World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.

Full Version: WBO Organized Play Official Rules & Discussion
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
(Feb. 19, 2017  3:49 AM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]So eight players into the finals?

Yes, so the ruling we currently follow for swiss.
I meant that it makes sense when you know that you are going to decrease the number of players involved and, therefore, the number of battles played, with Single Elimination, but Blocks still involve quite a lot of matches, in comparison. Perhaps we could do one first round of Single Elimination and then those left do a full Round Robin, instead? It is still unfair to those who may have unluckily lost in that first round of the finals, but that could have happened anyway in the normal full-length Single Elimination...
(Feb. 19, 2017  3:09 AM)Manicben Wrote: [ -> ]Time to bring this back eh?

We had Club Format today, which was fun and all, but the Rules are very lacking/ambiguous.

Firstly, in Deck Rotation Format, do we assume that a draw/double Burst results in a replay? We assumed so.

Secondly, Club Format has no rules really. We did the unranked Deck Rotation Round Robin, but do we hold a finals for that, and if so, how many people participate in the finals? Last time we had 4 people and 2 faced each other in the finals and this time we had 7 and 3 went to finals.
Do we even bother with finals or award 1st place to member with highest score at the end of the Round Robin?

Lastly, and I think this might have been discussed (somewhere or in the committee forum), what is the point of Winning Streak?
We admit, we love it. 4 player winning streak is intense and a lot of fun, but we don't know how that would be like with 7 people.
Plus, since it only lasts 20 mins, it can only be used as a side event and not a main. People pay to come to tournaments and being there for a 20 min session is pointless. Either this has be changed to something more lengthy (multiple streaks) or removed from what qualifies for Club Format and used as a side event to main/club tournaments.

Kai-V and Mana addressed most of your concerns already, but I just wanted to say that we can add in a clarification to the rulebook about doing a replay for draw/double Burst rounds for Deck Format ... We felt it was quite obvious that this would be the case, and wanted to avoid making the rules longer than they already are, but it some ways it doesn't hurt to be more specific.

We can specify that there is no final round in Unranked Round Robin Deck Format for Club Format either. Winners are determined based on their final scores.

By "people pay to come to tournaments" do you mean in terms of travel? Because Club Formats themselves have no WBO entry fee. The intention behind Club Format is to provide an option for some level of structured competitive play for communities that cannot gather eight or more players, or provide insurance to communities who might fall short of eight on any given day. But while Club Format does give some structure to the play, the point is mainly to give players a reason to get together and play for fun while still giving them something to play for to start the day (Credit, Bits) so that there is some tangible connection back to the WBO; the actual "event" at a Club Format gathering is indeed meant to be more of a side event, hence the shorter length. I think the mistake here is thinking that getting together to play Beyblade with your friends is "pointless".

That being said, we are going to consider giving the option for extending the length of the Winning Streak format for Club Format events.

Thanks for your feedback!

(Feb. 19, 2017  3:23 AM)Mitsu Wrote: [ -> ]Throwing this here to avoid potential bury. How do you guys feel about this?

Quote:The swiss section of the event went pretty smoothly and I have no complaints in regards to it. I do believe, however, that single elimination finals needs to be looked over, at least to some degree. I like the idea of having two blocks of four players and have the players with the highest records move forward, done optionally as opposed to single elimination finals by tournament hosts (with duration already spent hosting and overall competitiveness considered). Though more time consuming, this method accommodates to the veteran players who a) are curious in taking looks at the variety of combos players may use and mindsets players may have, or b) happen to slip up a match, which, yes, does happen quite frequently in Burst, even by the most seasoned veterans.

(Original Post: https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-WELCOME...pid1364263)

The Single Elimination Deck Format finals are great for several reasons:

1. It allows for the tournament to be concluded in a timely manner. I've always felt it was weird how before how long the final stages of our tournaments took; it was weird they essentially became separate tournaments and by the time we were finished almost everyone who was playing in the first stage has left.

2. It places more pressure upon the top players to perform, and in a format that demands a greater level of skill and knowledge like Deck. If we went back to Round Robin-based finals, we would not be able to do Deck Format because of the length of time it would take to do.

If we went back to RR finals and did regular matches, top players wouldn't be challenged in the same way that they are currently. Deck Format offers a way of playing that rewards knowledge and skill more than the regular format which is slightly more luck-based because it relies more on making a good choice of a single Beyblade. In Deck Format even if you guess wrong on what Attack type you think your opponent will use in their deck, you still have a chance to win even if your Defense type was based on the assumption of another Attack type being in their deck as long as you are skilled enough with your own Attack type and Stamina type. In Deck Format, there's less pressure on picking a single super versatile Beyblade or picking a single Beyblade that counters the single Beyblade out of thousands of potential combinations that your opponent may pick in the regular matches.

I'd argue that ultimately "slipping up" in a Deck Format match is more likely going to be because of your inability to shoot properly or anticipate your opponent's choices in the match than bad luck. I lost against JesseObre in the first  round of the finals at WELCOME TO A&C GAMES III 5-3, but it was because of my inability to consistently defeat his Stamina or Defense with my Attack type ultimately; it's hard to feel cheated by that because it is as a result of my own legitimate failure.

In regular matches, it's more likely that you could "slip up" and make the wrong choice and lose because of that than because of your inability to actually defeat your opponent if you were playing Deck and had more options (great example is our battle at WELCOME TO A&C GAMES III where I picked MKZ and you picked WSR; I was basically screwed from the beginning because of the great match-up you had given that Minoboros does very poorly against Wyvern).

However, if we look at the numbers:
  • Single Elimination (4 Finalists): 4 Battles (including 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th battles)
  • Single Elimination (8 Finalists): 8 Battles (including 1st/2nd and 3rd/4th battles)
  • Round Robin (4 Finalists): 6 Battles + 1st/2nd Battle & 3rd/4th Battle = Total 8 Battles
  • Round Robin (8 Finalists, 2 Blocks of 4): 12 Battles and then how do the actual finals work?
So with four finalists, doing RR effectively doubles the amount of time it will take to complete. And with eight finalists doing two blocks of four like you're suggesting is also difficult for several reasons. Do we take the top player from each block to a final Deck Format battle (that makes it 13 battles total)? How is third place determined, then? It is very likely that there will be a tie for second place in a four player block because either one player will be 3-0 and two others will be tied 2-1, or three players will be 2-1 ... which creates tiebreak battles.

