World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. Beyblade Discussion Beyblade Customizations

[TBT] [In Progress] Should the tier list have subcategories, and if so, which?

Poll: Should the tier list have subcategories other than the four basic categories?

Yes
90.70%
39
No
9.30%
4
Total: 100% 43 vote(s)
  • You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
  • * You voted for this item.
  • Show Results
Oct. 03, 2012  9:43 PM
 
Should the tier list have subcategories,
and if so, which ones?
Part of the "Topic-by-Topic" Series

The idea has been posed to add subcategories to the tier list. Currently we have been discussing adding customs that would fall under these subcategories, but do they need their own sections? While there could possibly be more, the two main subcategories that have been recommended are:

Anti-Attack, a subcategory of Defense, and
Spin Stealer, a subcategory of Stamina.

Customs that would fall under Anti Attack include MF-H Diablo (Kerbecs/Unicorno II) BD145(RF/R2F) and customs that would fall under Spin Stealer include MSF-H Reviser Dragooon SA165EWD.

The primary argument for these subcategories seems to be that these customs are different enough that classifying them with "pure" defense or stamina customs would be doing them wrong.

The primary argument against this idea seems to be that subcategories are unneeded, and/or that they would be too confusing.

Thoughts?
Oct. 04, 2012  6:27 AM
 
I strongly feel that subcategories are needed. As more types are added, the meta will open up to be more diverse. As I have mentioned this topic elsewhere, bundling them into the current 4 types (Att - Sta - Def - Bal) seems rather primitive.

Spin Stealers , Anti Attacks are of primary concern.

If we split Spin Stealers off from Stamina, that would leave a more conventional stamina type to remain as Stamina. More combos = more diversity.

The same concept for Anti Attacks. Separate this and it will leave weight-grip based customs. Again, more possible combinations = more diversity.

Those two subcategories cover the Stamina & Defense part. But to dive even deeper, another possibility would be slicing the Attack Type into Weight based & Smash Attack. Maybe Balance into Hybrid Stamina-Attack, Hybrid Stamina-Defense, etc.

In any case, some are not needed currently, but at the very least, Spin Stealers and Anti Attacks should have their own subcategories.
Oct. 04, 2012  1:20 PM
 
I have always been strongly in favor of the idea that you can never present too much detail in categorization of such things, so I am also quite emphatically in approval of adding sub-categories. Some people really can't put these things together themselves, and the tier list is supposed to be an informative device.

Adding more categories is only confusing if the categories themselves are completely undescribed anywhere in easy reach, and to that end, it would be quite trivial to ensure that every category was thoroughly explained; doing any less is laziness and absolutely nothing else.
Oct. 09, 2012  2:40 AM
 
I'm very much in favor of adding subcategories as well, but before I get into that I need to take care of some administrative business about this thread series. I was kind of hoping we'd get more advanced members' opinions on this topic so we can come to a true "conclusion," so I'm not going to close this for awhile. Again, the goal of these threads is to come to an agreement on each of these topics and then follow the result of the conversation, such that ideally if nobody voices a dissenting opinion on having subcategories in here, then we can say we came to a true conclusion on the matter and that we will have them in future lists. If you have an opinion against them, say so! If you don't say anything all we can think is that you don't disagree with what has been said, and thus will be okay with the result.
Oct. 09, 2012  3:52 AM
 
I agree with Anti-Attack and Spin Stealer, definitely.

As for what uwik said, Balance: Stamina-Defense.. That's a hard one to draw a line on. I mean, now there are pure rubber tips that are useful without bearing support it's easier than plastics (where literally every top tier "defense" custom is really a balance custom, and generally def/stam). Still, they're both passive types which win by outspin* it's quite difficult to draw a line between the two that everyone will agree on, and to outlast anything you still need *some* survival.

The main concern about categorisation as I see it is that it takes time to categorise things, adding another thing that must be discussed. Hence, I do think there is a limit to how much detail we should go into, because we absolutely do not want to slow down the competitive combination list's already slow update pace.


