I recently PMed happyeric12, who is living in Taiwan where there is official support for Metal Fight Beyblade. I asked him what the scoring system for MFB was, and this was his response:
happyeric12 Wrote:Well, the Taiwan and Japan system battle is like this.
The goal is getting 2 points by beating the opponent.
The person who gets 2 points first, wins.
Knockout:2 points
Outspin:1 point
Shot failure(If you shoot out of the field):1 point
I was pretty shocked to see this. For anyone who doesn't remember, the old system was 3 points to win instead of 2, but the point allocations were the same. The WBO is currently working with KO and outspin being worth the same amount, which fundamentally becomes a best 2/3 system except for breaks and penalties.
It strikes me as particularly odd considering the high probability of KO in MFB compared to previous series'; KOs seem to make up the majority of battles, making this seem a bit odd. Most Bey Battles will end after one round. I think the minimum should be at least two rounds. One of the reasons I decided to devalue KOs to one point instead of two was because of the high amount of KOs present in MFB.
So what do you think about the MFB points system? For that matter, how about the WBO's?
I don't like any point system to be honest. I'd rather play best of 3.
(Jan. 11, 2009 5:30 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like any point system to be honest. I'd rather play best of 3.
Uhh, couldn't this just as easily be called a 2 point system? :-P Maybe you should elaborate on your thoughts here. I'd like to keep this thread full of discussion.
I like WBO's the best. It's always been how I played anyways, even before coming here. I was shocked to see the MFB Scoring System. I can't believe that they would have knockouts be worth 2 points when they are almost always knocked out. I hope they fix it or something, otherwise the tournaments will be basicly who ever has the most luck wins =/.
This is really surprising. Because you only need two points to win, that means an Attack type Beyblade will usually win a round in one battle, where a Defense or Endurance oriented Beyblade will most often take two battles or more.
A bit unfair considering the high KO rate of MFB at the moment. And even if KOs were not as frequent, an Attack type still has the opportunity to win in one battle, while it will always take a Defense type two or more (assuming they are winning by outspin, which has a higher probability of happening).
(Jan. 11, 2009 5:31 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 5:30 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ]I don't like any point system to be honest. I'd rather play best of 3.
Uhh, couldn't this just as easily be called a 2 point system? :-P Maybe you should elaborate on your thoughts here. I'd like to keep this thread full of discussion.
Well, a 2 point system with every way of winning worth 1 point.
I'd prefer it if Knockouts were worth 1 point.
Having a 2 point system where knockouts are worth 2 just seems like battles would be extremely short.
(Jan. 11, 2009 5:36 AM)Pichuscute Wrote: [ -> ]I like WBO's the best. It's always been how I played anyways, even before coming here. I was shocked to see the MFB Scoring System. I can't believe that they would have knockouts be worth 2 points when they are almost always knocked out. I hope they fix it or something, otherwise the tournaments will be basicly who ever has the most luck wins =/.
This is why I went with a three point system. 2/3 works as well, but if you have to win three matches you really have to be able to perform with consistency.
It seems to me they're trying to be more like Hasbro and make it more based on luck than anything. >_>
(Jan. 11, 2009 6:00 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me they're trying to be more like Hasbro and make it more based on luck than anything. >_>
This analogy doesn't make any sense in this context. Hasbro's scoring system was the best 2/3 system you seem to love so much!
Is he sure that it isn't just Taiwan that works like that? I don't see why Takara would change the system in this way.
(Jan. 11, 2009 6:05 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: [ -> ]Is he sure that it isn't just Taiwan that works like that? I don't see why Takara would change the system in this way.
I have no reason to think that it works differently in Japan. Oddly enough, there's no rules listed on Takara-Tomy's website.
(Jan. 11, 2009 6:02 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 6:00 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me they're trying to be more like Hasbro and make it more based on luck than anything. >_>
This analogy doesn't make any sense in this context. Hasbro's scoring system was the best 2/3 system you seem to love so much!
No, I was talking about how Hasbro's stadiums being luck based.
(Jan. 11, 2009 6:07 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 6:02 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 6:00 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me they're trying to be more like Hasbro and make it more based on luck than anything. >_>
This analogy doesn't make any sense in this context. Hasbro's scoring system was the best 2/3 system you seem to love so much!
