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
I would prefer if the finals were double elimination, because the finals are effectively guaranteed to be some of the most competitive, exciting, and generally fun matches in the event; providing everyone involved with more opportunities to compete and face off against other top bladers in a competitive, strategic format would be fantastic. Obviously there are time concerns, given how Deck Format takes much longer than regular matches, but I feel like the finals, especially Deck Format, are much more entertaining both to play and to watch. Single elimination finals with 8 finalists takes only 4 rounds while double elimination takes 7 or 8, so it's definitely a lot more time consuming, but it's unfortunate that even the top 4 bladers in an 8-person final only play 3 - 4 rounds of Deck Format at the end of the whole tournament...
It would be a bit more fun if Deck Finals were double elimination. But as Kei said earlier it does take more skillful player to win/navigate these finals. And most games(Pokémon, YGO, Magic Etc) do have Single Elimination finals. The main thing I love about it is it does save time. But I do see everyone's point about single elimination vs Double Elimination. As of right now I feel its okay the way it is right now.
I feel double elim in finals is redundant and not needed. If you make it to the finals, you shouldnt need a 2nd chance to redeem yourself. If you lose, the other player just performed better and was more prepared. Also, double elim in a way punishes those who do, do well and prepare well before an event
Well first of all, thanks @[Kei] for such a beautiful explanation of why we should keep Deck Rotation + Single Elimination as it is. It really relieved me and I'm now confident, WBO is in safe hands :) (well I'm not saying I was doubting it wasn't, somethings such as less activity, lack of test and things made me worry since last few days). Every thing has applied recently is very well thought and I agree 100% with these rule changes now and all my doubts are cleared ;).

So moving to back to my MFB event's DR Format thought.  Even I first thought it might not go well with MFB and other formats, when I played it, I felt pretty fun. Like for example, when I and JKsiddh was battling for 3rd spot at My Way or Highway Ltd's finals. Due to revail your combo to loser, I was bit worried how I will win (might lose my streak of placing at LTD lol) but then I planned to keep 1 combo that safely counter what all he might use and make very difficult to Counter. So along with my Flame 230CS and Vulcan GB145RF, I picked a very weird combo, Scythe Esscorpio T125BSF against his Earth 230CS, Meteo BD and Gravity LW195MF. And my plan worked, I confused him by using it time when I had to show my combo (non reply) and won as he didn't know what id actually does (kinda destablizer that KO lol) and won rest by letting him win some round and seeing his combo. See, I learned something new and my skills improved which is how a finals should do. It let me use my full skills and get win + single Elimination helped me secure me for 2nd place after a win (which might happened at last few events too but due to round robin was for finals that time, I got stuck in tiebreaker and came 3rd in end) and that's how I got 1st place secured at STD event (reason I came 3rd in LTD was I kinda intentionally picked risky combo + launch badly as I didn't wanted to get 2 gold face at 1 event that time lol). Though it always don't go in my way, as in The BeyDay FIRESTORM II's LTD Semifinals, we made agreement with all 4 finalist to use only 1 combo as to save time and due to that I picked Gravity DF105FB (well tbh because I didn't had MF and BD near me. Eurekaboy was sharing but I can't use his parts again him lol) (and my Launch was off that day so Attack was way too risky) and despite able to KO, I got 2 wall save and my DF105 broke (lol) and no one had it. So I got to 3rd place lol (Beating AaryanBITW 's Flame 230MB by Scythe Cancer BD).

But afterall point is it was fun and helps to get fullest of event + making Casual and New Member bladers to push a bit harder and devolop better skills and learn more as well as having fun = gaining more interest in event of members = more competition = overall more exciting and fun event = aiding to Community overall by gaining new regular members and retaining old members.

It might be bit concern for player who might want to retain there position (no offence and not pointing at anyone, just a general example from my own feeling :).) as they might  need to work harder to retain then position but if you see, while trying to win, you will learn and improve your skill = helping you in future to able to win as you are improved. About revailing your deck thing, I'm sure you can overcome it by picking safer and welll rounded combos as well as making a good strategy. And it's not like he will opponent will change its bey after seeing your deck so if your deck is good enough you can win. Though like 1234beyblade mentioned, it might give player with more points a advantage, but you still win by keeping a hard counter Combo. But I still feel Committee may rethink on showing what you might use as without it will be fair for bkader with lower score too (like 4-0 situation).