*Anti-Attack could be considered its own type using an Aggressive-Passive classification system, with a separate axis based on defense. Aggressive-Defensive = Anti Attack, Aggressive-NonDefensive = Attack, Passive-Defensive=Defense, Passive-Non-Defensive = Stamina. But Alternate Classification Systems are more of an interesting concept rather than anything worth putting time into (though maybe I will write something about them for this subforum some day).

Ingulit: That is a safe assumption to make about me when I don't comment on a topic after it's been around for a while.
Oct. 12, 2012  3:21 PM
 
I am against the addition of sub-categories for one simple reason: the definition of what an "Anti-Attacker", "Spin Stealer", or other sub-categories actually are can be debatable. For example, to me, the line between whether Anti-Attack would be considered a sub-category of Defense, or if it would be a sub-category of Attack, is nebulous. The classic Attack, Stamina, Defense, and Balance categories, however, are not really debatable or easily misunderstood; they are the most basic types we can define a Beyblade with, and thus, they help to eliminate some of the subjectivity that finds its way onto the Competitive Combos list.

Case in point: MF-H Diablo (Kerbecs/Unicorno II) BD145(RF/R2F)

I would argue that this is a Balance combo. It's not Balance in the traditional sense, as it has poor Stamina, but it is "Balance" in the sense that it can defeat all four types of combos with at least some consistency. On the other hand, however, Technocrat might argue that it's "Anti-Attack" based on the definition he outlined. How can we say who is right and who is wrong?

As for Spin Stealers, I think it would be slightly misleading to list only left-spin combos under this category because it neglects context. In any battle those combos have, their opponent automatically becomes a "Spin Stealer" as well (even more so if the opponent is also a regular right-spin Stamina type). And what if two left-spin Stamina combos play against each other? They are obviously not stealing any spin, so is it fair to call them "Spin Stealers" in that context? We know what they are designed to do, but others initially might not. And even then, when you consider what happens when they are used against regular Stamina types, and when they are used against each other, the only way to classify them on the Competitive Combos list without being inaccurate is as Stamina types.
Oct. 17, 2012  3:56 PM
 
"Balance in the traditional sense" - that's questionable at best. Compacts don't exactly have incredible attack prowess, at least not once you get down to facing Top-Tier opponents, but have always been considered a solid example of Balance. Their principles reflect Defense quite strongly (particularly weight-based defense, and there is even overlap between the two at the heavier end of compacts/the more compact end of weight defense).

In fact, Balance has often been described as a combination of at least TWO types, not all three and I feel this is more apt (as well as seemingly being the official definition, with Dranzer S being considered Balance because it combines Attack and Endurance), aside from the fact that as we have two passive types (Defense/Stamina) and a single Active type (attack), Defense and Stamina are generally on more of a sliding scale, particularly defense, which do have basic stamina requirements (primarily being able to OS attack, secondarily being able to OS other defenders without compromising their defense too far).

Basically, Anti-Attack should go under balance because they combine Attack and Defense in roughly equal amounts.

Quote:As for Spin Stealers, I think it would be slightly misleading to list only left-spin combos under this category because it neglects context. In any battle those combos have, their opponent automatically becomes a "Spin Stealer" as well (even more so if the opponent is also a regular right-spin Stamina type). And what if two left-spin Stamina combos play against each other? They are obviously not stealing any spin, so is it fair to call them "Spin Stealers" in that context? We know what they are designed to do, but others initially might not. And even then, when you consider what happens when they are used against regular Stamina types, and when they are used against each other, the only way to classify them on the Competitive Combos list without being inaccurate is as Stamina types.

This is a very strong point and one I have always seeked to make note of in plastics.

It does make categorisation complex and even in plastics this is a big source of delay with writing a competitive combination list (though it is much, much easier there for various reasons).

This complication is one of the reasons I'm not a huge proponent of further categorisation, while I think it's a good thing if do-able, it isn't always do-able, not easily, at least.

