World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. World Beyblade Organization Discuss worldbeyblade.org

Proposal: Rethinking the Participant Limit

Poll: Should the limit be changed to 7?

Yes, it'd help the WBO.
86.49%
32
No.
13.51%
5
Total: 100% 37 vote(s)
  • You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
  • * You voted for this item.
  • Show Results
Jun. 28, 2014  5:20 PM
 
So after experiencing this today among other regions who have this issue; I among others believe the participant limit should be slightly lowered.

Many regions have a lot of trouble even getting 8 players. Places like the UK, Indiana, Italy, Florida, Australia, among others are having a tremendously hard time gathering the required 8 minimum.

The Beyblade Metal Fight series can be considered on a "hiatus" or break. There have not been many releases by Hasbro (albeit Legends coming shortly, but those are rereleases) and Takara Tomy and Sonokong have not released a new Beyblade product for nearly 2 years. The anime series officially stopped producing new episode in December of 2012. One may argue Hasbro and Nelvana have their spinoff series, but those lack popularity and are not very rememberable. This lack of new toys being released leads to a lack of popularity for the series. I know many members, very competitive and active, who have quit due to the lack of releases. This certainly doesn't increase participants at tournaments.

My idea, my proposal to the committee, is that the participant limit should be decreased to 7. 7 very competitive people can attend an event, so it would not affect the Meta. It would also provide the WBO with more funding, as they can hold more events, rather than canceling more events and discouraging members to try to host or organize, even attend events again. Today, specifically at Lord of the Energy Rings, we were one player short of making it an official event, leaving several attendees disappointed. As a community, we would certainly not want that.

Thank you for your consideration and time reading this.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:27 PM
 
It's sort of a given, but I definitely agree with this. This past fall, in Florida, I was 1 player away from hosting an event, but by the time I found that final member, months later, Ezreal & his brother had moved & a couple players that I'd been keeping in touch with via PM were inactive. There are many of us who are active on the WBO and will attend tournaments regardless of anime and part releases, but the younger players who aren't involved outside of tournaments need an anime or new Beyblades to keep them captivated; right now, we just don't have that, causing us to lose those extra players that we often need to stay active. I don't think anyone would disagree with the fact that the 8 player participant limit has caused a decrease in tournament activity & in order to keep the WBO up and running, we need as much funding, members, and tournaments as we can get.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:28 PM
 
I actually really agree with you on this, mostly because sometimes in our winter tournaments in Toronto, we struggle to even get 8 participants, and so reducing the minimum required amount of people by 1 or 2 seems reasonable. However, I don't think it should be moved down to 6, only because it discourages hosts to even try to get more participants to come. I guess putting it down to 7 participants at the minimum is reasonable. In the end it's up to the committee, but I agree with you on this haha.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:33 PM
 
The issue with six, which is what caused the participant limit to be at eight to begin with, is that you have one chance on two of being in the top three, which is just way too easy. You really all have to consider this. It would also make it easier for regions which just have one or two good Bladers with a couple of rather bad friends who do not care about being competitive to gather enough so-so people to hold several tournaments just to gain Credits, these days.

However, something I was suggested could be interesting : abolish the Bronze Face for small tournaments, and also give out less Credits somehow overall for those small events. Also, we would obviously reserve the right to veto some events which seem too obviously "one/two good Bladers with poor friends". Actually, that suggestion was made in regards to plastics and HMS tournaments, that understandably cannot reach as many participants as regular tournaments.

All that being said, I am not certain regions like Connecticut would necessarily qualify for a limit reduction, considering if those guys had not canceled more or less at the last minute, you would have easily gotten at least eight participants on another given day.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:34 PM
 
The limit was originally 9(Right?) so limiting it to 6 would be a large stretch. I'd have to agree with LMAO, 7 sounds a lot better to me.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:39 PM
 
Here's what I think:

If it were allowed that maybe certain regions could have 6, then I'm not sure beypoints should be given out. Maybe credits and wins/losses, but I'm not sure about beypoints just because its not as competitve. Plus I'm not sure it'd be worth an actual tournament with only 6 people.

I'd love it though :3.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:43 PM
 
Well many people come out to tournaments for Beypoints right? Especially in regions that have competitive bladers, they mostly go to tournaments for beypoints, and so if the WBO took away Beypoints from certain regions, the point of having a tournament would go away. But I do agree that taking away the Bronze face from smaller regions might help as it can be formatted so that there is only a top 2. Also, what Tr! is saying completely right, tournaments with only 6 people are not really worth it.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:45 PM
 
In the last couple tournaments I have hosted, we almost had to cancel due to lack of participants. Luckily, parents stepped in and we were able to proceed. Lately, Illinois hasn't even been able to get a tournament going, due to lack on interest.

