with the introduction of MDr and Br'... Why are we hitting everything and not just them???

People definitely run MX+X', or at least, definitely can run it - this is how my deck was structured for when I get Perth going, Dan runs it in TO, off the top of my head. It's a very good setup if you expect to face a lot of spamina - and now spamina doesn't have to fear it so much, while they still get to run different drivers - Dr, Br', HXt+', Zn'+Z, Al (it works to a degree with a full force scrape launch), Nv... C'mon. On top of this - tell me why we *should* be hitting these things. Does the meta need less attack? Or are we perhaps not addressing the problem directly?

Destroy is pretty bad at the moment (it's woeful on guilty), so no one should be running one, let alone two. Jl' is hard to get and from what I hear kinda hard rubber so less accurate than X'/MX.  Qc' isn't fast enough to handle Vanish sufficiently on Guilty or to do much at all on Savior. Ev' and V' are basically plastic. Meanwhile the variety of spamina drivers are pretty solid and have been up til this point. 

That data shows very little, the sample size is tiny, there has been no time for people to adapt to it. What is the difference between using two of the same spamina driver vs different ones? I suspect these people could have placed comfortably without it, and this is hardly an overwhelming dominance in the lists to have a few people top. You could ban using two different spamina drivers for the same.

You're really taking a very biased look at the data without considering any context or proper analysis, which I guess isn't surprising given you called for a ban before there was any data at all. That's fine, it seems popular to do this now, but since when is this the approach the WBO itself takes? Sure, people can raise concerns, but since when do we act on those instead of solid data.

You're exactly right that it may be foreshadowing in that the issue is not here yet... Since when do we do something about a problem that "might" happen? Wait til we "foreshadow" some counters, such as MX+X' decks. This isn't like almight in classic where it weighs like twice as much as everything else, it's a major ruling change with no evidence which doesn't line up with the WBBA approach either as I understand it.

The meta is actually in the best place it has been in ages right now thanks to guilty and savior. Let it breathe. Let people adapt and overcome.

And keep in mind I'm not anti-ban-things. Heck, apparently certain committee members only remember me for the fact I lost my cool over a time they didn't ban something fast enough (from MFL, a format I helped design no less) - I am very much all for the committee being prompt, but there needs to be a decent sample size and proper consideration before something with this impact is done, coupled with watchlisting and community consultation around how it is addressed. It's very clear from various responses that many aspects weren't considered and to me that casts the entire rule into question.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

The lucky KO I lost from was from another drift combo. I also fail to see how this rule hurts attack significantly. Most attack combos right now use either some variant of xtreme, destroy, or drift. And I have yet to see a deck use multible variants of xtreme or destroy. What I’m finding hard to understand as that if you go back through the winning combos page you rarely ever saw 2 variants of the same driver being used in deck combos. However, now with double drift and bearing being possible you are seeing more of that happening. 

Yeah right now it’s early I get that everyone is saying that. But if within the past couple of weeks the amount of decks using double versions of parts is already increasing and being shown in the data, then maybe it really is a problem and this is just being foreshadowed. From when the products were released there have been 4 standard tournaments before this rule was placed. 3/4 of them had at least 1 person in the top 3 use this strategy. 1 was first, 1 was second, and 1 was 3rd. That kind of data shows that it really could become a problem.

Now I will say if most of the backsplash to this rule was coming from hasbro only players then I could understand why they would be upset. This rule really constricts the hasbro side of the game.

So you're saying Dr can be knocked out? Hm. So a deck full of Dr and Br would be quite prone to being swept by attack? Hm. Generally double drift and double bearing didn't appear because well... Uh... There was only one of each. Variants this similar being viable together are a recent thing due to changes in part design making non-dash more viable and limiting efficacy of slower attack drivers.
It has also only been of concern for a month and people are still experimenting.
Interestingly if this has changed with the introduction of MDr and Br'... Why are we hitting everything and not just them???

People definitely run MX+X', or at least, definitely can run it - this is how my deck was structured for when I get Perth going, Dan runs it in TO, off the top of my head. It's a very good setup if you expect to face a lot of spamina - and now spamina doesn't have to fear it so much, while they still get to run different drivers - Dr, Br', HXt+', Zn'+Z, Al (it works to a degree with a full force scrape launch), Nv... C'mon. On top of this - tell me why we *should* be hitting these things. Does the meta need less attack? Or are we perhaps not addressing the problem directly?

