Hello World Bladers! Please use this thread to discuss and provide feedback for Beyblade X Season 0! Information on WBO x Challonge: Beyblade X Season 0 can be found here.

---

Player and Organizer for NC Beyblade | Use code "HASHTAGFAFNIR" for 8% off on BeysAndBricks!

The wait was worth it! Thank you WBO staff for making this ranking system! We all appreciate you! And thanks for creating a wonderful community of bladers that I can be a part of!

---

Nuevo Laban 
Nuevo Redemption 
Time To Rise From The Ashes!

Thanks for all your efforts guys!

As a preliminary question that I’m sure will come up. Do challonge and WBO usernames have to be the same? And if so, what about people with spaces or special characters in their usernames that isn’t supported by Challonge? Will there be a way to link accounts in that case?
And from an organizer perspective, should we prioritize people’s WBO usernames or challonge’s in case they are different?

---

Thanks for all your efforts guys!

As a preliminary question that I’m sure will come up. Do challonge and WBO usernames have to be the same? And if so, what about people with spaces or special characters in their usernames that isn’t supported by Challonge? Will there be a way to link accounts in that case?
And from an organizer perspective, should we prioritize people’s WBO usernames or challonge’s in case they are different?

No, Challonge and WBO usernames do not have to be the same. Event participants will be prompted for their WBO username when they sign up for the tournament through the Challonge sign up page.

---

Player and Organizer for NC Beyblade | Use code "HASHTAGFAFNIR" for 8% off on BeysAndBricks!

so, what about all of the "ranked" X tournaments that have already taken place? will those stats be uploaded soon? are spreadsheets no longer necessary for any format now that the ranking system of the WBO is no longer in use?

---

('-')

Will the process to become Organizer be overhauled and simplified in this? The process is currently extremely ex-clusive.

You must co-host 3 organized events with an existing organizer, what if there are no existing organizers nearby? To even get a state channel you need to have an organizer, but how do you organize locally and get to that point without a chat? Currently seems to be a vicious cycle of immobility that only rewards existing communities/scenes.

so, what about all of the "ranked" X tournaments that have already taken place? will those stats be uploaded soon? are spreadsheets no longer necessary for any format now that the ranking system of the WBO is no longer in use?

Please see the announcement post for clarification on the status of previously ranked Beyblade X tournaments. As for spreadsheets, they are still required for non-X formats. We are still processing ranked Burst and Metal Fight Beyblade matches through our in-house rank system.

---

Player and Organizer for NC Beyblade | Use code "HASHTAGFAFNIR" for 8% off on BeysAndBricks!

This is great news! Thanks Staff! We lovey ya!

---

I may have missed something in the OG post but will there be other seasons as well? Or is Season 0 just a name, and if there are other seasons, how will they work? How long does a season last?


And most importantly.....How much is the Battle Pass??????? All of my other questions besides THIS question is an actual question haha

---

Will the process to become Organizer be overhauled and simplified in this? The process is currently extremely ex-clusive.

You must co-host 3 organized events with an existing organizer, what if there are no existing organizers nearby? To even get a state channel you need to have an organizer, but how do you organize locally and get to that point without a chat? Currently seems to be a vicious cycle of immobility that only rewards existing communities/scenes.

Hi! Without going into too much detail, we are aware that our process of becoming an organizer desperately needs reworking. I ask that you please be patient with us while we work to improve things on that front.

To address your points regarding co-hosting and state channels, we only ask applicants to co-host if they underperform on the interview and have a local organizer to co-host with. We have not and will never leave applicants in that kind of position. State channels on the WBO Discord server are created upon request (though this may be changing soon so as to avoid an excess of channels that do not see use). Truthfully, I am a little confused as to where you heard these things, but regardless, I apologize for the confusion!

---

Player and Organizer for NC Beyblade | Use code "HASHTAGFAFNIR" for 8% off on BeysAndBricks!

Will the process to become Organizer be overhauled and simplified in this? The process is currently extremely ex-clusive.

You must co-host 3 organized events with an existing organizer, what if there are no existing organizers nearby? To even get a state channel you need to have an organizer, but how do you organize locally and get to that point without a chat? Currently seems to be a vicious cycle of immobility that only rewards existing communities/scenes.

