World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.

Full Version: WBO Organized Play Random Thoughts
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
(Aug. 13, 2014  10:57 PM)*Ginga* Wrote: [ -> ]For your last question TBD, the pressure is clearly higher ...

The pressure is also higher for his opponent, so theoretically both players would have the same "disadvantage". I played in Colosseum as well, and made it pretty far, but I was definitely more nervous there than during any other tournament (visibly shaking during the semi-finals). So there is definitely more pressure/hectic atmosphere in a larger tournament. Also, during Colosseum I played 6 matches out of 48 people, which is still one less than a minimum round robin. So I can understand where the size multiplier is trying to overcompensate for the certain tournament formats.

I also understand that the multiplier is also to stop people from spamming the "island effect", but if there really is that one person who dominates the other seven constantly than there will eventually be such a difference between their points that even if they go undefeated they'll barely be gaining any points (a somewhat example being Kei at that one tournament who went 6-2 and only came out at +1 just because of the point difference between himself and his opponents).

But either way, consider my record in Colosseum, which was 4-2. If those six same opponents were in my block during a minimum 8-player round robin, and I repeated my performance in the exact same order and everything, I would end up with less points, simply because the tournament was smaller. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, that doesn't make too much sense to me. I did everything the exact same in both instances, but ended up with a different result in the 8-player tournament because of a factor I couldn't control and didn't affect the outcome of the battles.

The seventh opponent is irrelevant in this situation, before someone points that out. While I would go to the finals if I won the point of the comparison is that in the two tournaments I played the exact same matches with the exact same outcomes, I get different amounts of points

Personally as of now I see the size multiplier as an incentive to build a large community to have larger tournaments, and while that's cool I don't see any real reasoning behind it besides that.

Sorry to just randomly jump in this argument, but I thought I should contribute.
The reason I see the size multiplier existing is this: it is much harder to gain a sense of combinations your opponents prefer in large tournaments. In small tournaments there is a very good chance that any player ends up judging another player before their match and a much greater chance that someone can just watch a match rather than being off dealing with other tournament business. Now, some would argue that both players have this opportunity resulting in a much more informed match overall (suggesting there should be size subtracter), but the counter argument to this is novice players. Nine times out of ten these newbs will not be paying the same attention to other players. So, in reality, the removal of the size multiplier puts new players at a disadvantage.
...

Huh?

It wouldn't put new players at a disadvantage. The size multiplier wouldn't effect anyone at that point.

If newbs don't pay attention to what their opponent is using, that's their own fault, but I don't see how that relates to the size multiplier.

As for what Wombat said, there's something else right there -

He played 6 matches in a 48 person tournament, and didn't even make it to the finals. Now, if he participates in a 12-14 person Round Robin tournament, he will play a maximum of 5 matches, even if he makes it to the finals!

At that point, in the larger tournament, despite his elimination, he will still have played 1 more match than he did in a 12-14 player tournament, and yet the multiplier will blast the points from the larger tournament through the roof.

So I'd say the idea that the size multiplier evens out the match number issue between small and large tournaments is kind of flawed. It can work in certain situations, but in others I'd say it makes things worse, and I don't think it's a sufficient reason given the other downsides it causes.
Looks like Los Angelos is having a London situation, the usual host stopped hosting and nobody is stepping up to take his place...
I just realized something. I've never been flawless in a tournament, like I've never won all of my matches in a whole tournament. I came close at Dir en Bey, however Kai-V ended up killing my streak by beating me, haha.
(Aug. 14, 2014  8:26 PM)LMAO Wrote: [ -> ]I just realized something. I've never been flawless in a tournament, like I've never won all of my matches in a whole tournament. I came close at Dir en Bey, however Kai-V ended up killing my streak by beating me, haha.

High Park Throwdown 5, no, although was that only for the block round robin?

On another note, lately, I've been seeming to do better in both Plastics and HMS formats than MFB ones, haha.
(Aug. 14, 2014  1:25 AM)Time Wrote: [ -> ]The reason I see the size multiplier existing is this: it is much harder to gain a sense of combinations your opponents prefer in large tournaments. In small tournaments there is a very good chance that any player ends up judging another player before their match and a much greater chance that someone can just watch a match rather than being off dealing with other tournament business. Now, some would argue that both players have this opportunity resulting in a much more informed match overall (suggesting there should be size subtracter), but the counter argument to this is novice players. Nine times out of ten these newbs will not be paying the same attention to other players. So, in reality, the removal of the size multiplier puts new players at a disadvantage.

