World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.

(May. 21, 2016  2:18 PM)LMAO Wrote: [ -> ]Just thought I would give my 2cents on this whole thing for banning Odin for Beydays. First off, thanks Brad and Hato for the tests, really gave a new perspective to my outlook on V2. However, just because there is one counter (not complete counter) to Odin Heavy Defense, doesn't mean Odin should be unbanned. V2 is an extremely unreliable part nonetheless, I've seen a few broken ones already in the short few months it's been out. It's not even getting reliable numbers against Odin, something like 80-20 would feel a lot more comfortable. Remember that Odin completely destroys everything else, so unbanning it wouldn't be very wise, especially since there would be ONE counter to it, and that counter being pretty unreliable. Plus, if Odin is unbanned, we're just going to see heavy use of Odin Heavy Revolve/Defense being used against any attack combination, and completely destroying it.

I wouldn't say there is only one counter to Odin; Valkyrie can do well against it too. In finals of Beyblade Shogatsu, I defeated your OHD with VHX, for example.

That said, while I am leaning towards changing the ruleset, I am not leaning towards unbanning Odin. Unbanning it would essentially be inviting a more powerful version of Neptune–a Stamina/Defense-hybrid–back into the game.

We also would have to consider what other combinations would be made possible again with the return of Odin, like Odin on Accel and Xtreme. Both would have a place in a Burst Format that awards 2 Points for KOs and Burst Finishes.

If we went ahead with the change of rules, the metagame as it currently stands right now would be in a good place because Deathscyther–which is prone to bursting–is still the best Stamina Layer. What this means is that players will be forced into making a tough decision: do I choose the "easy" to use Deathscyther combo and accept the risks associated with using it in a format that awards 2-Points for KOs/Burst Finishes, or do I choose something else? If Odin was around, it would be an easier decision to make because Odin has a similar amount of Stamina, is a bit less prone to bursting, and has higher defensive power. People will likely turn to Neptune for similar reasons if Odin remains banned, but I would say that generally speaking, it cannot defeat Deathscyther. So, things should be balanced.

(May. 21, 2016  4:36 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]We're not going to unban Odin for BeyDays; however, adopting the 2-points system for Beyblade North is an option. How would everyone feel about that?

+1 for this

(May. 21, 2016  5:16 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I don't think the situation would be that different sans Revolve — everyone would just be using Gyro instead.

That's debatable. Gyro and Defense would see equal use in my opinion. They're basically equal in terms of Stamina in my experience. Even if everyone would still be using Stamina, allowing players to have two viable choices instead of one for the same purpose is better than one. It's like during MFB when RF and R2F were technically similar (though there was more observable differences), but having the choice available to pick between which one you felt most comfortable with was good because players felt like the game was more diverse.

Even though technically there is little difference between a format dominated by one Driver (Revolve) or two (Defense and Gyro), I think psychologically the latter would be a more pleasant situation for players.

1234beyblade Wrote:This would also add quite a bit of luck, attack vs attack is very very unpredictable and if you're the one getting unlucky then you're just screwed

But would this really be any different than Attack vs. Attack in the current metagame where everything is worth one point?

LMAO Wrote:Even if we did use the points system as the new ruleset, something like Neptune Heavy Revolve would still very easily be able to beat Valkyrie and Xcalibur attack combos.

They certainly could still win, but would they win as many times as they do now when everything is worth 1 Point? They wouldn't. That's what we're trying to say here.

Nocto Wrote:I don't think it's necessary to prove that Attack types are harder to use or that knock outs are harder to achieve for most people. Beyblade has a long history to make its case and given that history, scoring knock outs for two points seems like a terrific idea. However, considering the results in this thread, including Brad and Hato's most recent tests, burst finishes, to me, seem too frequent or fickle to truly be worth a significant advantage in scoring, especially since it doesn't seem to be tied to any specific type.

This is something worth considering too, in my opinion. Maybe the only change is to make KOs worth 2 Points instead of KOs and Burst Finishes.

That said, I also think there is immense value in actually trying the rules as they are being proposed in a real competitive tournament. That data will be arguably more valuable than any testing or discussion we can do. If after such a test we find that the idea of only giving KOs 2 Points would be better, or if switching back to the old rules would be better, then we can certainly do it and will have concrete data behind our decision to do so.

