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

TH170 vs 230

Oct. 19, 2011  3:00 AM
 
230's smooth shape compared to TH220's more rugged shape would obviously help against low track beys, whether it is actually enough to alter results is a different story..

Which I don't think it does or else it would have been mentioned as one of the larger points in Galaxy's argument.
Oct. 19, 2011  4:37 AM
 
(Oct. 18, 2011  1:04 PM)Pcyborg Wrote: Comparing a 230 to a 220 scenario, I d still opt for 230

Although at a tall height, the 1mm is almost minute, Basalts mw is caved in. The 1mm could determine whether the combo lives or dies from an attack below due to more metal or cw contact.

Also doesn't 220 have a more rigid design as compared to 230? 230 has almost nothing for a lower height attacker to grip on as compared to 220.

Besides, th170 is made out of multiple pieces of plastic. Though it does not rattle as much as ch120 it is definitely more susceptible to having balance issues as compared to 230 which is a single piece.

Versatility is definitely a plus but I don't see why one should use it if the user already has a fixed concept on how his combo should be used.

This was over at the Customization forum. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'm on the 230 bandwagon myself.


(Oct. 12, 2011  10:17 PM)Galaxy Wrote: Intro:
I've opened this discussion also in the public section,now i want to know something by Advanced Users!
Also,i want to discuss this because i read in the Flame Byxis 230 WD article that 230's been outclassed by TH170.
Is it really correct?

Main discussion:
I would focus the discussion on TH170 and 230 Tracks.
Wich is in your opinion the best Track in terms of Defense\Stamina?
I don't want opinions about their versatility,of course. It's quite clear that TH170 is more versatile than 230; only n00bs don't know this.

To be clear,i don't want to read posts based on TH170 vs 230,but TH170 against tracks and 230 against tracks.
I wrote TH170 vs 230 in the title to put in evidence that it's a discussion based on testing both tracks against other tracks and discuss about results.
Thanks!

You can't really take out the "versatily" issue out of the equation for the discussion here, since it is the main selling point of TH-170. Otherwise, it will be:

170 vs 230
190 vs 230
220 vs 230

Each height will be better AND worse vs other tracks in comparison to 230. But having the luxury to choose among these 3 heights is a major benefit for TH-170, which is back to saying "versatility".

I still prefer 230 because of it having the tallest height at the moment, smoother shape, and the fact that it's one piece (Not a big fan of CH-120, HF/S, eternal tips etc).
Oct. 19, 2011  9:48 PM
 
(Oct. 18, 2011  7:59 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: Even if you don't take the height changes into consideration, TH220 outclasses 230 because it serves the same purpose as 230, but also beats 230.
Cye,you consider this a good reason to say that 230's been outclassed by TH170 .-. ?

Well,we must consider all the tracks outclassed because 85>90>100>120>125>130>135>145>170>195>220>230

Well,the best track that's not outclassed is 85 with this logic
.... .-.

Just to write an example: before Maximum Series,here in Italy Perseus was the strongest MWheel. Perseus 85 RF > Perseus 90 RF. A lot of people used Perseus 85,because all of them thought that 90<85.

Perseus 85 RF win percentage against other combos = 0%
Perseus 90 RF win percentage against other combos = 99.9%




If we have to consider specific matches,we can say that all the tracks are outclassed.
Oct. 19, 2011  10:56 PM
 
1. Your list of example outclassed parts meaning 85 is the best makes no sense at all..
For something to be outclassed it would have to be in the same type or else there are too many variabilities.. listing all those tracks in that backwards logic doesnt prove anything..
99.9% until, you know, 230 was released, or BD145 for that matter.
Oct. 20, 2011  4:30 AM
 
Yes, that's a perfectly good reason for me to say 230 is outclassed. Just because 230 is still useful doesn't mean it's not outclassed.
Oct. 20, 2011  6:17 PM
 
(Oct. 19, 2011  10:56 PM)Dan Wrote: 1. Your list of example outclassed parts meaning 85 is the best makes no sense at all..
For something to be outclassed it would have to be in the same type or else there are too many variabilities.. listing all those tracks in that backwards logic doesnt prove anything..
99.9% until, you know, 230 was released, or BD145 for that matter.

(Oct. 19, 2011  9:48 PM)Cye Wrote: Even if you don't take the height changes into consideration, TH220 outclasses 230 because it serves the same purpose as 230, but also beats 230.

Galaxy Wrote:[...]
Just to write an example: before Maximum Series,here in Italy Perseus was the strongest MWheel.
[...]

Yes,i was talking about the past xD
And returning on the list.. no, it makes sense!
If 230's been outclassed because of 220,then that list makes sense!
I did the Perseus example.
Am i wrong?
No,in that period was better to play Perseus 90 RF that Perseus 85 RF.