Hi! Without going into too much detail, we are aware that our process of becoming an organizer desperately needs reworking. I ask that you please be patient with us while we work to improve things on that front.

To address your points regarding co-hosting and state channels, we only ask applicants to co-host if they underperform on the interview and have a local organizer to co-host with. We have not and will never leave applicants in that kind of position. State channels on the WBO Discord server are created upon request (though this may be changing soon so as to avoid an excess of channels that do not see use). Truthfully, I am a little confused as to where you heard these things, but regardless, I apologize for the confusion!

Thanks for clearing that up and letting us know it’s on the roadmap! My info from our local organizer prospect was a bit inaccurate. 🤦‍♂️

I need to join the Organizer queue and learn first hand. 👍

This is great news! Thanks Staff! We lovey ya!

---

I may have missed something in the OG post but will there be other seasons as well? Or is Season 0 just a name, and if there are other seasons, how will they work? How long does a season last?


And most importantly.....How much is the Battle Pass??????? Everything else besides THIS question is an actual question haha

Hi! "Season 0" is our way of field testing WBO ranking through Challonge. If all goes well, it's not unreasonable to assume we will have future seasons. As for how long a season lasts, I am not currently aware. Great question though!

---

Player and Organizer for NC Beyblade | Use code "HASHTAGFAFNIR" for 8% off on BeysAndBricks!

Okay, gonna preface this by saying I love the WBO and everything it’s done for the community. It’s brought so many players together, and I can’t thank the staff enough for that. However, I’ve got a lot of issues with how things are implemented and explained.

For one, asking new players to sign up for both the WBO and Challonge is a big ask. A lot of parents end up making accounts for their kids, which honestly messes with the experience for new players. Then there’s the whole ordeal of getting organizers to make everyone sign up for Challonge. Most users don’t check the WBO site for DMs, so how are organizers supposed to get players to make accounts on Challonge?
From what I’ve gathered on the Discord (since, of course, this is explained nowhere), the process involves:

1. Making brackets with dummy accounts.
   
2. Asking all players with dummy names for their Challonge accounts.
   
3. Linking all dummy players with their new Challonge accounts (also, not explained how to do this).
   
4. PRAYING that no one who wanted their ranking sent you their account after the tournament closes.
   

Sure, maybe this is manageable for smaller events with 20-30 players. But imagine trying to do this for 50+ people? It’s a completely unnecessary hassle for someone already juggling a large event.

"But why not just link the Challonge sign-up in the tournament description?" Even if you do that, it still doesn’t guarantee everyone will make an account on Challonge. Most people will see the event, spot the big blue button that says "SIGN UP HERE," and think they’re good to go.
"So set it to invite-only, then!" Sure, but then people might sign up on Challonge and never tell you their WBO name, which means you still can’t invite them. It’s a never-ending cycle. The process feels like it’s designed for small events, but for anyone running something bigger? It's way more hassle than it needs to be.

Honestly, I think this is a great idea with ridiculously horrible execution and I am genuinely pretty upset by it. This whole process needs to go back to the drawing board to be streamlined. A quick and easy fix? Let us replace the “Join” button with a direct link to the Challonge brackets (or just ditch the WBO sign-up entirely, since Challonge is doing all the work at this point anyway).

Okay, gonna preface this by saying I love the WBO and everything it’s done for the community. It’s brought so many players together, and I can’t thank the staff enough for that. However, I’ve got a lot of issues with how things are implemented and explained.

For one, asking new players to sign up for both the WBO and Challonge is a big ask. A lot of parents end up making accounts for their kids, which honestly messes with the experience for new players. Then there’s the whole ordeal of getting organizers to make everyone sign up for Challonge. Most users don’t check the WBO site for DMs, so how are organizers supposed to get players to make accounts on Challonge?
From what I’ve gathered on the Discord (since, of course, this is explained nowhere), the process involves:

1. Making brackets with dummy accounts.
   
2. Asking all players with dummy names for their Challonge accounts.
   
3. Linking all dummy players with their new Challonge accounts (also, not explained how to do this).
   
4. PRAYING that no one who wanted their ranking sent you their account after the tournament closes.
   

Sure, maybe this is manageable for smaller events with 20-30 players. But imagine trying to do this for 50+ people? It’s a completely unnecessary hassle for someone already juggling a large event.

