(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]I think I prefer Ingulit's format plan, where the combos are revealed before the first round; I see no reason to go in completely blind at the start of the game, as that will simply encourage the use of the same "safe" combos the format is intended to help reduce.
A "safe" combo in the first round is just as viable as a more "risky" Attack combo because of the ability you would have to take a two point lead with an Attack type. I'm of the opinion that you would see a decent representation of both sides depending on the context and the players battling.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]Forcing the winner to continue using the same combo is also probably not a good plan, especially if 2-point KOs and/or Bursts are a thing, since an opponent that wins one round using anything but Defense is almost guaranteed to be put a point behind after being locked into that same combo, at which point their opponent is free to go for a Burst or KO using Attack or Anti-Attack the next round.
This format is indeed slightly hostile to Stamina types because of the two-point KOs and Burst Finishes it affords, and the fact that they can be easily countered after one round as you said. They still would have a place, but you have to be more strategic in your usage of them knowing that your opponent can follow it up with something that will likely Burst or KO you. I think this is a great thing. Let me give you an example of one good way to use a Stamina type in this format, though:
User A vs. User B
Round 1: DHR vs WSZ - DHR Wins (1-0)
Round 2: DHR vs. VHR - VHR Wins (1-2)
Round 3: VGX vs VHR - VGX Wins (3-2)
Not going to finish this example since it could go anywhere from here. The point is that a strategic use of DHR in the first round set up User A to take a lead despite knowing they would lose the second round. Being locked into Attack for the next round is not necessarily a bad thing because even if they lose to a Defense type and the battle becomes tied 3-3 in the next round, they would still have several chances to get it right since all they would need is one round win by Burst or KO to finish the battle. But that's just one way this battle could play out. Another example:
User A vs. User B
Round 1: NHR vs VGR - NHR Wins (1-0)
Round 2: NHR vs. DHD - DHD Wins (1-1)
Round 3: VLX vs DHD - VGX Wins (3-1)
Round 4: VLX vs NSG - NSG Wins (3-2)
In this case, User A has a choice to make after Round 4. Do they stick with VLX to go for the win and risk losing and tying the battle at three points each, or do they switch to a Stamina combo that will beat NSG to bring them to four points, knowing that there is a good chance the battle could be tied at 4-4 in the next round when their opponent counters them with VGR? Despite being down one point, User B is actually in a decent position here because User A is being forced into taking the "risk" of using VLX again, or the "risk" of switching to Stamina. Both choices give User B a reasonable chance to ultimately earn points and catch up or pass User A.
There an infinite number of ways these battles can play out–players can make mistakes, Beyblades can overcome type disadvantages in the hands of skilled players, and so on–so this might not be the best example, but the point here is that being down by one point does put you at a disadvantage, but it is not a deficit that is insurmountable. The drawbacks of giving up two points versus the benefits of being able to find yourself on the winning end of a Burst Finish or KO balance themselves out in the end.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]Locking the winner's combo is most likely just going to cause a back-and-forth battle between counters, to be decided either by a lucky pick in the first round or a mistake on the part of one Blader, neither of which are satisfying and competitive outcomes.
What is less satisfying: picking a combo in the current format, turning around, and knowing there is a high probability you will lose 3-0 ... or in this new format, ultimately losing a battle you could have won because
you made a mistake in your launch or selection of counter? I'd say the current format is less satisfying by a long shot. The new format gives you a chance to respond. I would feel less satisfied knowing that I lost a battle mostly because I made the wrong choice in a double-blind selection than I would knowing that I lost because I made a mistake with a combo that
should have beat my opponent during an actual round.
The current format is very unforgiving in comparison and too highly encourages the use of safe, versatile combos over more risky, specialized combos because competitive players know that consistent use of risky, specialized combos that only earn you one point per round win are not how you ultimately win tournaments.
Both types of combos have a place in this new format, and there would indeed be some back-and-forth countering, but that sounds like a lot of fun in my books! And even so, with the addition of the two-point Burst Finish/KO there will always be a way to take a greater lead or to make a quick comeback which will subsequently affect the rest of the battle as the opposing player adjusts their strategy.
(Jun. 02, 2016 4:17 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]Finally, returning to the concept of a reveal before the first round, I think that such a reveal, possibly with time to inspect and analyze each other's deck, would be very useful as an educational tool - newer Bladers could see examples of a competitive lineup (and a look into advanced strategy) and experienced Bladers could experiment with and learn about different synergies between combos and picking strategy.
I don't know if this is something that should really be considered when deciding if a format is
competitively viable. Players would ideally learn by doing (both practice and tournament battles) more than anything. After a couple battles, you'll definitely start to learn more about how this format works, and what strategy works best for you.
Plus, this format might already add a little bit of time onto the duration of events since players have to choose and construct three Beyblades instead of one (at least for Burst it is very easy/fast to assemble Beyblades), so allowing some unspecified amount of time for opponents to "inspect" their opponent's deck might not be a good idea.
So, I'm still in favour of the hidden deck. Revealing the entire deck would be like mandating that in a Trading Card Game, players would be allowed to review their opponents entire deck before their match began. Sure, you'd definitely get a better idea of what your opponent's battle strategy is, but how long would that take to formulate something coherent out of that? To me, it makes more sense to formulate a basic understanding of what successful Deck Rotation lineups look like, study your opponent's tendencies over time so you can roughly anticipate what they will do
before during the selection process and
during a battle, and then have your opponent's deck revealed to you round-by-round, reacting to that as it becomes necessary.
During our practice this past weekend I never really caught myself wondering "Geez, I wonder what my opponent's last Beyblade is ..."; my assumptions about players trying to balance their decks to respond to any situation were always mostly correct (what would be the point of having three Stamina Beyblades in your deck, for example?). The questions were sometimes just things like: "Is it Stationary Attack or not?", which are things you can guess with some degree of accuracy once you've studied a certain player's tendencies. That has still remained important in being able to choose the proper Beyblade for the opening round, but I also think it is still important to remain as part of the game for the subsequent rounds to one degree or another as well with the decks remaining hidden until the losing player chooses to reveal more.
Important to note that when you look at things statistically, after the first round if the losing player switches their Beyblade, at that point 50% of both decks combined will have been revealed (3/6 Beyblades). And the chances of someone sticking with a single Beyblade after losing more than once with it are quite low unless it is an Attack type, I would think. Players usually reveal the first two Beyblades of their deck relatively quickly. It would be rare to see someone win a BeyBattle in this format with a single Beyblade, so I just question whether it is really worth it to reveal the decks which would, a) Add even more time onto the total time it takes to complete a BeyBattle by having a designated "deck inspection" time and b) Diminish some of the importance of studying your opponent's tendencies to get a read for what their deck might contain. We're already diminishing it significantly (but in a good, fair way) by allowing you to have a deck in the first place that can respond to a bad match up. I don't know if I want to take that next step.