(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Of course we're not!
As I previously alluded to, we did have a couple extremely in-depth discussions (
this one, and originally
this one) about it last year open to the community as we were formulating the rules and experimenting with different rulesets in real tournaments over the course of four or five months (August-December 2016). Not to mention the thread Brad originally made about Deck Rotation. So, by the time we finalized the ruleset, we had already completed a fairly extensive research and experimentation process with the help and feedback of the entire community in real events.
There have been a few complaints issued here and there like yours and Wombat's, but beyond my experience with the Toronto community in general, based on FIREFIRE CPB's post above about things in India and things I've heard from several UK members, the overall reception in those areas of the current ruleset is positive.
But in any case, we're here now talking about it! It seems more appropriate to have this discussion now than say, two months after the rules were implemented and only a few events had been played.
Last year in our discussion thread I even said after we had gone through three or four versions of the rules that:
Kei Wrote:... at this point it is better for us to decide on something knowing that it is credible and fair to be used in ranked tournaments so that we can move forward and then later on consider perhaps making tweaks once the entire community has had a chance to use it in some real ranked tournaments for some time.
(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]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.
"That much". Well, then you acknowledge still would unfortunately have an effect ultimately ...
You're right that it would be the same people whether it's Deck Finals or not; but that isn't justification for scrapping Deck Format or making it optional. Even if the same people make the finals, playing using the old method won't challenge those players in the same way.
What did you enjoy about the old way we did finals? It sounds to me like a lot of what you don't like about the current rules is:
1. Not having a second chance (although if you lose in the first round of a 4 player final or the second round of an 8 player final you do have a "second chance" in the form of the 3rd/4th place match).
2. Not being able to play all of the top players.
3. The level of certainty offered by Deck Format conflicting with your excitement for uncertainty.
There's so many things to consider here.
As others have stated, most competitive gaming events conduct their finals in a Single Elimination style; if you make it to the finals, you should expect to have a tough road ahead of you. You should be guaranteed very little from the outset. The first stage of our events is where more forgiveness exists because of the nature of the people involved with it (all players, both skilled/unskilled or new/veteran), and the nature of the battles being played (double blind); it's more important for forgiveness to exist in that stage for the sake of everybody. Nobody wants to lose just one battle and be eliminated from the entire event in the beginning because they made one wrong choice, but everybody can understand it becoming much more difficult and demanding in the finals. Losing a battle in Deck Format would be as a result of a series of wrong choices more so than a single wrong choice.
Forgiveness is also a reason why we allow for eight finalists in our larger events and why four player finals as you've suggested wouldn't work. If we took four players into the finals of our events, Swiss Format events especially would become absolutely brutal in the first stage. Even Wombat mentioned in one of his previous posts that a four player top cut for large Swiss events would mean that a first round loss would likely place you outside the top four even if you ended up X-1 because your Bucholz score would probably never match the Bucholz of other X-1's who won in the first round.
At BEYBLADE NORTH 2016 we took a top four cut from around 36 players (since we had not developed hard rules at that point for how many finalists to take for every situation), and there was probably like six or seven 4-2 players just behind the 5-1's. This decision was objectively valid, but controversial and in retrospect, it would have been fairer to take eight finalists (if we had also introduced the Single Elimination format at that point). This was a good example that we looked at when developing the new rules last year.
However, while eight finalists makes a lot of sense for larger events, taking eight finalists for events with 16 or less participants (which is the current threshold between 4 vs 8 finalists) is
too forgiving. 50% or more of participants should not be given a spot in the finals of an event. And in any tournament size, using eight finalists and doing double elimination Deck Format would take far too long as others have mentioned.
The current ruleset was all about finding a balance between being forgiving to all players by not demanding perfection to reach the finals and then–justifiably so–being demanding of our best players that do reach the finals. It's difficult to find somewhere that sits between the decisions we have made at this point because I feel like we were able to walk that line and craft a set of rules that is very fair and logical. The rules allow for some level of forgiveness in the first stage, but become more demanding upon reaching the finals. This seems perfectly logical, does it not? Should the finals be easy? Do finalists deserve a second or third chance in the finals when they get defeated by someone in a skill-intensive format like Deck (note: I don't meant to say the first stage doesn't involve "skill" because it certainly does, but Deck Format challenges players in deeper/different ways) who was better prepared or played better than them?
And I certainly understand your desire to play everyone in the finals; I'd love to play against all of the top players too, but you have to also consider the rankings here. If all of the top/highly-ranked players get to constantly play each other in the finals of events to an excessive point (where single elimination is enough, and round robin or double elimination is excessive), it becomes a lot easier for them to more quickly segregate themselves at the top of the rankings because they will continue trading points with each other over and over again. Pitting players of all skill levels more frequently against a wider range of opponents in terms of ranking allows for a more accurate leaderboard over time.
One issue with the old method of round robin finals as well was tiebreaks; this only exasperated the above issue because our solution for breaking them was: more battles haha. This makes the tournaments longer too. In our new rules tiebreak battles are an absolute last resort and are uncommon, and for our finals, single elimination ensures there's no possible way of a tiebreak happening (since you wouldn't want the winner of a tournament determined based on the head-to-head tiebreaker, for example).
(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]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).
This is a really tricky thing for me to respond to because it's difficult for me to know precisely what you mean by "fun". We're talking about competitive tournaments here. Competing in tournaments and everything that comes with them are the biggest aspect of the Beyblade hobby which makes it "fun" to me. I find the challenge of Deck Format to be "fun". I find it to be "fun" because of the different type of effort, knowledge and skill involved compared to the first stage of our events. I find both winning and losing in a Single Elimination Deck Format final to still be "fun" because I enjoy the process of getting there, respect the skill it takes to advance, and the format. Even if I'm disappointed or frustrated in the moment after a loss, I feel ultimately that any of my losses rests more on my own shoulders than anything or anyone else. It's "fun" to try and fight my way to the top, knowing how difficult it is to accomplish.
(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Aren't you glad the bulk of our events cater to your preference, then?
(Jun. 04, 2017 7:25 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]Also just thought of another idea: Would you consider the option of not revealing you decks?
Yeah, I mean this was something which was debated in our discussion last year. I had actually proposed going back to hidden decks in my
final proposal, but was convinced otherwise by Cake and Wombat in their posts that followed. The cost of hidden decks is quite high for Deck Format because it makes it much more difficult for both players to formulate strategies and plan ahead, which is part of what makes Deck Format great.
If I were to consider any change personally, it would perhaps be to change the rules so that the winner doesn't have to show the combo they are switching to if they decide to switch after winning a round (assuming the loser declines a rematch). Wombat I believe explained why he prefers this in the discussion thread. But even that I'm not sure is necessary.