"But why not just link the Challonge sign-up in the tournament description?" Even if you do that, it still doesn’t guarantee everyone will make an account on Challonge. Most people will see the event, spot the big blue button that says "SIGN UP HERE," and think they’re good to go.
"So set it to invite-only, then!" Sure, but then people might sign up on Challonge and never tell you their WBO name, which means you still can’t invite them. It’s a never-ending cycle. The process feels like it’s designed for small events, but for anyone running something bigger? It's way more hassle than it needs to be.

Honestly, I think this is a great idea with ridiculously horrible execution and I am genuinely pretty upset by it. This whole process needs to go back to the drawing board to be streamlined. A quick and easy fix? Let us replace the “Join” button with a direct link to the Challonge brackets (or just ditch the WBO sign-up entirely, since Challonge is doing all the work at this point anyway).

Good points. Never thought about it that way. I'm going to consider this while I make my final opinion on it.

---

My local community has a local challonge to allow us to add judges as collaborators so they can report results from their phones without having to run back and forth to the challonge station. Is there a way to add judges to the wbo community with less privileges so they can't make tournaments but still report results. Or does challonge have a feature like other tournament sites where players can self-report results?

Ok I just have some 2 cents on some specifics of the ranked system. I have fortunately confirmed that Buchholz is the second highest priority in breaking tiebreakers (after win-loss ration) which I completely agree with.

However, with the addition of points being counted (Quick Advanced is no more), I wanted to share my thoughts on the best way of using points. In my opinion, I feel like the number of points being reported should be capped to the win condition. (ie: in a ft5 match, the winner gets 5 points, no more)

If I am playing a ft5 match and I get an extreme at 4 points, that’s 7 points for which puts me at a huge advantage in my opinion. This is because I feel like it’s more luck to not only win, but to also win in such a way that you can get more points than what’s necessary to win.

I just feel like the max number of points possible for a 6 round Swiss in a ft5 first stage is 30, no more. Whether you go 6-0 and get 30 or 5-1 and get 29, I just feel like it’s better for how you do in your losses to determine the tiebreaker than how you do in your wins. Just because points are capped doesn’t mean that they won’t play a part in breaking ties; how you do in matches that you lose will also play a part. I also feel like the no capped points punishes more defensive bladers, which I feel is not fair and as inclusive in my opinion.

I also feel that doing something like this is extremely easy to implement. First of all, you only need 1 sentence to be added to the Season 0 Organizers Guide to make it official; plus it will also be easier to report the score, almost as easy as Quick Advanced. This is because you only have to know 2 things in comparison to 3 when reporting a match:
Who the winner was, and what the losers score was. This would be in comparison to knowing who the winner was, the winner’s score, and the loser’s score (with no capped points).

All in all, this would be a simple fix to a potential problem, where someone misses top 8 due to not winning enough points in wins (has happened to me before oof). If I am going to lose by points, I would rather have it be because of the lack of points I got in my loses, then wonder if it was because I didn’t get enough points in my wins. I know that bucholz is there to help prevent getting to this point, but when it does get to that point I would rather have this in place to prevent the “what if.”

---

What do y’all feel about my proposal? I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts. Honestly I can’t find any faults in this proposal, as it eliminates a potential problem, is easy to implement, makes things easier for organizers, and makes things more fair for everyone in my opinion.

---

Nuevo Laban 
Nuevo Redemption 
Time To Rise From The Ashes!

Okay, gonna preface this by saying I love the WBO and everything it’s done for the community. It’s brought so many players together, and I can’t thank the staff enough for that. However, I’ve got a lot of issues with how things are implemented and explained.

For one, asking new players to sign up for both the WBO and Challonge is a big ask. A lot of parents end up making accounts for their kids, which honestly messes with the experience for new players. Then there’s the whole ordeal of getting organizers to make everyone sign up for Challonge. Most users don’t check the WBO site for DMs, so how are organizers supposed to get players to make accounts on Challonge?
From what I’ve gathered on the Discord (since, of course, this is explained nowhere), the process involves:

1. Making brackets with dummy accounts.
   
2. Asking all players with dummy names for their Challonge accounts.
   
3. Linking all dummy players with their new Challonge accounts (also, not explained how to do this).
   
4. PRAYING that no one who wanted their ranking sent you their account after the tournament closes.
   

Sure, maybe this is manageable for smaller events with 20-30 players. But imagine trying to do this for 50+ people? It’s a completely unnecessary hassle for someone already juggling a large event.