In the end, I still believe our decision to use Single Elimination Deck Format for the finals is the cleanest way to ensure we avoid unnecessarily extending the length of tournaments while also providing an appropriately pressure-filled and skill-intensive environment for the top players to battle each other for the title of tournament champion. I understand the desire for round robin because it does give you a greater opportunity to observe your opponents and have second chances, but winning tournaments should not be easy at the end of the day.
So I had a question and a suggestion. Is it legal to use Trans starting in its more defensive "in between" mode in a tournament? And for the winning streak tournaments, why don't we just have multiple time options? When I tried winning streak at my school, it took too long when you include the time it takes to set people up, teach them about the format, and go through the event( with the occasional slip of the finger, restarting the timer). But as stated above, there are those who expected a full event, but lack the attendees. So I propose 15 minute, 30 minute, and 1 hour intervals.
I can only answer your first question right now:

(Feb. 21, 2017  8:17 AM)Achi-baba Wrote: [ -> ]So I had a question and a suggestion. Is it legal to use Trans starting in its more defensive "in between" mode in a tournament?

No, that's no more a "mode" than it is to leave CH120 or TH170 at some random level without locking its position after. A part with manual mode change would be illegally configured if it wasn't physically locked into one of its official modes before launch.
I agree with Mitsu to an extent actually - I do think that the structure of the finals needs to be reworked in some way, though I'm not exactly sure how. I've come up with three potential solutions to some of the issues people have been experiencing with the finals:

1. Make the finals Double Elimination: The main problem this solves is that it allows the finalists some margin for error, since they are not totally screwed if they lose once. However, you also brought up the issue of time, and 8 player double elimination is 14-15 Deck Rotation matches, so that might be unfeasible.

2. Don't take so much people into the finals: Taking eight finalists out of seventeen players seems like a bit much, and while I understand that the number is intended to accommodate larger tournaments, I remember either you or Brad making the executive decision to cut the ~36 player Beyblade North finalists to four players rather than hold an additional tiebreaker round between the eight 4-2 players to increase the finalist count to eight.

In past discussions, there has been an agreement that the finals should only include the absolute best-performing players of the preliminary stage, but essentially half of the participants make it to the finals. Statistically, there is about a 50% chance of someone being one of the "top-performing players" with only a melancholy performance in the Swiss stage. As has been experienced in Welcome to A&C Games III (and I think II? idk the toronto events kinda all blend together to me sometimes) and Beyblade Shogatsu 2017, deciding the last few qualifying finalists has resulted in a whole mess of tiebreakers that are usually decided by factors outside of either player's control.

The solution would be to only take the top four players, which would make the level of performance required to make it to the finals higher, and reduce the amount of tiebreakers, but also make one aspects of the Swiss stage completely unforgiving: It would become (almost?) impossible for a player who loses in the first round of Swiss to win the tournament. Because Buchholz is determined by local performance rather than seed, even if a player loses the first round and then goes undefeated against top-seeded players who also happened to lose in the first round, their Buchholz will never be high enough to win a tiebreaker against other X-1 players who won in the first round.

The problem is that unless we want to get all fancy and add byes for the players entering the finals in the top positions (I know there have been a few comments about feeling "punished" for performing well in the preliminary stage, so this could be explored an option), we have to stick to binary numbers (4, which is too unforgiving, and 8, which is too lenient) for the finalists. Maybe combining the smaller finals with double elimination and implementing some size-scaling rule (only 4 finalists until the tournament hits X amount of players (maybe 32?)) could work.

3. Allow the classic ruleset to be an option for running tournaments: While they haven't been very vocal about it here, many of the players at the last event I hosted disliked the new structure of the finals and much preferred the old, single match round robin structure. The counterargument to this is that single matches are not a good way to determine the best player and that Deck Rotation is the best way because it requires knowledge and skill to do well at, which brings me into my next point:

I apologize if this sounds too brash, but I honestly think this isn't something people seem to grasp and needs to be laid out clearly: Reading your opponent, considering the multiple possibilities of what they might do and how to respond to each, weighing your options, and choosing the right combo for the situation is a skill that requires knowledge, and is no more luck based than launching or combo building. To say otherwise would be like someone who is unfamiliar with Beyblade saying that the game requires no skill (which we all know is totally not the case). It's easy to look at a match out of context and think "it doesn't matter what I use, my opponent could throw anything at me", when that's usually really not the case. Beyblade is just as much a game of building combos and launching them a certain way as it is strategically planning to defeat your opponents.

Take the Kei vs Mitsu match that was MKZ vs WSR as an example:
  • Kei knew that Mitsu isn't particularly confident with Attack, and is not likely to use it in such a high-stakes match
  • Kei knew that Mitsu's Defense/Stamina combo of choice is D2SD
  • Using the framework through which Kei views Burst, Mitsu thinks Kei will expect the D2SD and use Minoboros
  • Mitsu knew that when Kei plays Attack, he tends to use Accel or Zephyr (specifically MKZ)
  • Mitsu decided to use Wyvern Revolve, knowing that with the appropriate launch it will be difficult to KO on either of those Drivers and that Kei would be discouraged upon seeing the Layer matchup
  • Mitsu also considered that Kei might make an independent decision and use L2SW
  • Mitsu chose to use Spread, knowing that Spread Revolve will outspin Spread Weight in opposite spin

As you can see, Mitsu's choice of specifically WSR was a calculated decision, not arbitrary. While the skill and knowledge required for making these meaningful choices isn't as immediately apparent as an accurate Sliding Shoot or a perfect balance Odin Heavy Defense, it's still very much present: to beat your opponent, you need to think like them. It's hard to feel cheated by a loss when your opponent outplays you fair and square. With that being said, just like launching and combo building, there is a luck factor involved and predicting your opponent accurately doesn't guarantee you victory - with a well-placed Sliding Shoot, MKZ could have KOed WSR or bursted it late-game if it was able to beat it up enough early on in the battle, and had Kei anticipated the Wyvern and decided to use Xtreme instead of Zephyr, he would have been able to KO WSR much more consistently. Mitsu also made a similarly calculated decision to use VHR against cadney's DHR in the final round of Swiss, yet was still unable to win. Both Mitsu and Kei's losses can be attributed more to a lack of skill relative to their opponent (I say that very loosely, as they're both highly skilled players) than luck - Kei did not take into account the possibility that Mitsu might use Wyvern and was ultimately unable to KO it on Zephyr, while Mitsu was unable to burst DHR consistently.