Edit:- btw if it worths mentioning. In STD semi-finals and finals of My Way or Highway, I picked 3 combos yet used only 1 as both time Balro MF and Girago Dragoon BD145RDF did the job against entire deck of Eurekaboy and HarryAlchemist. In finals of both My Way or Highway and BeyDay FIRESTORM II LTD, Eurekaboy used Flame 230B only again' ashton onl
From experience of this tournament, I think double elimination is fair. Yea it sucks losing in the first round and being eliminated, but moral is, you need experience to handle deck format, and that's why we have tournaments. The main goal is to be a competitive community who are skilled with different aspects and decision making choices. I think MFB deck format worked perfectly. I had no issues with it. It was fairly run perfect. When dealing with MFB, it gave us a better chance at redeeming ourselves in battles as MFB is very one pick can mess your whole matchup. With deck, the worries with that are all away, and you create a balanced 3 combos that you choose to counter each of your opponents moves. I lost in the first round, of each deck format finals. Did it suck getting booted out, yes, but in reality, this made it more easier to determine placings. The double elimination format helps by making finals more brief and to the point. We don't want a round robin deck finals do we? Or you'll be stuck there till Anime North 2018 hahaha. In conclusion, I say deck format in finals is fine, also double elimination, and if you disagree, you're ludicrous.
(Jun. 05, 2017  5:21 AM)JesseObre Wrote: [ -> ]From experience of this tournament, I think double elimination is fair. Yea it sucks losing in the first round and being eliminated, but moral is, you need experience to handle deck format, and that's why we have tournaments. The main goal is to be a competitive community who are skilled with different aspects and decision making choices.  I think MFB deck format worked perfectly. I had no issues with it. It was fairly run perfect. When dealing with MFB, it gave us a better chance at redeeming ourselves in battles as MFB is very one pick can mess your whole matchup. With deck, the worries with that are all away, and you create a balanced 3 combos that you choose to counter each of your opponents moves. I lost in the first round, of each deck format finals. Did it suck getting booted out, yes, but in reality, this made it more easier to determine placings. The double elimination format helps by making finals more brief and to the point. We don't want a round robin deck finals do we? Or you'll be stuck there till Anime North 2018 hahaha. In conclusion, I say deck format in finals is fine, also double elimination, and if you disagree, you're ludicrous.

Do you mean single elimination?? It sounds like you meant single but wrote double.
(Jun. 04, 2017  8:08 PM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]I would prefer if the finals were double elimination, because the finals are effectively guaranteed to be some of the most competitive, exciting, and generally fun matches in the event; providing everyone involved with more opportunities to compete and face off against other top bladers in a competitive, strategic format would be fantastic. Obviously there are time concerns, given how Deck Format takes much longer than regular matches, but I feel like the finals, especially Deck Format, are much more entertaining both to play and to watch. Single elimination finals with 8 finalists takes only 4 rounds while double elimination takes 7 or 8, so it's definitely a lot more time consuming, but it's unfortunate that even the top 4 bladers in an 8-person final only play 3 - 4 rounds of Deck Format at the end of the whole tournament...
That was the other part that I didn't like. I missed out on playing one of the finalists because I was relegated to third/fourth but even if I hadn't like you say you wouldn't get to play everyone. It would be nice to play against everyone in the finals instead of just most of some of them. It's even worse when you have an 8 player finals instead of the 4 player one like we had.
You also have to remember that Deck Format, especially in a highly competitive environment, takes a lot longer than a normal match... If we had had to do almost twice as many battles at Beyblade North 2017 in the finals, with the way it was decided to hold only one match at a time, we would have never finished...

But it would make sense to do Double Elimination for potentially anything but the Swiss format, anything but huge tournaments.
(Jun. 05, 2017  3:09 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]You also have to remember that Deck Format, especially in a highly competitive environment, takes a lot longer than a normal match... If we had had to do almost twice as many battles at Beyblade North 2017 in the finals, with the way it was decided to hold only one match at a time, we would have never finished...

But it would make sense to do Double Elimination for potentially anything but the Swiss format, anything but huge tournaments.