Because in specific matches all the combos have their weakness. The important is not the specific match,but more matches against different combos,launches,etc.

Then i asked to write about TH170 against tracks and 230 against tracks,not about TH120 vs 230.
Why i wrote this? Because that TH220 defeat 230 is obvious!
As i said,also Perseus 85 RF won against Perseus 90 RF; even with this result,we continued to play Perseus 90 RF,because was the best Track to defeat the high range of combos,the only specific match where it lost was Perseus 85 RF.
A good price to defeat other competitive combos.

In italian, to outoclass,on the vocabulary is:

"vincere avversari con largo margine, manifestando una netta superiorità"

Translated:
"To win against enemies with a large percentage, manifesting a great superiority"

I want to see this from the TH170 fan. If i'll not see this,230's not been outclassed.
Oct. 20, 2011  7:17 PM
 
The list still doesn't make sense: you are forgetting that low tracks like 85 have become almost obsolete. That list when written correctly is just a big circle of track heights against track heights, what you've done by not acknowledging the fact that 85 is beaten by 230 consistently is cutting that circle off before it finishes. I don't know why you didn't mention it because it is probably the most obvious especially to italians..
Oct. 20, 2011  7:50 PM
 
(Oct. 20, 2011  7:17 PM)Dan Wrote: The list still doesn't make sense: you are forgetting that low tracks like 85 have become almost obsolete. That list when written correctly is just a big circle of track heights against track heights, what you've done by not acknowledging the fact that 85 is beaten by 230 consistently is cutting that circle off before it finishes. I don't know why you didn't mention it because it is probably the most obvious especially to italians..

Obsolete doesn't mean that the function of a thing is different!
The concepts will remain the same,even with different situations!

Also,i didn't use that list to say a true; i used that list to do a paradox.
The paradox makes sense = the list makes sense.
In fact,you've noticed that it's not correct; so my purpose to write a logic list using the Cye sentence making at the same time a paradox,worked on you! But an uncorrect thing doesn't mean that have no sense.
That was my purpose,and you've observed it! Good!

Infact,after that list i've immediately written about Perseus 85 RF < Perseus 90 RF.
Am i mad,or i was trying to open the eyes of the people? Wink
Oct. 20, 2011  8:25 PM
 
Obsolete doesn't mean its function changes, no, it just means what ever its function is, it is no longer is useful.

It isn't really a paradox since it isn't a really contradiction, just plain incorrect.
I think you're trying to display some serious insight, I seriously cannot understand what you're trying to show: it isn't coherent enough for me, seriously. :V
Oct. 20, 2011  9:01 PM
 
(Oct. 20, 2011  8:25 PM)Dan Wrote: Obsolete doesn't mean its function changes, no, it just means what ever its function is, it is no longer is useful.

It isn't really a paradox since it isn't a really contradiction, just plain incorrect.
I think you're trying to display some serious insight, I seriously cannot understand what you're trying to show: it isn't coherent enough for me, seriously. :V
Yes,but it doesn't mean that because it is no longer useful,we can't take it in consideration,i think!

Uhm,i did that list using the logic Cye used in one of his post. Ok?
Now,if i say in that list 85>90 and then i say that 85<90,it's a contraddiction,yes,what i'm trying to do!
Call it as you prefer,maybe i explain bad what i want to say because i'm trying to explain hard concepts in a language that's not mine!
But yes,i was trying to do a contradiction to let see people that not always what seems obvious (85>90),then really is (85<90)!
Oct. 20, 2011  9:17 PM
 
Galaxy

I think you needed to close the loop like this: 85>90>100>120>125>130>135>145>170>195>220>230>85...

Now we have what appears to be a tasty little paradox in the grand tradition of Zeno! That being said, Diogenes the Cynic refuted the paradox of motion by simply standing up and walking away.

The Zeno/Diogenes reference wasn't just for kicks because I like paradoxs. I think that the thought experiments have run their course at this point and we need direct experimental verification. Time for testing!

How about the next series of comments include tests demonstrating that Combo X (on 230) beats Combo Y more often than Combo X, or vice versa?
Oct. 24, 2011  7:18 AM
 
Thats not the same logic at all. The difference being that in your case 85 beat 90, but 90 beat a lot of other stuff. In this case, 230 beats a lot of stuff, but 220 beats the same thing 230 beats, but also beats 230.
Oct. 24, 2011  7:34 AM
 
(Oct. 24, 2011  7:18 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: Thats not the same logic at all. The difference being that in your case 85 beat 90, but 90 beat a lot of other stuff. In this case, 230 beats a lot of stuff, but 220 beats the same thing 230 beats, but also beats 230.

