I know that you know that CS is different for everyone. Often times I see wildly varying results, and although it could be the person, the tests include CS. CS and when people say it's bad launching don't seem to be coincidentally together.

I've tried to post most of my results without CS, because this happens to me as well. People say that the CS type I think sucks, is good, and vise-versa. But that doesn't make sense testing-wise at all.

So, does CS skew some results? Any at all?

The thing is though, CS is what gets used the most, so is it even worth using RS/RSF/RB just to have less variables? But we used to do the same thing (although not lately, because of bottoms like CS, haha) with stamina, where we tested it with B instead of WD. Maybe even a universal rule for CS with very specific guidelines?

Good question.

I honestly have no answer.. Damn I never expected this when posting CS for defense. It is a very schizophrenic part, to say the least.. But what would properly replace all its qualities..?

Damn, Hazel, give me some insight!

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

My own CS, or the way I use it anyway, is extremely defensive/not aggressive at all, but I agree that we should definitely look into 'banning' it from tests. It should still be in the list of Competitive Metal Fight Beyblade Combos though, in my opinion, because of the fact that a lot of people use it well in tournaments anyway, and that a good defensive CS is surely just as good as RS/RSF/RB.

For the sake of statistics, if we want to do generalisations, there definitely needs to be as few variables as possible, I definitely stand on the negative side here.

Th!nk brought up a really good point to me, just now: as long as you include what the CS's behaviour is, it doesn't matter. If someone wants it done with a specific cs type they should state that clearly.

I don't see much wrong with that?

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

I do not know, I do not necessarily find those descriptions reliable, especially because something like "aggressive" could have different interpretations.

My own CS, or the way I use it anyway, is extremely defensive/not aggressive at all, [...]

Haha, I just happen to like an aggressive CS for defense. Coincidence

Th!nk brought up a really good point to me, just now: as long as you include what the CS's behaviour is, it doesn't matter. If someone wants it done with a specific cs type they should state that clearly.

I don't see much wrong with that?

hmm, but then to have accurate tests for the sake of testing out new parts, showing your combo, etc., then that'd be really difficult, annoying, and there'd have to be a ridiculous amount of duplicate tests for them to be accurate.

There is absolutely a method to manipulating and gauging CS - you just have to not be dumb.

Here's the problem, and it's not one of whether or not to ban CS: too many people aren't stating what KIND of CS they have, how they're using it, etc. Standard Procedures should simply be altered to include specific ones, or something.

I have a CS that started out angrier than a bear at a Chicago Bears game. That CS is now reliable enough that it is pretty much always in exactly the condition I need it to be in, and if it starts to act different mid-testing, I drop the test temporarily, get the CS back into shape(which takes 5~10 launches maximum), and then resume with it behaving as if nothing happened.

The problem with using RS/RSF is that they're not like CS. Nothing is like CS. CS is CS and nothing else is CS - even within the "types" of CS, nothing comes close to being similar to the way it behaves, and the way it CAN behave depending on your launch. A Semi-Aggro CS can be launched and act like it's best friends with Sonic the Hedgehog until it hits something, at which point it will just stop cold and move into the center - if you Sliding Shoot a Semi-Aggro CS it'll switch repeatedly as it moves.

You cannot ban a part for being variant when the variants make the part the dominating monstrosity that it is. Quite frankly, I think that RS and RSF being superior to CS is malarky, because - while they have better straight-up "Defense" properties, their Stamina is awful, Left-Spin makes them look like small children in a biker bar, and quite frankly, there's very little variation to them in a "how this part can be used" sense.

CS exists in four basic ways.

-Calm: Plastic extends beyond rubber, this guy is chill as heck and doesn't give a hoot.
-Semi-Aggro: Plastic and Rubber are almost exactly even, with plastic protruding enough to give reliable calm patterns. SG Metal Change, boiiiiiiiiiiiiii
-Transitionally Aggressive: Plastic is receding below Rubber slightly - this is the point where I can switch it back to Semi-Aggro within a few launches, and have it stay there for quite a long time.
-REALLY MAD ABOUT EVERYTHING: RF.

My final say in this, really, is exactly as simple as I said it should be. The only thing that should change is that posting what kind of CS you're using should be mandatory, because within those four types, the variables are no different than within other parts. (ie: slightly worn RS vs mint RS, etc.)

Quite frankly, with rubber tips, people need to ALWAYS be specific about the state of the rubber, but they rarely are...

---

Some manner of Octopus.

Up until a few months ago, I just had a basic classification for my own CS' . Aggressive, semi, calm. I kept wondering how Kei did so well while using CS', when I couldn't remotely get similar results with my own CS', and boy was I being naive.

