Oh, even if it is outclassed as a straight LTSC, it doesn't mean that its shape won't help destabilise opponents more than other MW's. It'd still be an LTSC, just one with even more destabilising properties than usual. But yeah, it would probably struggle to stand out compared to better LTSC's.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

If that was to my recently edited post, then yes. That's just what I meant to say.

---

Team IB Revolutions

Thanks to N0body for the avatar and Synth for the signature!

I haven't finished reading this but I just want to say now that lord Wolfblade always sends me his cool ideas, and this happened to be his most recent. He sent me what he had done so far and he had already gotten to pretty much the point he was at when he started the thread. If anyone feels they want to help him in PM's, that's fine by Shabalabadoo, but don't bring me onto your random bandwagon (even though I hate that term).

It wasn't really jealously more that I had no idea what releationship Shabby and wolfblade have with each other and I certainly didn't know that Wolfblade often shared his ideas with him. From that view I was wondering why he wouldn't ask him and not someone more knowledgable about the topic like me but whatever. Think what you want.

---

You really, really don't want me to make any attempt explain that...

Let's get back on topic, a bit more about why I want to see it used on WD: In the OP, wolfblade stated that the outspins were extremely close. What I figure is that with WD, it might even manage to get them. That said, a lot of LTSC's can beat BD145 combo's through destabilisation, so (comparative) tests against other competitive combo's would be good to see if it does offer an advantage over more conventional wheels.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

ok, i had quite a bit of stuff to read, but here i go. first off though:
destabilizer and LTSC. there is a slight difference LTSC happen to destablize because they are low enough to, but a destablizer is designed for the sole purpose of destabilizer (and if a destabilizer attacker, which i think of this combo slightly more as, sometimes KO). i do know that any low hight combo can destabilize, but that was not what its purpose was, it was more of a side effect IMO... i tried WD, it just doesn't feel or work the same as SF.

UltraBlader: i sent it to Shaba for the reason he stated. the reason i didn't send it to you is because it didn't cross my mind to send it to you really. plus Shaba has allot of knowledge...
last i checked Scythe is on the top tier list, even though isn't as good as phantom and duo.

Spin-sonic:
on MF and XF? cool, i did try WF (but i just got it so i am really unexperienced with it), so it didn't do good for me

Let's get back on topic, a bit more about why I want to see it used on WD: In the OP, wolfblade stated that the outspins were extremely close. What I figure is that with WD, it might even manage to get them. That said, a lot of LTSC's can beat BD145 combo's through destabilisation, so (comparative) tests against other competitive combo's would be good to see if it does offer an advantage over more conventional wheels.

i still have to test it (and i have been pretty busy), but from what i have seen so far it doesn't work as well as SF. all that i can say is that it doesn't feel like (or work like) a destabilizer from what i have done with wing (yeah i know i am repeating what i have already said)

---

I don't really see the point in bringing this back. Wing Pegasis 85F is not a destabiliser. It's a carp attack combo. Also Scythe is quite outdone by Phantom and Duo. There's no point in this thread at all. Destabiliser are dead and useless in the current metagame.

"Destabilizers" have always been dead because they never "lived" to begin with. The original concept can be traced back to Brad in August 2009:

Flame is a nice flat wheel, it's ability to get beneath the opponents combo is pretty good. I remember Brad playing around with a Flame 90SF after the Vancouver Tournament last August to try and make a destabilizing attacker, don't think that was ever followed up on.

Even then, he didn't call it a "destabilizer", he called it a "destabilizing attacker". He never intended for "destabilizer" to become misinterpreted as an actual type (and I didn't either; in my MF L Drago 90WF thread, I called it a "destabilizing attacker" not only because that is what Brad called his original concept, but because it helped to describe that it had a goal different from your typical Attack type). Destabilizing is the effect a Beyblade has when it's lower than it's opponent. Any Beyblade can do this. An Attack type, a Stamina type, a Defense type, or a Balance type.

Somewhere along the way, people decided to propagate the idea that "destabilizer" was an actual type. The definition these people put on "destabilizers" was always incredibly nebulous, and that's because there were no real qualifications besides being lower than your opponent (which is what "destabilizing" itself is!). I never understood how this happened and why the idea of pure "destabilizers" (ie. not WF/XF combos like MF L Drago 100WF or MF Meteo L Drago CH120XF which are pure Attack types) became so popular because essentially, they were (and always have been), mediocre Balance combos. Using a low Track + SD/D/WD has always been a better option.


So, I fail to see the value of something like Wing Pegasis 85SF. Why use this combo? A AD145WD (or any lower Track as well, most likely) would outperform it with ease in basically all situations.

---

I'm glad we feel the same way. You handled this much better than I ever could which is exactly why I didn't post here. Thank you.

Any regular Stamina custom can outperform any "destabilizer"-esque custom in any aspect. Destabilizing/Destabilizers are just a situational effect.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

The reason I wanted him to post it was because it's just a concept that we haven't seen in a while. Especially since I thought it couldn't be done against BD145.

So, the intention is not really to show a combo's value, more of trying to see where we can go from here; a step in the right(er) direction. That make sense?


I still want to see more of this. It's just so interesting to me! Plus, I haven't seen much of EDS lately, and I'm hoping for some cool stuff against CS and other Bottoms.

Most LTSC's destabilise BD145, yo.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I meant I thought what we used as "destabilizers" sucked against BD145.

And this doesn't?

5% and 15% are not good winrates, yo.

