We are only talking data from Ranked standard events correct?

Not much reason to try and judge it off of legacy formats where the added burst resistance may be ban-worthy itself. Metal Drift and Bearing' are already on the watchlist for Limited and Classic for that reason.

Unranked events could also have unusual rules or too few players to get a good picture from them as well.

---

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...

We are only talking data from Ranked standard events correct?

Well, that would give time for other formats to also see impact, but generally we would use standard as the benchmark. For something like plastics it doesn't work at all, that is the realm of argument and testing though.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I like the idea of having data from different regions, and I think that is very important.  I think it can be beneficial to the staff and community that the tracking of events to be  extremely simple and doable by anyone with little effort.   Perhaps we can extend the 6 weeks to 8 or 10 weeks?  I think tracking weeks will be a little bit easier than tracking events.  This would start from the time of release, and would almost ensure the next new release hotness are in some ppl’s hands as well. Sometimes, it also takes time for a part to get figured out.  For example, Drift got a lot more attention once ppl figured out how to make it work better same spin.  In the colder months, maybe we can consider an extension.   Just a suggestion and love to hear thoughts.

That also works well for me. As long as we have data from a few areas and time to see these areas adapt or have the hype die down, it works.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

After waiting and reading what everyone else has to say on the matter, I have to say my viewpoint has somewhat shifted. Both sides have made solid points and I ultimately believe it would be best to, as has been suggested, wait for more data to come in before banning double Drift and double Bearing decks.

However, I must also say that limiting decks to one version of drivers that definitely aren’t a problem is something I’m totally against; players should have the option of running, for example, two (Or three) Xtreme variants. And why are Charge and Charge Metal being deemed the same part? Bullet-H and Bullet? Huge difference in their performance. As it stands, the current ruling is more complicated than banning the use of more than one Bearing or Drift variant in a deck.

I would also like to mention that I’m very pleased we (The community) are being given a chance to voice our opinions before an official decision is reached. I hope this transparency continues into the future.

---

Player and Organizer for NC Beyblade | Use code "HASHTAGFAFNIR" for 8% off on BeysAndBricks!

I have amended the community proposal over this matter to what I think I have gathered here:

1) Allow for a 10 week minimum observational period from the date of release for variant parts.  If variant parts are to be limited to “one of” in the WBO deck format, it will be limited after this 10 week observation period  (For MDr and Br’ that would be 12-4-21 I believe?)
2)   Variant part restrictions will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  (Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we will need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?)

Please let me know what you all think and feel free to amend and improve upon the language.

I don't know if this has been addressed, but a thought popped into my mind: what should be done regarding QuadDrive Drivers? Of course they're not released yet, but I think it's worth throwing this idea out there in anticipation of their release and their relationship to this new ruling. Something to think about in case a ruling clarification needs to be made in the near future.

For example, if I run TT's Wave Dash, and Hasbro's Jaggy-Q with the Wave attachment, am I running 2 Wave variants, or 1 Wave and 1 Jaggy variant?

In my opinion, I think whatever tip is going to touch the stadium floor should be treated as the Driver variant and this ruling should be explicitly clarified (ex. Jaggy-Q with Wave attachment on is a Wave variant, Jaggy-Q without any attachment on is Jaggy variant).

---

Currently fan translating the Beyblade X manga. Beyblade Wiki Administrator and occasional manga scanlator.

I don't know if this has been addressed, but a thought popped into my mind: what should be done regarding QuadDrive Drivers? Of course they're not released yet, but I think it's worth throwing this idea out there in anticipation of their release and their relationship to this new ruling. Something to think about in case a ruling clarification needs to be made in the near future.

For example, if I run TT's Wave Dash, and Hasbro's Jaggy-Q with the Wave attachment, am I running 2 Wave variants, or 1 Wave and 1 Jaggy variant?

In my opinion, I think whatever tip is going to touch the stadium floor should be treated as the Driver variant and this ruling should be explicitly clarified (ex. Jaggy-Q with Wave attachment on is a Wave variant, Jaggy-Q without any attachment on is Jaggy variant).

I have no idea as to how QuadDrive works haha?  Would my #2 above deal with it you think? I honestly have no idea.

I don't know if this has been addressed, but a thought popped into my mind: what should be done regarding QuadDrive Drivers? Of course they're not released yet, but I think it's worth throwing this idea out there in anticipation of their release and their relationship to this new ruling. Something to think about in case a ruling clarification needs to be made in the near future.