Well I mean I did mention limiting the amount of finalists that go through to 4 which as I also said would be make it hard (well harder) like Kei wants it to be. I'll wait for Kei's replies to my responses but i'm not really optimistic.
(Jun. 04, 2017  6:32 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
(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. Unhappy 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.
My thoughts on the Beyblade metal fight on the Sunday of AnimeNorth was a great experience it was my first real tournament and I had  great experience and was very happy with the out come. I think the deck format was a little confusing at first but after the first round I understood how it worked. I only came with one beyblade but i was able to borrow a few for the mandatory 3 needed for deck format. I was really tempted to just use my beyblade but once I saw how my opponents beyblade worked I was able to play around it and try and counter it. I did win 2 rounds (I think) because I was able to play around my opponents beyblades. This was my first tournament and I think deck format was a very fair way to play. If i knew more about the beyblades I borrowed i would think i would of had a better chance agents my opponent. Making it to final 8 in my first tournament I am very happy with and everyone there was so nice and helpful, if only I put myself out there more. (Sorry if i rambled i hope this helped)
(Jun. 05, 2017  7:36 PM)Ultra Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jun. 05, 2017  3:09 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]You also have to remember that Deck Format, especially in a highly competitive environment, takes a lot longer than a normal match... If we had had to do almost twice as many battles at Beyblade North 2017 in the finals, with the way it was decided to hold only one match at a time, we would have never finished...

But it would make sense to do Double Elimination for potentially anything but the Swiss format, anything but huge tournaments.

Well I mean I did mention limiting the amount of finalists that go through to 4 which as I also said would be make it hard (well harder) like Kei wants it to be. I'll wait for Kei's replies to my responses but i'm not really optimistic


Top 8 is just part of swiss. If it went to more (atleast in other games) it goes into top 16, 32, and 48. The lowest its set for is 8.
(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? Smile

(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.
(Jun. 06, 2017  4:23 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
(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? Smile

(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.

Kei, reading this has earned a great deal of respect from me as a member and (hopfully) a future organizer. Everything you said is 100% correct. Ive played other games competetively and being in the top is NO cake walk. Theres a reason its the "top". I love how you referenced the importance of a top 8 in larger events and a top 4 for smaller one due to the bucholz scoring system. That's a very common thing in yugioh and it really helps you in competetive play (in anything) to understand when losing is absolutely awful to do and even who you lose to is important. If you go 4-1 and only lose to the undefeated even in the first round, you should be in like 6th place i think. (Thus getting you into top 8) I understand wanting to play everyone, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from having "mock" or "what if" battles with the people you didnt get to play after the tournament. Heck, thats what my friend (Thebeadedimp) and i did as soon as we got back. He placed 2nd and i 3rd in "diamond is unburstable" and we were curious how things may have been different if we had been in the same bracket and played. Fun fact? I wouldve atleast had 2nd bc i woulda beat him. I probably still wouldnt have beat AngryFace due to me not having a counter to Odin bc i had never played when he was relevant. Also, me losing to Angry WAS MY OWN FAULT i basically handed him 3 of the 5 points he needed, due to 2 launches of my bey flinging itself out and my own inexperience against Odin. Sorry for my rant/tangent but i feel things are as fair as theyre going to get. Just my 2 cents... Or more i guess... Lol
(Jun. 06, 2017  4:23 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

Yes, even I think that would be good idea. I mean it would also balance out issue of 4-0 score (someone can intentionally lose to gain advantage and win easily).

Though it will change entire way of making strategy a bit to a complete guessing game. But it would be bit more fair for both one winning with higher score and one is less on score and give chance for less scored one to win.

Edit:- btw, I wasn't saying I'm worried about Committee being inefficient, but rather worried overall about WBO's future which isn't case anymore.
(Jun. 06, 2017  4:23 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]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.

This is so colossally brutal in itself that 4UP finals are basically the only addition I'd actually enjoy seeing in Deck. Which is precisely why I never commented about points-scoring and finals-organisation during the testing phase... It would have been ubernuts if I'd got my way.
Quick BeyQuestion. Is it madatory to add winning combos to results as well? I mean we post in WC thread too so whats need of posting at both places?

Thanks in advance
(Jun. 22, 2017  12:28 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: [ -> ]Quick BeyQuestion. Is it madatory to add winning combos to results as well? I mean we post in WC thread too so whats need of posting at both places?

Thanks in advance

Because it actually makes more sense to have everything related to one event be posted in that tournament's topic hah. For instance, if you want to know what the winning combinations were specifically for the Hasbro-only Burst formats hosted in Toronto recently, then you can find exactly those threads instead of searching among many pages, many tournaments all around the world and reactions to those posts. Or, also, if you are traveling to a new region, you want to see exactly that area's last tournament's combinations.
(Jun. 22, 2017  12:42 AM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]
(Jun. 22, 2017  12:28 AM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: [ -> ]Quick BeyQuestion. Is it madatory to add winning combos to results as well? I mean we post in WC thread too so whats need of posting at both places?