1234beyblade Wrote:Wait wasn't the competitive scene literally VHG, DHG, WHG not so long ago... Sure defense also competed... but it's still the same thing of mostly all combos being stationary...

Pretty sure Kei stumbled them all when he was winning with OHD (or some odin combo)

Exactly. The point of the new rule change would be to encourage people to move away from stationary combos by incentivizing the use of Attack types. Nobody is saying stationary combos won't still be used, but that there will be a greater incentive to use Attack types. In my opinion, this is the only way the metagame will ever see a rise in the use of Attack types. There always has and will be a risk in using them, so if we are to encourage competitive players to consider them more seriously or frequently, using them has to afford them something valuable: 2 Points instead of 1.

Haha, that was only in one battle at the WBOxWARIBEY event when I beat someone's DHD with OHG. In general, I would say I lost to their DHDs with Odin.

(May. 21, 2016  7:09 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]

1234beyblade Wrote:This would also add quite a bit of luck, attack vs attack is very very unpredictable and if you're the one getting unlucky then you're just screwed

But would this really be any different than Attack vs. Attack in the current metagame where everything is worth one point?

I'm just saying that if you get bursted or KOed once in an attack vs attack battle you have one less chance to come back, that's all.

(May. 21, 2016  7:09 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]

1234beyblade Wrote:Wait wasn't the competitive scene literally VHG, DHG, WHG not so long ago... Sure defense also competed... but it's still the same thing of mostly all combos being stationary...

Pretty sure Kei stumbled them all when he was winning with OHD (or some odin combo)

Exactly. The point of the new rule change would be to encourage people to move away from stationary combos by incentivizing the use of Attack types. Nobody is saying stationary combos won't still be used, but that there will be a greater incentive to use Attack types. In my opinion, this is the only way the metagame will ever see a rise in the use of Attack types. There always has and will be a risk in using them, so if we are to encourage competitive players to consider them more seriously or frequently, using them has to afford them something valuable: 2 Points instead of 1.

Haha, that was only in one battle at the WBOxWARIBEY event when I beat someone's DHD with OHG. In general, I would say I lost to their DHDs with Odin.

Here I was just talking about the banning of Revolve, not the 2 point thing, should have made it clear. And yeah I wouldn't be surprised if Balance Enhanced desthacythers could beat Odin, I just thought you destroyed them with it lol.

Guys, this is just a preliminary discussion; we brought it to a public forum because we want and need to know what you're thinking. There's no need for the tone to get soooo tense.

(May. 21, 2016  7:00 PM)Cronus Wrote: [ -> ]Also, something else I noticed: Odin got banned because it was dominating the meta, and now Revolve is being discussed because it is dominating. On the other hand, Heavy is used in almost every combo, no matter if it's attack, defense or stamina.

The dominance of Heavy is boring but it's not a real competitive issue.

Agree with both Nocto and Kei that Bursts are kinda finicky and there's some concern to making them worth 2 points because of that, but KOs are pretty hard to pull off even for Attack-types and a lot of successful Attack-type wins come from Burst Finishes. I dunno what the perfect solution to that issue is, and I kinda doubt there is one.

Anyway, despite the "Attack vs Attack luck" I'm on board with 2 points KO and 2 points Burst.

I'm all for an increased value towards KOs and/or Bursts; giving a buff towards Attack would definitely help promote its use and hopefully add much more diversity to the meta, without the risks inherent in re-introducing Odin (which wouldn't help Attack at all anyways). Attack is much riskier in Burst than it was in MFB or any prior generation due to the high risk of self-bursts while attempting to KO or Burst your opponent, so until we get a strong, more reliable Attacker without Valkyrie's wear issues or V2's breaks, Attack (which is risky and requires a significant amount of skill even in other formats) is on shaky footing. In the interest of at least attempting to improve the game balance, a boost to Attack will go a long way.

Since this is apparently now also a "ban revolve" discussion, I just want to point out that In Brad's tests 2 pages ago, Odin Heavy Revolve bursted almost twice as much as Odin Heavy Defense did.
Edit: I just realized it wasn't actually twice as much, OHR just had 10 more rounds. It was still considerably more though

In my own unofficial tests i've also noticed that revolve combos seem to burst quite a bit more than the same layers do on the older stamina drivers.

Quote:Wait wasn't the competitive scene literally VHG, DHG, WHG not so long ago... Sure defense also competed... but it's still the same thing of mostly all combos being stationary...