However, I refrained from posting in this thread until I understood the other side of the argument, which Kai-V said was easy credits/beypoints. This is a very good point, about the two good bladers and their friends, and while this would be much less likely in the 8 minimum tournaments, it would still be possible.

Anyway, if there is no decent competition, save one or two bladers, that would not change in an 8 minimum tournament. Good bladers wouldn't magically appear if there weren't any to begin with.

I do think that 8 minimum tournaments should still be encouraged, perhaps, as Kai-V said, by dropping the amount of credits available to earn and having no bronze face during tournaments with less than 8 participants. I also believe that 6 minimum tournaments would allow for many more tournaments, drawing in more bladers on the fence of giving up the hobby, rekindling spirits if you will. That's just my two cents.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:46 PM
 
7 is definitely a fair number, I'd think.

I wouldn't see how taking away faces or credits would help, it'd discourage more to go, really- if they knew they wouldn't get anything for it at all.
(Jun. 28, 2014  5:33 PM)Kai-V Wrote: All that being said, I am not certain regions like Connecticut would necessarily qualify for a limit reduction, considering if those guys had not canceled more or less at the last minute, you would have easily gotten at least eight participants on another given day.

I think it should be an option for all regions, having the number reduced to 7. It's only one less player and could help officialize many more events in the future, especially with the decline in releases and players, in general.

If it was reduced to 7, we would have not only had enough to do it today, but many other quiet regions would be able to host official events. One player reduction is not the end of the world, really.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:50 PM
 
(Jun. 28, 2014  5:46 PM)Leone19 Wrote: 7 is definitely a fair number, I'd think.

I wouldn't see how taking away faces or credits would help, it'd discourage more to go, really- if they knew they wouldn't get anything for it at all.
Because then it would be very easy to get faces and credits, as you could hold multiple tournaments more often, seeing as events would go faster, and also there would be less competition.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:52 PM
 
I am for this. Many events have to be cancelled without 8, but with 7 it makes it a lot easier for hosts to easilly host event every month. I for one would be able to host a lot more if 7 was the limit.
Jun. 28, 2014  5:53 PM
 
(Jun. 28, 2014  5:39 PM)Tr! Wrote: Here's what I think:

If it were allowed that maybe certain regions could have 6, then I'm not sure beypoints should be given out. Maybe credits and wins/losses, but I'm not sure about beypoints just because its not as competitve. Plus I'm not sure it'd be worth an actual tournament with only 6 people.

I'd love it though :3.

Not as competeive? Today's event specifically had 4 players, all using mainly competetive pieces. Everyone either used 4D or Synchrom combinations.

That's like saying because of the number of participants a tournament consisting of Kei, Dark, TheBlack Dragon, Hell Kid, JesseObre, and Yuko Ray wouldn't be competetive.
(Jun. 28, 2014  5:50 PM)Du@l Wrote:
(Jun. 28, 2014  5:46 PM)Leone19 Wrote: 7 is definitely a fair number, I'd think.

I wouldn't see how taking away faces or credits would help, it'd discourage more to go, really- if they knew they wouldn't get anything for it at all.
Because then it would be very easy to get faces and credits, as you could hold multiple tournaments more often, seeing as events would go faster, and also there would be less competition.

One player difference wouldn't be the end of the world.

If anything, maybe there would be different credit or BeyPoint gain, but nothing too large. I think this should be for all regions, not just certain few. It'd help all around.
Jun. 28, 2014  6:19 PM
 
I personally think the limit should stay at 8. Going down would make the tournament less fun and exciting because it would basically be block round robin. It also would be easier to place considering you wouldn't have to win that many matches. For example one player could go undefeated, one could drop one match and another could lose two matches. Losing 2 out of 5 matches seems pretty easy to me. In a way you have less chances to mess up.

I also think decreasing point value, credits and potentially no face for third would be bad. It wouldn't make a tournament worth it considering it would be about the same amount of time to do the RR and finals of a 6 person tournament as doing an 8 person RR and finals. I would personally feel like I wasted time for no reason since everything would be less.

Every location will have its ups and downs for tournaments. Sometimes it just depends on the date. Also sometimes it depends on what you can win. This year in NC we had 3 tournaments with 8 people then 2 with 20+ because one was the revival with good/high value prizes and the other being the qualifier.