Destroy is pretty bad at the moment (it's woeful on guilty), so no one should be running one, let alone two. Jl' is hard to get and from what I hear kinda hard rubber so less accurate than X'/MX.  Qc' isn't fast enough to handle Vanish sufficiently on Guilty or to do much at all on Savior. Ev' and V' are basically plastic. Meanwhile the variety of spamina drivers are pretty solid and have been up til this point. 

That data shows very little, the sample size is tiny, there has been no time for people to adapt to it. What is the difference between using two of the same spamina driver vs different ones? I suspect these people could have placed comfortably without it, and this is hardly an overwhelming dominance in the lists to have a few people top. You could ban using two different spamina drivers for the same.

You're really taking a very biased look at the data without considering any context or proper analysis, which I guess isn't surprising given you called for a ban before there was any data at all. That's fine, it seems popular to do this now, but since when is this the approach the WBO itself takes? Sure, people can raise concerns, but since when do we act on those instead of solid data.

You're exactly right that it may be foreshadowing in that the issue is not here yet... Since when do we do something about a problem that "might" happen? Wait til we "foreshadow" some counters, such as MX+X' decks. This isn't like almight in classic where it weighs like twice as much as everything else, it's a major ruling change with no evidence which doesn't line up with the WBBA approach either as I understand it.

The meta is actually in the best place it has been in ages right now thanks to guilty and savior. Let it breathe. Let people adapt and overcome.

And keep in mind I'm not anti-ban-things. Heck, apparently certain committee members only remember me for the fact I lost my cool over a time they didn't ban something fast enough (from MFL, a format I helped design no less) - I am very much all for the committee being prompt, but there needs to be a decent sample size and proper consideration before something with this impact is done, coupled with watchlisting and community consultation around how it is addressed. It's very clear from various responses that many aspects weren't considered and to me that casts the entire rule into question.

First I would like to address that not once have I said a part needs to be “banned”. The community has been super upset about drift for a while and there have been several forms posting about banning the part. I was on the opposing side where I have stated that even though I felt the part was powerful it didn’t need to be banned, but rather the single bey format needed to be changed. And when I made my form about us having double drift and double bearing I asked the community for their opinion on it. I gave my view point as I could see the potential problem of the parts coexisting within the WBO deck format. Now in the 3v3, P3C1, and even single bey formats having multiple of these drivers isn't a big deal to me, as the beys that end up facing each other are random. Where as in the WBO deck format there is a level of control and a really skilled player would know how to abuse this factor.

You say I’m being bias to this yet you keep calling stamina “spamina” inclining that people spam these parts. So now that feels like you are showing bias to attack type drivers because those are what you’re saying are being hindered by this. Now I won’t disagree that attack types aren’t being hindered, because they are. However, is that this rule or the WBOs staff fault? I don’t think so. I think that problem just comes from the fact that realistically xtreme is just the best attack driver. All of the others fall a little short and I’m sure attack style bladers are super happy about basically having 2 xtreme drivers. It’s not this rule or the staff fault that TT hasn’t released any really good attack type drivers other than these 2. And I feel like that is a shame since almost every protagonist in the show has an attack type bey yet in the real world they fall short in competitive play. But I’m sure a lot of the players that are complaining about this change would have less of a problem if there were more attack drivers that were just good rather than what we got.

---

So you're saying Dr can be knocked out? Hm. So a deck full of Dr and Br would be quite prone to being swept by attack? Hm. Generally double drift and double bearing didn't appear because well... Uh... There was only one of each. Variants this similar being viable together are a recent thing due to changes in part design making non-dash more viable and limiting efficacy of slower attack drivers.
It has also only been of concern for a month and people are still experimenting.
Interestingly if this has changed with the introduction of MDr and Br'... Why are we hitting everything and not just them???

People definitely run MX+X', or at least, definitely can run it - this is how my deck was structured for when I get Perth going, Dan runs it in TO, off the top of my head. It's a very good setup if you expect to face a lot of spamina - and now spamina doesn't have to fear it so much, while they still get to run different drivers - Dr, Br', HXt+', Zn'+Z, Al (it works to a degree with a full force scrape launch), Nv... C'mon. On top of this - tell me why we *should* be hitting these things. Does the meta need less attack? Or are we perhaps not addressing the problem directly?

