Hello! I've brought this up a few times in the Contributor chat and a few other places, but never got around to making an official thread/rule proposal for it until just now.

Since WBO X (if it happens) is intended to be a large event, it's necessary to make sure it runs as quickly and efficiently as possible. A lot of people have suggested making it single elimination, which is a really unforgiving format, especially for experienced players (and it would also suck for people traveling to the event to only be able to play 1 match before being eliminated). My proposal to make the first stage (and I repeat: not only for large tournaments that require single elimination) more fair is the following:

1. When a match between 2 players is announced, each player assembles 3 combos.
   
2. After both players have their combos ready, they turn around and present their combos to their opponent.
   
3. Each player is given some time (I'd say 30 seconds - 1 minute max if we really want to be carp about this kind of thing) to identify the combos presented, and then makes the final selection of which Beyblade they will use from the 3 combos they presented to their opponent.
   
4. The match then continues as a normal, first to 3 point match would.
   

This rule change would not only make huge, single elimination tournaments less unforgiving, it would also reward skilled players who have knowledge of combos and how they interact, as well as how to play certain matchups (which are Beyblade skills, by the way) by allowing them to make more informed decisions during the first stage. The only drawback is that it would increase the time that the first stage takes, though I could only see this being a real issue with events that aren't quite big enough to require single elimination but are still relatively large (in my opinion, like the 65-100 player range).

Additional details to discuss
Should players be allowed to repeat parts in their three combos?
My opinion on this is yes. Although the "pick 3 choose 1" aspect is very similar to the beginning of a Deck Format match, in the end only one of the combos presented will be used during the match. If players don't have multiple copies of the same part, then they should be able to move that part to the combo that they will use (similarly to the ruling with the Eclipse Layers).

Should Launcher selection take place before or after combo presentation?
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, but I'm leaning more towards after combo presentation personally. I think it would be a nuisance to be locked into a launcher that isn't best suited to the combo you end up losing, just because it's what you selected earlier. At least when this issue arises in Deck Format your launcher is optimized for at least one of the combos you're using.

What about Spriggan/Spryzen Requiem and Cho Z Spriggan?
These Layers, along with any other parts that require disassembly to mode change, would need to have their modes declared during combo presentation. If players are allowed to repeat parts however, they could effectively work around this by presenting CzS.7C.Xt+ in left spin and CzS.7C.Xt+ in right spin, but functionally, would that be any different than presenting aH/pP and hS on the same combos?


This proposal was heavily inspired by the team preview feature from the Pokemon games (I think this is also a feature in League/Smite/Overwatch(?)), as well as one one of the iterations of Deck Format discussed like 2 years ago, where the winner had to announce that they were switching, but didn't have to reveal exactly what they were switching to, making the loser have to think strategically when dealing with how to respond to 2 possible combos.

---

Not bad I wouldn't mind this at all, I would actually heavily prefer it over pure RNG.

Man, I was literally thinking about WBOX and how we could implement a more fair single elimination type of format for our regular tournaments an hour ago while in class, and here you've posted this lol. My thinking was more along the lines of Takara-Tomy's deck system, but your proposal is more solid. I'd like to just try this for a regular event regardless of size!

---

Spoiler (Click to View)

This is what we all want, Brad.

@[Wombat], your event coming. If you can, test this idea in your tournament

This sounds good to me really. I wouldn't say to trial it in the event you currently have up as it's not the format people have signed up for, but absolutely something worth trialing in the event you have after. I'm quite happy for that to happen.

---

Hoshi-no-Yume FS | Wiki Profile | Twitter | Burst Collection | Osu! | MyAnimeList

Add me on your Switch!
3008-5546-8702

I'm still very much against single elimination, but I love this idea. I would really like to see this as an option for double elimination since I tend to run swiss with player counts in the 30s and 40s just because it's more forgiving.

---

Beyblade Nation Discord Server | Meta Madness Beyblade Podcast
Combos I've developed:

Spoiler (Click to View)

Alter Chronos .8C.Ds (BST)
Genbull Genbull 90WD (STD)
Death Cancer E230RDF (STD)
Burn Aquario 90MF (LTD)
Lightning L Drago F: D (LTD)
Phantom Cancer ED145WD (LTD)
Burn Cancer B: D (LTD)
Saramanda Goreim LW160GF (Zero-G Sway)

1. When a match between 2 players is announced, each player has 2 minutes to assemble up to 3 combos.
   
2. After both players have their combos ready, they turn around and present their combos to their opponent.
   
3. Each player is given 1 minute to identify the combos presented, and then makes the final selection of which Beyblade they will use from the 1-3 combos they presented to their opponent.
   