I was going to make some point about how Deck Rotation format marginalizes prediction and strategizing as a knowledge-based skill and that's why it needs more uncertainty in the switching procedure, but I've been awake for almost 24 hours now as I'm typing this and I think my brain is too tired to put it in the form of a compelling argument right now. I'll either edit this post later once I've gotten some sleep (and spare time) or make a new one in the Experimental Rules thread and link this one.
(Feb. 24, 2017  10:52 AM)Wombat Wrote: [ -> ]I apologize if this sounds too brash, but I honestly think this isn't something people seem to grasp and needs to be laid out clearly: Reading your opponent, considering the multiple possibilities of what they might do and how to respond to each, weighing your options, and choosing the right combo for the situation is a skill that requires knowledge, and is no more luck based than launching or combo building. To say otherwise would be like someone who is unfamiliar with Beyblade saying that the game requires no skill (which we all know is totally not the case). It's easy to look at a match out of context and think "it doesn't matter what I use, my opponent could throw anything at me", when that's usually really not the case. Beyblade is just as much a game of building combos and launching them a certain way as it is strategically planning to defeat your opponents.

Take the Kei vs Mitsu match that was MKZ vs WSR as an example:
  • Kei knew that Mitsu isn't particularly confident with Attack, and is not likely to use it in such a high-stakes match
  • Kei knew that Mitsu's Defense/Stamina combo of choice is D2SD
  • Using the framework through which Kei views Burst, Mitsu thinks Kei will expect the D2SD and use Minoboros
  • Mitsu knew that when Kei plays Attack, he tends to use Accel or Zephyr (specifically MKZ)
  • Mitsu decided to use Wyvern Revolve, knowing that with the appropriate launch it will be difficult to KO on either of those Drivers and that Kei would be discouraged upon seeing the Layer matchup
  • Mitsu also considered that Kei might make an independent decision and use L2SW
  • Mitsu chose to use Spread, knowing that Spread Revolve will outspin Spread Weight in opposite spin

As you can see, Mitsu's choice of specifically WSR was a calculated decision, not arbitrary. While the skill and knowledge required for making these meaningful choices isn't as immediately apparent as an accurate Sliding Shoot or a perfect balance Odin Heavy Defense, it's still very much present: to beat your opponent, you need to think like them. It's hard to feel cheated by a loss when your opponent outplays you fair and square. With that being said, just like launching and combo building, there is a luck factor involved and predicting your opponent accurately doesn't guarantee you victory - with a well-placed Sliding Shoot, MKZ could have KOed WSR or bursted it late-game if it was able to beat it up enough early on in the battle, and had Kei anticipated the Wyvern and decided to use Xtreme instead of Zephyr, he would have been able to KO WSR much more consistently. Mitsu also made a similarly calculated decision to use VHR against cadney's DHR in the final round of Swiss, yet was still unable to win. Both Mitsu and Kei's losses can be attributed more to a lack of skill relative to their opponent (I say that very loosely, as they're both highly skilled players) than luck - Kei did not take into account the possibility that Mitsu might use Wyvern and was ultimately unable to KO it on Zephyr, while Mitsu was unable to burst DHR consistently.

I was going to make some point about how Deck Rotation format marginalizes prediction and strategizing as a knowledge-based skill and that's why it needs more uncertainty in the switching procedure, but I've been awake for almost 24 hours now as I'm typing this and I think my brain is too tired to put it in the form of a compelling argument right now. I'll either edit this post later once I've gotten some sleep (and spare time) or make a new one in the Experimental Rules thread and link this one.


Pretty sure we all agree that "scoping" is a valuable and commendable skill. It certainly is not easy. It takes talent to get it right. I think we can all agree that those players who possess such skills tend to perform very well at tournaments, whichever format they play. Similarly, the anecdotal discussions leading up to Deck Format all seemed to suggest that players who lacked "scoping" skills performed correspondingly worse at tournaments.

So people without skills perform worse... That's fair, right?... Right?.... Except, in this case, it actually isn't fair. The reason for this is a little more complex, but I expect it won't hurt to revisit the issue:

People with "scoping" skills may be born with those skills or they may learn them over time. What they pretty much never realise about their skills is that not everyone can actually learn those skills. Blame the human brain if you must. The fact is, some people can learn how to measure-up those around them, while others simply cannot. Their brains just don't work that way. Maybe they were born unable to interact with people on that level or maybe they learned not to (usually from helicopter parents and bad influences). Either way, whether you are good at "scoping" or not is, on a biological level, not really a matter of choice. It's something introverts have to live with for their entire lives and it totally sucks balls. Not only that, but the majority of people are indeed introverts and most aspects of first-world civilisation are correspondingly geared to accept it.

A game that relies heavily on "scoping" to decide a winner (which I think we all originally agreed was the case previous to Deck) naturally disadvantages a huge number of players who are naturally no good at "scoping" and cannot do anything about it. Sure, "scoping" is a skill you might be able to learn - but for a large number of people, that learning is impossible. Introverts and extroverts. The difference is clear.

Whether you agree with that or not, the WBO does have a choice here. We can play the game such that only the "scopers" will have a likely chance of winning. Or we can play the game such as to include everyone, with equal opportunity to develop the skills available to all, and cater even for those who are naturally no good at "scoping". It's all very well for extroverted "scopers" to look at introverts and assume everyone is biologically equal. But making such an assumption will have just one effect: all the introverts will role their eyes and sigh.

The problem equally applies in cross-region tournaments where players are unlikely to have met before; which is an element of the game we're likely to see return with Hasbro Burst and which is kind of ignored by your example of two seasoned local bladers.

So the real issue with "scoping" was whether it should take centre-stage over the other recognised blading skills when determining a winner in a tournament. Anyone can practice launching, research competetive combos and perform their own tests. No matter what kind of person you are, these practical skills are readily available (even without tournament access) and can be learned regardless of your brain. Obviously this excludes, say, certain people with mental disabilities - but remember, there are more introverts than extroverts in the world and (I thought) the idea of Deck is to cater for as many people as possible.

So yeah... Deck does kinda nerf the leg-up you might expect from "scoping" tactics. But remeber, you have the entire pre-finals to scope your way into a good position. After that, it comes down to your skill in the stadium itself. I think that's poetic enough to keep everyone happy.