"But why not just link the Challonge sign-up in the tournament description?" Even if you do that, it still doesn’t guarantee everyone will make an account on Challonge. Most people will see the event, spot the big blue button that says "SIGN UP HERE," and think they’re good to go.
"So set it to invite-only, then!" Sure, but then people might sign up on Challonge and never tell you their WBO name, which means you still can’t invite them. It’s a never-ending cycle. The process feels like it’s designed for small events, but for anyone running something bigger? It's way more hassle than it needs to be.

Honestly, I think this is a great idea with ridiculously horrible execution and I am genuinely pretty upset by it. This whole process needs to go back to the drawing board to be streamlined. A quick and easy fix? Let us replace the “Join” button with a direct link to the Challonge brackets (or just ditch the WBO sign-up entirely, since Challonge is doing all the work at this point anyway).

Here in Ontario, we have a community that uses Challonge for ratings, and after being a part of it for about half a year and getting to experience both being a player and organizer, I can speak to many of these grievances. There's a massive disconnect between the WBO forum, Challonge and other means of communication, and forcing players to hop between multiple different platforms to sign up for a single tournament really complicates the process and can turn people away.

Requiring players to make both WBO and Challonge accounts especially makes it harder for younger players, and chasing people down to get them to sign up on Challonge is a nightmare. As you say, the current methods for signing up all come with some kind of issue. When setting it to freely joining, you need to keep checking that players have signed up on the Challonge page as well, and get them to if they haven't or drop them until they do. On top of that, they can have different names across the platforms, which makes it all harder.
On invite-only mode, you need to have people reach out with their WBO name so you can add them, and not simply stop at clicking on the Challonge. For tournaments with entry fees, there have been multiple instances where people have failed to also sign up on Challonge, or didn't include their username in the e-transfer message with no means of cross-referencing.
Thankfully we have a Discord that we can easily reach out to everyone through, but that leaves an entirely separate issue of people who aren't even in the server and simply cannot be reached out to if they don't join and don't read WBO messages.

The system we now use is to make the WBO tournament page invite-only, add a large button linking to the Challonge page, and have a required field on the Challonge signup asking for a link to the player's WBO profile. This gets us the best blend of getting people to acknowledge the Challonge part and requiring them to add their WBO name to add to the tournament. I do however agree that the Join button could be a direct link as a new option.

We have thankfully only hosted 32-player tournaments at the largest so far, but these issues will impact larger events harshly where the multiple steps and complications will severely slow down the process and make it a headache keeping the bracket and tournament straight.

---

white knight perseus my beloved

My local community has a local challonge to allow us to add judges as collaborators so they can report results from their phones without having to run back and forth to the challonge station.  Is there a way to add judges to the wbo community with less privileges so they can't make tournaments but still report results. Or does challonge have a feature like other tournament sites where players can self-report results?

When creating or editing the options in a tournament, scroll down to the bottom of the page, click on advanced options -> permissions -> Share Admin Access. You can then add people via their challonge account.

(This is yet another thing that should be explained in the document)

My community is using Braaket rn to have local rankings but in order to import tournaments from challonge that are created in a commuunity we need the subdomain I was wondering if the subdomain for WBO could be shared with organizers so we can still import tournaments for local rankings?

Edit: This question was answered in the discord. For the subdomain you only have to put worldbeyblade

So after chatting with Shindog on Discord, linking player accounts and asking people for their Challonge accounts feels kind of pointless. Apparently, all rankings can be tracked by name alone, so as long as there aren’t any typos, ranks will go to the right player.

It feels disjointed, though, since the initial announcement says, "Organizers are encouraged to have their Participants make a Challonge account themselves if they do not already have one. The reason for this is because many of the features we employ, like tracking ranked stats, or wish to employ in the future, work best when users are actually on Challonge with their own unique account." But according to Shindog, the real benefits are things like tournament announcements, a check-in timer, automatic notifications when a match is open, and station assignments. And as for the whole typo issue—that wasn’t even mentioned by staff; it came from another organizer.

