WBO Organized Play Random Thoughts

Same rules as the Metal Face had before; you can only use each type once. In this case, as there's only one type of MGC, you can only use that on one Layer. If more types were to be introduced later on, those would be usable alongside the standard MGC. Layers that have Metal Chips built in (such as Legend Spriggan) are also unaffected by this rule. That's just how they're designed and is their default Chip.

Regular God Chips can be repeated (I believe...?), though 99% of people will probably use the default or WBBA Chips anyway.
How do we enter in the beylotto givaways? Is it automatic, or do you have to say you want in??

Also, how do you get the Japanese beyblade app?
(Sep. 25, 2017  5:27 AM)Brainofcthulu Wrote: How do we enter in the beylotto givaways? Is it automatic, or do you have to say you want in??

Also, how do you get the Japanese beyblade app?

The Beylotto this year ended months ago. To participate in a Beylotto, just do what the Beylotto tells you to do. It can vary from participating in certain tournaments to posting pics on instagram.

To get the app you simply download it. If you can't find it on the app store download it from the website
(Sep. 24, 2017  9:44 PM)Kei Wrote: Had my second longest win streak ever snapped yesterday after 28 consecutive match wins in Burst Format! Just double-checked and my longest ever was way back in 2011 with 35 consecutive match wins in MFB Format beginning at BEYBLADE CRUSADE. Pretty crazy ...

Has anyone ever had a longer one at WBO events?

I know a few years back, myself and several others were discussing this (as well as the possibility of a win streak face/point multiplier). We checked a bunch of the top ranked players and I believe @[Leone19] had you beat by one win.

(Sep. 25, 2017  2:44 AM)~Mana~ Wrote: Same rules as the Metal Face had before; you can only use each type once. In this case, as there's only one type of MGC, you can only use that on one Layer. If more types were to be introduced later on, those would be usable alongside the standard MGC. Layers that have Metal Chips built in (such as Legend Spriggan) are also unaffected by this rule. That's just how they're designed and is their default Chip.

Regular God Chips can be repeated (I believe...?), though 99% of people will probably use the default or WBBA Chips anyway.

Related question: is it legal to use a God Layer without a God Chip? I don't think there's any particular advantage to be gained by this, but it's still probably a clarification worth making since Bit Chips are optional in Plastics.

If we don't allow players to repeat normal God Chips, or remove them from the Beyblade, then that would effectively limit the amount of God Layers that could be used per Deck (which would be interesting, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea).
(Sep. 28, 2017  8:24 PM)Wombat Wrote: Related question: is it legal to use a God Layer without a God Chip? I don't think there's any particular advantage to be gained by this, but it's still probably a clarification worth making since Bit Chips are optional in Plastics.

If we don't allow players to repeat normal God Chips, or remove them from the Beyblade, then that would effectively limit the amount of God Layers that could be used per Deck (which would be interesting, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea).

I believe this is something we'll be pushing out in our next ruling update (if we haven't already) but no, it's not legal to use a God Layer without a God Chip. For simplicity's sake.

Regular God Chips aren't restricted. It's more about repeating the same regular Chip that I was questioning (such as using the same gV chip twice, if that makes any difference). We don't want to limit the number of God Layers used in a deck.
Wait so, I see a lot in Winning Combos that in 1 blader's combos they have the same parts repeated, but the rules state you can't repeat the same parts in deck format, so why is this?
(Oct. 01, 2017  12:08 AM)DaJetsnake Wrote: Wait so, I see a lot in Winning Combos that in 1 blader's combos they have the same parts repeated, but the rules state you can't repeat the same parts in deck format, so why is this?

Remember, in order to win first, second, or third place, players are required to play at least 2 Deck Format matches. The part must have just been used in different combos in different decks (for example, if they use Atomic on Drain Fafnir in the first match and on Maximum Garuda in the second match). They could have also used that part on another combo in the first stage of the tournament as well.