Though I don't exactly disagree with your comments on the "structure" of finals and points etc, I just wanted to flog the dead horse of Deck Format for a bit. It's Saturday, I do what I want!
(Feb. 25, 2017  6:32 AM)Beylon Wrote: [ -> ]So people without skills perform worse... That's fair, right?... Right?.... Except, in this case, it actually isn't fair. The reason for this is a little more complex, but I expect it won't hurt to revisit the issue:

People with "scoping" skills may be born with those skills or they may learn them over time. What they pretty much never realise about their skills is that not everyone can actually learn those skills. Blame the human brain if you must. The fact is, some people can learn how to measure-up those around them, while others simply cannot. Their brains just don't work that way. Maybe they were born unable to interact with people on that level or maybe they learned not to (usually from helicopter parents and bad influences). Either way, whether you are good at "scoping" or not is, on a biological level, not really a matter of choice. It's something introverts have to live with for their entire lives and it totally sucks balls. Not only that, but the majority of people are indeed introverts and most aspects of first-world civilisation are correspondingly geared to accept it.

A game that relies heavily on "scoping" to decide a winner (which I think we all originally agreed was the case previous to Deck) naturally disadvantages a huge number of players who are naturally no good at "scoping" and cannot do anything about it. Sure, "scoping" is a skill you might be able to learn - but for a large number of people, that learning is impossible. Introverts and extroverts. The difference is clear.

Whether you agree with that or not, the WBO does have a choice here. We can play the game such that only the "scopers" will have a likely chance of winning. Or we can play the game such as to include everyone, with equal opportunity to develop the skills available to all, and cater even for those who are naturally no good at "scoping". It's all very well for extroverted "scopers" to look at introverts and assume everyone is biologically equal. But making such an assumption will have just one effect: all the introverts will role their eyes and sigh.

The problem equally applies in cross-region tournaments where players are unlikely to have met before; which is an element of the game we're likely to see return with Hasbro Burst and which is kind of ignored by your example of two seasoned local bladers.

So the real issue with "scoping" was whether it should take centre-stage over the other recognised blading skills when determining a winner in a tournament. Anyone can practice launching, research competetive combos and perform their own tests. No matter what kind of person you are, these practical skills are readily available (even without tournament access) and can be learned regardless of your brain. Obviously this excludes, say, certain people with mental disabilities - but remember, there are more introverts than extroverts in the world and (I thought) the idea of Deck is to cater for as many people as possible.

So yeah... Deck does kinda nerf the leg-up you might expect from "scoping" tactics. But remeber, you have the entire pre-finals to scope your way into a good position. After that, it comes down to your skill in the stadium itself. I think that's poetic enough to keep everyone happy.

Though I don't exactly disagree with your comments on the "structure" of finals and points etc, I just wanted to flog the dead horse of Deck Format for a bit. It's Saturday, I do what I want!

While I didn't contest this point when you originally made it because doing so would have weakened the argument for adjusting the rules of Deck Rotation format, since it's been brought back up I think I should probably do so now:

I may have put too much emphasis in my previous post about the importance of scoping - my point was that many other players were not acknowledging it as a skill, and that it is equally as important as any of the other skills in Beyblade. It is not its own separate thing detatched from other recognized blading skills as you seem to be implying, and it's not the whole end-all be-all of Beyblade either. Knowing your opponent is, in fact, no different from knowing how certain parts perform and knowing how certain combo matchups can play out - it's just that rather than researching the competitive combos list and performing tests against those combos they're researching the winning combos list and performing tests against those combos.

I also think you're greatly exaggerating the extent to which scoping as a skill is biologically determined. Though it is true that some people are naturally more proficient at some skills than others, or that learning these skills might come easier to them (for example, my reflexes and reaction time is pretty poor compared to other people's, meaning that I'm bad at action based fighting games or FPS), but saying that it's impossible for someone to learn or develop a certain skill is definitely a stretch. Sure, Beyblade caters to people who are good at scoping, but it also revolves heavily around launch technique and combo building, and either way the truth of the matter is that there are always going to be games that cater to people with certain skill sets.

The introverts vs extroverts argument also doesn't seem to make much sense... you claim that introverts are just naturally no good at scoping, and extroverts excel at it (which is a pretty broad generalization), while the opposite actually seems to be the case. Scoping relies heavily on weighing options and considering multiple possibilities based on what an opponent might do, which is the kind of skill you would expect from a calculating introvert rather than an impulsive extrovert (also a pretty broad generalization, but you get the idea). The best scopers on the whole WBO are introverts (some of them are able to scope from hundreds of miles away or for long periods in advance), and if you look at other games that require lots of scoping (chess, for example), you'll find that the majority of players are introverts as well.

I guess the main point I want to get out of this is that while scoping is an important skill in Beyblade, it isn't the most important skill and it doesn't overshadow any of the other established skills. The argument that Deck Rotation is supposed to reward "Beyblade skills" rather than "prediction skills" doesn't really work because prediction is a Beyblade skill. And while it's true that some people will be worse at scoping or prediction than others, this doesn't apply to one specific group of people - we're all equally disadvantaged, so to speak.
I have this Question ever since I played my first event but never got to ask. So is it legal to keep 2 different direction launcher and use them against 1 player in preliminary rounds? I mean if you using Gravity Perseus or Variares and don't have BeyLauncher LR (which I don't. Had but it broke but now I have plenty of Left and Right launchers with me but)
(Apr. 02, 2017  2:26 PM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: [ -> ]I have this Question ever since I played my first event but never got to ask. So is it legal to keep 2 different direction launcher and use them against 1 player in preliminary rounds? I mean if you using Gravity Perseus or Variares and don't have BeyLauncher LR (which I don't. Had but it broke but now I have plenty of Left and Right launchers with me but)

No, the ruling has always been one launcher to a bey, regardless of that bey's gimmicks.
One of the rules has been recently questioned and members have mixed views on this.

The first "rule" in Burst format (and likely other formats) is that no "Foreign Substances" are allowed on any parts. Only stickers are allowed.
Now, some people claim (@[Angry Face] is one of them) that nail polish is allowed, to protect aesthetic stickers on layers. Now, we in London have not really thought about this, as it is classified as a foreign substance.

I would like some clarification on this part. If nail polish is allowed, the rules MUST be updated to specifically say this. Same goes for sticker placement, I really think this should be made more clear. Are we allowing homemade stickers on official parts, or only official/3rd party stickers?
In addition, are any stickers allowed on, e.g. the disk? For example, you could use a sticker intended for the layer and stick it onto the disk, as long as it doesn't affect performance or comes in contact with another part.

Could we have a solid statement on this that introduces no ambiguity. It's times like this when people question the rules, hosts are accused or participants find holes in the system to exploit.

Sorry for making this seem more serious than it really is, but I believe it is needed.