For example, if I run TT's Wave Dash, and Hasbro's Jaggy-Q with the Wave attachment, am I running 2 Wave variants, or 1 Wave and 1 Jaggy variant?

In my opinion, I think whatever tip is going to touch the stadium floor should be treated as the Driver variant and this ruling should be explicitly clarified (ex. Jaggy-Q with Wave attachment on is a Wave variant, Jaggy-Q without any attachment on is Jaggy variant).

I have no idea as to how QuadDrive works haha?  Would my #2 above deal with it you think? I honestly have no idea.

QuadDrive is basically:

Each driver is functionally two drivers, the internal driver, for this example, is Jaggy, but there's an addon you put on it and it becomes Wave. Hasbro's name scheme is uncertain, but based on what we know, it would be called Jaggy-QD either way. Every QD driver is like this.

---

Spoiler (Click to View)

Kai-V is an omniscient being who imparts starving mortals such as ourselves with the morsels of Beyblade foreknowledge we so unknowingly desired. She does so not out of grace, but because it pleases her. May the great Kai-V excuse your insolence and show mercy upon your blader spirit.

Beymen.

Evil is very bad though... There is just nothing good to do with it.

They do not, because clearly you punch them with these brass knuckles.

I don't know if this has been addressed, but a thought popped into my mind: what should be done regarding QuadDrive Drivers? Of course they're not released yet, but I think it's worth throwing this idea out there in anticipation of their release and their relationship to this new ruling. Something to think about in case a ruling clarification needs to be made in the near future.

For example, if I run TT's Wave Dash, and Hasbro's Jaggy-Q with the Wave attachment, am I running 2 Wave variants, or 1 Wave and 1 Jaggy variant?

In my opinion, I think whatever tip is going to touch the stadium floor should be treated as the Driver variant and this ruling should be explicitly clarified (ex. Jaggy-Q with Wave attachment on is a Wave variant, Jaggy-Q without any attachment on is Jaggy variant).

I have no idea as to how QuadDrive works haha?  Would my #2 above deal with it you think? I honestly have no idea.

I think the #2 is the only way to sensibly deal with this, tbh. Hasbro's made it rather complicated here to begin with.

---

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 have no idea as to how QuadDrive works haha?  Would my #2 above deal with it you think? I honestly have no idea.

QuadDrive is basically:

Each driver is functionally two drivers, the internal driver, for this example, is Jaggy, but there's an addon you put on it and it becomes Wave. Hasbro's name scheme is uncertain, but based on what we know, it would be called Jaggy-QD either way. Every QD driver is like this.

I would assume that since they are “attachments” like say a plus chip for xtend or the Z and X chips for zone and Xceed that if you have the attachment on it would be more or less considered the attachment and not the inner tip. So if you have the wave attachment then it’s considered wave and not jaggy. Cause I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be able to remove the attachment as part of a “mode change”.

---

I have amended the community proposal over this matter to what I think I have gathered here:

1) Allow for a 10 week minimum observational period from the date of release for variant parts.  If variant parts are to be limited to “one of” in the WBO deck format, it will be limited after this 10 week observation period  (For MDr and Br’ that would be 12-4-21 I believe?)
2)   Variant part restrictions will be dealt with on a case by case basis.  (Perhaps under the WBO deck/Final stage format we will need a section of “driver variants that are not repeatable?)

Please let me know what you all think and feel free to amend and improve upon the language.

Just want to double check one more time bf I write this up. I do want to make sure everyone who wants to have input gets their chance.

If you are able to change tips which I think is the intent of the qd drivers then I think one would have to count the setup as being both drivers under this rule - god forbid someone remove their attachments and suddenly be running the dreaded Triple Jaggy!
Hopefully it doesn't come to that by the time they are out.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Okay, the proposal is in, it probably went out short of 48 hrs but I think we have come to an agreement here.  Thank you all for your help and I appreciated the willingness to look at both sides of the coin.  Regardless of what happens to this proposal, I think this was a good step in getting the community more involved the WBO.

Okay, the proposal is in, it probably went out short of 48 hrs but I think we have come to an agreement here.  Thank you all for your help and I appreciated the willingness to look at both sides of the coin.  Regardless of what happens to this proposal, I think this was a good step in getting the community more involved the WBO.