This is why I'm a proponent for listing the full decks of the finalists - with the current way the list is formatted you know what combos were used by the placers, but not what the particular construction of a deck was. Specifying that the combo was only used during Deck Format doesn't solve this problem either - if a combo was used in both stages you have no way of knowing whether it was in someone's deck at all.
(Oct. 01, 2017  3:01 AM)Wombat Wrote: This is why I'm a proponent for listing the full decks of the finalists - with the current way the list is formatted you know what combos were used by the placers, but not what the particular construction of a deck was. Specifying that the combo was only used during Deck Format doesn't solve this problem either - if a combo was used in both stages you have no way of knowing whether it was in someone's deck at all.

I understand the reasoning behind your desire for this, but I think the reason why I'm a little bit against doing it is because while I acknowledge the context of a players entire deck does provide valuable information to a certain degree, it doesn't necessarily hold enough value for it to be considered a necessary inclusion on "winning combos" lists since they literally were not combos that won battles. It's similar to us not requiring winning players to explain their launch techniques or decision-making thought processes; the thread is called "winning combos" after all, not "winning strategies".

Listing a players entire deck also offers less value if it is listed independently of the deck it was used against. So, do we add more responsibility on to hosts/judges and make them record all of that information? I find explanations like this one and this one that provide the entire context of Deck Format battles to be very interesting, but the level of interest in them from the community is low if the number of responses to some of my more detailed tournament reports is any indication, unfortunately. In any case, my point is that while there is indeed some ambiguity in just having the combinations that won battles listed like we do currently, I think it provides enough information to judge the state of the metagame to a relatively accurate degree without requiring the intense level of scrutiny and detail seen in full Deck Format battle reports.
Will there be an introduction of some sort of format in order to give the less significant parts a chance to see play in the future? Cos really everyone at one point or another in a tournament used maximum Garuda and atomic. What about the people who wanna see parts like minaboros, oval and quake in play.
(Oct. 01, 2017  9:11 PM)Yblader1 Wrote: Will there be an introduction of some sort of format in order to give the less significant parts a chance to see play in the future? Cos really everyone at one point or another in a tournament used maximum Garuda and atomic. What about the people who wanna see parts like minaboros, oval and quake in play.

Maybe something like a “You Burst, You Win” division?
(Oct. 01, 2017  9:11 PM)Yblader1 Wrote: Will there be an introduction of some sort of format in order to give the less significant parts a chance to see play in the future? Cos really everyone at one point or another in a tournament used maximum Garuda and atomic. What about the people who wanna see parts like minaboros, oval and quake in play.

We do have Metal Fight Limited Format that accomplishes something similar to Metal Fight Beyblade, and while I've heard people ask about a "Burst Limited Format" like this before, I think it's also important to remember the context of Metal Fight Limited Format and the most important factor that made it so attractive and viable: Hasbro's lighter versions of TAKARA-TOMY's 4D Beyblades in their "Beyblade: Metal Fury" series.

This allowed for Beyblades which had never been released or used before (these new versions of TT's 4D Beyblades) to be competitively viable (since they were dead on arrival in the regular MFB Format), and was simultaneously more accessible to our community because it didn't require the importing of products from Japan. Because the rest of Hasbro's parts were basically identical to TT's, those combined with the new Metal Fury releases helped them to unintentionally create the opportunity for a brand new metagame that was easy to get into for not only TT players who had the old releases, but Hasbro players as well because the old releases were basically identical to TT.

Fast forward to Beyblade Burst and we had–in retrospect–the honestly devastating revelation that Hasbro chose to break compatibility with TT with their slope-based system and parts which perform poorly in comparison to their TT counterparts. This has created a chasm competitively between those who can import TT and those who can't.

The reason why I personally don't think a "Burst Limited" format will ever be a thing is because of this. The idea of it might be interesting competitively from an objective perspective where parts availability isn't a factor, but in reality it doesn't simultaneously allow for more people to play competitively because many of the older parts will and are becoming progressively harder to find. It would be exclusionary on two levels by design if it were to be implemented, which isn't something I think we necessarily want.