What's not the same logic? Your use of the pronoun "that" is not clear.
Oct. 24, 2011  9:21 PM
 
(Oct. 24, 2011  7:18 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: Thats not the same logic at all. The difference being that in your case 85 beat 90, but 90 beat a lot of other stuff. In this case, 230 beats a lot of stuff, but 220 beats the same thing 230 beats, but also beats 230.

Not to be rude,but as italians say, it seems that you're "climbing on the mirrors".
You can't consider outclassed a component only seeing at the specific match.
If you say this,i can say that 145 beats 170,195,220,230 --> all are been outclassed.

By the way, here, to say that something is outclassed, we don't see if the "new" component can defeat the component we think outclassed; we see if the new component can defeat something that the "old" component couldn't defeat!
TH170 doesn't defeat completely or with a large range of % something that 230 can't do!
Oct. 24, 2011  10:05 PM
 
(Oct. 24, 2011  9:21 PM)Galaxy Wrote:
(Oct. 24, 2011  7:18 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: Thats not the same logic at all. The difference being that in your case 85 beat 90, but 90 beat a lot of other stuff. In this case, 230 beats a lot of stuff, but 220 beats the same thing 230 beats, but also beats 230.

Not to be rude,but as italians say, it seems that you're "climbing on the mirrors".
You can't consider outclassed a component only seeing at the specific match.
If you say this,i can say that 145 beats 170,195,220,230 --> all are been outclassed.

By the way, here, to say that something is outclassed, we don't see if the "new" component can defeat the component we think outclassed; we see if the new component can defeat something that the "old" component couldn't defeat!
TH170 doesn't defeat completely or with a large range of % something that 230 can't do!

But I'm not at all talking about one specific match. 220 defeats completely everything that 230 does. That means ALL THOSE matches PLUS the match against 230. Essentially, that means that I'm talking about every match 230 can handle plus one.
Oct. 24, 2011  10:56 PM
 
(Oct. 24, 2011  9:21 PM)Galaxy Wrote: If you say this,i can say that 145 beats 170,195,220,230 --> all are been outclassed.

145-height Beyblades do not beat those heights (particularly 220 and 230) all the time. Even if 145 did, you have to consider that 145 can't do everything that 170+ heights can, so in even in that case, those heights would not be "outclassed" by 145.

(Oct. 24, 2011  10:05 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: But I'm not at all talking about one specific match. 220 defeats completely everything that 230 does. That means ALL THOSE matches PLUS the match against 230. Essentially, that means that I'm talking about every match 230 can handle plus one.

Exactly. I'd argue that it's more than "plus one" (220 vs. 230), too, since TH170 is a much better Track to use against Attack types than 230 is.
Oct. 25, 2011  8:38 AM
 
I agree, but they asked to put the versatility of the height changing aside.
Oct. 25, 2011  7:57 PM
 
(Oct. 24, 2011  10:56 PM)Kei Wrote:
(Oct. 24, 2011  9:21 PM)Galaxy Wrote: If you say this,i can say that 145 beats 170,195,220,230 --> all are been outclassed.

145-height Beyblades do not beat those heights (particularly 220 and 230) all the time. Even if 145 did, you have to consider that 145 can't do everything that 170+ heights can, so in even in that case, those heights would not be "outclassed" by 145.

(Oct. 24, 2011  10:05 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: But I'm not at all talking about one specific match. 220 defeats completely everything that 230 does. That means ALL THOSE matches PLUS the match against 230. Essentially, that means that I'm talking about every match 230 can handle plus one.

Exactly. I'd argue that it's more than "plus one" (220 vs. 230), too, since TH170 is a much better Track to use against Attack types than 230 is.

@Cye: i understood what you were meaning,but if you consider all plus one,you're saying that 230 and 220 does the same work; and we're ok. Then you say 220 defeat 230. So it's a specific match,and you're looking at a specific match .-. I don't see other way to see this,sorry Cye,really!
Kei: i wrote an Italian Tier List,and 145 can defeat always that heights,except for Fang (but here it's a Fang's problem,nothing about the height!).
If you can't always i don't know what i can say. We live on Mars and you on Earth .-. xD
Oct. 25, 2011  10:04 PM
 
145 is not a track exclusive to attackers though, Kei stated 145 height beys in general.

Putting the versatility aside makes no sense, that is the reason why TH170 is better..
Oct. 25, 2011  10:06 PM
 
It isn't a specific match. Here's an example. Let's say that 230 beats only 85, 90, 100, and 105. That means that 220 beats 85, 90, 100, 105, and 230. That means that 230 beats 4 tracks whilte 220 beats 5 tracks.
Oct. 25, 2011  10:11 PM
 
(Oct. 25, 2011  10:06 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: It isn't a specific match. Here's an example. Let's say that 230 beats only 85, 90, 100, and 105. That means that 220 beats 85, 90, 100, 105, and 230. That means that 230 beats 4 tracks whilte 220 beats 5 tracks.

