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
@[Kei]
1. Well, if you choose to choose two mode changing Beys, there is one that you can’t choose modes. My main argument for this is that people say that the two modes essentially make the Beyblade two different Beyblades. When you switch between modes in this situation, it is like switching between Beys in your deck. It’s not necessarily crippling if the mode changes work on the same set up. I imagine that attack types have similar set ups that might work in different modes. Like I find that Legend Spriggan works best Right vs. Right and Left vs. Left.

2. If you are allowed to change the Disc/Driver set up when you change the mode, then you definitely need to do the first option, otherwise you have 4 combos in your deck rather than three. I get your point tho, but I don’t be feel like it would be too much of a problem borrowing a duplicate Layer if you do not have it. But then again, there is no guarantee that someone else has it. So I guess I digress, lol
(Sep. 26, 2017  3:57 AM)Yami Wrote: [ -> ]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?

That shouldn't be an issue, since the judges are supposed to pick up the winning bey at the end of a match for inspection anyways, and I mentioned before how large the point deficit from intentionally self bursting could be, especially since you have to lose a round to see that a different mode would be more advantageous. Most, if not all of the mode changing layers are rather hard to burst anyways, so there's a good chance that the attempt self burst fails assuming it's even possible.
(Sep. 26, 2017  4:28 AM)ThaKingTai Wrote: [ -> ]@[Kei]
1. Well, if you choose to choose two mode changing Beys, there is one that you can’t choose modes. My main argument for this is that people say that the two modes essentially make the Beyblade two different Beyblades. When you switch between modes in this situation, it is like switching between Beys in your deck. It’s not necessarily crippling if the mode changes work on the same set up. I imagine that attack types have similar set ups that might work in different modes. Like I find that Legend Spriggan works best Right vs. Right and Left vs. Left.

2. If you are allowed to change the Disc/Driver set up when you change the mode, then you definitely need to do the first option, otherwise you have 4 combos in your deck rather than three. I get your point tho, but I don’t be feel like it would be too much of a problem borrowing a duplicate Layer if you do not have it. But then again, there is no guarantee that someone else has it. So I guess I digress, lol

Wanna actually comment on what I said because I realize that I didn’t consider something at the time. When I think of mode change, Legend Spriggan was what came to mind first, but I think that the spin direction switch is more significant than mode changes
like Alter Chronos or something like that. So I think that spin switch should definitely follow the first one if you aren’t able to have two of the same Layer.
(Sep. 26, 2017  9:03 PM)ThaKingTai Wrote: [ -> ]
(Sep. 26, 2017  4:28 AM)ThaKingTai Wrote: [ -> ]@[Kei]
1. Well, if you choose to choose two mode changing Beys, there is one that you can’t choose modes. My main argument for this is that people say that the two modes essentially make the Beyblade two different Beyblades. When you switch between modes in this situation, it is like switching between Beys in your deck. It’s not necessarily crippling if the mode changes work on the same set up. I imagine that attack types have similar set ups that might work in different modes. Like I find that Legend Spriggan works best Right vs. Right and Left vs. Left.

2. If you are allowed to change the Disc/Driver set up when you change the mode, then you definitely need to do the first option, otherwise you have 4 combos in your deck rather than three. I get your point tho, but I don’t be feel like it would be too much of a problem borrowing a duplicate Layer if you do not have it. But then again, there is no guarantee that someone else has it. So I guess I digress, lol

Wanna actually comment on what I said because I realize that I didn’t consider something at the time. When I think of mode change, Legend Spriggan was what came to mind first, but I think that the spin direction switch is more significant than mode changes
like Alter Chronos or something like that. So I think that spin switch should definitely follow the first one if you aren’t able to have two of the same Layer.

Actually have you ever thought about for each round if the blader wants to change mode/ direction before the round begin or like the ruling in Deck rotation for each round if Blader A loses the match he/she have the choice either Blader A wants to redo but change mode/ direction, change beys, or redo without changing modes, if Blader A wants to change mode/ direction then Blader B can decide whether he/she wants to change mode/ direction.

