Posting Test Results.

This is the format all test results should use when being posted:

Quote:Valkyrie Wing Accel vs. Kerbeus Central Defense
Standard Procedure
Valkyrie Wing Accel: 10 wins (5 KO, 5 BF)
Kerbeus Central Defense: 10 win (10 OS)
1 draw
VWA win percentage: 50%

Testing should involve at least 20 rounds (10 rounds is acceptable if the result is one-sided), and any draws must be recorded and redone.

What Standard Procedure means:
  • WBO Organized Play Legal Stadiums (For Metal Fight Formats use the MFB Attack Stadium, for Burst use the BeyStadium Standard Type)
  • Alternating launches for Stamina
  • Attack customisation launched second
  • Parts swapping after 10 rounds for specific part comparisons
  • Not required, but providing benchmark results for similar match-ups for the sake of comparison is beneficial

If any other conditions are used, you must state them.

Anything outside of these standardised conditions (part wear, launch techniques) should be mentioned.
Thanks, this was really needed. I doubt people will look here though, and I assumed this is about to be stickied as I post. Basically a reiteration of the adv. forum thread, condensed?
Wait, part swapping? Is that basically addressing any worn parts in testing?

Edit x2: What about launching techniques? We have a bunch of people who don't necessarily launch properly and threads which are completely skewed because of it. I'm guessing that should be addressed too, no?
Yes, that's what it's addressing.

It says to mention any launch techniques already ... ?
nice, this should be made, as there have been so many miss tests done...
Thanks, now people won't just do some 5 rounds, and actually 20 will be done.
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:15 PM)Aguma Wrote: What does part swapping mean?
IE: Your RF has broke, you swap with another one.

You must note that in your testings.
Swapping bottoms and such to prevent part wear from affecting the results. But this would go in ask a Q, get an A I believe.
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:26 PM)BeyBladestation Wrote:
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:15 PM)Aguma Wrote: What does part swapping mean?
IE: Your RF has broke, you swap with another one.

You must note that in your testings.

That's not what it means...
(Jul. 12, 2011  10:40 PM)♥ Wrote: It says to mention any launch techniques already ... ?
I'm saying some members cannot launch certain customizations properly, which skews results. How should we address that? I'm guessing just discourage them to post threads before learning how to launch well.
probably get tutored before doing tests... or maybe use a video to show their launching method, so we can help them get it right.
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:43 PM)Dan Wrote:
(Jul. 12, 2011  10:40 PM)♥ Wrote: It says to mention any launch techniques already ... ?
I'm saying some members cannot launch certain customizations properly, which skews results. How should we address that? I'm guessing just discourage them to post threads before learning how to launch well.

I don't really know what that has to do with this then; obviously the member would think that their launch method is correct otherwise they wouldn't use it, so how would they know to write it as additional information ... ?
(Jul. 13, 2011  12:07 AM)♥ Wrote: I don't really know what that has to do with this then; obviously the member would think that their launch method is correct otherwise they wouldn't use it, so how would they know to write it as additional information ... ?
Shadow Scythe is a reoccurring offender of improperly launching all attacker types in his testing which skews all results he has, and he openly admits that. He is still posting threads and tests. It wouldn't really be 'additional information: I suck at launching', I just wanted to know how to deal with those kinds of people who do that. (considering that it literally pertains to posting test results, I asked it here.)
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:27 PM)GaHooleone Wrote: That's not what it means...
Actually it does?

If you've ever visited the Testing Requests Thread, you'll see that people note in their testings that a part broke during battle and that they had to swap it with the same one.

If I remember correctly, same goes with the Reshoot Clause.
(Jul. 13, 2011  12:24 AM)Dan Wrote:
(Jul. 13, 2011  12:07 AM)♥ Wrote: I don't really know what that has to do with this then; obviously the member would think that their launch method is correct otherwise they wouldn't use it, so how would they know to write it as additional information ... ?
Shadow Scythe is a reoccurring offender of improperly launching all attacker types in his testing which skews all results he has, and he openly admits that. He is still posting threads and tests. It wouldn't really be 'additional information: I suck at launching', I just wanted to know how to deal with those kinds of people who do that. (considering that it literally pertains to posting test results, I asked it here.)
A good reason why everyone who posts should contribute to the combination by testing their own results. If people would just test everything they posted about, there would be less drama/arguing and more learning. By doing this, you can also discuss why results may have been different by bringing up the topic of technique.

If I have the parts, I try to test.
(Jul. 13, 2011  12:28 AM)BeyBladestation Wrote:
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:27 PM)GaHooleone Wrote: That's not what it means...
Actually it does?

If you've ever visited the Testing Requests Thread, you'll see that people note in their testings that a part broke during battle and that they had to swap it with the same one.

If I remember correctly, same goes with the Reshoot Clause.

That is pretty bad practice anyway. The same part should be used through 20 rounds. The situation mentioned in the opening post is actually that you should swap the parts which are common to both customisations after 10 rounds to ensure they aren't affecting your results. This is common practice. And considering that this was already answered in literally the second and third posts of this thread too ...

Dan: Deikailo nailed it really; just do your own testing as comparison and post it up, to "deal with those kinds of people".
(Jul. 13, 2011  12:28 AM)BeyBladestation Wrote:
(Jul. 12, 2011  11:27 PM)GaHooleone Wrote: That's not what it means...
Actually it does?

I'm pretty sure what <3 really means is swapping the parts with the opposing Bey so if there's a slight bias in one of the control parts it doesn't completely skew the result.

In some of the earlier Stamina tests, like Daegor42's AD145 testing, he swapped the tracks of the customs halfway through testing to ensure that one track wasn't winning due to the performance of the control parts.

EDIT: Ah, beaten. And with a simpler explanation. :p
I meant that in a similar way, but just used the example of something breaking in the 'IE'.
(Jul. 13, 2011  12:29 AM)Deikailo Wrote: If I have the parts, I try to test.
QFT , i try to get around to any combo that i have the parts for , just so i can find out what it is like.

Thanks <3 for making this thread Grin
I am so glad to see this done, it's something we've been lacking for far too long (and it makes my new user guide that much simpler).

Thanks very much, <3!
We really needed this ! Members will read this topic as long its sticky Smile. Thanks <3 !
(Jul. 13, 2011  4:16 AM)Soul_ Wrote: We really needed this ! Members will read this topic as long its sticky Smile. Thanks <3 !

Hahah. No, they will not.
(Jul. 13, 2011  4:19 AM)Kai-V Wrote:
(Jul. 13, 2011  4:16 AM)Soul_ Wrote: We really needed this ! Members will read this topic as long its sticky Smile. Thanks <3 !

Hahah. No, they will not.
qft [just had to]

Also, I had a question on wearing of a tip and being replaced with the same tip, but not worn.

IE: I'm using a not worn RF and it's doing good.... it breaks during testing... then I replace it with a slightly more worn one. Should that be noted in testing? And the round in happened in as well?
(Jul. 13, 2011  11:57 PM)BeyBladestation Wrote: Also, I had a question on wearing of a tip and being replaced with the same tip, but not worn.

IE: I'm using a not worn RF and it's doing good.... it breaks during testing... then I replace it with a slightly more worn one. Should that be noted in testing? And the round in happened in as well?

It should be noted, but it could be good to restart the series of tests entirely. When does an RF "break" anyway ?
One of my RF(s) did, in fact. Due to stabilization, the plastic binding was ripped off because the Tornado Ridge was holding it back.

Anyways, Thank You for the information.
Why is it compulsory to use a launcher grip? I feel that this is personal preference.