So recently there's been a lot of discrepancies among different members on how certain Beyblades interact in certain matchups, which makes it difficult to determine what's necessarily viable in a certain situation, or how a matchup will typically play out. While it's common knowledge that part performance will vary slightly between individual players (and subsequently these players' opinions of the part in question), the degree of variation for performance in Burst parts is much larger than ever before. The two most common causes of these discrepancies are:
...Which brings us to the current (November 5th, 2016) problem of Neptune, Wyvern, Deathscyther, Odin, and Dark Deathscyther. In the past, the established Stamina "food chain" was Deathscyther = Odin > Dark Deathscyther > Neptune > Wyvern. However, more recently balance has become a factor and thrown a wrench in the whole thing, causing drastically different results between players. A prime example of this is 1234beyblade's Wyvern, which has near-perfect balance and is able to outspin any of the other competitive Stamina Layers when they have average-to-above-average balance. Recently some other people have been using more balanced Wyverns as well and are generally able to match Dark Deathscyther in terms of Stamina. While we as a community may not have been aware of it at the time, I'm fairly certain balance was the source of the Deathscyther vs. Odin debate - the winner between the two was probably whichever one was blessed with better balance.
Meanwhile, both of my Wyverns lose to my Dark Deathscyther by a pretty large margin, which is the case for a few others as well. However, my D2 is able to outspin some Deathscyther combos, which isn't possible for others unless D2 is given a significantly stronger launch. My Neptune will usually either barely lose to my D2 or tie with it, while for most others D2 obliterates Neptune. While Unicorn isn't included on the list of conventional Stamina Layers, my Unicorn narrowly beats my Neptune and can beat my Deathscyther in certain matchups, while the majority of other players see Unicorn as garbage. See, the problem here is that balance is all relative - do my D2 and Neptune just have great balance, or do my Deathscyther and Wyverns just suck? Did the majority of competitive players get stuck with a bad Neptune that loses to not only D2, but Wyvern as well? Who is "normal", and who is the outlier?
This raises an even larger headache in the form of "potential stamina", meaning the maximum amount of Stamina a certain part can theoretically have if it's balance is indeed perfect. While truly perfect balance is physically unattainable, in a world where all Burst parts had perfect balance and all players had equal strength launches, which parts would really rise to the top? The issue is basically the same as the free-spinning parts in Standard Spin-Equalizing matchups (with zero friction between the free-spinning components being the unattainable equivalent to perfect balance): we have a special note on our top-tier list that basically translates to "assume best possible F230 for F230 combos", and the differences between F230 performances were most likely a large component in the controversy surrounding its ban - for some people, it "just didn't work". So for the Burst tier list, do we do the same thing and "assume best possible Neptune/Wyvern/D2/etc." and have all of them listed as viable options for Stamina, or do we go by "majority results" (which is fundamentally what the top tier list is to begin with) and only have the traditionally higher-end Stamina layers like Deathscyther and Odin listed?
The other issue that's been grinding my gears lately (and is kind of difficult to explain, so bear with me) is the way people view matchups on a "part vs part" basis rather than "combo vs combo" or even a "concept vs concept" basis, and tend to pigeonhole the use cases for most parts into one specific matchup. Maybe this mindset developed due to the lack of formal combo testing threads lately, in which the OP is highly encouraged to not only post tests, but also explain their part choices, the concept behind the combo, and how it is intended to be played. While it's tough to find specific examples for a general mindset that members here tend to perpetuate, a good example off the top of my head is Valkyrie and Deathscyther.
Nearly everyone here will agree that Valkyrie is arguably the best Attack Layer in the game and counters Deathscyther very well, and it's also a true fact that Stationary Valkyrie combos were originally developed as a "safer" way of defeating Stationary Deathscyther combos than using Valkyrie on Accel. However, these two statements have been distorted to the extreme, so that they now sound more along the lines of "Deathscyther's only counter is Valkyrie" and "Stationary Valkyrie only exists as a counter to Deathscyther". Neither of these statements are true, and the numerous offshoot sayings they have spawned ("O2 only beats Odin" is one I can think of off the top of my head) are reflective, in my opinion, of a flawed and rather nonsensical view of the game on a fundamental level. If I were to put it into a MFB context and say something like "Burn's only counter is Lightning" or "Lightning's only purpose competitively is to counter Burn" it would sound completely ridiculous. Plenty of other things are capable of beating Burn/Deathscyther, and Lightning/Valkyrie have myriad other uses aside from taking out Burn/Deathscyther combos.