When I attended the Singapore tournament in September, I was exposed to a spammed number of CS'. It was genuinely crazy. <3 can reconfirm this. All kinds and shapes. Few had the stamina that outlast WD/MB etc, few went berserk tornado stalling with the speed similar to XF etc. In Indonesia a person had one CS that is 'tacky' with imba traction (near impossible to KO), another had extremely calm one (MS-like), and didn't even budge on contacts, etc.

Since the local WBBA tournaments here currently do not allow 4D beys and parts, players are left with the same parts over and over and over again. This is when they get 'creative', priming and conditioning their parts to be better than the rest, which is frowned upon in WBO, but it does happen.

I dont think banning CS from tests altogether is the best solution. Keep it as it is, but just take the CS tests with a grain of salt. It is still a legitimate part, it's still used a lot in tournaments, and surely while tests differ, it can still give a basic idea.

If you ban CS from testing, this is what will happen: You will have zero other parts to test against/with that function like CS, and you will be excluding the most common and dominant Defense tip from testing.

It's not hard to see why it would be extremely ill-advised.

---

Some manner of Octopus.

I dont think banning CS from tests altogether is the best solution. Keep it as it is, but just take the CS tests with a grain of salt. It is still a legitimate part, it's still used a lot in tournaments, and surely while tests differ, it can still give a basic idea.

The few of us in this forum could take them with "a grain of salt", but you know really well how nobody else will, and/or it will start more arguments anyway because when someone will come up with results featuring a CS, some members will definitely become aggressive about it and almost beat up the person for posting such results ...


Sometimes, I seem to take my official job as the Community Manager quite far, hah.


For the same opponents, what is the difference of win-rate between RS/RSF/RB and CS anyway ? I am still suggesting that it should definitely be kept on the top-tier list almost automatically if RS/RSF/RB are added somewhere, although that could sound naïve, but really, if we already list CS alongside RS and RSF, we know just how good a defensive CS can be in Defense. As I wrote, for the sake of statistics, you want to have as few variables as possible. One of the basic rules of statistics is that for results to be relevant, the population needs to be higher than thirty. Since we cannot expect one person to do thirty rounds for each test, we already rely on results from different people to form a total of more than thirty rounds. However, CS differ a lot, so even if four people were to post results with CS, they could all be different CS (whether they mentioned it or not), and it just does not help much.

Nothing can really compare to CS and I think we'll just have to learn to describe how our CS acts, if we don't already.

me going off on a tangent about my CS encounters.. (Click to View)

Going off on an extreme tangent, yes:
Other than that, yeah, I'd just throw out that when you get a CS where the sharp tip is receding and the rubber is just about a bit over the plastic, you have a monster CS. I have only ever had 2 CS', which is strange considering my contributions to it, but both times I have run into that type of CS. I remember using MF Hell Kerbecs BD145CS with the CS straight out of the box, it had this awesome effect of both grip, and decent movement: if you standard shot it, it would stay in the middle perfectly, and when it it would hit the tornado ridge (grudgingly) and have a counter-attack of its own. + obviously the first time where Earth Bull C145CS managed to stop Vulcan 90RF at a 45% win rate or something like that.
Ah, such fond memories..

Sorry 'bout that, rarely get to relive and re-post those awesome times.
CS is so unique in this sense it is irreplaceable. Sort of funny how there was actually debate back then about whether to put CS on or take WB off.. Times have most definitely changed!
Oh god we're back at the sticky grip comparison again, huh? well it has almost been exactly a year, so why not?!

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

Posting results without CS is ten times more useless than posting them with it, no matter how many variables it contains.

"Sup guys, have these tests against a tip unrelated in every way to the ones that matter and prevail most!"

You're absolutely saying the equivalent of "Test against Earth instead of Basalt for everything".

CS is CS. Nothing else is CS.

Variables are a reality. There IS a defined parameter for them - I outlined it quite well, within "legal" states of the part, ie ones it will naturally assume through regular use. It is not as if there are ten thousand ways an unmodified CS will behave.

There is absolutely no reason strong enough that will counteract the obvious "you're banning a part with no equal in performance vectors OR usage percentages from testing" thing. CS could go around marauding and kidnapping children in a minivan and you still wouldn't have just cause.

---

Some manner of Octopus.

Spoiler (Click to View)

CS is SO popular (at tourneys etc) that you can't really just "ignore" it. Even if it isn't the most uniform in behaviour, not only would we ne...ed to re-do all old comparative tests, but there is no other tip with its unique combination of Defense and Stamina (the more popular defensive version, that is), so directing users as to what to use instead would be somewhat difficult.