They're many possibilities to suggest the mode/ direction ruling. Maybe we should just exclusively allow mode changing in the Finals only since it's our unique final round system.
How if we allow host to host tournament for free (without fees for him) but if he want to play then he will have to pay fees. Here I heard few parents wanted to host but they don't wanted to pay fees just for hosting.
(Nov. 18, 2017  1:24 PM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: [ -> ]How if we allow host to host tournament for free (without fees for him) but if he want to play then he will have to pay fees. Here I heard few parents wanted to host but they don't wanted to pay fees just for hosting.

What do you mean? Why would a host be paying any fees if they're not playing themselves? You only pay a fee if you're playing whether you're the host or not; that's how it's always been.
(Nov. 23, 2017  9:00 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]
(Nov. 18, 2017  1:24 PM)FIREFIRE CPB Wrote: [ -> ]How if we allow host to host tournament for free (without fees for him) but if he want to play then he will have to pay fees. Here I heard few parents wanted to host but they don't wanted to pay fees just for hosting.

What do you mean? Why would a host be paying any fees if they're not playing themselves? You only pay a fee if you're playing whether you're the host or not; that's how it's always been.

Oh that's great then haha. I wasn't aware about this. Thanks
(Nov. 30, 2017  6:20 AM)Beylon Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, hang on. Searched this topic in QA and found only this thread. In other forums (general discussion, for example) the consensus is that these are actually legal. So obviously there is some confusion.

Normally it goes without saying that Hasbro gimmicks are not tournament legal. This has pretty much always been the case. The primary exception is the 5-layer versions of the 4D series (what were they called again?) which have become an important and valued element in the Limited metagame.

This example is even more relevant because it shows that Hasbro's weird spinoffs can sometimes be a healthy thing for the WBO. The 5-layer 4D beys were specifically designed by Hasbro to maintain some semblance of balance in the 5-layer meta when Horikoshi was running wild at TT, making every over-the-top heavyweight design imaginable.

Hasbro even did the same thing with the Legend series, updating 4-layer designs for the 5-layer series. Yeah, these weren't super competitive but with these two examples combined, I think it is clear Hasbro was making a concerted effort to remain loyal to the ongoing meta. We all know how that ended - but I respect them for trying.

And now we have the ripfire beys. Once again, Hasbro has made a gimmick series entirely compatible with the standard range. They're compatible, simple as that. They don't appear to have any stupidly competitive edge. They're just... Normal beys. The gimmick seems no more or less impressive than some of the God designs we've seen. So why ban them?

And for that matter, are they actually banned? Or is it just that nobody uses them because... Well... Obvious, right?

Probably should've just put this here to begin with.
(Nov. 30, 2017  6:26 AM)Beylon Wrote: [ -> ]
(Nov. 30, 2017  6:20 AM)Beylon Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, hang on. Searched this topic in QA and found only this thread. In other forums (general discussion, for example) the consensus is that these are actually legal. So obviously there is some confusion.

Normally it goes without saying that Hasbro gimmicks are not tournament legal. This has pretty much always been the case. The primary exception is the 5-layer versions of the 4D series (what were they called again?) which have become an important and valued element in the Limited metagame.

This example is even more relevant because it shows that Hasbro's weird spinoffs can sometimes be a healthy thing for the WBO. The 5-layer 4D beys were specifically designed by Hasbro to maintain some semblance of balance in the 5-layer meta when Horikoshi was running wild at TT, making every over-the-top heavyweight design imaginable.

Hasbro even did the same thing with the Legend series, updating 4-layer designs for the 5-layer series. Yeah, these weren't super competitive but with these two examples combined, I think it is clear Hasbro was making a concerted effort to remain loyal to the ongoing meta. We all know how that ended - but I respect them for trying.

And now we have the ripfire beys. Once again, Hasbro has made a gimmick series entirely compatible with the standard range. They're compatible, simple as that. They don't appear to have any stupidly competitive edge. They're just... Normal beys. The gimmick seems no more or less impressive than some of the God designs we've seen. So why ban them?