What I think needs to be done to get out of this mindset is for people to step back and look at the combo as a whole, as the sum of all of its parts, and its intended performance/role/goal rather than just at each part individually. For example, let's take Valkyrie Armed Claw (shameless self combo plug, but it doesn't really change the point I'm trying to make):
I didn't really begin this post with a conclusion in mind; I basically just wanted to get both of these issues out on the table. But I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that it seems like people are focusing too much on just parts (Layers in particular) and mistakenly pinning a combo's success or failure on "how one Layer interacts with another" when it's possible that the other parts are affecting the outcome. If I could bring up one specific battle I've had that I think embodies this point completely, it would be my most recent match with Yami.
I guess I also just wanted to bring up the question of how we are going to handle balance issues with parts since they cause such widespread differences in results across the board.
- The differences in "Balance" for Burst parts/combos, which is just a particularly frustrating case of natural product variation and not really something that can be fixed.
- Judging the viability/usefulness of parts based on "part vs part" matchups rather than based on combos or the concepts behind these combos, which, quite honestly, I think is a fundamentally wrong way of looking at the game.
Perfect Balance backstory, mostly for documentation's sake (Click to View)
...Which brings us to the current (November 5th, 2016) problem of Neptune, Wyvern, Deathscyther, Odin, and Dark Deathscyther. In the past, the established Stamina "food chain" was Deathscyther = Odin > Dark Deathscyther > Neptune > Wyvern. However, more recently balance has become a factor and thrown a wrench in the whole thing, causing drastically different results between players. A prime example of this is 1234beyblade's Wyvern, which has near-perfect balance and is able to outspin any of the other competitive Stamina Layers when they have average-to-above-average balance. Recently some other people have been using more balanced Wyverns as well and are generally able to match Dark Deathscyther in terms of Stamina. While we as a community may not have been aware of it at the time, I'm fairly certain balance was the source of the Deathscyther vs. Odin debate - the winner between the two was probably whichever one was blessed with better balance.
Meanwhile, both of my Wyverns lose to my Dark Deathscyther by a pretty large margin, which is the case for a few others as well. However, my D2 is able to outspin some Deathscyther combos, which isn't possible for others unless D2 is given a significantly stronger launch. My Neptune will usually either barely lose to my D2 or tie with it, while for most others D2 obliterates Neptune. While Unicorn isn't included on the list of conventional Stamina Layers, my Unicorn narrowly beats my Neptune and can beat my Deathscyther in certain matchups, while the majority of other players see Unicorn as garbage. See, the problem here is that balance is all relative - do my D2 and Neptune just have great balance, or do my Deathscyther and Wyverns just suck? Did the majority of competitive players get stuck with a bad Neptune that loses to not only D2, but Wyvern as well? Who is "normal", and who is the outlier?
This raises an even larger headache in the form of "potential stamina", meaning the maximum amount of Stamina a certain part can theoretically have if it's balance is indeed perfect. While truly perfect balance is physically unattainable, in a world where all Burst parts had perfect balance and all players had equal strength launches, which parts would really rise to the top? The issue is basically the same as the free-spinning parts in Standard Spin-Equalizing matchups (with zero friction between the free-spinning components being the unattainable equivalent to perfect balance): we have a special note on our top-tier list that basically translates to "assume best possible F230 for F230 combos", and the differences between F230 performances were most likely a large component in the controversy surrounding its ban - for some people, it "just didn't work". So for the Burst tier list, do we do the same thing and "assume best possible Neptune/Wyvern/D2/etc." and have all of them listed as viable options for Stamina, or do we go by "majority results" (which is fundamentally what the top tier list is to begin with) and only have the traditionally higher-end Stamina layers like Deathscyther and Odin listed?