So, why use such vague language in the initial announcement when they could have just explained it as clearly as Shindog did? But hey, I'm not staff.

OmegaCKL taggin you cause we had the same complaint.

Spoiler (Click to View)

Ok I just have some 2 cents on some specifics of the ranked system. I have fortunately confirmed that Buchholz is the second highest priority in breaking tiebreakers (after win-loss ration) which I completely agree with.

However, with the addition of points being counted (Quick Advanced is no more), I wanted to share my thoughts on the best way of using points. In my opinion, I feel like the number of points being reported should be capped to the win condition. (ie: in a ft5 match, the winner gets 5 points, no more)

If I am playing a ft5 match and I get an extreme at 4 points, that’s 7 points for which puts me at a huge advantage in my opinion. This is because I feel like it’s more luck to not only win, but to also win in such a way that you can get more points than what’s necessary to win.

I just feel like the max number of points possible for a 6 round Swiss in a ft5 first stage is 30, no more. Whether you go 6-0 and get 30 or 5-1 and get 29, I just feel like it’s better for how you do in your losses to determine the tiebreaker than how you do in your wins. Just because points are capped doesn’t mean that they won’t play a part in breaking ties; how you do in matches that you lose will also play a part. I also feel like the no capped points punishes more defensive bladers, which I feel is not fair and as inclusive in my opinion.

I also feel that doing something like this is extremely easy to implement. First of all, you only need 1 sentence to be added to the Season 0 Organizers Guide to make it official; plus it will also be easier to report the score, almost as easy as Quick Advanced. This is because you only have to know 2 things in comparison to 3 when reporting a match:
Who the winner was, and what the losers score was. This would be in comparison to knowing who the winner was, the winner’s score, and the loser’s score (with no capped points).

All in all, this would be a simple fix to a potential problem, where someone misses top 8 due to not winning enough points in wins (has happened to me before oof). If I am going to lose by points, I would rather have it be because of the lack of points I got in my loses, then wonder if it was because I didn’t get enough points in my wins. I know that bucholz is there to help prevent getting to this point, but when it does get to that point I would rather have this in place to prevent the “what if.”

---

What do y’all feel about my proposal? I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts. Honestly I can’t find any faults in this proposal, as it eliminates a potential problem, is easy to implement, makes things easier for organizers, and makes things more fair for everyone in my opinion.

I agree 110%. My personal TieBreakers for events have always been Match% -> Buchholz -> Points Difference -> Tied Opps. Ofcourse, capping points to the win condition. 

Xtreme finish at 3-1? The final score on the system should always be 4-1 and not 6-1.

As you said, it punishes Stam/Def bladers. I rather bladers just try to win with what they like than be handicapped at tiebreakers because they play less aggressive beys.

Personally there shouldn't be an argument for uncapped scoring. If it compromises fairness, it shouldn't be considered.

---

My YouTube

Spoiler (Click to View)

Ok I just have some 2 cents on some specifics of the ranked system. I have fortunately confirmed that Buchholz is the second highest priority in breaking tiebreakers (after win-loss ration) which I completely agree with.

However, with the addition of points being counted (Quick Advanced is no more), I wanted to share my thoughts on the best way of using points. In my opinion, I feel like the number of points being reported should be capped to the win condition. (ie: in a ft5 match, the winner gets 5 points, no more)

If I am playing a ft5 match and I get an extreme at 4 points, that’s 7 points for which puts me at a huge advantage in my opinion. This is because I feel like it’s more luck to not only win, but to also win in such a way that you can get more points than what’s necessary to win.

I just feel like the max number of points possible for a 6 round Swiss in a ft5 first stage is 30, no more. Whether you go 6-0 and get 30 or 5-1 and get 29, I just feel like it’s better for how you do in your losses to determine the tiebreaker than how you do in your wins. Just because points are capped doesn’t mean that they won’t play a part in breaking ties; how you do in matches that you lose will also play a part. I also feel like the no capped points punishes more defensive bladers, which I feel is not fair and as inclusive in my opinion.