Thanks so much for this - I would love to see this kind of discussion looked at being a regular thing prior to approval of new rulings honestly - preview the new rule to the community for feedback and any counter proposals raised, before implementing it. I realise it is extra work for our staff and many don't like directly debating decisions with the broader community, but it would be really healthy and a pretty simple step towards greater transparency and community involvement!


I think it is also important that I clarify here that proponents of no double br dr are not being left out to dry by this - the possibility is still there if their concerns are realised via this proposal. Perhaps they will be an issue, let's see and then if they are, we deal with the problem with precision. Surely that is amenable? I mean personally I'm all for reducing LAD battles, but I want it done the right way and with minimal collateral damage.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

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.

I think that this new rule change is perfect! Based on the last event I went to, it was defiantly obvious, at least to me, that having multiple of the same drivers, even though there might be some minor differences, that it would unbalance the meta when it comes to deck format, or formats similar.

---

Hello, my name is Camick and I'm a competitive blader and tournament organizer for North Carolina.

Firstly, I agree with the one driver kind rule. It makes a lot of sense.

Okay so ideally I see why this rule would upset people, considering certain driver variants can perform differently than the others and what not.

But let's be real:
1. Say we use orbit metal/charge' in a deck: would you really use Orbit or Charge metal? Or Yard?
2. The performance is repetitive and imagine a deck format with 2 drifts in them: one right spin and one left spin. And then the battles will go on for days. It's not practical especially if you are an organizer/staff.
3. Making an exception for one variant of a driver would mean making an exception for each one. So now I can have one regular and one dash driver and call it a day?

I know WBO tournaments are getting very competitive, but it's all about having fun and I think this rule let's us do that and it'll help us think outside the box.

I know I have said a poll may not be necessary earlier in this thread, but it has been brought to my attention that some people do prefer polling.  I do want as many members to have a voice as possible, this is regardless of how much or how little they want to say on the forums.  So here it is.

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Poll-Pr...eck-format

*correction, it has come to my attention that I conducted the above poll poorly.  A new one will replace it soon, sorry.

Firstly, I agree with the one driver kind rule. It makes a lot of sense.

Okay so ideally I see why this rule would upset people, considering certain driver variants can perform differently than the others and what not.

But let's be real:
1. Say we use orbit metal/charge' in a deck: would you really use Orbit or Charge metal? Or Yard?
2. The performance is repetitive and imagine a deck format with 2 drifts in them: one right spin and one left spin. And then the battles will go on for days. It's not practical especially if you are an organizer/staff.
3. Making an exception for one variant of a driver would mean making an exception for each one. So now I can have one regular and one dash driver and call it a day?

I know WBO tournaments are getting very competitive, but it's all about having fun and I think this rule let's us do that and it'll help us think outside the box.

Would you be okay with the rule targeting problem parts like drift and bearing only? I've explained a bit that I feel it hurts attack in a way that makes it easier for drift and bearing. Is a delay in determining if parts are problematic a concern or is it reasonable in your opinion?

I want to try to get a picture of the extent of people's support for the new rule, so I hope you don't mind me asking

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I was gonna stay out of this one, but to give a little insight I wanted to add something here and I will vote on the poll as well. I do agree with the new ruling, to an extent anyway. I think both sides of the coin have very valid arguments. However, I must admit that I agree with having this rule in place more than not. If we get to why this rule was created it is the same as what we have been talking about for the past 6 months or so and that is the significant increase in LAD matches, lasting for several rounds and the infamous Drift performance tip/driver.

It was mentioned that Takara Tomy makes the variations of drivers for their 5G format and I fully agree. The parts are made to help players be able to stretch out valuable parts and combos throughout their 5G deck. However, we don't play 5G here and we have to adjust the rules to accommodate our play style for the enjoyment of the game as Arka said.

I saw a lot of negative feedback on how this rule will affect other drivers but honestly I don't know of anyone who uses double variants of the same driver in a deck, at least in our area and I have been to quite a few tournaments. It definitely happens in unranked but unranked is pretty much free to do what they'd like to a degree. And to go even further other drivers are not really meta changing anyway. To compare this to some TCG's there are some OP cards out there but they are limited within a deck to keep the game fun, while other decent cards are still allowed to have multiple copies because they arent as game changing. Drift (and possibly bearing with our current meta) are very game changing.