So you're saying that 220 and 230 make the same work,but in the specific match 220 defeats 230 Uncertain

Dan: it's always the problem of the different MG.
Oct. 25, 2011  11:24 PM
 
(Oct. 25, 2011  10:04 PM)Dan Wrote: 145 is not a track exclusive to attackers though, Kei stated 145 height beys in general.

Putting the versatility aside makes no sense, that is the reason why TH170 is better..

Even if you put the versatility aside 220 is still better.
Oct. 26, 2011  6:24 PM
 
(Oct. 25, 2011  11:24 PM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote:
(Oct. 25, 2011  10:04 PM)Dan Wrote: 145 is not a track exclusive to attackers though, Kei stated 145 height beys in general.

Putting the versatility aside makes no sense, that is the reason why TH170 is better..

Even if you put the versatility aside 220 is still better.

Better due to the fact that 220 defeats 230?
This discussion have no sense to exist; I see too poor contents and no one want really see the true facts.
In my opinion this discussion can be closed because i don't see anyone that has consistently "defeat" my argument. I've only heard some guys with my same opinion and others that want consistently say that TH170 is better than 220 without seeing at the true point of mine discussion.
Just a couple of things:
  • Versatility doesn't make a component better than another; B.D is versatile but sucks, BigBang is versatile but sucks, Fang is versatile but only Defense Mode is strong,Gravity is versatile but stamina mode sucks,CH120 is versatile but CH145 sucks against all other 145,and so on.
  • The different MGs between us and you can't be a pretext to say that we're wrong and you're correct. TH170 and 230 have different heights,have different shapes! How can you compare them saying that one outclass the other? What combo TH170 defeats that 230 can't? A specific match is not a valid way to say that a component is outclassed.

Otherwise if someone else want to reply with consistent argument, i'll be happy to reply!
Oct. 26, 2011  8:33 PM
 
(Oct. 26, 2011  6:24 PM)Galaxy Wrote: Just a couple of things:
  • Versatility doesn't make a component better than another; B.D is versatile but sucks, BigBang is versatile but sucks, Fang is versatile but only Defense Mode is strong,Gravity is versatile but stamina mode sucks,CH120 is versatile but CH145 sucks against all other 145,and so on.
  • The different MGs between us and you can't be a pretext to say that we're wrong and you're correct. TH170 and 230 have different heights,have different shapes! How can you compare them saying that one outclass the other? What combo TH170 defeats that 230 can't? A specific match is not a valid way to say that a component is outclassed.

Otherwise if someone else want to reply with consistent argument, i'll be happy to reply!

So because some other "versatile" parts "suck", that means TH170 sucks? I would argue that TH170 is, overall, better than all of those parts anyways.

There will inevitably always be some conflict due to the clash of metagames when discussing the game on a general level with people from around the world, but please do not mistakenly assuming that we are implying "You're wrong. We're right" when we do state our opinions. We're saying that this is how it is for us; we do not understand and cannot claim to understand how it could be seen differently for your metagame.

As for your point about the differing shapes of TH170 and 230, it is a valid point, but when would the shape play a huge factor? Against Attack types, maybe? Either way, I personally think that TH170 would be better against Attack types because of the 170/195 heights, and because Attackers would be more likely to hit the thicker top half of the Track and the Wheel, rather than the thinner bottom half.
Oct. 26, 2011  10:34 PM
 
(Oct. 26, 2011  8:33 PM)Kei Wrote: please do not mistakenly assuming that we are implying "You're wrong. We're right" when we do state our opinions. We're saying that this is how it is for us; we do not understand and cannot claim to understand how it could be seen differently for your metagame.
Actually, I'm pretty much saying "You're wrong. I'm right."

(Oct. 26, 2011  6:24 PM)Galaxy Wrote: Better due to the fact that 220 defeats 230?
This discussion have no sense to exist; I see too poor contents and no one want really see the true facts.
In my opinion this discussion can be closed because i don't see anyone that has consistently "defeat" my argument. I've only heard some guys with my same opinion and others that want consistently say that TH170 is better than 220 without seeing at the true point of mine discussion.


I specifically disregarded the versatility of the part in my argument. It seems that you are the one ignoring the facts.

I'm saying that 220 defeats MANY tracks including 230 and all the tracks that 230 beats. Nothing I said means, "220 is better than 230 because it can beat 230." If part A can beat X, Y, and Z, but part B beats A, X, Y, and Z, then what reason do I have to use part A over part B?
Prev
Page 2
Next