I have no idea why the quotes in my post didn't render properly ...
Quote:Honestly, I feel like that is what is changing with the release of Extreme. It seemed like the meta had its own thing but with this release, I fear it could BECOME like MFB's meta.
It's flat-out too soon to come to this conclusion. Being skeptical is one thing, but this thread is devolving into near-panic, based on huge assumptions and leaps of logic.
Quote:I think what he meant by creativity was that instead of trying out new stuff, people would just go with the tried and true good combo. And I think he's right to an extent.
What does this mean? I seriously don't get it. Playing in a tournament with a combo that doesn't perform well isn't "creativity." Creativity is doing the research before the event, trying out every combination versus other combinations and finding the hidden gems of performance. A lot of this reads like opining for a time that never existed; there was never an idyllic point in the game where dozens of cooky, fun combinations dominated.
Furthermore, I can't fathom how having basically Accel as the only viable Attack-type Driver somehow enables more "creativity." And as many have already pointed out, Burst comes with new gameplay considerations that could bring considerable drawbacks to using a rubber flat tip.
Quote:Yes, there are good parts and there are bad parts, and yes there are combos that win all the tourneys and stuff but then there's lots of parts that don't see much use at all, and like I mentioned in my post, parts that are never fully tested enough to realize their potential in the meta and are effectively DOA.
The meta is not fixed, and it is up to each individual player to discover strategies that work for them. If there are good parts that aren't being used because nobody's discovered their potential, that doesn't mean they're "dead on arrival." It means that there is an opportunity to be exploited.
By you.
That's creativity: doing the work yourself, discovering a hidden gem, and reaping the reward of your efforts. Not using parts that perform poorly and then getting frustrated that they don't do well. Beyblade can be played casually, for fun, where competitive parts aren't that important, but you can't expect the metagame to be like that.
Finally, I want to talk about the purpose of customization testing. There seems to be an attitude that parts that aren't being tested are overlooked, or that no conclusions can be drawn without formal testing. But the purpose of testing is to
prove a hypothesis that you've formed by observing general gameplay. We don't need a test, for example, to prove to us that Oval isn't competitively viable; dozens of players have attempted it in various combinations and have collectively found nothing successful. A test is redundant.
Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with speculation. But it would be nice to not see the discussion become so panicked, possibly making people who don't know better worry about something that would likely never come to pass.