Thanks in advance

Because it actually makes more sense to have everything related to one event be posted in that tournament's topic hah. For instance, if you want to know what the winning combinations were specifically for the Hasbro-only Burst formats hosted in Toronto recently, then you can find exactly those threads instead of searching among many pages, many tournaments all around the world and reactions to those posts. Or, also, if you are traveling to a new region, you want to see exactly that area's last tournament's combinations.

@[FIREFIRE CPB] To add on to this, another very important reason for it is to make addition of the information to the WBO Organized Play - Public Tournament Data Archive much quicker. If you look at the archive you'll see that the sheets for the tournament information and the sheets for the Winning Combos are set up exactly like the results spreadsheet template, so it's easy to copy + paste from the results to our archive.

We haven't been keeping the archive up to date, but you will be hearing more about this soon.

The Winning Combinations thread itself is more for providing an area to discuss those combos than anything else. The archive and posting them in the event pages via the results spreadsheet link make things easier to document and for people to find when they need to find them just for the sake of seeing the information.
@[1234beyblade], @[~Mana~], @[Kai-V]

Continuing the discussion from: https://worldbeyblade.org/Thread-WBO-Org...tions-More

(Aug. 14, 2017  9:35 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: [ -> ]Ok so I know these rules just came out but I would like to propose a new rule to add.

Last tournament in Toronto, Kei was using mG and Newtype used lS.  lS basically KOed mG but mG just bounced straight back into the stadium since it was too big to exit, now this only use happened with huge hits in burst but this hit was very minor and super easy to tell that mG was indeed supposed to stay in that stadium out area.  

So I think a rule should be added where if a bey touches the back wall of the knock out area and bounces back in it should count as a knock out.  It's really not hard to keep track of such things so I really don't want to hear an excuse where "oh it's gonna make judging too complicated" it's really not hard to see if a bey bounces off that wall lol.  Adding this rule would also make the burst stadium more viable for other formats such as MFB where big hits happen often and cause beys to bounce back in.

Personally I see this having huge positive outcomes of KOs being more common and make attack users less salty when this incident happens to their attack type, and this will only take a bit more effort in the judging process.

(Aug. 14, 2017  9:51 PM)Kai-V Wrote: [ -> ]
(Aug. 14, 2017  9:35 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: [ -> ]Ok so I know these rules just came out but I would like to propose a new rule to add.

Last tournament in Toronto, Kei was using mG and Newtype used lS.  lS basically KOed mG but mG just bounced straight back into the stadium since it was too big to exit, now this only use happened with huge hits in burst but this hit was very minor and super easy to tell that mG was indeed supposed to stay in that stadium out area.  

So I think a rule should be added where if a bey touches the back wall of the knock out area and bounces back in it should count as a knock out.  It's really not hard to keep track of such things so I really don't want to hear an excuse where "oh it's gonna make judging too complicated" it's really not hard to see if a bey bounces off that wall lol.  Adding this rule would also make the burst stadium more viable for other formats such as MFB where big hits happen often and cause beys to bounce back in.

Personally I see this having huge positive outcomes of KOs being more common and make attack users less salty when this incident happens to their attack type, and this will only take a bit more effort in the judging process.

Kei brought that issue up to us a little while ago, so we will definitely look into it. Honestly, I thought that we had that covered, at least in the past Universal Rulebook we had all of these rules that apply and mark these instances as losses:
·  When is a Beyblade considered knocked-out?
    Ø A Beyblade is considered out of play once it exits the play area, not when it touches
       the floor/ground outside of the BeyStadium. The moment a Beyblade exits the play
       area it is considered out of play.

·  A Beyblade exits the play area, but is still sitting on the edge of the BeyStadium.

    Ø Some BeyStadiums have design features outside of the playing area that Beyblades
       can become trapped in. If a Beyblade is knocked past the edge where it can feasibly
       return to the playing area of the BeyStadium, it is considered out of play and the
       round ends. However, if it continues to spin in an area where it can still re-enter the
       playing area, it is in-play. It must therefore immediately bounce back into the  
       stadium, otherwise it is deemed out of play.