And for that matter, are they actually banned? Or is it just that nobody uses them because... Well... Obvious, right?

Probably should've just put this here to begin with.

The Metal Fury line with the simplified 4D Metal Wheels and absence of 4D Bottoms was not a separate side series; that was obviously Hasbro's way of cutting down on the costs of producing the 4D series' increasingly complicated parts... The only reason those hollow Metal Fury parts have any value today is because of the WBO's Limited Format, which was designed explicitly with parts that were dead upon release in mind, like pretty much the entire Metal Fury line.

If Hasbro really cared anything about a healthy metagame, they could have done a lot better than giving us mediocre versions of good parts; at the very least, they could have designed better balanced stadiums. Instead, they did eventually release some of the most over-the-top heavyweight 4D beys, but for higher prices than their regular starters. Let there be no mistaking it: Hasbro's decision to charge $8 for a hollowed out Scythe when right beside it was an almost unadulterated Hyperblades Phantom Orion for $14-15 had nothing to do with respect for any game.

The Legend series was also just useless filler between their regular seasonal releases, not some sign of loyalty to their customers. Takara-Tomy had already released half of the Metal Wheels from that series themselves prior to Hasbro's doing so, and they eventually released heavier versions of all but Night later, which leads me to suspect they had most likely already designed all of those parts themselves earlier, but as part of Hasbro's licensing deal, they had access to those designs and decided to release them with recolored versions of only previously released parts. No need for them to design anything new except some reskinned sticker sheets, so Hasbro's cost of production would have been incredibly low for a product that to most of their consumers would have been perceived as something of a premium.


And regardless of their competitive merit and level of cross-compatibility, Hasbro's spin-offs, whether they be Ripfire, Tornado Battlers, electronic beys, or those dome Tracks things, aren't mainline Beyblade products and will remain illegal in our tournaments for the sake of simplicity and consistency across formats and generations.
(Nov. 30, 2017  9:49 AM)Angry Face Wrote: [ -> ]And regardless of their competitive merit and level of cross-compatibility, Hasbro's spin-offs, whether they be Ripfire, Tornado Battlers, electronic beys, or those dome Tracks things, aren't mainline Beyblade products and will remain illegal in our tournaments for the sake of simplicity and consistency across formats and generations.

All hate-fuelled Hasbro flaming aside, we're making it clear that Ripfire discs/drivers and Destroyer Dome tracks are illegal, yes? I've never actually seen the parts in person, never had to ask.

EDIT: just saw your reply in the quoted thread, thanks for stepping in there.

As for flaming... I suspect the original question keeps being asked online because the parts' direct compatibility with the main line of products (which tornado battlers, electro-whatevers have previously never had) initially makes it unclear exactly why they should be banned. Simplicity for the sake of simplicity is a cruel mistress. I mean, even if Hasbro are all actually SOBs for making Metal Fury in the first place, we're still using those parts competitively today. Which is fun, no?

And I didn't realise Legends came from TT first...? So, whose fault was that series?

Mind you, there is no denying that Hasbro have made some of the most shockingly awful products (probably of any product type, ever) over the years. Nobody doubting that. But you know, being a consumer isn't exactly a human right. Nor are toy companies civil servants. Vote with your wallet. Don't buy trash. But... Are ripfire beys actually trash?
I think it's something I've addressed in the past honestly.

If the demand for making Ripfire parts legal was there, it's a discussion we'd have amongst the committee. However, none of us own any of these parts, nor necessarily have access to them at all either. As I said last time; any testing from anyone who owns these parts is welcomed as it could be a tipping point for whether we allow it or not.

In its current state, while Ripfire parts have indeed been designed with compatibility with regular tops in mind, they suffer the same issues as all prior electronic spinoffs under our rulesets and are illegal parts until otherwise stated.