This would be especially relevant against opposite-spin opponents, when spin-steal comes into play (even if it isn't as a primary means of winning), as other tips like RS lack the stability to do so particularly well, they would not make suitable opponents. WB wouldn't stay in the arena long enough to get to that point, so it's also unsuitable.

Furthermore, CS is one of the few tips that don’t scrape on BD145. Height would have to be identical so interactions weren't different, but even then, the tip has to behave similarly. According to kyoganken's data, MB and CS are the same height. However, when I was trying to find a counter to both MF-H Basalt BD145CS and the MB variant, I found MF Hell Kerbecs BD145 (Normal Mode)R2F able to KO the CS version (with a fresh defensive CS) quite easily, getting good metal-on-metal contact. However, against the MB version, the contact was limited to BD145 on BD145.

This idea also completely ignores any relevance of "chemistry" in combinations. As much as this is less relevant to MFB than plastics, overlooking it is still a very, very foolhardy idea.

Basically, CS is THE tip you can always expect to face at tournaments, not testing against it means we add an extra level of interpretation to determining the ability of combo’s it would be tested with and against. The lack of any real substitute only compounds this.

We include information on molds where relevant when posting results all ready, and that is all we need to do in this case.

Courtesy of Th!nk.
I think this discussion is over, no? I mean the horse was just mutilated by Hazel and with each flesh wound on the horse by Hazel's club, came a pound of salt on top of it, which hurts like hell.

Interesting discussion, but yeah, CS cannot be compared to any tip we have in the MFB series right now.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

CS has similar win-rates to RS and RSF, no ? Otherwise why would it be listed right beside those two ? Obviously, it is a completely unique Bottom that has a lot more stamina than rubber tips.

Your comparison of using Earth instead of Basalt makes no sense at all since Basalt has only one behaviour which is shared by everyone. Basalt also outclasses Earth anytime, while CS does not necessarily outclass RS and RSF, it is just more used. It is as if you were saying that Basalt and Earth were on-par, and that Basalt was just more popular ... They are completely different situations.

From my tests awhile back, RSF and CS are about the same. Though, my previously mentioned mint CS' were at least at RS standard, seriously. Guess I was lucky? (after wear, they deteriorated, but still got results comparable to RSF.)

I think we've had this discussion before, though.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

CS has similar win-rates to RS and RSF, no ? Otherwise why would it be listed right beside those two ? Obviously, it is a completely unique Bottom that has a lot more stamina than rubber tips.

Your comparison of using Earth instead of Basalt makes no sense at all since Basalt has only one behaviour which is shared by everyone. Basalt also outclasses Earth anytime, while CS does not necessarily outclass RS and RSF, it is just more used. It is as if you were saying that Basalt and Earth were on-par, and that Basalt was just more popular ... They are completely different situations.

Win-rates mean nothing out of context, to be honest. CS will win against a LOT of things RS and RSF will not, and RS will win against several things CS will not. RSF... I honestly do not think it equals anything CS can do. RB is garbage and I have no idea why it's been getting mentioned.

It was hyperbole at its roots, but the basic idea is still there: CS behaves absolutely nothing like RS and RSF, interacts COMPLETELY DIFFERENT with enemy forces, and has a staggering presence. Earth and Basalt perform completely different, interact differently, and have wildly varying usage reports.

That was my point. I apologize if it was not clear. Regardless, the whole "this tip could be jack the ripper and I'd still hang out with it" thing is still valid.

If there were any parts that tested in a way similar to CS and its varying forms, I would be on board with this idea. There are not, so NO ONE should be on board with this idea, because it's scientificically incompetent to even suggest it.

And, I will mention AGAIN, that ALL rubber tips suffer from this problem - this inclarity in variation. CS IS the most prominent problem child of the Rubber Family, but it doesn't HAVE to be, and I will be more than happy to educate people on how to keep a CS uniform, if need be. It's not rocket science.

---

Some manner of Octopus.

Well I think she was just trying to address straight-out, old-fashioned defense-wise comparison between the 3 tips.
I mean, it is on the tier list because of its defensive prowess. The whole diversity people began to see came later.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

"I don't know about the differences so they don't matter"?

---

Some manner of Octopus.

Win-rates mean nothing out of context, to be honest.

What do you think you keep getting and that you will get in the future with tests posted on these forums anyway ... ? Exactly that. So, out of context, Dan even confirmed it, RS and RSF get similar win-rates to CS.

If there were any parts that tested in a way similar to CS and its varying forms, I would be on board with this idea. There are not, so NO ONE should be on board with this idea, because it's scientificically incompetent to even suggest it.

Scientifically incompetent ? I actually followed and passed statistics courses ...

If a part is without equal in performance method, then you cannot ban it from testing, especially when it is the most prominent tip in its category. That is just simple common sense, and a basic keynote of scientific testing procedure.