Destroy is pretty bad at the moment (it's woeful on guilty), so no one should be running one, let alone two. Jl' is hard to get and from what I hear kinda hard rubber so less accurate than X'/MX.  Qc' isn't fast enough to handle Vanish sufficiently on Guilty or to do much at all on Savior. Ev' and V' are basically plastic. Meanwhile the variety of spamina drivers are pretty solid and have been up til this point. 

That data shows very little, the sample size is tiny, there has been no time for people to adapt to it. What is the difference between using two of the same spamina driver vs different ones? I suspect these people could have placed comfortably without it, and this is hardly an overwhelming dominance in the lists to have a few people top. You could ban using two different spamina drivers for the same.

You're really taking a very biased look at the data without considering any context or proper analysis, which I guess isn't surprising given you called for a ban before there was any data at all. That's fine, it seems popular to do this now, but since when is this the approach the WBO itself takes? Sure, people can raise concerns, but since when do we act on those instead of solid data.

You're exactly right that it may be foreshadowing in that the issue is not here yet... Since when do we do something about a problem that "might" happen? Wait til we "foreshadow" some counters, such as MX+X' decks. This isn't like almight in classic where it weighs like twice as much as everything else, it's a major ruling change with no evidence which doesn't line up with the WBBA approach either as I understand it.

The meta is actually in the best place it has been in ages right now thanks to guilty and savior. Let it breathe. Let people adapt and overcome.

And keep in mind I'm not anti-ban-things. Heck, apparently certain committee members only remember me for the fact I lost my cool over a time they didn't ban something fast enough (from MFL, a format I helped design no less) - I am very much all for the committee being prompt, but there needs to be a decent sample size and proper consideration before something with this impact is done, coupled with watchlisting and community consultation around how it is addressed. It's very clear from various responses that many aspects weren't considered and to me that casts the entire rule into question.

First I would like to address that not once have I said a part needs to be “banned”. The community has been super upset about drift for a while and there have been several forms posting about banning the part. I was on the opposing side where I have stated that even though I felt the part was powerful it didn’t need to be banned, but rather the single bey format needed to be changed. And when I made my form about us having double drift and double bearing I asked the community for their opinion on it. I gave my view point as I could see the potential problem of the parts coexisting within the WBO deck format. Now in the 3v3, P3C1, and even single bey formats having multiple of these drivers isn't a big deal to me, as the beys that end up facing each other are random. Where as in the WBO deck format there is a level of control and a really skilled player would know how to abuse this factor.

You say I’m being bias to this yet you keep calling stamina “spamina” inclining that people spam these parts. So now that feels like you are showing bias to attack type drivers because those are what you’re saying are being hindered by this. Now I won’t disagree that attack types aren’t being hindered, because they are. However, is that this rule or the WBOs staff fault? I don’t think so. I think that problem just comes from the fact that realistically xtreme is just the best attack driver. All of the others fall a little short and I’m sure attack style bladers are super happy about basically having 2 xtreme drivers. It’s not this rule or the staff fault that TT hasn’t released any really good attack type drivers other than these 2. And I feel like that is a shame since almost every protagonist in the show has an attack type bey yet in the real world they fall short in competitive play. But I’m sure a lot of the players that are complaining about this change would have less of a problem if there were more attack drivers that were just good rather than what we got.

By Banned I mean restricted by the rule. Semantics don't help a bad argument.

I'm using the phrase spamina because it's a generally accepted and understood term for what these drivers are. I don't particularly like it but it's clear what I mean and you're grasping for straws here.
Yes, I do want to see more attack as otherwise we will continue the spin stealing LAD battles that the community dislikes, this seems like a popular opinion? Maybe I'm wrong! If you do want more LAD battles rather than less this may actually be a good rule for you! Congrats!

It absolutely is the rule's fault if it prevents both X' and MX in the same deck, not sure how it isn't unless you reach hard - that is literally what it does. It exerts a change to their compatibility that we do not need to - it is why they cannot be used in the same deck. I don't know why you're talking about anime or whatever as the reason people want more attack. Most people are tired of LAD - that is generally understood as part of the intent behind the rule and definitely the argument of many in favour of the rule in your thread. Doesn't really matter - the WBBA still consider them different tips and allowing them together is better for the meta unless you like lad battles (which again, people on either side of this seem not to).