Bottom line; they're illegal, but that could change with some actual evidence on their performance. Until then, for simplicity's sake, they're banned as normal with electronic spinoff tops.
So this is an issue that's been popping up in a few tournaments recently regarding tiebreaking in Swiss Format, and I thought it would be a good idea to start a discussion about it in a public space:

The situation is that you are trying to determine which 8 players will advance to the finals. Any players with X-1 or X-0 records are practically guaranteed a place in the top 8, but in many cases there are more players tied with X-2 records than remaining spots in the finals. Now, the official rules state this:
[Image: ToAHLTZ.png]

Which implies the way to determine placement is in this order:
  1. Score/win record
  2. TB column value
  3. Buchholz
  4. Tiebreaker match

However, there have been a few situations where this hasn't been entirely accurate. Say for example, only the 8th spot in the finals remains, and there are two players (A and B) tied at 3-2 with a 8.0 Buchholz value. A and B have no match history, but A has beaten a third player, C, head to head and therefore hold the TB over C. Naturally, Challonge would give the final spot to A, since A's TB column would have a higher value than B's. The way I see it, this is a little unfair to player B, as both players earned the same record with (approximately) the same strength of schedule. Player A hasn't "proven" they are more fit to be in the finals than player B, just player C, who is not even in contention for the finals.

So, I've interpreted the tiebreaking rules a bit differently, and with the recent ambiguity of this I'd like to propose a change to the tiebreaking procedure/clarify the current procedure if this is already what it's supposed to be:
  1. Score/win record
  2. TB column value (if and only if the players in question have match history)
  3. Buchholz
  4. (Possibly Seed? I know @[Kei] mentioned this briefly)
  5. Tiebreaker match

Under this system, A and B in the previous example would have to play a tiebreaker match to determine who would advance. And in addition, if B instead had a 9.0 Buchholz value, then B would advance uncontested despite A having a higher TB value, because that TB is over player C and there is no match history between A and B.

Also, Kei mentioned briefly that we could use a player's initial seed as a form of tiebreaking - so if two players with no match history are tied with the same record and Buchholz, the one that was seeded higher advances? I think it seems a little unfair for more or less the same reasons as the TB column, though slightly less so because in most cases the player with the higher seed has "proven" themselves already by earning a higher rank (The main actual issue I'm seeing here is in the case of 2 new players who are seeded randomly, but I guess we would just have to leave this up to the host's discretion and hopefully common sense).

Any thoughts on this?
The situation you've described here is interesting @[Wombat]. I think it's different than what happened at BEYBLADE SHOGATSU 2018 because it involves a question of whether A or B will even make it to the finals. At BEYBLADE SHOGATSU 2018 it was only a question of the order of a few participants in the Top 8.

In your example however, I should point out that A would have no TB points unless C also had the same record (3-2) as A and B. Challonge awards TB points only when there is another player who has the same record, because that is when ties need to be broken one way or another.

So, that would leave A and B in a dead even tie at 3-2, 8.0 Bucholz, 0 TB. In this very specific circumstance I would say that a tiebreak battle would be the most appropriate, and that's what the rules currently imply anyways. However, in a case where it is simply determining the order of players who are already guaranteed spots in the finals, seeding makes the most sense to me to use as the tiebreaker. Tiebreak matches are not ranked, so it's kind of a waste of time to do them for people who are already guaranteed a spot in the finals, and I have no problem with seeding having that sort of weight since it's an uncommon occurrence and players have technically earned it. If the case is whether or not a player will make the finals or not, a tiebreak battle 'proves' more in the moment, which is what makes it appropriate.