I wouldn't say this? At Sayonara-Bye Odin, Defense was used quite a bit. We also saw things like Needle, Assault, Zephyr and Xtreme, which we wouldn't see much of in the current state of the game we're in right now. This is definitely the ideal metagame; just about an equal amount of everything. Right now, I'm all for banning Revolve. I would say Neptune paired with Revolve is pretty similar to Odin at the moment; if you have a hard launch, something such as Neptune Heavy Revolve could outspin just about any combo in the game. Neptune is no where near as dominant paired with something like Claw or Survive.

---

I had finally got to testing out Victory Valkyrie against Odin Heavy Defense. For one half I had launched Odin Heavy Defense at full power and the other I launched it much lighter.

Equipment and Notes:
- Prime Odin
- Prime Victory Valkyrie
- Semi-worn Xtreme
- Launches alternated on the 15th round
- B-09 Beystadium Standard Type
- Victory Valkyrie banked all matches
- Light Launcher + Long Winder

Odin Heavy Defense (Regular Launch) vs. Victory Valkyrie Gravity Xtreme
OHD: 6 wins (4 SF, 1 OF, 1 BF), 40% win rate.
VVGX: 9 wins (4 OF, 5 BF) 60% win rate.
Ties: 1 (DBF)

Odin Heavy Defense (Weak Launch) vs. Victory Valkyrie Gravity Xtreme
OHD: 10 wins (9 SF, 1 BF), 67% win rate.
VVGX: 5 wins (1 OF, 4 BF) 33% win rate.

Weak launching definitely took affect, but not as much as I expected. Victory Valkyrie is definitely one of the better counters to Odin I know, but it's still not something that I'm confident in.

Everyone keeps saying about Neptune _ Revolve being great but I haven't seen anyone explain why or what it's good at. Surely if Deathscyther has better stamina than Neptune then Deathscyther is about the same or better?

(May. 22, 2016  1:11 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone keeps saying about Neptune _ Revolve being great but I haven't seen anyone explain why or what it's good at. Surely if Deathscyther has better stamina than Neptune then Deathscyther is about the same or better?

Neptune and Deathscyther paired with Revolve have about the same amount of stamina. Neptune is a safer option because of its better defense.

(May. 22, 2016  1:19 PM)Mitsu Wrote: [ -> ]

(May. 22, 2016  1:11 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]Everyone keeps saying about Neptune _ Revolve being great but I haven't seen anyone explain why or what it's good at. Surely if Deathscyther has better stamina than Neptune then Deathscyther is about the same or better?

Neptune and Deathscyther paired with Revolve have about the same amount of stamina. Neptune is a safer option because of its better defense.

Neptune is only a choice one should go for if you're certain your launch is better than your opponent. You cannot win with Neptune if someone launches Deathscyther better or about equal to your launch.

You should also choose Neptune if you want it to look better.

EDIT: I may or may not have just started a war.

(May. 23, 2016  12:29 PM)Flame~Capricorn Wrote: [ -> ]You should also choose Neptune if you want it to look better.

EDIT: I may or may not have just started a war.

Neptune definitely looks sick, that's for sure. Though I think I prefer the pre-Dual designs overall, except for Deathscyther. D2 may not be as good, but it sure looks cooler.

I'm all for Burst/KO being worth two points. It's the only way I can think of at this point to increase the usage of attack types. Without an incentive like that most people feel like the risk isn't worth the reward. I feel like attack types make the game more fun, and also, with more Burst finishes, events will go by more quickly.

(May. 26, 2016  6:49 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: [ -> ]I'm all for Burst/KO being worth two points. It's the only way I can think of at this point to increase the usage of attack types. Without an incentive like that most people feel like the risk isn't worth the reward. I feel like attack types make the game more fun, and also, with more Burst finishes, events will go by more quickly.

Actually this is a great point that the tournament or matches will come by faster. I think it would be fair to increase to win the match with 5 points for those who wants chances if they got bursted at the first round. Cause it wouldn't be fair to have 1 last chance to make a comeback and lose again.

(May. 26, 2016  11:13 AM)Yami Wrote: [ -> ]Actually this is a great point that the tournament or matches will come by faster. I think it would be fair to increase to win the match with 5 points for those who wants chances if they got bursted at the first round. Cause it wouldn't be fair to have 1 last chance to make a comeback and lose again.