And again: the combos called "destabilisers" have been entirely superseded by LTSC's, which are better in every way.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

A Destabilizer is absolutely anything which is lower than an opposing Beyblade and destabilizes it, and no, they don't.

The whole 85>145>230>85 still holds true, BD145 didn't break the chain. I made a video about this, man.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

And this doesn't?

5% and 15% are not good winrates, yo.

But what about the first one that got 35%?

And again: the combos called "destabilisers" have been entirely superseded by LTSC's, which are better in every way.

But it's not about it being better, like I said it's about an old concept in the present.

And this doesn't?

5% and 15% are not good winrates, yo.

But what about the first one that got 35%?

Let me fix that:

And this doesn't?

5%, 15% and even 35% are not good winrates, yo.

And again: the combos called "destabilisers" have been entirely superseded by LTSC's, which are better in every way.

But it's not about it being better, like I said it's about an old concept in the present.

So it's a thread about a type* of combo that were never actually good, on a tip that was never actually good, for the sake of.... Making us think? Is there some extra purpose I've missed here, or...?


*they aren't even a type of beyblade, they were really just an error along the way that people seem desperate to cling onto despite the best attempts of those who have realised this. Dan's posts are correct, and you should re-read Kei's posts thoroughly...

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

The concept of destabilization isn't 'old' and being renewed to our current metagame. It isn't a type. It is a situational event. Destabilization occurs everywhere.

Kei went over this.

---

shout out 2 kai-v 2.

The Complete Competitive HMS Resource

Seriously? I never once said it was a type. And I've read every post in this topic, including Kei's, and respect every one in it, including your guys'. (I also hope the same goes for me.)

I think 35% is a good start. Considering the limitations in his testing, I think it has quite a bit more potential. It's not hurting anyone's feelings or anything to continue looking into it.

It actually is to think, th!nk.

Dan, what I mean, is for us to try to make a combo that maximizes the destabilization you're talking about. I hope that accurately displays what this purpose is?

And here, let's just call this an Attack Type. Problem solved.

Sorry if I was a bit harsh, it's just in the past a number of us pushed so hard to get rid of the idea of "destabilisers" as a type (especially in build me a combo), that it really gets our backs up. Of course you are well respected: your name is in italics for a number of very good reasons, Scoobysnax

Destabilising attacker might be more correct, though, I still stand by my previous recommendation:

I see what you were getting at, and I have suggested a method that may actually help improve results, given the information provided, that is, use WD. If Wing has a particularly good shape for destabilisation, it will still do so on WD, and WD may give it those extra few seconds of spin time it is losing by. Obviously, you won't get the same aggressive movement (and it would hurt the idea of it being an attack type), but with some practice you can usually still get WD to make a couple of decent hits on the opponent early in the match.

Next, seeing as we're on a low track, and wanting to maximise stamina, clear wheel choice becomes somewhat relevant. Pegasis is a pretty bad choice in terms of synergy and destabilisation ability. I will try to look into what I can find in terms of suitable clear wheels in a little. (I'm probably going to rule kerbecs already out as it already has issues with being hit from above when used in low-track basalt combinations). I'll edit this post with what I can tell from just looking at the clear wheels on it if no one responds before I finish.

I still have very strong doubts about even that working, Wing is not a particularly well balanced wheel (due to its gimmick's setup), and other options, particularly Phantom, are better shaped/suited for this kind of purpose.


There is one other tip I'd be interested in seeing on this, though it might stray too close to XF's behaviour, and that is FB. It is also, however, one of three (from memory) tips I don't have

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

Hey thanks, I really appreciate it. You know what I also (just) realized haha? The definition of Attack Type includes attacking a beyblade until yadda yadda or depletes its spin. I think that what we've tried to label as "Destabilizers" (such as this combo or the flame ones) are exactly this?

Not quite. That particular definition is in reference to plastic beyblades, where a number of smash attack rings could smack an opponent powerfully enough to interrupt it's rotation, even if they failed to KO it, basically stopping it dead, or at least hugely depleting it's spin. My beloved Cross Griffon is particularly good at that, and the SG Metal Flat 2 base is great at capitalising on it, and then they come together and it's just fantastic.

Wow okay I got a bit sidetracked there, but yeah. It is most noticeable in all gens in hasbro stadiums though (under hasbro's MFB rules, it's basically the only way an attacker can win).

Been distracted by IRL stuff so still haven't looked at CW's.

---

th!nkBlargh|H-Code Product List

I still have very strong doubts about even that working, Wing is not a particularly well balanced wheel (due to its gimmick's setup), and other options, particularly Phantom, are better shaped/suited for this kind of purpose.

And, that's just why I found it weird to use a WD on it, considering there are already too many of this type, which would outperform Wing 85WD too easily...

About using FB, great idea! It is one of the tips which didn't see enough testing...
And, this may be just the most perfect opportunity of trying it out. The thing is, does lord have FB?

---

Team IB Revolutions

Thanks to N0body for the avatar and Synth for the signature!

I have been keeping an eye on this thread, and so far absolutely nothing of significance has come out of it... a combo with bad results based on an idea that was not fantastic to begin with...

Please do something with this thread other than squabble about terminology, uselessness, or the subjective(and intangible) value of "thought-provoking" via a terrible combo. This thread is not, in present form, about "making people think and postulate about a greater future for destabilizers", it is about this specific combo, which is bad. If you want to make a thread that is actually about postulating Destabilization and its current place in the metagame, make a thread for that.

Honestly, though, bringing back "destabilizers" is not unlike bringing back the Dodo Bird...

---

Some manner of Octopus.