·  A Beyblade returns to the BeyStadium after being knocked out of play.

    Ø Once a Beyblade is knocked out of play, the round ends. Once a Beyblade is
       considered out of play, it cannot become "in-play" again.


I did not think we ever counted bounces as in-play...

(Aug. 14, 2017  11:02 PM)1234beyblade Wrote: [ -> ]hmm, I think we based the bounce back in off the walls like ZRG kinda, where it goes into the pocket but comes back in immediately.  In the BB-10 the KO is obviously very clear and I think we just pushed off that first rule you mentioned to be BB-10 only.  So basically once the driver leaves that second ridge into the pocket from the Standard Type Beystadium it's a KO regardless if it's a big hit with a lot of speed that causes it to bounce back into play immediately?

(Aug. 14, 2017  11:41 PM)~Mana~ Wrote: [ -> ]"It must therefore immediately bounce back into the stadium, otherwise it is deemed out of play"

That kinda covers this entire situation honestly.

mG fits in the pockets fine and, in most cases, being knocked in there causes a Burst for it so it's not recoverable anyway. If it manages to survive and pop back in, let it continue, the RNG gods have favoured you this day. It's just a factor of unpredictability in the gameplay and, if you take more of the unpredictability away, I'd argue that some of the excitement is also being lost.

However, it does incentivise attack more to just call it a KO, so it's a win-win either way for me. I'll support whatever the community feels is most fair in this situation, haha.

Any idea how TT handles this as well?

Yeah, our current rulebooks were simplified to state:

Quote:Knocked-Out
A Beyblade is knocked-out when it exits the play area and cannot return. Beyblades stuck on an element of a stadium are still considered in-play.

The key distinction is "cannot return". The change I therefore feel we should make is the removal of that phrase; if the entire Beyblade exits the main play area, it should be considered a KO. Might be some stadium/format specific rulings we need to look at if we were to make this change, but for Burst I think instances where a Beyblade hits the back wall and bounces back in would be considered KOs for the Beyblade that knocked them out.

The only exception I might be willing to make is if a Beyblade hits the back wall in an exit immediately at the start of a match and then bounces back in before making contact with the opposing Beyblade ... if we want to be forgiving, that is.

In any case, I really feel like this would be a positive change for Burst Format where Attack already feels under powered generally speaking.
I feel as thought the more changing in the God Series isn't being used to its fullest potential because of the rule that says you can not change the mode if you must take apart the top. The main issues that I've seen were that it takes time and it's essentially having two different beys. I understand that changing modes in singles would be too much, but I do have a proposition or two that I think would work well in Deck Format:
1: Allow the Blader to be able to change modes but with the catch that they are not allowed to have a third bey. The judge must be the one to change the mode and it must be announced beforehand.

2: Allow the Blader to have the same Layer, but the Layer must be is the other mode. The rest of the parts must be completely different from the other combination with the same Layer

I think that this may still need some revision, but it's a rule that I think would be good to implement. Sometimes, some modes work better than others, and I think that it should be up to the players' discretion to decide that.
It's an interesting suggestion, and actually Sniper suggested something similar to me recently. I think his idea was to allow one mode change per Deck Format match.

The rule about no mode changing is derived from TAKARA-TOMY's rules, but obviously we've diverged with our interpretation of Deck Format, so we might be able to do the same here. I do think that for other formats like MFB we would not consider this at all because it takes so long to assemble those Beyblades, but the construction of Burst is simple enough that it might be worth considering fully the benefits of being able to change modes within a Deck Format match.

I'm kind of neutral on the suggestion right now, so I'd be curious to hear more opinions and examples of how it could be used to enhance strategy in Deck Format matches, and how the rule could be implemented (what restrictions would there be).
Aside from TT's rules, and the time-factor in MFB, what is the theory behind disallowing changes? I'd have assumed the whole point of these designs was to gain an innovative advantage in locked-in scenarios just like Deck. If not this, what else is the point of mode changes compared to just using different parts?

I'd support infinite mode changes in Deck.
I was just about to talk to a Committee member about a similar proposal for deck format. I have made a combo that can beat one type of top tier bey in one mode and put up a good fight with another top tier combo in the other. But in deck format, I can't predict what most of my opponents are going to use in their deck, or if they'll use both combos.

I was going to suggest that we could at the very least be able to chose our mode after seeing our opponents deck.

