Hey all, I am writing this up because I believe (and I don't think I'm the only one) that the "2 ties = victory/switch" rule should become optional for an event. Also, maybe we could just have a tie limit and not a consecutive tie limit.

1) I know Shindog has mentioned, "Self KO + Tie + Tie = win for your opponent". 1, What a HORRIBLE way to lose. 2, no one would look back to that match and say it was fun. I don't think you can argue with that. I know the rule was put into place to shorten matches, and I believe this issue originated in the highly competitive MD/VA area. In some other areas, we get participants and hosts who simply don't care if a few matches go a few extra rounds here and there. So, my main proposal is that we make this rule optional for the organizer and participants, and even get rid of the victory rule. The old rule was (I think) a bit better, when you switch to a new combo after 3 straight ties, as it still allows for comebacks. 

2) I understand that staff may want to moderate all tournaments the same by making this rule mandatory. Think of it as a match-type format. For example, a P3C1 classic tournament is approved. Different rulesets are put in place for that tournament, right? However, it is ultimately up to the players in that area whether or not they'd like to play in that tournament because of those rules. There is also no WBO rule saying another P3C1 classic tournament with the same ruleset cannot be posted in another area. 

3) Comebacks. They almost seem impossible now in a match with possible ties, right? I don't see a problem in going to an opposite spin Bearing' mirror match, and asking the participants of that match if they'd like to put a tie rule in place for their match. I know what you're thinking. "That wouldn't be fair for the other tournament participants!" Well first, some people don't mind the tie rule, and some people do. Which sounds fairer, putting a rule that some participants don't like and potentially voiding wins that could definitely be there, or asking the participants of their battles if they'd want to risk a longer match? 



Notice how I'm not asking for anything too unreasonable, or asking to ban anything in ranked, I'm simply asking for a rule that could eliminate a player's comeback to become optional. Let me know what you all think about this, and thank you for reading

Hey all, I am writing this up because I believe (and I don't think I'm the only one) that the "2 ties = victory/switch" rule should become optional for an event.

1) I know Shindog has mentioned, "Self KO + Tie + Tie = win for your opponent". 1, What a HORRIBLE way to lose. 2, no one would look back to that match and say it was fun. I don't think you can argue with that. I know the rule was put into place to shorten matches, and I believe this issue originated in the highly competitive MD/VA area. In some other areas, we get participants and hosts who simply don't care if a few matches go a few extra rounds here and there. So, my main proposal is that we make this rule optional for the organizer and participants, and even get rid of the victory rule. The old rule was (I think) a bit better, when you switch to a new combo after 3 straight ties, as it still allows for comebacks. 

2) I understand that staff may want to moderate all tournaments the same by making this rule mandatory. Think of it as a match-type format. For example, a P3C1 classic tournament is approved. Different rulesets are put in place for that tournament, right? However, it is ultimately up to the players in that area whether or not they'd like to play in that tournament because of those rules. There is also no WBO rule saying another P3C1 classic tournament with the same ruleset cannot be posted in another area. 

3) Comebacks. They almost seem impossible now in a match with possible ties, right? I don't see a problem in going to an opposite spin Bearing' mirror match, and asking the participants of that match if they'd like to put a tie rule in place for their match. I know what you're thinking. "That wouldn't be fair for the other tournament participants!" Well first, some people don't mind the tie rule, and some people do. Which sounds fairer, putting a rule that some participants don't like and potentially voiding wins that could definitely be there, or asking the participants of their battles if they'd want to risk a longer match? 



Notice how I'm not asking for anything too unreasonable, or asking to ban anything in ranked, I'm simply asking for a rule that could eliminate a player's comeback to become optional. Let me know what you all think about this, and thank you for reading

I can understand where you're coming from but I respectfully disagree with you and here's why. I remember in Spinless in Seattle, Me and my Friend were battling against each other in the Semi-Finals, both of us had pretty good Set-Ups. I was using Dynamite Valkyrie2 Over High Xtend+'-2 while he was using Vanish Fafnir Tapered Drift-3, the battle took forever, I think it was like around 8 Battles, but luckily for us the New Rule is that if we have at least 1 win and a series of draws starts and Unseen went a little Dumb Dumb Mode since the battle was taking forever so I switched from Stamina to Defense Mode and I messed up my Shoot so it got a few hits in but KO'd itself and I lost the battle just because of that mistake. Yeah, I'll admit, it was frustrating to lose like that but if I hadn't, the battle would've taken forever and we would've been there till about 8 PM, and nobody wants to hang around a Beyblade Tournament that long. But back to the Main Point if we were to do this then LAD Battles would take forever and it would be frustrating to the parents and the participants. I can see where you're trying to get at in Point 3 but some people may not want the Tie Rule because "It might make me lose even though I have a better set up then him" and then the battles would take forever. I'll admit, it is definitely frustrating to lose because of a Tie Rule and only because you lost one battle but it's better then staying at a Spinny Top Tournament till 10 PM. This is just what I think off of Personal Experience and what goes through my head, I could be wrong.