This was a lot of words to make a bunch of incorrect points about semantics and not correct your lack of good evidence or address any of my points. It's almost like there isn't enough evidence for this rule at all, and implementation should be delayed until we do have enough 🤔

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

First I would like to address that not once have I said a part needs to be “banned”. The community has been super upset about drift for a while and there have been several forms posting about banning the part. I was on the opposing side where I have stated that even though I felt the part was powerful it didn’t need to be banned, but rather the single bey format needed to be changed. And when I made my form about us having double drift and double bearing I asked the community for their opinion on it. I gave my view point as I could see the potential problem of the parts coexisting within the WBO deck format. Now in the 3v3, P3C1, and even single bey formats having multiple of these drivers isn't a big deal to me, as the beys that end up facing each other are random. Where as in the WBO deck format there is a level of control and a really skilled player would know how to abuse this factor.

You say I’m being bias to this yet you keep calling stamina “spamina” inclining that people spam these parts. So now that feels like you are showing bias to attack type drivers because those are what you’re saying are being hindered by this. Now I won’t disagree that attack types aren’t being hindered, because they are. However, is that this rule or the WBOs staff fault? I don’t think so. I think that problem just comes from the fact that realistically xtreme is just the best attack driver. All of the others fall a little short and I’m sure attack style bladers are super happy about basically having 2 xtreme drivers. It’s not this rule or the staff fault that TT hasn’t released any really good attack type drivers other than these 2. And I feel like that is a shame since almost every protagonist in the show has an attack type bey yet in the real world they fall short in competitive play. But I’m sure a lot of the players that are complaining about this change would have less of a problem if there were more attack drivers that were just good rather than what we got.

I mean, isn't your own admission that Xtreme is better than the alternatives for pure rubber flat Attack itself a reason to try and preserve it in Standard? You're acting like it's a shame Attack is being hit while claiming that this rule isn't at fault, even though this rule is the thing getting in its way rather directly by restricting what even you agree are it's best options. This is especially bad for Attack, since Attack is already the most skill testing typing to begin with and generally suffers enough through Burst's design decisions. No, you can't blame TT for "not releasing better alternatives" when it's a WBO specific ruling that limits Attack. It's a bad argument entirely, and basically little more than a lie.

Still, you put Drift and Bearing as problem parts... because skilled players can exploit it? Why is this specific to Drift/Bearing and not other parts? It's the skilled players you should be the most wary of to begin with, but shouldn't skilled players be able to exploit the game to their benefit with or without two copies of Drift? This is assuming hard that double Drift is both a skillful strategy (which there is no evidence to support in the time that double Drift has existed) and that a similarly skilled opponent cannot find a way to either exploit Drift's weakness or beat it another way. It's presumptive and fearful, and if this is the only reason to support this restriction, then there's actually more reason to remove this restriction than to maintain it even in a reduced capacity.

So, with all this being said I would really like if you could give us all an actually supported reason why a skilled player cannot beat a similarly skilled driver using two Drifts/Bearings. If you cannot give us even this much, then what support is there for this restriction at all? Like, the lack of evidence you're able to provide is hinting that removing it outright may actually be better than finding the middle ground, because it's looking less and less warranted after this.

---

Edit: I made this post on mobile, the fact that I nearly mirrored Th!nk is sheer coincidence because I didn't see his post first.

---

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...

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

this seems to be a good workaround until we figure out if these drivers TRULY NEEDS to be banned based off tournament reports and tests instead of bias against the drivers

---

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzL8dVb...subscriber

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

Yeah this is basically what everyone is saying. 
I guess 6 weeks would be ok, we’d need a month minimum to gather accurate data so 6 weeks would be even better 
Yeah I think that would be great to have a list of drivers that can’t be repeated, but it would only include:
Drift (metal drift)
Bearing Bearing’) 
Xtend+ (High Xtend+’)
And we can add more if there’s any other high LAD driver that has 2 variants
Yeah this rule is acceptable, though I’m gonna lean more towards option 2. 
It’s awesome that we can come together as a community and change the rules to the way we feel best!