The other issue that's been grinding my gears lately (and is kind of difficult to explain, so bear with me) is the way people view matchups on a "part vs part" basis rather than "combo vs combo" or even a "concept vs concept" basis, and tend to pigeonhole the use cases for most parts into one specific matchup. Maybe this mindset developed due to the lack of formal combo testing threads lately, in which the OP is highly encouraged to not only post tests, but also explain their part choices, the concept behind the combo, and how it is intended to be played. While it's tough to find specific examples for a general mindset that members here tend to perpetuate, a good example off the top of my head is Valkyrie and Deathscyther.
Nearly everyone here will agree that Valkyrie is arguably the best Attack Layer in the game and counters Deathscyther very well, and it's also a true fact that Stationary Valkyrie combos were originally developed as a "safer" way of defeating Stationary Deathscyther combos than using Valkyrie on Accel. However, these two statements have been distorted to the extreme, so that they now sound more along the lines of "Deathscyther's only counter is Valkyrie" and "Stationary Valkyrie only exists as a counter to Deathscyther". Neither of these statements are true, and the numerous offshoot sayings they have spawned ("O2 only beats Odin" is one I can think of off the top of my head) are reflective, in my opinion, of a flawed and rather nonsensical view of the game on a fundamental level. If I were to put it into a MFB context and say something like "Burn's only counter is Lightning" or "Lightning's only purpose competitively is to counter Burn" it would sound completely ridiculous. Plenty of other things are capable of beating Burn/Deathscyther, and Lightning/Valkyrie have myriad other uses aside from taking out Burn/Deathscyther combos.
What I think needs to be done to get out of this mindset is for people to step back and look at the combo as a whole, as the sum of all of its parts, and its intended performance/role/goal rather than just at each part individually. For example, let's take Valkyrie Armed Claw (shameless self combo plug, but it doesn't really change the point I'm trying to make):
- Valkyrie is the best Layer for Bursting opponents regardless of what they are.
- Armed is, as far as I am aware, the most Burst-resistant Disk in the game due to its light weight and wide vertical weight distribution (I'll bump my Burst Attack/Defense thread sometime soon with more on this theory), which minimizes the risk of the combo self-Bursting and allows you to launch the carp out of it while not particularly worrying if your opponent Weak Launches.
- Claw's tip shape gives the combo not a lot of friction with the ground, which decreases the tendency to self-Burst, and is also one of the heavier Drivers, affecting the vertical weight distribution. I use Claw over Revolve because Revolve precesses earlier into the match than Claw does, making for weird contact angles that don't focus as much force horizontally on twisting the opponent's Layer.
I didn't really begin this post with a conclusion in mind; I basically just wanted to get both of these issues out on the table. But I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that it seems like people are focusing too much on just parts (Layers in particular) and mistakenly pinning a combo's success or failure on "how one Layer interacts with another" when it's possible that the other parts are affecting the outcome. If I could bring up one specific battle I've had that I think embodies this point completely, it would be my most recent match with Yami.
Spoiler (Click to View)
I guess I also just wanted to bring up the question of how we are going to handle balance issues with parts since they cause such widespread differences in results across the board.
![[Image: giphy.gif?cid=790b76119fe9a5792461042c88...y.gif&ct=g]](https://media3.giphy.com/media/T3VmyELskbSGCcwGRB/giphy.gif?cid=790b76119fe9a5792461042c8862ce72e02280cf08406c6d&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
![[Image: 1e99b0b2d972f53cadaf24804bf8fe00.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/1e99b0b2d972f53cadaf24804bf8fe00.png)
![[Image: eeb4f3bafbeab74193aeef19d118e779.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/eeb4f3bafbeab74193aeef19d118e779.png)
![[Image: spin.gif]](https://paulrobertson.mechafetus.com/spin.gif)
![[Image: 2aj5k50.jpg]](https://i68.tinypic.com/2aj5k50.jpg)
![[Image: 1fftwi.jpg]](https://i66.tinypic.com/1fftwi.jpg)
![[Image: ig94b9.jpg]](https://i63.tinypic.com/ig94b9.jpg)
![[Image: IkkiSignature.jpg]](https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v653/Gigamew/IkkiSignature.jpg)