That would completely defeat the point of the tournament going by faster and it would probably end up lasting longer in the end.

I really don't see why people are for Bursts to be 2 points. KOs are something that almost always happens with attack types, that makes sense. Bursts though, can be performed by any type of bey. They're way too unpredictable already, why would you make them 2 points.

(May. 26, 2016  12:16 PM)Cronus Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't see why people are for Bursts to be 2 points. KOs are something that almost always happens with attack types, that makes sense. Bursts though, can be performed by any type of bey. They're way too unpredictable already, why would you make them 2 points.

Because hits that would result in a KO in previous generations often result in a Burst now (including hitting the back of the KO exit).

(May. 26, 2016  2:55 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]

(May. 26, 2016  12:16 PM)Cronus Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't see why people are for Bursts to be 2 points. KOs are something that almost always happens with attack types, that makes sense. Bursts though, can be performed by any type of bey. They're way too unpredictable already, why would you make them 2 points.

Because hits that would result in a KO in previous generations often result in a Burst now (including hitting the back of the KO exit).

Yes, but... bursts are way more random than KOs in, say, MFB. Also 2 points for a burst wouldn't really encourage attack types, since defense types can burst the attackers too.
Also, KOs aren't even worth 2 points in any previous generations, so I fail to see how that's a point.

(May. 26, 2016  3:41 PM)Cronus Wrote: [ -> ]

(May. 26, 2016  2:55 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]

(May. 26, 2016  12:16 PM)Cronus Wrote: [ -> ]I really don't see why people are for Bursts to be 2 points. KOs are something that almost always happens with attack types, that makes sense. Bursts though, can be performed by any type of bey. They're way too unpredictable already, why would you make them 2 points.

Because hits that would result in a KO in previous generations often result in a Burst now (including hitting the back of the KO exit).

Yes, but... bursts are way more random than KOs in, say, MFB. Also 2 points for a burst wouldn't really encourage attack types, since defense types can burst the attackers too.

I don't disagree. Any decision we make is going to require compromises. Whether or not Bursts are worth 1 point or 2, each comes with its own advantages and disadvantages.

I think the way we play actually is much better then any suggestion. IMO.

(May. 26, 2016  3:41 PM)Cronus Wrote: [ -> ]Also, KOs aren't even worth 2 points in any previous generations, so I fail to see how that's a point.

I'm pretty sure KOs were worth two points under TAKARA-TOMY rules during MFB? Not sure about Plastics/HMS.

In any case, I think Attack types would inherently become more competitive by instituting these new rules because their methods of victory will become more valuable than they are currently. There's no way usage could go down. The issue of Attack types self-bursting is certainly something we had already considered when thinking about this–and it will likely still be a deterrent to some people–but I'd like to think that more often than not, an Attack type would be able to score a Burst Finish or KO more often than it would burst itself (and no contact KOs are 1 Point, so if you self-KO quickly without any contact, you wouldn't lose two points). Honestly, I think more likely than self-bursting is double bursting, which has no negative effect.

During the WBOxWARIBEY event in Japan–which I consider more competitive than any TAKARA-TOMY events in Japan have been to date–there was a ton of Attack usage (both Xtreme-based and stationary) because Burst Finishes were worth two points. They didn't always win, but skilled players clearly felt like the risk was mitigated enough to take the "chance" and use them. Many were successful. And that was even without the added benefit of KOs being worth two points like we are proposing.

The end goal here is to diversify and balance the metagame; making Attack types more viable competitively, will help to do that.

Yeah, as it stands now, with one point bursts and KOs, there is absolutely no point in using an attack type (well, maybe a little, if you are really really good with them). Leading to super boring launching contests. Something definitely needs to be done

Finally time to give my input;

I would be all for 2 points for KO. Would definitely give more reason to use Attack, since that's really the only thing you can KO others with. I've been deciding if Burst Finishes should be 2 points, and I am on the fence with it. I am leaning towards 2 points for Burst Finish, as that is 1 of the 2 ways to win with Attack, which would aid in making Attack more effective.

Some trial tournaments for this rule would be a good way to see how the new rules (if put in place) work out.

Let's do it at Beyblade North!

(May. 27, 2016  1:17 AM)Cye Kinomiya Wrote: [ -> ]Let's do it at Beyblade North!

Definitely not a good idea now seeing as the burst tournament is literally 2 days from now.