The first part of this post makes sense, but I would totally disagree about new players not paying the same attention as old ones and being put at a disadvantage. I remember at the first CT tournament, peeking at other players' combos was huge. We were all pretty unexperienced about how tournaments were supposed to go, but looking back, a stalling clause probably should have been invoked in at least one of my matches during the finals, when another player refused to attach his Beyblade to the launcher until I put mine on first. Really, the only people who wouldn't pay attention to/care about the combos others are using are players who don't care how they do competitively. Anyone else would recognize a pattern and predict the opponents' movements whether they had been in a tournament before or not.

TL;DR: Anyone who plays competitively, new or not, often knows to pay attention to other players.

With all this debate going on I usually have a strong opinion, but when it comes to the size multiplier, I don't really care even if it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If anything, it's an incentive to get more participants at tournaments or, if that isn't possible, to attend more small events to get your rank up to speed with those who can attend larger ones.
TheSupremeOne Wrote:If anything, it's an incentive to... attend more small events to get your rank up to speed with those who can attend larger ones.

But what if you can't attend small tournaments frequently? Not everybody can organize and event every other week, especially if their community is too small to get more than 8-10 people.

Also, wouldn't you say it's unfair for somebody to have to work their butt off running around between events and wearing out parts like nuts just to be able to keep up with the players who attend larger events?
Yeah, but let's be honest, there aren't many regions holding large events consistently these days, so no one area really has an advantage over another.

Edit: well obviously Anime North, but that's why I said "regions holding large events consistently" lol
Anime North?

A lot of players get a massive boost in points from attending Anime North, and the players who didn't get to fall behind.

Even if there wasn't, is that an excuse not to try and fix the problem? We may not have a specific size-disproportionate region at the moment, but it could happen sooner or later.
Wow, you guys should really also focus on the benefits, instead of just being fixated on the size handicap and neglect everything else.

Let me reiterate this; the Size Multiplier was implemented to counter the Island Scenario. This is the first and foremost reason behind it.

Wombat Wrote:I also understand that the multiplier is also to stop people from spamming the "island effect", but if there really is that one person who dominates the other seven constantly than there will eventually be such a difference between their points that even if they go undefeated they'll barely be gaining any points

More often than not, there are 2 or more players in a region who can take advantage of this, and the flaw was indeed exploited, be it intentional or not. I can’t remember the exact number, but a John Doe can reach Top 3 Global Rank after 8 tournaments, if I’m not mistaken; while the other majority of members who earn their Beypoints through honest hard work, hover perhaps below that in ranking.

Therefore, the size value of these events MUST be differentiated. This is the non-negotiable part.

How much should the difference be is the million dollar question. It is extremely difficult coming up with an algorithm that can satisfy all sizes. At one end, we might end up with an inflated multiplier for large events, and on the other end, minimum difference might render the whole purpose useless.

Wombat Wrote:But either way, consider my record in Colosseum, which was 4-2. If those six same opponents were in my block during a minimum 8-player round robin, and I repeated my performance in the exact same order and everything, I would end up with less points, simply because the tournament was smaller. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, that doesn't make too much sense to me. I did everything the exact same in both instances, but ended up with a different result in the 8-player tournament because of a factor I couldn't control and didn't affect the outcome of the battles.

Yes. That is the unfortunate case that affects ALL of us, as I explained in my 2nd paragraph. Due to the inconsiderate actions of a few people, everybody has to live with the consequences. A far-fetched, yet relatable metaphor would be:

Wombat wants to go T-Rex hunting, and goes to a firearm shop, wanting to buy the biggest gun there is. The seller said that there was a guy who had one and used it to shoot down the pyramids, and reduced them to rubbles, so now by law, the big gun is banned. Wombat said, but if I had to use a pea-shooter to hunt a T-Rex, that might take a while, not to mention a lot of shots. The seller said, well it is what it is, if it helps, bring a lot of friends and their pea-shooters too, you can probably kill it in one trip.

Anyway, jokes aside, you guys need to understand the bigger picture. I also said that there are plenty of rooms of improvement. The upper scale of algorithm for the Size Multiplier probably needs an update, along with the number of matches played per event. What we all need to agree though is the existence of Size Multiplier.
(Aug. 15, 2014  7:52 AM)Uwik Wrote: [ -> ]Wow, you guys should really also focus on the benefits, instead of just being fixated on the size handicap and neglect everything else.

The only benefit, as far as I'm aware, is the prevention of the Island scenario. I don't know how much of a problem that is or has been in the past, but I'm not sure the advantages the multiplier gives to players who can attend larger events is quite justified.

Quote:Let me reiterate this; the Size Multiplier was implemented to counter the Island Scenario. This is the first and foremost reason behind it.