The methods by which CS wins are different, in many cases, which is a serious variation to take into account.

The mantra of Beyblade testing has and always will be that if there is a difference, it is noteworthy. So, how exactly can we, in ANY kind of conscience, condemn a part that is so different?

Moreover, if Dan EVER said that CS's win rates were comparable vs other defense combos, I will beat Dan's face in with a Naval Aircraft Carrier, because he's spreading lies. Versus Right-Spin Attackers it may be similar, but against Stamina, Left-Spin, and Defense? NO.

---

Some manner of Octopus.

CS has similar win-rates to RS and RSF, no ? Otherwise why would it be listed right beside those two ? Obviously, it is a completely unique Bottom that has a lot more stamina than rubber tips.

Imo,

Pure defense : RS > RSF > CS
Hybrid defense stamina : CS > RS > RSF
Hybrid attack anti meta : CS > RSF (RS is not applicable of course)

Anyway, why not start a thread : the standardisation of CS

Example:
1. Aggressive
2. Semi aggressive
Etc etc etc

Go into lengthy details, and with each tests using CS, bladers must disclose which CS they have.

Or even no new thread is needed, list them in the standardized testing method thread.

I'd call it more of RS > RSF = CS for Pure Defense, honestly, if only because of the presence of Left-Spin Attack, nowadays. It's worth notable mention. There's also the whole "Semi-Aggro CS will counter-smash with the right combos and eat lightweight attackers' lunch" thing.

I am a heavy advocate of Semi-Aggro CS being the best one to use, to be honest. I have a completely calm one, and it is nice, but.. perhaps I just like a more aggressive Defense type.

---

Some manner of Octopus.

"I don't know about the differences so they don't matter"?

in my defense, back then the only mentioned variation was super aggressive or just plain passive.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

If a part is without equal in performance method, then you cannot ban it from testing, especially when it is the most prominent tip in its category. That is just simple common sense, and a basic keynote of scientific testing procedure.

I understand that you are simply attempting to prove your point, but I have a highly scientific scholar background and I was one of the top students, so I really know how many depths scientific testing has.


As Dan mentioned, in the past, there was even only one variation of CS. Try to teach people your method and have them prove that they got it completely mastered, and/or have them mention which CS they have and how they made it act, but we potentially have to gather four times more results ...

Academic background really doesn't stand a great testament here, though... pardon my candor, but you do not seem to have as deep an understanding of this part as we do. I know that may sound ugly, but I genuinely do not intend for it to. I have tested this part extremely thoroughly, and use it nearly every single time I Beyblade at all. Uwik's been to tournaments and stood testament to the part's prominence and variation. Dan's on Beyblade House Arrest, but he also spends more time playing with Attackers against Defense combos than most of us do.

I have launced MFB Beyblades about... I dunno, two to three thousand times. Out of those launches, I'd reckon about 2/3 of them contained a CS tip. I know this part. I know how to use this part - I can manipulate it, I can make it ride a bicycle to the store and buy me a fruit cup. I have to be on the bicycle and it will be in my pocket, but you get the jist of my hyperbole.

I also own three RS tips and three RSF tips, and I have thoroughly tested the differences between the three! My own findings from personal testing are heavily supported by tournament testimonials, no less.

I am exceptionally familiar with all natural states of this tip, and I can say with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that if this part were banned from testing, there would just be no point to testing against Defense, Defense-Stamina Balance, or Hybrid Anti-Meta Defense customs anymore, because the part most-used in those categories would be absent, and there are no suitable replacements for its specific mechanism of action.

Left-Spin will RUIN RS and RSF. CS stands a significantly better chance agaisnt them.
CS will win against RS and MOST RSF combos(though the aggressiveness of the two is the deciding factor).
CS is a very powerful part for Anti-Meta or Counter-Attack-based Defense combos, RS and RSF aren't.
CS can Tornado Stall. RS and RSF cannot.
CS will outspin other Defense tips reliably, even at Aggressive(though Aggressive requires TS, usually, as mentioned above).
CS can be manipulated by launch technique to behave differently even within its own physical condition.
CS's "type" can be easily controlled by wearing it appropriately in response to its current state. Opposite banking wears the rubber down extremely fast on a hard launch, for example - it acts as a legal way to keep the part consistent.

I will not deny that CS is the king of variables, but if we set a standard for what each "type" behaves as, and mandate that type be stated(and adhere to the standard), we drastically reduce the amount of test-impacting variables in a "well this could be this or this or this type" manner.

However, I honestly think we can just assume people aren't dumb enough to call calm aggressive and aggressive calm, or semi-aggressive anything but what it is.

---

Some manner of Octopus.