@[Mr LT] @[ZYeYO]
Clear nail polish has been legal throught all of Beyblade's history as long as it is used over sticker areas. The rules could definitely be more specific than they currently are though.
Thanks for that. Another issue was marker pen marks on parts. Again, is classified as a "foreign substance" but is used by many people to mark parts as their own. If that is legal, it too should be added to the rules. @[~Mana~] and I (and others) have been discussing such ambiguities in the rulebook and things like wearing of parts, stickers and so on all came up. In order to standardise matches across regions, we really have to ensure that all hosts and judges are on the same page. Right now, the rules leave a lot up to the judge to decide and decisions start becoming subjective.

I understand it can be quite a task to add more to the official rules right now, but I fear that certain rules may be interpreted differently by each region. Especially with AN17 coming up with representatives from quite a number of regions, standardisation is a must. It really comes down to solving these rarer edge-cases.

Ideally a set of rules (dos and don'ts, example pics of worn legal/illegal parts, etc.) that any judge can refer to in any situation and be confident that his/her decision is the right one that any other judge would make. I'm sure ~Mana~ and myself would be happy to assist if need be (although both of us will be busy up until BeyDays due to preparation).
Well, it's not really Beyblade North specifically, but BeyDays in general is approaching. I don't think introducing or revising rules is a huge issue as long as enough notice is given.

However, I can indeed vouch for the above. I wasn't aware that marking parts with pens was actually something that people did until @[Hato] mentioned that some in Toronto do this. In London, we've been advising that Bladers instead use the stickers included with every Beyblade (the star and Driver stickers) for differentiation, as that's the literal purpose for their existence and why they're included, haha.

In most cases, it probably comes down to what each community it used to and how they handle it, though again, it's probably something that could've been elaborated on in our rules as currently, we have nothing on what is allowed (or isn't allowed) for parts identification since the Universal Rules were replaced.
Whoops, looks like I'm actually supposed to post here.

I still disagree with the Deathscyther ban, but I guess there's no real point in discussing it now. :/

(May. 13, 2017  11:55 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
Burst Format Rulebook - Legal Equipment Red Illegal Section’ Wrote:Sticker Placement: Stickers cannot be placed anywhere where two parts of the Beyblade come into contact with each other. You must respect the legal sticker positioning as instructed by TAKARA-TOMY in each Beyblade Starter and Booster product. In other words, these are the only placements accepted: for Layers, follow the sticker guide of that specific Layer; for the Disk, apply star stickers only on the bottom, outward ring, not inner, and ideally just on the embossed stars; for the Driver, only on the small center with the embossed letter.

As the only exception to this rule, you may place one star sticker on the top of a Layer near the center and on the outward perimeter on the bottom of a Driver for identification purposes.

[Image: YTT30ky.png]
Is there any chance that this rule could be extended to having Driver stickers in the center of the Layer? I can't be the only person who does this:
[Image: T03ixJS.jpg](I thought it was a V ok)

Otherwise I'm kinda totally screwed on like 90% of my Layers, the mistake just kinda stuck on me lol


(May. 13, 2017  11:55 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
Organizers’ Guide - Judging a Match Section Wrote:2. Beyblade & Launcher Inspection
After a blader has announced they are set, judges must perform a Beyblade and Launcher inspection to ensure all parts are legal and have not been tampered with. First, disassemble the Beyblade if it is not already. Then, proceed with the inspection using the following guidelines:
Quote:disassemble the Beyblade
rip valkyrie

Would it be possible to make an exception to that rule for at least Valkyrie combos? With how detailed this rules update is you guys sure seem intent on enforcing them to a T...

(May. 13, 2017  11:55 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
Organizers’ Guide - Judging a Match Section Wrote:In Burst Format, Verify TAKARA-TOMY Layers & Drivers and Hasbro Energy Layers and Performance Tips are not and have not ever been mixed. TAKARA-TOMY Layers have teeth on their underside, while Hasbro’s have slopes. TAKARA-TOMY Drivers have slightly taller teeth on top of them than their Hasbro counterparts and will produce a tighter fit with Hasbro Energy Layers. And vice-versa with Hasbro Performance Tips; because of their shorter teeth, the fit with TAKARA-TOMY Layers will be looser. Even if the combination presented by a player does not mix brands, inspect the parts to ensure that they have not previously done so in other matches or testing. The slopes on Hasbro Energy Layers that have played with TAKARA-TOMY Drivers inevitably are damaged, increasing their burst resistance illegally.

Is this actually true? From my observations, the larger tabs on the TT Drivers wear down the slopes in the Hasbro Layer, flattening them and thereby decreasing the resistance they offer and making the Layer easier to burst (Valtyrek ____ Variable is nearly unusable for me now because of this). Has anyone had an experience where a Hasbro Layer is more difficult to burst after being worn by a TT Driver?
Would something like the one on the left be legal?

https://m.imgur.com/a/EP1Xu


The paint is thin and is in the sticker spot, and then the red on the eye could be argued to be as much as one would put to mark their piece, if not less. Also, the paint is thinner than the amount of fingernail polish/super glue that would be used for sticker preservation. Ive done tests and it doesnt help or hinder performance. If its not allowed i get it, and its no big deal. My inner artist ran rampant on the extra layer i had, especially bc there very clearly SHOULD be red in that spot lol
(May. 25, 2017  5:54 AM)Mstubbs88 Wrote: [ -> ]Would something like the one on the left be legal?

https://m.imgur.com/a/EP1Xu


The paint is thin and is in the sticker spot, and then the red on the eye could be argued to be as much as one would put to mark their piece, if not less. Also, the paint is thinner than the amount of fingernail polish/super glue that would be used for sticker preservation. Ive done tests and it doesnt help or hinder performance. If its not allowed i get it, and its no big deal. My inner artist ran rampant on the extra layer i had, especially bc there very clearly SHOULD be red in that spot lol

Bump?
(Jun. 04, 2017  6:47 AM)Mstubbs88 Wrote: [ -> ]
(May. 25, 2017  5:54 AM)Mstubbs88 Wrote: [ -> ]Would something like the one on the left be legal?

https://m.imgur.com/a/EP1Xu


The paint is thin and is in the sticker spot, and then the red on the eye could be argued to be as much as one would put to mark their piece, if not less. Also, the paint is thinner than the amount of fingernail polish/super glue that would be used for sticker preservation. Ive done tests and it doesnt help or hinder performance. If its not allowed i get it, and its no big deal. My inner artist ran rampant on the extra layer i had, especially bc there very clearly SHOULD be red in that spot lol

Bump?

Personally I wouldn't be okay with this at my events.  But I would want final say from the committee.
Do we allow clear nail polish for Burst Beyblades though? We should not, because the rule has always been clear in Burst that no repaint was legal.
Are we really discussing nail polish and yet no considerations seem to have been taken recently to altering the deck format finals at all?
(Jun. 04, 2017  3:05 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]Are we really discussing nail polish and yet no considerations seem to have been taken recently to altering the deck format finals at all?