I also feel that doing something like this is extremely easy to implement. First of all, you only need 1 sentence to be added to the Season 0 Organizers Guide to make it official; plus it will also be easier to report the score, almost as easy as Quick Advanced. This is because you only have to know 2 things in comparison to 3 when reporting a match:
Who the winner was, and what the losers score was. This would be in comparison to knowing who the winner was, the winner’s score, and the loser’s score (with no capped points).

All in all, this would be a simple fix to a potential problem, where someone misses top 8 due to not winning enough points in wins (has happened to me before oof). If I am going to lose by points, I would rather have it be because of the lack of points I got in my loses, then wonder if it was because I didn’t get enough points in my wins. I know that bucholz is there to help prevent getting to this point, but when it does get to that point I would rather have this in place to prevent the “what if.”

---

What do y’all feel about my proposal? I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts. Honestly I can’t find any faults in this proposal, as it eliminates a potential problem, is easy to implement, makes things easier for organizers, and makes things more fair for everyone in my opinion.

I agree 110%. My personal TieBreakers for events have always been Match% -> Buchholz -> Points Difference -> Tied Opps. Ofcourse, capping points to the win condition. 

Xtreme finish at 3-1? The final score on the system should always be 4-1 and not 6-1.

As you said, it punishes Stam/Def bladers. I rather bladers just try to win with what they like than be handicapped at tiebreakers because they play less aggressive beys.

Personally there shouldn't be an argument for uncapped scoring. If it compromises fairness, it shouldn't be considered.

Glad to see I’m not alone with this opinion. I just wanted to get it out there before things really get started and it’s too late to be implemented.

---

Nuevo Laban 
Nuevo Redemption 
Time To Rise From The Ashes!

To quote part of bladekid's post from the announcement thread,

There was also the issue of a good player losing one match to someone low ranked or new and then tanking super hard because of that one loss despite doing well. Like almost everyone I know has had an event where they did really well (top 3 even) and still didn't make any progress or lost progress due to the one match.

X is a game where sometimes a new player is good and not high ranked, or even just a bad player getting lucky in a match and taking it. These things happen, and the points a good player could lose just didn't account for the fact that games of beyblade are very close, and winning matches isn't that hard. It's that the best players have gotten good at adapting to that and win by setting up good situations and capitalizing on very small weaknesses.

Granted, a new player with far less experience could show up with the same/better combos and similar launching skill, but a good player wins by using that slight skill gap to rise above or thier matchup experience to find an achillies heal. But we aren't perfect, and we lose sometimes.

Like what seems more likely, a new player beating the best beyblader in the world, or beating the best Smash Bros player in the world? I hope that made sense, but Ig what I'm saying is skill is less shown by steamrolling and more by catching the minor slip-ups and capitalizing on them to gain a point advantage that can't be undone easily.

Admittedly I'm unfamiliar with how ranking systems work, but I can attest to the idea that Beyblade as a whole, and especially X, is simultaneously a game of chance and something that can very easily be won or lost on the margins. I came to realize this for myself after the revival of my local scene, and I definitely view both individual matches and match types (especially deck, hoo boy!) in a different light than I did in my first few years of playing competitively.

I guess in that respect, I'll leave something for the folks who understand ranking systems better than me to mull over:
Considering this, do you think that overall tournament placement currently holds enough weight in the rankings when compared to how individual match results & opponent's ranking are treated? Or would it be worth looking into having a higher emphasis on overall tournament results, to reduce the impact of a lucky/unlucky match? If so, how could the results from tournaments of different sizes be handled, and how might formats like single-elimination be treated compared to others, such as swiss or round-robin?


Idek if this is actually relevant, or if I'm misunderstanding how rankings are going to be done from here on out, but... it's here now.

So after chatting with Shindog on Discord, linking player accounts and asking people for their Challonge accounts feels kind of pointless. Apparently, all rankings can be tracked by name alone, so as long as there aren’t any typos, ranks will go to the right player.

It feels disjointed, though, since the initial announcement says, "Organizers are encouraged to have their Participants make a Challonge account themselves if they do not already have one. The reason for this is because many of the features we employ, like tracking ranked stats, or wish to employ in the future, work best when users are actually on Challonge with their own unique account." But according to Shindog, the real benefits are things like tournament announcements, a check-in timer, automatic notifications when a match is open, and station assignments. And as for the whole typo issue—that wasn’t even mentioned by staff; it came from another organizer.