I suppose on a personal view I do think the rule is legit but the issue is really drift in my honest opinion, so maybe just limit not using drift and metal drift in a deck. Not because its OP or anything like that but because it will be SUPER BORING and frustrating to judge and watch in all honesty. I will admit that my only reluctance to this rule is for future releases. I really would like to see a deck with Xtend+ and High Xtend+'. I am not fully sure if this rule encompasses those as the same but I would have loved to see that. Would've been a legit challenge instead of the cookie cutter double drifts.

Regardless, thank you everyone for your input and I hope this all helps staff in making their future decision.

* and my bad I forgot I was on this account, this is StayCool btw*

https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Poll-WB...riant-Rule

This is the new poll

So I posted part of this in the poll thread, but I assume this is where the rules and stuff will be messed with. I agree with the new rule, but I have a few questions about the future criteria. #1: What would separate a massive overhaul in the meta from a variant from a massive overhaul from a normal part? For example, if we applied the guidelines for the variant rule to tempest or rage(I’m stuck in sparking lol), they would surely be banned. But they aren’t, as they aren’t variants. If the same thing happened to bearing’, it would be banned with bearing, because it’s a variant. Y bearing and not rage? Just because there happens to be another part similar to it? And bearing’ itself wouldn’t change the meta, bearing too. Ngl it seems like less of a threat. #2: you cannot tell me with a straight face that rise h and rise are virtually the same driver. No. Non hasbro pro series parts should be excluded. I had a 3rd question I forgot it lol, I’ll post it later

---

emotional DaMAgE

Firstly, I agree with the one driver kind rule. It makes a lot of sense.

Okay so ideally I see why this rule would upset people, considering certain driver variants can perform differently than the others and what not.

But let's be real:
1. Say we use orbit metal/charge' in a deck: would you really use Orbit or Charge metal? Or Yard?
2. The performance is repetitive and imagine a deck format with 2 drifts in them: one right spin and one left spin. And then the battles will go on for days. It's not practical especially if you are an organizer/staff.
3. Making an exception for one variant of a driver would mean making an exception for each one. So now I can have one regular and one dash driver and call it a day?

I know WBO tournaments are getting very competitive, but it's all about having fun and I think this rule let's us do that and it'll help us think outside the box.

Would you be okay with the rule targeting problem parts like drift and bearing only? I've explained a bit that I feel it hurts attack in a way that makes it easier for drift and bearing. Is a delay in determining if parts are problematic a concern or is it reasonable in your opinion?

I want to try to get a picture of the extent of people's support for the new rule, so I hope you don't mind me asking

I mean yeah I understand what you're saying and yes that would be fine. But then this means more work for the staff because you'll need to be thorough. It could be something different like: the spring locking should not be accounted for. So if you have the same driver but it's a dash driver/metal lock driver, it cannot be counted as a variation. But if the tip itself is different, yes it's a different driver. Which would fall in line with Hypersphere, slingshock or orbit metal/yard metal etc

Here is the most important part of any new WBO rule: the rule has to be extremely simple. The longer the rule is, the more complicated it is, the less chance that bladers have of understanding it. Most bladers barely understand the rules as written now. Adding more complicated rules just adds trouble. That's why the rule was written the way it was. And I guess the edge cases weren't enough of a serious concern to stop them from implementing it at the time.

---

-----
Hey, parents! Here are all the answers to any questions about WBO Tournaments you might have! Thread-Guide-Hey-Parents-Answers-to-your-WBO-Tournament-questions

Please consult this guide linked below on how to arrive at tournaments before they start! https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-How-to-arrive-at-tournaments-and-other-events-on-time

Here is the most important part of any new WBO rule: the rule has to be extremely simple. The longer the rule is, the more complicated it is, the less chance that bladers have of understanding it. Most bladers barely understand the rules as written now. Adding more complicated rules just adds trouble. That's why the rule was written the way it was. And I guess the edge cases weren't enough of a serious concern to stop them from implementing it at the time.

You really don't like to give users a lot of credit hey 😅 Seriously though, the WBO staff before your time as one of them used to also try to limit bans as much as possible, I suspect a lot of staff from back then would have recoiled at this. This isn't a jab, that wasn't always the right policy back then, but the moral of the story is that times do change and flexibility is important. Do you think kids and parents will look at hypersphere variants and understand they are the same part as the regular version? That does not feel simple to me, ya know? We also really haven't had enough time to see if the rule was necessary yet - if the rule has to be this far reaching, then we need to give every opportunity to the community to find a way around us needing to use it.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List