This is something we can certainly look at clarifying in our February rule update.
What if my beyblade gains 1 or 2 grams after I paint it
(Feb. 24, 2018  1:49 PM)Iron Gears Wrote: [ -> ]What if my beyblade gains 1 or 2 grams after I paint it

Assuming you're doing it for a format where it is legal (it is not for Burst), I would say that an extra two grams as a result of that would be far too much and would make the part illegal. If you are painting parts it has to be done with a light coat purely for aesthetic reasons.
A minor edit, but in the Limited rulebook, Hyperblade Omega should be added to the list of banned parts as only the 4D version is currently listed.
(Dec. 31, 2009  11:48 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]View all World Beyblade Organization Organized Play Rules & Resources here. This includes the following:

Use this thread to discuss any questions or concerns you may have about WBO Organized Play rules.


so with the 12 disk, you can either use a normal size driver and have it exposed or use a taller one than normal and have a frame?
(Apr. 09, 2018  3:44 PM)Akiya95 Wrote: [ -> ]
(Dec. 31, 2009  11:48 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]View all World Beyblade Organization Organized Play Rules & Resources here. This includes the following:

Use this thread to discuss any questions or concerns you may have about WBO Organized Play rules.


so with the 12 disk, you can either use a normal size driver and have it exposed or use a taller one than normal and have a frame?

You must use a frame on 12 disc at all times, regardless of which driver you choose to use.
Can anyone start a tournament in Florida around Ocoee?
(Apr. 17, 2018  8:53 PM)ILikeSeafood Wrote: [ -> ]Can anyone start a tournament in Florida around Ocoee?

I suggest jumping in this Florida thread and seeing if anyone is interested. It looks like some people are talking about having something.

But never go in asking if someone else will hold a tournament for you. It's not productive or really very nice. Not scolding you or anything, just letting you know.

Find people who are in your area who like Beyblade and talk about working out a tournament. Don't walk in hoping someone else will do it all, be willing to step up and support it how you can.

"Let's have a tournament" vs. "Someone give me a tournament", you know? First one will get you better results.

Hope this helps, good luck! :)
There's been talk lately about potential bans on Spriggan Requiem and Garuda G3. I got my Garuda G3 this weekend, had a tournament on Saturday, and did some testing for a few hours last night so I figured now I can finally give a more informed opinion about how we should proceed.

Spriggan Requiem
Spriggan Requiem was abused to no end by the top players here in Toronto this weekend. It seemed even worse than it was before because instead of trying to counter Sr Bearing with Nightmare Longinus (although this still happened a few times unsuccessfully), many of us realized we could counter Sr Bearing with Sr on tighter drivers like Atomic, Destroy, or Revolve and still have the ability to OS many other things. Obviously, going from using an Attack type to using the same Layer to counter the same Layer is a bad look in terms of metagame diversity. It's obvious that Sr has become too centralizing.

Even so, because Bloody Longinus is already out, I feel it would be responsible to get some testing on that done quickly before making a decision. Normally I wouldn't advise waiting, but since bL is out and we've heard that it might be even better than nL, it's worth taking an extra week or two to decide. Our main priority at this point is to ensure the game is as balanced as possible for BeyDays at the end of next month, so we have time.

Garuda G3
Garuda G3 should be banned from Burst Format and Hasbro Only Burst Format, flat out. Here's a few reasons why based on my testing last night:

- I had heard that G3 had worse stamina than mG, but in my testing with a mirror match between the two, the loser was always whoever was launched first. Maybe there's a difference between the two, but it didn't seem very noticeable.
- G3 on Atomic is roughly as tight as mG on Orbit (for me anyways), but despite that, no matter what I through at it, G3 Atomic lost practically 0% of its slope at the end of each round. Can't be KOed. Can't be bursted. mG on Atomic is well-balanced because it gets bursted so easily, but I think we can't allow for G3 to remain in the game if G3 Atomic is tighter than mG on Atomic. There's a reason TT designed it that way, but Hasbro seems to have ignored it. We simply can't allow something with both high stamina and ridiculous defense to exist in the game.

Maximum Garuda
In thinking about a potential ban for Sr and G3, it also occurred to me that it might be worth re-evaluating Maximum Garuda as well. One of the reasons why unbanning mG was made possible was because of Spriggan Requiem. If Sr is banned, then mG becomes more threatening despite its more well-balanced design in comparison to G3.