The best thing we can do and have done is to introduce the Hasbro Only Burst Format, which I think is more appropriate for this generation in terms of alternative methods of play.

In any case ... just to note, while Minoboros certainly was competitive up until earlier this year, I don't think Oval and Quake would be competitive in any format LOL.
(Oct. 01, 2017  9:33 PM)Kei Wrote: In any case ... just to note, while Minoboros certainly was competitive up until earlier this year, I don't think Oval and Quake would be competitive in any format LOL.

I think you drastically underestimate the sheer power of the Oval Quake combo honestly. I clearly demonstrated this at AN this year Wink
(Oct. 02, 2017  2:49 AM)~Mana~ Wrote: I think you drastically underestimate the sheer power of the Oval Quake combo honestly. I clearly demonstrated this at AN this year Wink

Oh, I'm sorry. Silly me, I thought you needed to win three rounds to win a match in our events!
(Oct. 02, 2017  7:56 PM)Kei Wrote: Oh, I'm sorry. Silly me, I thought you needed to win three rounds to win a match in our events!

You're always a winner when you're using an Oval Quake combination. But don't worry, you're forgiven for not knowing Wink
(Oct. 02, 2017  8:08 PM)~Mana~ Wrote:
(Oct. 02, 2017  7:56 PM)Kei Wrote: Oh, I'm sorry. Silly me, I thought you needed to win three rounds to win a match in our events!

You're always a winner when you're using an Oval Quake combination. But don't worry, you're forgiven for not knowing Wink
automatic win when i used it at my tournament too XD. but seriously its such a fun combo to use
It's been about four months since I last picked up my Beyblades and played in an official tournament, so I'm pretty excited to see everyone and play for fun at the Toronto event next Saturday. Smile 

[Image: IMG_4160.jpg]
So I'm going through all my old WBO posts, threads, videos, and photos and man, it's hard to believe that it's been over four years since the first tournament Leone19 and I hosted together, Beys of Our Lives. I have so many good memories of the tournaments we held in 2013 and 2014; it's a shame the region isn't active as of late. Still hoping for a reunion sometime in the near future, now that I have the money and means to travel.
[Image: CudNqmI.jpg]

post ur spreadsheets 2018 Serious
Eh I did posted spreadsheets beyhaha @[Wombat]
TBB:- https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-The-Bat...pid1388036
BGT:- https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Blazing...pid1388545
ROG (bst):- https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Revolut...pid1390578
ROG (MFB):- https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-Revolut...pid1390577

edit:- BTW in case anyone wondering why I'm still online everyday. I always get something work online and everytime I open computer I can't go without checking wubbo lol. Anyways I'm always stalking Wombat-san ;p

edit 2:- Winning Combos as well. I never forget to post them as its most fun lol
[Image: KiuCdmN.png]It's been up since July bud lol
(Dec. 24, 2017  2:56 AM)Jimmyjazz39 Wrote: [Image: KiuCdmN.png]It's been up since July bud lol

Yeah but it's private
[Image: C098iGb.png]
(Oct. 01, 2017  8:51 PM)Kei Wrote:
(Oct. 01, 2017  3:01 AM)Wombat Wrote: This is why I'm a proponent for listing the full decks of the finalists - with the current way the list is formatted you know what combos were used by the placers, but not what the particular construction of a deck was. Specifying that the combo was only used during Deck Format doesn't solve this problem either - if a combo was used in both stages you have no way of knowing whether it was in someone's deck at all.

I understand the reasoning behind your desire for this, but I think the reason why I'm a little bit against doing it is because while I acknowledge the context of a players entire deck does provide valuable information to a certain degree, it doesn't necessarily hold enough value for it to be considered a necessary inclusion on "winning combos" lists since they literally were not combos that won battles. It's similar to us not requiring winning players to explain their launch techniques or decision-making thought processes; the thread is called "winning combos" after all, not "winning strategies".