No, I was talking about how Hasbro's stadiums being luck based.
Even so, I doubt this has anything to do with Hasbro.
(Jan. 11, 2009 6:09 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 6:07 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 6:02 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 6:00 AM)Mankster Wrote: [ -> ]It seems to me they're trying to be more like Hasbro and make it more based on luck than anything. >_>
This analogy doesn't make any sense in this context. Hasbro's scoring system was the best 2/3 system you seem to love so much!
No, I was talking about how Hasbro's stadiums being luck based.
Even so, I doubt this has anything to do with Hasbro.
I agree. Though they seem to have the same mindset that Hasbro did..
It is better to have a 3 point match with KO counting for 1 point as MFB matches have at least %60 of KO ratio, however, from what I remember in the booklets that come with MFBs it states the 3 point-total, 1 point for KO matches, not the one with 2 points overall with 2 points for KO...
(Jan. 11, 2009 6:35 AM)ZenX Wrote: [ -> ]It is better to have a 3 point match with KO counting for 1 point as MFB matches have at least %60 of KO ratio, however, from what I remember in the booklets that come with MFBs it states the 3 point-total, 1 point for KO matches, not the one with 2 points overall with 2 points for KO...
Can you take a picture?
(Jan. 11, 2009 5:44 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan. 11, 2009 5:36 AM)Pichuscute Wrote: [ -> ]I like WBO's the best. It's always been how I played anyways, even before coming here. I was shocked to see the MFB Scoring System. I can't believe that they would have knockouts be worth 2 points when they are almost always knocked out. I hope they fix it or something, otherwise the tournaments will be basicly who ever has the most luck wins =/.
This is why I went with a three point system. 2/3 works as well, but if you have to win three matches you really have to be able to perform with consistency.
I agree with this 100%. With the MFB system, a random combo could easily win by fluke to say and advance on in tournaments. Although they aren't guaranteed to win, they can eliminate "skilled" players which I think isn't fair.
Are you going to stick with the current scoring system? I know it's old and such, but at least it's effective.
I plan to keep the 3 wins system, yes. I think it's important for us to diverge from Takara-Tomy where we, as longtime veterans of this game, decide is necessary.
I'm pretty sure its by this system, because It was directly from the taiwan MFB handbook, and every instruction book that came from japan packagings of MFB(it's at the bottom right corner of one of the sides with takara tomy on the top right). I don't really like this system personally, but I think they did this to shorten the time of a battle.
(Jan. 11, 2009 7:51 AM)happyeric12 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't really like this system personally, but I think they did this to shorten the time of a battle.
thank heavens, i'm so sick of hour-long beybattles!
I think giving the KO 2 points doesn't make the battle competitive enough though. it adds some random factor in it (like 10% to 20%).Or do Takara likes the random factor in the battles? Perhaps they also give chance for other combination/combo to win, instead of being rampaged by the uber combo that will be the vast majority.
I personally prefer the KOs and Outspin : 1 points
and the one who gets 2 points first wins the battle.
(Jan. 11, 2009 9:45 AM)Werkbau Wrote: [ -> ]I think giving the KO 2 points doesn't make the battle competitive enough though. it adds some random factor in it (like 10% to 20%).Or do Takara likes the random factor in the battles? Perhaps they also give chance for other combination/combo to win, instead of being rampaged by the uber combo that will be the vast majority.
I personally prefer the KOs and Outspin : 1 points
and the one who gets 2 points first wins the battle.
That could be the case. I can't imagine takara running the risk of ruining this game by turning it into a KO = winning the match without there being some kind of reason behind it. But even so there was really nothing wrong with the 3 point system to begin with. I agree with you and brad. the KO's should be lowered to 1 point.
Tbh I don't like the idea of a knock out being worth 2 points, should stay at 1 point.
And they are proberly doing this to shorten the beybattles because MFB's can go one for a while.
But still think they should stick to the old scoring system regardless.
just to clarify: the old takara system was 3 points, with a KO being worth 2 points and an outspin 1 points
the WBO runs on 3 points but both outspin and KO are worth 1 point each