Any alteration to a Burst Layer is very important, it is not just "nail polish" alone as if we were talking about girly stuff. As for the finals, do you mean what Wombat brought up earlier in this page? The way the finals worked for the Swiss format was OK as far as Beyblade North 2017 goes. If you mean making the finals not Deck Format at all for anything not Burst, then I agree and we will make edits to the rulebooks and Organizers' Guide in that regard.
(Jun. 04, 2017  4:50 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jun. 04, 2017  3:05 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]Are we really discussing nail polish and yet no considerations seem to have been taken recently to altering the deck format finals at all?

Any alteration to a Burst Layer is very important, it is not just "nail polish" alone as if we were talking about girly stuff. As for the finals, do you mean what Wombat brought up earlier in this page? The way the finals worked for the Swiss format was OK as far as Beyblade North 2017 goes. If you mean making the finals not Deck Format at all for anything not Burst, then I agree and we will make edits to the rulebooks and Organizers' Guide in that regard.

I mainly meant that there's been very little discussion on it despite it being pretty important. Specifically I would like raise these points:

-Consider removing its mandatory status. As i've said before I don't think people who get to the finals should be forced to play in deck format if they don't want to. 
-As Wombat said double elimination would be nice. I was at UK Beydays yesterday and it kinda harsh that losing my first battle relegates me to 3rd/4th place. I only got to face to 2 out of the other three people in the finals which i'm not a fan of either.
-I feel that you should remove the mechanic of when a player loses a battle their opponent has to chose before them. Obviously it takes out most of the surprise as to what they gonna use (which to me is most of the fun). I think it would be more interesting that way. I don't think that would remove the skill element either (infact it would probably make it harder).
-Now that you've brought it up I definitely agree that the other series shouldn't have a deck finals.
Just replying to ultra to give my opinion on his thoughts.

Personally I think deck format takes a lot of skill to be successful in which is why I think it should be mandatory, whoever places first obviously knows how to handle their deck better than the other 3 finalists.

I agree a bit on double elimination, but as bey Brad said before, we're too forgiving as a competitive community, usually in other games it's a very strict way to the top.  Now you're probably gonna counter this with beyblade is luck based, well now with deck it's honestly not so I would have to disagree on double elimination.  If we ever decide to make deck optional in finals then I would really like to see double elimination being a thing for the non deck finals.

I really like the "winner has to show the loser what one is using" because it puts the loser at full advantage. But I will say this method is COMPLETELY broken when the winner has like 4 points and the loser has 1 or something below 3, because no matter what if the winner gets even 1 loss he or she can instantly counter the next round basically giving them the win.  Either than that I think it's a good method for showing of knowledge of counters.

Hmmm I think deck should be in all formats... If it's not finals will just be luck which is lame... And honestly the less RNG the better and I will always side with less RNG.
(Jun. 04, 2017  2:45 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]Do we allow clear nail polish for Burst Beyblades though? We should not, because the rule has always been clear in Burst that no repaint was legal.

We do allow small amounts of clear nail polish purely for protecting stickers. It was part of our latest rule updates. We do not allow any other form of "painting". It's all pretty clearly outlined in the rulebook: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kg58...sp=sharing

@[Mstubbs88], I believe that your modification likely doesn't affect performance in any significant way (or any way at all), but unfortunately in order to ensure that rules can be consistently applied at our events around the world, we have to try and minimize the amount of leeway there is in terms of modifications, and we generally speaking try to stick closely to what TAKARA-TOMY's rules are, which include not allowing any paint.

Clear nail polish is an exception we made for Burst, and it's easier to police because "clear nail polish for sticker protection" is pretty straightforward and leaves no room for interpretation or variance around the world.

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]I mainly meant that there's been very little discussion on it despite it being pretty important. Specifically I would like raise these points:

I unfortunately haven't had a lot of time or energy to get into it lately, mainly because of all of the work I put in to preparing and hosting BEYBLADE NORTH 2017, my extensive tournament reports lately, and various other things for the WBO. :( That, and I also personally am incredibly happy with how Deck Format has been working since it was introduced and have heard zero complaints from members of the Toronto community, and most of the WBO as we–and the community at large–all had plenty of time last year to express our feelings towards the various rulesets we experimented with before officially implementing the format. Does that mean there is no alternatives? Of course not. Some people had different opinions on how certain aspects of the rules should work and we tried to compromise where we could to create the best version of the rules, but as hard as we might try, we cannot please everyone, regrettably.

All of that being said, we're always open to changing things should the community at large feel it's the best direction. So, we welcome your feedback! I will address each of your points:

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-Consider removing its mandatory status. As i've said before I don't think people who get to the finals should be forced to play in deck format if they don't want to.

The issue with this is that it will create inconsistency in how our tournaments are conducted. Winning a tournament with Deck Format Finals in effect is more difficult and skill-intensive than winning one without it, in my opinion. This would affect the legitimacy of the rankings (which we are actively working on restoring the functionality for ... believe me haha), and the value of Gold/Silver/Bronze Bits if some tournaments used Deck Format finals and some didn't. We made it mandatory because we want to achieve consistency in our how tournaments are run and how winners are determined. That's why last year we implemented it and many other specifics for things like when to run Swiss, how many rounds to do depending on how many players you have, etc in our extensive Organizers' Guide.

We also believe Deck Format is a more exciting (to both play and watch) and as I said, skill-intensive method of playing Beyblade than the first stage of our events where you have no opportunity to respond in as meaningful a way after picking your single Beyblade as you do in Deck Format. It forces players to have a wider understanding of the metagame and step outside their comfort zone. It's too early to talk in sweeping terms about the current post-D/D2 metagame, but I can tell you for a fact that based on my experience in Toronto, the metagame pre-D/D2 ban in the first stage of events was always more conservative than the finals where you saw more aggressive play due to the nature of Deck Format battles and their 2-point finishes that incentivize that type of play.

Because Deck Format is relegated to the finals, it also ensures that in most cases it will be played by players who have enough parts to compete in it, and because there is relatively few battles due to the Single Elimination aspect, it becomes a lot more feasible to run. Using Deck Format for the first stage would take far too long. In my opinion, we have implemented it in the best way it possibly could have been.

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-As Wombat said double elimination would be nice. I was at UK Beydays yesterday and it kinda harsh that losing my first battle relegates me to 3rd/4th place. I only got to face to 2 out of the other three people in the finals which i'm not a fan of either.