Personally, I feel that listing things as Attack - Defense - Stamina - Balance and then adding a note to explain if they are a particular sub type and whether that sub-type is their entire reason for being listed (think, for example, if Death B: D were added). This is because there is an issue with Kei's statement about the broadest classification being the most accurate - what if a combination is an exemplar of a Sub-Type but not so great at the major type? That means classifying it as the major type isn't always going to be accurate.

So, personally I think sticking to the four major types (though as I've mentioned previously, it is worth considering that certain balance types could well be defined enough to be a type of their own, in this case Anti-Attack).

We could, of course, do away with categories all together, or at least list things that are not a complete subset (mathematically speaking) of another, for example Spin Stealers not always having good Stamina by themselves, as their own category rather than as a subcategory, and in the case of balance require a fairly defined set of combinations to warrant a separate category (anti-attack for example have a very defined set of criteria as I laid out in the discussion thread, while Duo 230MB combinations and other miscellaneous balance types are much more case-by-case (though MF LDD/LDG BD145RDF and the like could be another defined category).

Sorry if this is rambly, as I think I said I am troubled by this with the plastics competitive combinations list so I have a lot of thoughts on it but absolutely no answers.

Ingulit: We may need to discuss the definition of "Balance" in a separate TBT thread, soon, if this post of mine does not resolve it (in particular the Dranzer S example).
Nov. 21, 2012  7:18 PM
 
I am not in favor of Subcategories as they make it harder to understand what each category really is. Your proposing that we add Subcategories so we can add more diversity to the Competitive combos list. Adding subcategories exploits more debates to be made to what category each combo should fall into, especially balance combos. Maybe subcategories can be made for certain extends of the Attack, Stamina, and Defense fields but balance is solely balance for a reason. A combo that shares two categories or EVEN three doesn't have another category that it falls into.

Its true that the balance category is very broad but I feel that combos that are strong or at least average in each category deserves to be considered a balance combo. BUT combos that lean to one side more than another (especially when its strongest points are in two categories) we can't just throw it into the balance field because we did not make enough discussion on what what each combo really does.

In the case of attack types on MF, or attack types in general I think they deserve subcategories. Even though attack hasn't proved that well in today's metagame, I feel that attack types can be put into easily understood categories.

So I agree with Subcategories being added to the top tier list only on Attack, Stamina, and Defense categories; but balance combos should be left alone or further examined to where we can confirm they are a definitive balance bey.
Mar. 06, 2013  11:34 PM
 
Obviously the biggest reason/benefit to doing subcategories is to add as much information as possible to that list. Instead of doing sub categories or notes why not make each combo a link to its testing thread if it has one? This would provide everyone with the information on how the combo works or is supposed to work. I believe the competitive combo thread should be a one stop shop for people to find all the information they need as far as the top combos go, and what better way than easy access to were it was originally tested.
Mar. 10, 2013  4:32 PM
 
Balance is a combination of 2 types of categories. So if we want to make sub categories, this is the only category that needs sub category. Attack, stamina & defense are pretty straightforward. They don't need any sub categories, on the other hand, balance is kinda in a gray area where there are at least a combination of 2 types of beyblades. Thus making it more complicated.
Mar. 11, 2013  3:45 AM
 
Yes, it should have subcategories.
Because 'Anti-Attack' is not really a pure defensive type, and Spin Stealer (ex. Revizer Dragooon SA165EWD) is not really a pure stamina type (because the chromes are unbalanced).
So I think let the pure defensive & stamina type stay in their own category, while there's a subcategories for Spin Stealer & Anti Attack..

(Oct. 09, 2012  3:52 AM)th!nk Wrote: *Anti-Attack could be considered its own type using an Aggressive-Passive classification system, with a separate axis based on defense. Aggressive-Defensive = Anti Attack, Aggressive-NonDefensive = Attack, Passive-Defensive=Defense, Passive-Non-Defensive = Stamina. But Alternate Classification Systems are more of an interesting concept rather than anything worth putting time into (though maybe I will write something about them for this subforum some day).

That's a great classification~!