---

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

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

This is fine with me and both alternatives have my support. Assuming we do have a good number of tournaments planned in the next 6 weeks, this time frame is fine. Thank you for being willing to raise this internally - and for being a human rather than toeing the line, I think it's healthy for the committee to be open about their thoughts in the public eye, part of the transparency people have asked for.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

Yeah this is basically what everyone is saying. 
I guess 6 weeks would be ok, we’d need a month minimum to gather accurate data so 6 weeks would be even better 
Yeah I think that would be great to have a list of drivers that can’t be repeated, but it would only include:
Drift (metal drift)
Bearing Bearing’) 
Xtend+ (High Xtend+’)
And we can add more if there’s any other high LAD driver that has 2 variants
Yeah this rule is acceptable, though I’m gonna lean more towards option 2. 
It’s awesome that we can come together as a community and change the rules to the way we feel best!

problem with your list, high xtend+' isn't out yet so we don't even know how it'll perform on DB beys yet. for all we know the performance may be slightly better than normal xtend+ on DB beys

---

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzL8dVb...subscriber

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

Given that I went through the issues at heart and come to these responses in my first post in this thread, and that I'm seeing less and less reason for this to stand as it is the more I hear from it's supporters, I am definitely behind this.

---

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...

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

I’m fine with this decision. I just suggest maybe after a number of tournaments rather than just 6 weeks. My reason for that is that it’s getting colder out and we might not have enough tournaments within that 6 week time frame to get an accurate amount of data.

---

It seems like the majority of the proposals include the suggestion of:
1) delaying the implementation of this rule for 1-3 months.  (Would 6 weeks be acceptable?)
2) if and when this rule or something like it needs to be implemented, it should affect specific drivers (eg. Br/Br’, MDr/Dr).  Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we would need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?”

Does this sound acceptable to everyone?  I like to work towards a final version, and do our best to represents as much of what was proposed by each individual here as possible.

I’m fine with this decision. I just suggest maybe after a number of tournaments rather than just 6 weeks. My reason for that is that it’s getting colder out and we might not have enough tournaments within that 6 week time frame to get an accurate amount of data.

This is actually not unreasonable.

---

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...

I’m fine with this decision. I just suggest maybe after a number of tournaments rather than just 6 weeks. My reason for that is that it’s getting colder out and we might not have enough tournaments within that 6 week time frame to get an accurate amount of data.

This is actually not unreasonable.

I’m actually not an unreasonable person. It’s just kind of clear that I’m on one side of a coin here. Ultimately we all want what is best for the game. We all just have different opinions and reasoning as to what the best routes are.

---

What do we think is a reasonable number of events? This is a great question actually. One that may helps us in the future as well.

This is actually not unreasonable.

I’m actually not an unreasonable person. It’s just kind of clear that I’m on one side of a coin here. Ultimately we all want what is best for the game. We all just have different opinions and reasoning as to what the best routes are.

Well, I don't believe you've managed to prove your side properly, relying too heavily on nuance and "what if" scenarios, and this bias is controlling you somewhat. I see it as a set of blinders on you, though I can do little more than what I've already said here.

I do know however that Indiana is winding down for the colder season, so that at the least is something I can confirm that would affect a set timespan like this and could likely hit other regions in similar manners.

---

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...

How many burst standard tournaments do we have in 6 weeks in the summer?

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

In the 3 months of July, August, and September we had I think 28 burst standard ranked events if I counted correctly. That number tends to go down in the colder months in NA of course.

That averages to 13.44 tournaments in 6 weeks. So, perhaps we go with 12 tournaments across 3 areas, each with a minimum of two (maybe 3?) tournaments. Something along those lines to cover bases (eg some areas use more attack etc etc), give things time to develop. This works for standard at least, it may need to be adjusted for other formats with testing relied upon more if you want to approach it broadly.

I do still feel there needs to be a "come on, let's be real" clause for eg shot and almight in classic where they weigh so much they destroy everything, but if you want a standard for major decisions, this might be workable at least on current activity.

Obviously I haven't followed the tournament scene that closely until recently so it's open to feedback.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Yeah this is basically what everyone is saying. 
I guess 6 weeks would be ok, we’d need a month minimum to gather accurate data so 6 weeks would be even better 
Yeah I think that would be great to have a list of drivers that can’t be repeated, but it would only include:
Drift (metal drift)
Bearing Bearing’) 
Xtend+ (High Xtend+’)
And we can add more if there’s any other high LAD driver that has 2 variants
Yeah this rule is acceptable, though I’m gonna lean more towards option 2. 
It’s awesome that we can come together as a community and change the rules to the way we feel best!

problem with your list, high xtend+' isn't out yet so we don't even know how it'll perform on DB beys yet. for all we know the performance may be slightly better than normal xtend+ on DB beys

Yeah, but that’s just an example

---

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

We are only talking data from Ranked standard events correct?

---