Wombat Wrote:I also understand that the multiplier is also to stop people from spamming the "island effect", but if there really is that one person who dominates the other seven constantly than there will eventually be such a difference between their points that even if they go undefeated they'll barely be gaining any points

More often than not, there are 2 or more players in a region who can take advantage of this, and the flaw was indeed exploited, be it intentional or not. I can’t remember the exact number, but a John Doe can reach Top 3 Global Rank after 8 tournaments, if I’m not mistaken; while the other majority of members who earn their Beypoints through honest hard work, hover perhaps below that in ranking.

Therefore, the size value of these events MUST be differentiated. This is the non-negotiable part.

How much should the difference be is the million dollar question. It is extremely difficult coming up with an algorithm that can satisfy all sizes. At one end, we might end up with an inflated multiplier for large events, and on the other end, minimum difference might render the whole purpose useless.

Wombat Wrote:But either way, consider my record in Colosseum, which was 4-2. If those six same opponents were in my block during a minimum 8-player round robin, and I repeated my performance in the exact same order and everything, I would end up with less points, simply because the tournament was smaller. Unless I'm missing something really obvious, that doesn't make too much sense to me. I did everything the exact same in both instances, but ended up with a different result in the 8-player tournament because of a factor I couldn't control and didn't affect the outcome of the battles.

Yes. That is the unfortunate case that affects ALL of us, as I explained in my 2nd paragraph. Due to the inconsiderate actions of a few people, everybody has to live with the consequences. A far-fetched, yet relatable metaphor would be:

Wombat wants to go T-Rex hunting, and goes to a firearm shop, wanting to buy the biggest gun there is. The seller said that there was a guy who had one and used it to shoot down the pyramids, and reduced them to rubbles, so now by law, the big gun is banned. Wombat said, but if I had to use a pea-shooter to hunt a T-Rex, that might take a while, not to mention a lot of shots. The seller said, well it is what it is, if it helps, bring a lot of friends and their pea-shooters too, you can probably kill it in one trip.

Anyway, jokes aside, you guys need to understand the bigger picture. I also said that there are plenty of rooms of improvement. The upper scale of algorithm for the Size Multiplier probably needs an update, along with the number of matches played per event. What we all need to agree though is the existence of Size Multiplier.

As far as the point highlited in bold, Id say that's not true. Some players aren't restricted to tiny events. Those players get an advantage. They don't have a problem.

If the Island scenario is really that big of a problem, I'd suggest something like this:

The multiplier starts at 0... or 1 (IDK how you guys run it). It rises slowly, until the number of participants reaches... IDK, let's say 16. After that, the multiplier is set at a constant number for all events 16 players and up.

That would prevent the Island scenario by deflating the number of points gained in relatively small events, while eliminating the crazy advantages players can get in 50+ participant events.

Don't know if something like that is possible with the software you're using, but I'd think it would work well. We'd have a fix for the "Island scenario," and you still wouldn't have massive point advantages going to attendees of larger events.

That would be pretty sweet, don't ya think?
Just caught this minor error, although it can be fixed:

Throughout Ontario's GBT2 Qualifier, there was a two way tie between both Krustyburger05 and 1234beyblade with scores of 4-2 to go onto the finals, however, Krustyburger05 left, so of course, we'd needed to give the chance at advancing to 1234beyblade. Just now, I noticed that since Krustyburger05 needed to pull out, we would've needed give 1234beyblade that tie win, although that was never given out to him.

More importantly, I also noticed something that may take an impact on Grand Battle Encore's Zero-G tournament:

Dkochnev383 took part in Grand Battle Encore: Zero-G roughly around three months ago, however, none of the matches he did are on his battle profile. To prove that I'm right about this, I was looking back at one of Zankye's videos from that day, and noticed that he was in one of the official battles. Here's the video, the scene was at 13:23, though. Bring in to consideration that you're hearing this from me, as well; someone who's both met and battled him in an official match.

EDIT: Hope this post doesn't get buried.. Unhappy
I just checked my results–both typed and the original sheets–and it appears that there was no tie between Krustyburger05 and 1234beyblade to advance to the finals. Krustyburger05 was 4-2, and 1234beyblade was 5-1.

Dkochnev383 is not recorded as having been registered for GRAND BATTLE ENCORE: Zero-G. Check the Swiss Rounds results for yourself: http://challonge.com/GrandBattleEncoreZeroG
Kei Wrote:I just checked my results–both typed and the original sheets–and it appears that there was no tie between Krustyburger05 and 1234beyblade to advance to the finals. Krustyburger05 was 4-2, and 1234beyblade was 5-1.