Listing a players entire deck also offers less value if it is listed independently of the deck it was used against. So, do we add more responsibility on to hosts/judges and make them record all of that information? I find explanations like this one and this one that provide the entire context of Deck Format battles to be very interesting, but the level of interest in them from the community is low if the number of responses to some of my more detailed tournament reports is any indication, unfortunately. In any case, my point is that while there is indeed some ambiguity in just having the combinations that won battles listed like we do currently, I think it provides enough information to judge the state of the metagame to a relatively accurate degree without requiring the intense level of scrutiny and detail seen in full Deck Format battle reports.

Sorry to bring up an old post, but I'm siding with wombat here. Focusing entirely on a blader's combos, and not the composition of their decks is a bit like only listing the movesets of pokemon that scored KOs, but not Pokemon teams. There is a lot to be learned from a blader's combos, but it's only a part of the larger picture. From what I understand, as someone who hasn't played deck format before, a deck is a combination of blades designed to cover eachother's weaknesses, and therefore take on a wide variety of metagame threats. I think that deck composition is important metaknowledge because, similar to the way certain drivers pair well with certain disks and layers, there are no doubt certain combos that pair well with each other in a deck. A complete deck shows a blader's logic in finding these synergies, and I believe that by not sharing that information we are holding ourselves back from making those connections on a wider scale.

To put my argument a different way, imagine that instead of listing "winning combos" we listed "winning parts," and posted a list of layers, disks, frames, and drivers without reporting which parts were used together. We would get some information, as we could tell which parts are performing well, and knowledgeable bladers could maybe guess combos from the list, but we wouldn't know for sure how each combo was supposed to function, and the use of novel parts or combos would be entirely occluded. We could make a "top tier parts list" but not a "competitive combos" list, and it's not hard to understand that one of those is much more useful than the other.

Something I think we should consider is that standard beybattles and deck format battles are different formats. When you pick a blade for a standard battle, you have to take into account different factors than when you have a deck of three blades to switch between, therefore your thought processes and part selections should be entirely different. Because of this, deck format should have a different meta than 1v1 battles, and perhaps a different banlist(but i shouldn't get ahead of myself here.) Maybe there are certain combos whose weaknesses would make them too risky for use in a 1v1 battle, but because you'd have an entire deck to cover those weaknesses in deck format, their strengths could be exploited. Contrarily, there may be a dominant bey in the standard meta due to it's versatility, but, in deck format, it may be overshadowed by less versatile beys that can exploit deck format's ruleset better. In my opinion, deck format should be considered a separate meta, and we do not get enough information about it without full decklists.

As a last thought, I want to take a moment here to argue against a specific point brought up by Kei. While it is true that "listing a players entire deck also offers less value if it is listed independently of the deck it was used against," saying that is a lot like saying that listing a players entire combo offers less value if it is listed independently of the combos it was used against. We still post winning combos because it can be assumed that those combos likely faced off against other winning and meta combos on that list, and as such decklists would provide enough information to examine the deck format meta without so much extra bookkeeping.

In summary, I think deck selection is a vital part of the burst meta as long as we have deck format finals, and it doesn't have nearly as much writing on it as it should. I don't think we need full detailed reports of all the intricacies of every specific deck and deck matchup in order to gain enough significant useful information,  and I think that as long as we have deck format finals, we should stop thinking of this game as a single metagame, and separately report combos by their formats so that we may examine each meta in its own context. If you made it all the way to the end of this, thanks for sticking with me and listening to my 2 cents.
Came across this spreadsheet after a few months and I still find it reeeally cool how I was able to put this together. Not super sure how accurate some of the statistics on the second sheet are, but I updated the first one with the last few tournaments I attended. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

Also will be certainly stopping by at Anime North this year~
(Feb. 04, 2018  12:55 AM)Mitsu Wrote: Came across this spreadsheet after a few months and I still find it reeeally cool how I was able to put this together. Not super sure how accurate some of the statistics on the second sheet are, but I updated the first one with the last few tournaments I attended. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...sp=sharing

Also will be certainly stopping by at Anime North this year~

Cool to see how much your win rate generally improved over the years!