So, why use such vague language in the initial announcement when they could have just explained it as clearly as Shindog did? But hey, I'm not staff.

OmegaCKL taggin you cause we had the same complaint.

Woke up and realized there's still an issue with deciding not to ask players to make a Challonge account. For players who decide later on to create a Challonge account, they won’t be able to link their new account to the points and rank they’ve already received (I mean I think? the linking system isn’t well explained). So again, there’s this huge disconnect that could easily be solved if we just didn’t have the linking system in the first place.

Considering how non-mandatory this system is, I really don’t get why we even bother. The negatives FAR outweigh the positives, especially since the number of people who won’t make a Challonge account far outnumbers those who will. And if you think otherwise, I’d suggest going to more beginner-friendly events instead of sticking to areas where players are already familiar with the setup.

At this point, the only clear benefits, according to Shin, are tournament announcements, a check-in timer, automatic match notifications, and station assignments. Is this useful to some organizers? Sure! But is it worth messing with the entire ranking system for these features—especially when it means organizers will have to chase people down, ask them to make accounts, and then go back and link everything? Let’s be soooo for real right now.

It would be so much easier to ditch the linking system and just go by player names. Right now, I’m thinking organizers should maybe agree to skip the linking, so everyone’s points actually go through. Even with the old system, typos were an issue—we could simply encourage organizers to double-check their entries. Not a perfect fix, sure, but it’s like way less hassle than the current process.

I really hope the staff is reading this, because this is a major issue that feels brushed off with, “Ah, but people will adapt.” Sure, but it’s a whole lot harder to get 50, 60, or 70 people to adapt than it is for 20 or 30

So after chatting with Shindog on Discord, linking player accounts and asking people for their Challonge accounts feels kind of pointless. Apparently, all rankings can be tracked by name alone, so as long as there aren’t any typos, ranks will go to the right player.

It feels disjointed, though, since the initial announcement says, "Organizers are encouraged to have their Participants make a Challonge account themselves if they do not already have one. The reason for this is because many of the features we employ, like tracking ranked stats, or wish to employ in the future, work best when users are actually on Challonge with their own unique account." But according to Shindog, the real benefits are things like tournament announcements, a check-in timer, automatic notifications when a match is open, and station assignments. And as for the whole typo issue—that wasn’t even mentioned by staff; it came from another organizer.

So, why use such vague language in the initial announcement when they could have just explained it as clearly as Shindog did? But hey, I'm not staff.

OmegaCKL taggin you cause we had the same complaint.

Woke up and realized there's still an issue with deciding not to ask players to make a Challonge account. For players who decide later on to create a Challonge account, they won’t be able to link their new account to the points and rank they’ve already received (I mean I think? the linking system isn’t well explained). So again, there’s this huge disconnect that could easily be solved if we just didn’t have the linking system in the first place.

Considering how non-mandatory this system is, I really don’t get why we even bother. The negatives FAR outweigh the positives, especially since the number of people who won’t make a Challonge account far outnumbers those who will. And if you think otherwise, I’d suggest going to more beginner-friendly events instead of sticking to areas where players are already familiar with the setup.

At this point, the only clear benefits, according to Shin, are tournament announcements, a check-in timer, automatic match notifications, and station assignments. Is this useful to some organizers? Sure! But is it worth messing with the entire ranking system for these features—especially when it means organizers will have to chase people down, ask them to make accounts, and then go back and link everything? Let’s be soooo for real right now.

It would be so much easier to ditch the linking system and just go by player names. Right now, I’m thinking organizers should maybe agree to skip the linking, so everyone’s points actually go through. Even with the old system, typos were an issue—we could simply encourage organizers to double-check their entries. Not a perfect fix, sure, but it’s like way less hassle than the current process.

I really hope the staff is reading this, because this is a major issue that feels brushed off with, “Ah, but people will adapt.” Sure, but it’s a whole lot harder to get 50, 60, or 70 people to adapt than it is for 20 or 30

I believe the staff will be reading and taking notes on everything we say!

---