The harshness of single elimination is something we were fully aware of upon implementation of the Deck Format Single Elimination Finals. We feel that it should not be easy to win a tournament, and that it shouldn't necessarily feel guaranteed for the best players. Just making it to the finals alone should be seen as an accomplishment.

Winning a tournament in this format feels much more satisfying because of how well you have to play to do it, and losing in this format feels bad–like losing any match would–but I personally don't find that it stings as much because of Deck Format. Losing a regular battle in the first stage sometimes feels really bad and unlucky because it so heavily relies upon picking a single Beyblade to counter any Beyblade your opponent could throw at you from a pool of thousands of combinations. This uncertainty is still present in Deck Format, but it is lessened by the number of Beyblades you can to choose. And given the nature of the format allowing you to respond after each round, you have much more agency when it comes to determining the flow of the battle; therefore, ultimately losing often doesn't feel as bad because you were able to play a more active role in how things turned out. If you lost, in many cases it might be because of bad deck composition or switching choices more than anything else. You still have choices to make in regular first stage battles (like launch technique, power, etc), but they are nowhere near as voluminous as the choices to be made before and during Deck Format battles.

Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment? If so, why do you disagree?

Regarding double elimination for the finals, how would that work with 4 Players? Most events don't surpass 17 players, which means they don't get 8 finalists. Double Elimination would also increase the number of matches that need to be played in any given final, which would elongate our tournaments too much in my estimation. Very important to consider in all of this is the length of time it takes to complete our events. In previous years with finals being round robin, finals took way too long (particularly Group Round Robin where there might have been up to 7-8 finalists in a RR final); the bulk of our events should be comprised of the first stage where everyone gets to play. The finals needed to be quicker so our events could be finished in a more timely manner, and with Deck Format Single Elimination we were able to accomplish that while also crafting a format that rewards the most skilled/knowledgeable players.

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-I feel that you should remove the mechanic of when a player loses a battle their opponent has to chose before them. Obviously it takes out most of the surprise as to what they gonna use (which to me is most of the fun). I think it would be more interesting that way. I don't think that would remove the skill element either (infact it would probably make it harder).

The reason for the winner having to show their next Beyblade to the loser is so that the loser always has a chance to fight back and so that he winner can't become complacent. It forces each player to think several rounds ahead about how the battle is going to play out knowing how the switching mechanics work depending on whether they win or lose a round. This rule, combined with the fact that deck/launcher presentation is mandatory gives players a lot of information which allows them to formulate their strategy for the whole battle.

Allowing the winner to select their next combo in secret would increase the level of chance involved with the entire battle; both the winner and loser wouldn't be able to strategize as efficiently and the battle would become more like a series of consecutive first stage rounds, in some ways. Given that the entire first stage of our events, and the first round of Deck Format battles is based on this game of chance, I would be opposed to this rule change personally. I love the first stage of our events and the level of uncertainty that comes with those battles too–don't get me wrong–but I enjoy the slightly increased level of certainty offered by Deck Format battles and the contrast it offers to the first stage of our events; it allows for and challenges the top players to play the game differently and think ahead in ways that cannot be done anywhere else.

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-Now that you've brought it up I definitely agree that the other series shouldn't have a deck finals.

I disagree with this as well, for Metal Fight at least. Removing Deck Format for Plastics/HMS is something I would be more open to discussing purely because of part availability.

The Deck Format finals at BEYBLADE NORTH 2017 on Sunday in our Metal Fight Limited Format were really great (and don't forget that in Metal Fight the rules are changed so KOs are worth only 1 Point)! I'm curious to hear what the other finalists (Cake, Wombat, 1234beyblade, ExtremeBlader3, JesseObre, byonicboy) thought of them. I also invite FIREFIRE CPB to add to this discussion, since you've hosted some non-Burst tournaments with Deck Format finals, right?



EDIT:

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:51 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: [ -> ]Just replying to ultra to give my opinion on his thoughts.

Personally I think deck format takes a lot of skill to be successful in which is why I think it should be mandatory, whoever places first obviously knows how to handle their deck better than the other 3 finalists.

I agree a bit on double elimination, but as bey Brad said before, we're too forgiving as a competitive community, usually in other games it's a very strict way to the top. Now you're probably gonna counter this with beyblade is luck based, well now with deck it's honestly not so I would have to disagree on double elimination. If we ever decide to make deck optional in finals then I would really like to see double elimination being a thing for the non deck finals.

I really like the "winner has to show the loser what one is using" because it puts the loser at full advantage. But I will say this method is COMPLETELY broken when the winner has like 4 points and the loser has 1 or something below 3, because no matter what if the winner gets even 1 loss he or she can instantly counter the next round basically giving them the win. Either than that I think it's a good method for showing of knowledge of counters.

Hmmm I think deck should be in all formats... If it's not finals will just be luck which is lame... And honestly the less RNG the better and I will always side with less RNG.

Thanks for your feedback, 1234beyblade! Seems like you echoed a lot of my sentiments.

Double Elimination for formats with non-deck finals (like Plastics/HMS maybe could be) might be a good idea, I agree.

I see what you're saying about the method being "COMPLETELY broken" when the winner has 4 points, but honestly, over the past six months I don't feel like it has been exactly uncommon for someone being down 4-0 or 4-1 to come back and win. It's definitely not unheard of. Someone could be up 4-0, but the quality of those points matters too; did they get them through bad launching on the part of their opponent, or because they actually have better match-ups and made better choices? There's a big difference here. Being down 4-0 or 4-1 is tough, but it isn't insurmountable by any means.
(Jun. 04, 2017  6:32 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]I mainly meant that there's been very little discussion on it despite it being pretty important. Specifically I would like raise these points:

I unfortunately haven't had a lot of time or energy to get into it lately, mainly because of all of the work I put in to preparing and hosting BEYBLADE NORTH 2017, my extensive tournament reports lately, and various other things for the WBO. :( That, and I also personally am incredibly happy with how Deck Format has been working since it was introduced and have heard zero complaints from members of the Toronto community, and most of the WBO as we–and the community at large–all had plenty of time last year to express our feelings towards the various rulesets we experimented with before officially implementing the format. Does that mean there is no alternatives? Of course not. Some people had different opinions on how certain aspects of the rules should work and we tried to compromise where we could to create the best version of the rules, but as hard as we might try, we cannot please everyone, regrettably.