4. The match then continues as a normal, first to 3 point match would.
   

A few clarifications. I think selection phase should be less than the normal one; picking three combos should be easier than picking one, and even if it's not, I think the amount of prep time needs to be less if we want to give them a minute to evaluate their opponent's Beyblade(s). Splitting up the 3 minutes currently allotted helps to reduce the potential for this format to take longer than usual.

We also shouldn't force people to pick three Beyblades, just like Deck Format.

Additional details to discuss
Should players be allowed to repeat parts in their three combos?
My opinion on this is yes. Although the "show 3 pick 1" aspect is very similar to the beginning of a Deck Format match, in the end only one of the combos presented will be used during the match. If players don't have multiple copies of the same part, then they should be able to move that part to the combo that they will use (similarly to the ruling with the Eclipse Layers).

I understand why you feel the answer should be yes, but I am leaning towards "no" for the sake of keeping things consistent across the First and Final Stages. You are effectively constructing a Deck here, even if you're only going to be allowed to use one. I think it will be easier to explain the transition to people if the rules are more consistent.

And of course, doing it  this way encourages more variety just like in Deck Format.

Should Launcher selection take place before or after combo presentation?
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on this, but I'm leaning more towards after combo presentation personally. I think it would be a nuisance to be locked into a launcher that isn't best suited to the combo you end up losing, just because it's what you selected earlier. At least when this issue arises in Deck Format your launcher is optimized for at least one of the combos you're using.

Yeah, in this case it would have to be after combo presentation.

What about Spriggan/Spryzen Requiem and Cho Z Spriggan?
These Layers, along with any other parts that require disassembly to mode change, would need to have their modes declared during combo presentation. If players are allowed to repeat parts however, they could effectively work around this by presenting CzS.7C.Xt+ in left spin and CzS.7C.Xt+ in right spin, but functionally, would that be any different than presenting aH/pP and hS on the same combos?

This issue is irrelevant if we don't allow parts to be repeated, as I've suggested.

I'm still very much against single elimination, but I love this idea. I would really like to see this as an option for double elimination since I tend to run swiss with player counts in the 30s and 40s just because it's more forgiving.

To me, being "forgiving" is a luxury afforded by smaller tournament sizes. At huge events, unless you want to run a two or three day event, time becomes the biggest obstacle. So, Single Elimination in some capacity becomes necessary depending on the circumstances.

This is why in the proposals I've been making internally lately I have been trying to estimate how much time it actually takes to complete a single match and every aspect of management that goes into it (calling the names, waiting, getting the result, inputting the result, etc); the number of matches in a tournament has a direct correlation with the tournament length, so if we can estimate match length we can estimate how many matches can be fit into one day, and ultimately, craft a selection of formats that works based on that.

---

To me, being "forgiving" is a luxury afforded by smaller tournament sizes. At huge events, unless you want to run a two or three day event, time becomes the biggest obstacle. So, Single Elimination in some capacity becomes necessary depending on the circumstances.

This is why in the proposals I've been making internally lately I have been trying to estimate how much time it actually takes to complete a single match and every aspect of management that goes into it (calling the names, waiting, getting the result, inputting the result, etc); the number of matches in a tournament has a direct correlation with the tournament length, so if we can estimate match length we can estimate how many matches can be fit into one day, and ultimately, craft a selection of formats that works based on that.

I don't disagree here, but I could see this as an alternative to traditional double elimination for player counts of 33-50 or so. Oftentimes tournaments of that size have the potential to be double elimination but hosts will choose swiss instead because no one wants to run DE unless it's absolutely necessary. Would have to see the time estimate for a double elimination "show 3 pick 1" tournament with 40 or so people vs swiss but I would almost prefer the former regardless because it's more reliant on skill.

---

Beyblade Nation Discord Server | Meta Madness Beyblade Podcast
Combos I've developed:

Spoiler (Click to View)

Alter Chronos .8C.Ds (BST)
Genbull Genbull 90WD (STD)
Death Cancer E230RDF (STD)
Burn Aquario 90MF (LTD)
Lightning L Drago F: D (LTD)
Phantom Cancer ED145WD (LTD)
Burn Cancer B: D (LTD)
Saramanda Goreim LW160GF (Zero-G Sway)

I don’t think I have enough hosting experience to comment on logistics but I really like this proposal. I really hope it can come to fruition. I would be excited to test this format if given the opportunity.