It's also been suggested that mode changes be allowed after your bey bursts. Even if someone tries to intentionally self burst to change their mode, they'll have to give up anywhere from 2-4 points, based on that point in the tournament, putting them at a near loss just to be able to get a supposed advantage. The risk vs reward adds more dimension to competitive play.
(Sep. 22, 2017  3:06 AM)Beylon Wrote: [ -> ]Aside from TT's rules, and the time-factor in MFB, what is the theory behind disallowing changes? I'd have assumed the whole point of these designs was to gain an innovative advantage in locked-in scenarios just like Deck. If not this, what else is the point of mode changes compared to just using different parts?

I'd support infinite mode changes in Deck.

It's part of the decision-making process you have to go through before each battle; allowing mode changes for parts that require disassembly makes this process more forgiving. The question is whether we want to be forgiving or not. I could pick Legend Spriggan knowing it does well against almost everything in right-spin, but then end up playing Drain Fafnir, where lS needs to be in left-spin to be effective. Making the call to go right-spin because it deals with most opponents, or taking the risk of going left-spin if you think your opponent will use dF is just one other dimension someone needs to consider when deciding whether and how to use Beyblades like lS.

I'm not sure I would support infinite mode changes even with how easy to disassemble Burst Beyblades are because Deck Format battles take long enough as it stands. If anything, it would be once or maybe twice per Deck Format battle.

Also, just wanted to address your proposed rules for this @[ThaKingTai]
ThaKingTai Wrote:1: Allow the Blader to be able to change modes but with the catch that they are not allowed to have a third bey. The judge must be the one to change the mode and it must be announced beforehand.

2: Allow the Blader to have the same Layer, but the Layer must be is the other mode. The rest of the parts must be completely different from the other combination with the same Layer

1. What happens when someone wants to use two mode changing Beyblades? Not allowed? This is part of the reason why I think it would be easier to implement if we simply say "you may change the mode of parts which require disassembly once/twice per Deck Format match in total" (meaning you can only do one/two mode changes across your entire Deck for that match). There's still limitations, but they don't complicate the core mechanics of how Deck Format works significantly. I also think taking away the ability to have a third Beyblade–while interesting–is too crippling given how relatively insignificant mode changes can be relative to the worth of an entire third Beyblade. To me, if we were to implement this, the goal would be to allow Bladers more versatility, not less.

2. What I don't like about this one is that it requires someone to have two copies of the same Layer; it seems unfair to expect this. The alternative would be to allow players to switch the Layer between their two different Disk/Driver combinations, which seems sloppy.

(Sep. 22, 2017  6:54 AM)Achi-baba Wrote: [ -> ]I was just about to talk to a Committee member about a similar proposal for deck format. I have made a combo that can beat one type of top tier bey in one mode and put up a good fight with another top tier combo in the other. But in deck format, I can't predict what most of my opponents are going to use in their deck, or if they'll use both combos.

I was going to suggest that we could at the very least be able to chose our mode after seeing our opponents deck.

It's also been suggested that mode changes be allowed after your bey bursts. Even if someone tries to intentionally self burst to change their mode, they'll have to give up anywhere from 2-4 points, based on that point in the tournament, putting them at a near loss just to be able to get a supposed advantage. The risk vs reward adds more dimension to competitive play.

The one situation–which I referenced above–that I was thinking about today was the situation with Legend Spriggan. I do think in this specific instance, it would make Attack as a whole more viable in Burst because right now the prospect of your right-spin lS being shut down by Drain Fafnir in Deck Format has kind of killed it in Toronto. I'm curious, what do you think about all of this @[1234beyblade]?

Being able to switch once after you see your opponent's deck is another option as well. However in this case, if both players want to do so, it would have to be double-blind, which almost defeats the purpose of all of this. I like the idea of being able to switch modes after a loss and you see what your opponent is using for the next round more. Seems more purposeful.

Being able to switch after your Beyblade bursts is interesting, but seems too random to be effective or add any strategy to Deck Format in my mind.
(Sep. 26, 2017  3:25 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]Being able to switch after your Beyblade bursts is interesting, but seems too random to be effective or add any strategy to Deck Format in my mind.

But some may abuse to burst it own bey without contact to another if they're willing to take that risk to give the opponent the point and change mode or direction afterwards or actually could force to burst in the pocket as their SKO or if the blader picks up the beyblade as it is still spinning but bursts in his/her hands will that also be eligible to switch?
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