All of that being said, we're always open to changing things should the community at large feel it's the best direction. So, we welcome your feedback! I will address each of your points:


Uh well Toronto isn't the only community. I mean as far as I can see since deck format has been introduced you guys haven't really asked how everyone feels about it.
(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-Consider removing its mandatory status. As i've said before I don't think people who get to the finals should be forced to play in deck format if they don't want to.

The issue with this is that it will create inconsistency in how our tournaments are conducted. Winning a tournament with Deck Format Finals in effect is more difficult and skill-intensive than winning one without it, in my opinion. This would affect the legitimacy of the rankings (which we are actively working on restoring the functionality for ... believe me haha), and the value of Gold/Silver/Bronze Bits if some tournaments used Deck Format finals and some didn't. We made it mandatory because we want to achieve consistency in our how tournaments are run and how winners are determined. That's why last year we implemented it and many other specifics for things like when to run Swiss, how many rounds to do depending on how many players you have, etc in our extensive Organizers' Guide.

We also believe Deck Format is a more exciting (to both play and watch) and as I said, skill-intensive method of playing Beyblade than the first stage of our events where you have no opportunity to respond in as meaningful a way after picking your single Beyblade as you do in Deck Format. It forces players to have a wider understanding of the metagame and step outside their comfort zone. It's too early to talk in sweeping terms about the current post-D/D2 metagame, but I can tell you for a fact that based on my experience in Toronto, the metagame pre-D/D2 ban in the first stage of events was always more conservative than the finals where you saw more aggressive play due to the nature of Deck Format battles and their 2-point finishes that incentivize that type of play.

Because Deck Format is relegated to the finals, it also ensures that in most cases it will be played by players who have enough parts to compete in it, and because there is relatively few battles due to the Single Elimination aspect, it becomes a lot more feasible to run. Using Deck Format for the first stage would take far too long. In my opinion, we have implemented it in the best way it possibly could have been.

I don't really think it would affect the legitimacy of the rankings that much. Honestly it's probably going to be same people up there whether you have deck finals or not. Personally I don't find it more fun. I enjoyed the originals finals and I didn't really see anything wrong with it. 

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-As Wombat said double elimination would be nice. I was at UK Beydays yesterday and it kinda harsh that losing my first battle relegates me to 3rd/4th place. I only got to face to 2 out of the other three people in the finals which i'm not a fan of either.

The harshness of single elimination is something we were fully aware of upon implementation of the Deck Format Single Elimination Finals. We feel that it should not be easy to win a tournament, and that it shouldn't necessarily feel guaranteed for the best players. Just making it to the finals alone should be seen as an accomplishment.

Winning a tournament in this format feels much more satisfying because of how well you have to play to do it, and losing in this format feels bad–like losing any match would–but I personally don't find that it stings as much because of Deck Format. Losing a regular battle in the first stage sometimes feels really bad and unlucky because it so heavily relies upon picking a single Beyblade to counter any Beyblade your opponent could throw at you from a pool of thousands of combinations. This uncertainty is still present in Deck Format, but it is lessened by the number of Beyblades you can to choose. And given the nature of the format allowing you to respond after each round, you have much more agency when it comes to determining the flow of the battle; therefore, ultimately losing often doesn't feel as bad because you were able to play a more active role in how things turned out. If you lost, in many cases it might be because of bad deck composition or switching choices more than anything else. You still have choices to make in regular first stage battles (like launch technique, power, etc), but they are nowhere near as voluminous as the choices to be made before and during Deck Format battles.

Do you agree or disagree with this sentiment? If so, why do you disagree?

This is supposed to be a fun hobby. When you make it too difficult that kind of takes away an element of that (to me anyway).

Regarding double elimination for the finals, how would that work with 4 Players? Most events don't surpass 17 players, which means they don't get 8 finalists. Double Elimination would also increase the number of matches that need to be played in any given final, which would elongate our tournaments too much in my estimation. Very important to consider in all of this is the length of time it takes to complete our events. In previous years with finals being round robin, finals took way too long (particularly Group Round Robin where there might have been up to 7-8 finalists in a RR final); the bulk of our events should be comprised of the first stage where everyone gets to play. The finals needed to be quicker so our events could be finished in a more timely manner, and with Deck Format Single Elimination we were able to accomplish that while also crafting a format that rewards the most skilled/knowledgeable players.

I hadn't considered since UK tournaments are usually so small we only ever have four people in finals. One possibility would be to change the rules so that there can only be in the finals to 4 then? That will increase the difficulty which as you said that's what you wanted.

(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-I feel that you should remove the mechanic of when a player loses a battle their opponent has to chose before them. Obviously it takes out most of the surprise as to what they gonna use (which to me is most of the fun). I think it would be more interesting that way. I don't think that would remove the skill element either (infact it would probably make it harder).

The reason for the winner having to show their next Beyblade to the loser is so that the loser always has a chance to fight back and so that he winner can't become complacent. It forces each player to think several rounds ahead about how the battle is going to play out knowing how the switching mechanics work depending on whether they win or lose a round. This rule, combined with the fact that deck/launcher presentation is mandatory gives players a lot of information which allows them to formulate their strategy for the whole battle.

Allowing the winner to select their next combo in secret would increase the level of chance involved with the entire battle; both the winner and loser wouldn't be able to strategize as efficiently and the battle would become more like a series of consecutive first stage rounds, in some ways. Given that the entire first stage of our events, and the first round of Deck Format battles is based on this game of chance, I would be opposed to this rule change personally. I love the first stage of our events and the level of uncertainty that comes with those battles too–don't get me wrong–but I enjoy the slightly increased level of certainty offered by Deck Format battles and the contrast it offers to the first stage of our events; it allows for and challenges the top players to play the game differently and think ahead in ways that cannot be done anywhere else.

I don't really have any great rebuttal to this other I like not knowing what the matchup is going to be. That's a large part of the excitement for me.
(Jun. 04, 2017  5:09 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]-Now that you've brought it up I definitely agree that the other series shouldn't have a deck finals.

I disagree with this as well, for Metal Fight at least. Removing Deck Format for Plastics/HMS is something I would be more open to discussing purely because of part availability.

The Deck Format finals at BEYBLADE NORTH 2017 on Sunday in our Metal Fight Limited Format were really great (and don't forget that in Metal Fight the rules are changed so KOs are worth only 1 Point)! I'm curious to hear what the other finalists (Cake, Wombat, 1234beyblade, ExtremeBlader3, JesseObre, byonicboy) thought of them. I also invite FIREFIRE CPB to add to this discussion, since you've hosted some non-Burst tournaments with Deck Format finals, right?


Also just thought of another idea: Would you consider the option of not revealing you decks? 

@[Kei]
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