And finally I wouldn't want half the players in a tournament going to the finals (if the tournament had 6 players), it just doesn't seem right to me.
Jun. 28, 2014  6:25 PM
 
Well the way you described it, you make it seem like every tournament will only have 6 people, but that's not the case. This is specifically for regions that can't have tournaments at all nearly, so recieveing faces if anything at all would be great for them.
Jun. 28, 2014  6:27 PM
 
I like the idea of a 7 player limit & abolishing both the bronze face & maybe credits/specific credits (like getting third, winning half your matches, etc). Competitive players do come for Beypoints (at least I know I do), so that would only discourage anyone who's serious. I can definitely see Kai-V's point, but I feel that, as time wears on, the number of people who still want to play but not competitively will begin to dwindle. Not to mention that having parents play to fill the requirement is a little counterproductive, because most of them probably have no idea what they're doing.
Jun. 28, 2014  6:30 PM
 
(Jun. 28, 2014  6:25 PM)Echizen Wrote: Well the way you described it, you make it seem like every tournament will only have 6 people, but that's not the case. This is specifically for regions that can't have tournaments at all nearly, so recieveing faces if anything at all would be great for them.
Yeah, after reading it I noticed that to.

What if this rule could be used for regions that are hosting their first event or haven't hosted in 6+ months? The reason that came to mind is because there was a BB-10 deal for those areas around BeyDays so this could work for regions tht are new and want to have a tournament, but can't get 8. What do others think about doing that?
Jun. 28, 2014  6:35 PM
 
That sounds like a pretty good idea, it gives members a chance to get other people into the Beyblade tournament scene and they can spread it to their friends or whatever.
Jun. 28, 2014  7:01 PM
 
My point being, if this rule took place, it should be universal, for everyone. Especially for the reasons emphasized in the OP and by The Supreme One.

Notice, I have changed the number to 7 rather than 6, for other stared reasons.
Jun. 28, 2014  7:10 PM
 
This should really only apply to regions just starting out, or starting back up in my opinion. I'd love to see it implemented though. Credits could definitely be slightly reduced, if not taken away completely. Also if only 7 players participated, I'd say it'd only be fair that it'd be limited to one event that day.
Jun. 28, 2014  7:15 PM
 
(Jun. 28, 2014  7:10 PM)Tr! Wrote: This should really only apply to regions just starting out, or starting back up in my opinion. I'd love to see it implemented though. Credits could definitely be slightly reduced, if not taken away completely. Also if only 7 players participated, I'd say it'd only be fair that it'd be limited to one event that day.

Again, I'd say for any region, really- it shouldn't matter, any region can either have lots of or few participants for an event. Turnout varies for any event.

Again, if credits were slightly reduced to make this happen, I wouldn't see an issue. I wouldn't see an issue, actually. Regular 8 player events gain full credits, while 7 would gain partial credits. (Each would get a credit for participation, but perhaps only 1 credit for placing and no credit for winning majority of matches, etc.).
Jun. 28, 2014  7:24 PM
 
I must say I am for this. Even when the prizes were extragavant and the opportunities were numerous, MD, a region that used to consistently have 30+ bladers at tournaments only managed to gather 12 for a timely farewell, which dropped to 8 by the time we got to standard and prevented us from doing plastics as we would have only had 7.
Jun. 28, 2014  7:28 PM
 
Yeah, the limit as it is right now really hurts players who put a lot of effort into gathering support for an event only to have a low number of players or not any at all. Sometimes it's not even the region so much as it is the host. Some people have connections so it's easier for them to find kids who might be willing to play, but I, for one, don't know many people in my home state (Florida), so I don't have that advantage.
Jun. 29, 2014  2:09 AM
 
(Jun. 28, 2014  7:28 PM)The Supreme One Wrote: Yeah, the limit as it is right now really hurts players who put a lot of effort into gathering support for an event only to have a low number of players or not any at all. Sometimes it's not even the region so much as it is the host. Some people have connections so it's easier for them to find kids who might be willing to play, but I, for one, don't know many people in my home state (Florida), so I don't have that advantage.
This.

People can argue that it should only be 7 for inactive or certain regions; this is a perfect example of why it should be lowered to 7 for all regions.

Some hosts have more advantages; Naijalak, for example. His tournaments usually have a higher turnout than mine/The Supreme One's, simply as he has more connections- considering he is an adult and a parent, for that matter. Being teenage hosts, it's harder to find younger children or even other teenagers who would want to attend events.
Jun. 29, 2014  4:58 AM
 
I would agree to 6 people, a possible solution to it being to easy would be to simply do two round robins.
Jun. 29, 2014  1:23 PM
 
At this point, I am thinking 7 would be better, as others have stated.

7 recieved more positive feedback than 6.
Page 1
Next