That being said, despite it being more well-balanced, I found that in my testing last night mG on Orbit felt a lot more difficult to burst than I remembered it being (it did lose roughly 80% of its slide each time, but rarely bursted. That's much more than G3 on Atomic did, mind you) ... I tested it before and stationary sX was able to burst it pretty consistently. This time I was using my tightest Orbit Driver on mG, so I'm not sure if that's what was causing the issue. I'm curious to hear what you guys think about mG on Orbit and how to best counter it.

Regardless, I'm starting to feel again that the game would be objectively better if mG was also banned. mG's design is just too much of a radical departure from everything else in the series. It's never seemed fair to most Attack types because it just absorbs hits so well and has basically zero recoil.
(Apr. 30, 2018  2:35 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]There's been talk lately about potential bans on Spriggan Requiem and Garuda G3. I got my Garuda G3 this weekend, had a tournament on Saturday, and did some testing for a few hours last night so I figured now I can finally give a more informed opinion about how we should proceed.

Spriggan Requiem
Spriggan Requiem was abused to no end by the top players here in Toronto this weekend. It seemed even worse than it was before because instead of trying to counter Sr Bearing with Nightmare Longinus (although this still happened a few times unsuccessfully), many of us realized we could counter Sr Bearing with Sr on tighter drivers like Atomic, Destroy, or Revolve and still have the ability to OS many other things. Obviously, going from using an Attack type to using the same Layer to counter the same Layer is a bad look in terms of metagame diversity. It's obvious that Sr has become too centralizing.

Even so, because Bloody Longinus is already out, I feel it would be responsible to get some testing on that done quickly before making a decision. Normally I wouldn't advise waiting, but since bL is out and we've heard that it might be even better than nL, it's worth taking an extra week or two to decide. Our main priority at this point is to ensure the game is as balanced as possible for BeyDays at the end of next month, so we have time.

Garuda G3
Garuda G3 should be banned from Burst Format and Hasbro Only Burst Format, flat out. Here's a few reasons why based on my testing last night:

- I had heard that G3 had worse stamina than mG, but in my testing with a mirror match between the two, the loser was always whoever was launched first. Maybe there's a difference between the two, but it didn't seem very noticeable.
- G3 on Atomic is roughly as tight as mG on Orbit (for me anyways), but despite that, no matter what I through at it, G3 Atomic lost practically 0% of its slope at the end of each round. Can't be KOed. Can't be bursted. mG on Atomic is well-balanced because it gets bursted so easily, but I think we can't allow for G3 to remain in the game if G3 Atomic is tighter than mG on Atomic. There's a reason TT designed it that way, but Hasbro seems to have ignored it. We simply can't allow something with both high stamina and ridiculous defense to exist in the game.

Maximum Garuda
In thinking about a potential ban for Sr and G3, it also occurred to me that it might be worth re-evaluating Maximum Garuda as well. One of the reasons why unbanning mG was made possible was because of Spriggan Requiem. If Sr is banned, then mG becomes more threatening despite its more well-balanced design in comparison to G3.

That being said, despite it being more well-balanced, I found that in my testing last night mG on Orbit felt a lot more difficult to burst than I remembered it being (it did lose roughly 80% of its slide each time, but rarely bursted. That's much more than G3 on Atomic did, mind you) ... I tested it before and stationary sX was able to burst it pretty consistently. This time I was using my tightest Orbit Driver on mG, so I'm not sure if that's what was causing the issue. I'm curious to hear what you guys think about mG on Orbit and how to best counter it.

Regardless, I'm starting to feel again that the game would be objectively better if mG was also banned. mG's design is just too much of a radical departure from everything else in the series. It's never seemed fair to most Attack types because it just absorbs hits so well and has basically zero recoil.

Well not saying this is reliable but LeftBurst did a video on mG vs G3 and G3 burst mG almost everytime and if that doesn't say something then I don't know what does.
Link to the video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbixyM8MyWs
(Apr. 30, 2018  2:35 PM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]There's been talk lately about potential bans on Spriggan Requiem and Garuda G3. I got my Garuda G3 this weekend, had a tournament on Saturday, and did some testing for a few hours last night so I figured now I can finally give a more informed opinion about how we should proceed.