---

The One Piece is the friends we made a long the way.

I also understand where you’re coming from. I may have not put this in the OP, but I thought I did mention that the switch rule was better than the victory rule. Your post above is a great example of how we could ask the individual players of that match. No one has to stay after prelims. Updated the OP.

I think instead of keeping something that people don’t like and just making it optional, we should aim to try to fix it instead of just ignoring the problem

---

If you're not already aware, B-177 Booster Jet Wyvern Around Just 1D is the best Beyblade product to have ever been released.

I think instead of keeping something that people don’t like and just making it optional, we should aim to try to fix it instead of just ignoring the problem

That's kinda what I'm trying to do here, just taking it slow. Making the rule optional would be enough, but if there are other opinions I'd like to hear them. That's why I was asking for feedback.

You can’t make the rule optional. At that point it completely defeats the purpose to it being a rule. Like you said it was thought of because of highly competitive areas like MD. But if you make it optional then MD where it is needed and should have it might not use it. Like self KOing is upsetting but most of the time that happens because of the way you launched. So you just need to practice your launching so something like that doesn’t happen again. Honestly this rule is best suited for the 3on3 format which I believe is the best format for most areas.

---

You can’t make the rule optional. At that point it completely defeats the purpose to it being a rule. Like you said it was thought of because of highly competitive areas like MD. But if you make it optional then MD where it is needed and should have it might not use it. Like self KOing is upsetting but most of the time that happens because of the way you launched. So you just need to practice your launching so something like that doesn’t happen again. Honestly this rule is best suited for the 3on3 format which I believe is the best format for most areas.

At that point, like I said in the OP, it’s up to the participants to decide if they want to play under that format. I know that where it is needed, even as optional, the main organizers (active) would use it, correct?

You can’t make the rule optional. At that point it completely defeats the purpose to it being a rule. Like you said it was thought of because of highly competitive areas like MD. But if you make it optional then MD where it is needed and should have it might not use it. Like self KOing is upsetting but most of the time that happens because of the way you launched. So you just need to practice your launching so something like that doesn’t happen again. Honestly this rule is best suited for the 3on3 format which I believe is the best format for most areas.

At that point, like I said in the OP, it’s up to the participants to decide if they want to play under that format. I know that where it is needed, even as optional, the main organizers (active) would use it, correct?

You don’t really know. Most of us organizers do what makes our community happy instead of ourselves. So if our community said they didn’t want it then we wouldn’t do it. So then where it’s needed we wouldn’t be doing it.

---

At that point, like I said in the OP, it’s up to the participants to decide if they want to play under that format. I know that where it is needed, even as optional, the main organizers (active) would use it, correct?

You don’t really know. Most of us organizers do what makes our community happy instead of ourselves. So if our community said they didn’t want it then we wouldn’t do it. So then where it’s needed we wouldn’t be doing it.

My bad, sorry if that sounded more like I was judging you guys. It meant to be more as a question. You’ve made a great point. I don’t exactly know what to do from there. But what you said about making the community happy is what pushed me to propose this; some of us Florida people don’t like this rule at all. But thanks for you feedback brother.

You don’t really know. Most of us organizers do what makes our community happy instead of ourselves. So if our community said they didn’t want it then we wouldn’t do it. So then where it’s needed we wouldn’t be doing it.

My bad, sorry if that sounded more like I was judging you guys. It meant to be more as a question. You’ve made a great point. I don’t exactly know what to do from there. But what you said about making the community happy is what pushed me to propose this; some of us Florida people don’t like this rule at all. But thanks for you feedback brother.

No problem. Trust me, I just want the game to be the best it can be.

---

My bad, sorry if that sounded more like I was judging you guys. It meant to be more as a question. You’ve made a great point. I don’t exactly know what to do from there. But what you said about making the community happy is what pushed me to propose this; some of us Florida people don’t like this rule at all. But thanks for you feedback brother.

No problem. Trust me, I just want the game to be the best it can be.

Exactly what I'm looking for as well. This may not be the best idea to everyone but that's what a proposal is for, right?