Woops, sorry about that, my mistake.

Kei Wrote:Dkochnev383 is not recorded as having been registered for GRAND BATTLE ENCORE: Zero-G. Check the Swiss Rounds results for yourself: http://challonge.com/GrandBattleEncoreZeroG

In that case, I'd assume Dkochnev383 is j7bey; either him or his father made two accounts, forgetting about the original. Merging the two accounts would probably clear things up.
(Aug. 24, 2014  12:48 AM)~Midnight~ Wrote: [ -> ]
Kei Wrote:Dkochnev383 is not recorded as having been registered for GRAND BATTLE ENCORE: Zero-G. Check the Swiss Rounds results for yourself: http://challonge.com/GrandBattleEncoreZeroG

In that case, I'd assume Dkochnev383 is j7bey; either him or his father made two accounts, forgetting about the original. Merging the two accounts would probably clear things up.

If that is the case (which I'm not sure about), I don't think there's anything we can do because merging accounts would not merge the BeyPoint System records. One would be erased.
Argh, why can't Plastic and HMS events be given process? Hell, I'd be moving up to the 50's.. (•﹏•)

Although seriously, I'm up for giving certain Plastics and HMS events a process for specific reasons, although I already specified a couple last month in this thread a couple of pages back. Just to add on to that:

I personally feel like it really depends on the region you're in to play at these events. For example, according to Thunder Dome (not too sure whether this was the Plastics or HMS tournament in NC), Dark_Mousy didn't have biggest variety of things to chose from for others who didn't own any Plastics or HMS at the time. That in mind, North Carolina was at a disadvantage, and were more of events that shouldn't be given a process. On the other hand, Toronto's at a great advantage, possibly not even comparable to some other regions Plastics and HMS tournaments; Kei has the absolute greatest variety of Beyblades from the two formats to choose from. With that being said, as I mentioned in a post last month, even some of the least competitive of Plastics and HMS players in a Toronto tournaments can still do relatively well. For instance, I placed third at HMS' NOT DEAD 3 using a mainly borrowed Wolborg and Death Gargoyle MS. Pyrus10000 placed fourth using one of Kei's borrowed Beyblades at the same event, too! At least from what I know of, back in 2012 at one of Toronto's HMS tournaments (possibly HMS' NOT DEAD 2), lord wolfblade won using a full on out, probably borrowed Wolborg MS, as well.

In conclusion, I feel like this case should be brought into consideration for regions with heavy Plastics and HMS owners that have events of those two formats and that regularly let users borrow these Beyblades on occasions like these.
You mentioned yourself right now that a bunch of people had to borrow Beyblades in order to play. Like Kei said to you yesterday, it wouldn't be fair because not everyone still had access to all of the parts as Plastics and HMS are not only rare, but expensive as well. At most HMS and Plastics tournaments people have to borrow Beyblades, as they don't have access to any competitive parts. You make a good point though, I'm sure the committee is already looking into it. Smile
You know what would be awesome, if swiss was officially added to toruanment formats.
(Aug. 25, 2014  3:16 PM)Dark_Mousy Wrote: [ -> ]You know what would be awesome, if swiss was officially added to toruanment formats.

... Swiss is indeed in the official tournament formats, as of the latest release of the Event Guide ...
Wait it is? i would love if one of the next toronto ternaments was swissGrin
On the topic of Plastics, in NC only Dark_Mousy, Ritsuka, and I really had in depth knowledge of Plastics. Dark had a whole bunch of parts that he lent to everyone, and he and I helped other people build semi-decent combos. Also everyone passed around the same Circle Survivor combo.

BLAZE: It was added to the event guide, not the organized play rules.
(Aug. 25, 2014  3:27 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]
(Aug. 25, 2014  3:16 PM)Dark_Mousy Wrote: [ -> ]You know what would be awesome, if swiss was officially added to toruanment formats.

... Swiss is indeed in the official tournament formats, as of the latest release of the Event Guide ...

I was looking at the wrong event guide.
Woot, glad to see that I'm an official organizer! I'm pretty sure both Ocean and I are presently the youngest ones, too!

On another note, I found this to be quite interesting:

A good friend of mine, ArcherGriff, attended Beyblade Revolution last year. I recognized both him with his mother in a BeyChannel video, so I thought I'd just ask him about whether or whether not that was him.

Although he lost interest, I'm going to pester him about making it to Toronto events, haha.
In case you guys haven't noticed, Blitz is #1 now. Kei moved up to #3, since Enzoxs dropped off from the top 3.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30