Spriggan Requiem
Spriggan Requiem was abused to no end by the top players here in Toronto this weekend. It seemed even worse than it was before because instead of trying to counter Sr Bearing with Nightmare Longinus (although this still happened a few times unsuccessfully), many of us realized we could counter Sr Bearing with Sr on tighter drivers like Atomic, Destroy, or Revolve and still have the ability to OS many other things. Obviously, going from using an Attack type to using the same Layer to counter the same Layer is a bad look in terms of metagame diversity. It's obvious that Sr has become too centralizing.

Even so, because Bloody Longinus is already out, I feel it would be responsible to get some testing on that done quickly before making a decision. Normally I wouldn't advise waiting, but since bL is out and we've heard that it might be even better than nL, it's worth taking an extra week or two to decide. Our main priority at this point is to ensure the game is as balanced as possible for BeyDays at the end of next month, so we have time.

Garuda G3
Garuda G3 should be banned from Burst Format and Hasbro Only Burst Format, flat out. Here's a few reasons why based on my testing last night:

- I had heard that G3 had worse stamina than mG, but in my testing with a mirror match between the two, the loser was always whoever was launched first. Maybe there's a difference between the two, but it didn't seem very noticeable.
- G3 on Atomic is roughly as tight as mG on Orbit (for me anyways), but despite that, no matter what I through at it, G3 Atomic lost practically 0% of its slope at the end of each round. Can't be KOed. Can't be bursted. mG on Atomic is well-balanced because it gets bursted so easily, but I think we can't allow for G3 to remain in the game if G3 Atomic is tighter than mG on Atomic. There's a reason TT designed it that way, but Hasbro seems to have ignored it. We simply can't allow something with both high stamina and ridiculous defense to exist in the game.

Maximum Garuda
In thinking about a potential ban for Sr and G3, it also occurred to me that it might be worth re-evaluating Maximum Garuda as well. One of the reasons why unbanning mG was made possible was because of Spriggan Requiem. If Sr is banned, then mG becomes more threatening despite its more well-balanced design in comparison to G3.

That being said, despite it being more well-balanced, I found that in my testing last night mG on Orbit felt a lot more difficult to burst than I remembered it being (it did lose roughly 80% of its slide each time, but rarely bursted. That's much more than G3 on Atomic did, mind you) ... I tested it before and stationary sX was able to burst it pretty consistently. This time I was using my tightest Orbit Driver on mG, so I'm not sure if that's what was causing the issue. I'm curious to hear what you guys think about mG on Orbit and how to best counter it.

Regardless, I'm starting to feel again that the game would be objectively better if mG was also banned. mG's design is just too much of a radical departure from everything else in the series. It's never seemed fair to most Attack types because it just absorbs hits so well and has basically zero recoil.


interesting logic to also ban Sr if banning mG/G3.

also the super-z beys would get a nice competitive buff, with such a set of bans.

—- 

generally i am anti-ban of anything and everything, because on principle i like maximum player freedom/choice

however i could not support these bans more whole heartedly 

currently the competitive game is very simple:
beat the elite Sr and mG combos or get knocked out of the tournament

the multi ban in discussion would allow for much more complexity and strategy, and by defacto make things more fun/interesting
As much as I love requiem, it needs a break, and without requiem around to balance mG it and G3 they should probably go too. Atleast G3 needs to go with it. With that said I have personally had great success bursting MGC.mG.7.O with zA and wV, and am able to OS through destabilization with eF.  I could see a trial Ban atleast on requiem, and a flat out ban on G3. Maybe as more Z beys come around, requiems relevance will drop. The Z beys do Okay against him and they are just the first initial release of them..
(May. 01, 2018  2:52 PM)Mstubbs88 Wrote: [ -> ]With that said I have personally had great success bursting MGC.mG.7.O with zA and wV, and am able to OS through destabilization with eF.

Do you have multiple Orbit Drivers? Wondering if anyone else has noticed a difference in the tightness of some of their Orbit Drivers like I have.

And what combos in each instance?
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