Nov. 11, 2016 5:50 AM
Small nitpick, but for the parts where Updated has been put next to it, can we also add the date? I know it's a small thing, but when this is further updated, it'll be easier to keep track.
(Nov. 11, 2016 3:39 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ](Nov. 11, 2016 3:04 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]The loser declaring whether they have switched seems like an unnecessary step, because the winner is already locked in anyways, but otherwise it it looks good.
The reason it is needed is because we want the selection to happen simultaneously if both players are going to switch. With this in mind, the winner needs to know whether the loser is going to switch or not.
Although, I do wonder what the difference would be if the winner declared whether they would switch, then they switch if they have declared they will, and then the loser declares their intentions and makes a switch if they want. This would be like v2 of the rules except the loser doesn't know what combo their opponent switched to.
(Nov. 11, 2016 3:45 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]Thinking about it, it makes quite a big difference if/when the loser declares they're switching. Whether or not the winner is locked into switching, whether their opponent is switching or not will affect the decision they make. Personally I do think it's ideal that the winner has this knowledge because otherwise it's a total guessing game what to do.
(Nov. 11, 2016 9:29 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]Er... The second scenario you describe is what my proposition was supposed to be (and I think Wombat's is the same). Although the rules for this iteration are interesting, they will play significantly differently. I was thinking to give the loser an advantage by giving them some information in the winner's next choice, but not the exact combo like in v2. I had planned the winner to declare whether they were switching, then both Bladers choose in secret - the loser does not declare whether they are switching. If the loser lets the winner know whether they are switching in response but before the final combo choice is made, the loser doesn't gain much of an advantage, and may actually be at a disadvantage in some cases. When the winner decides whether to switch, they will probably only repeat the same combo if they think they can beat any combo in the loser's deck with it. Alternatively, they limit their choices to the two others. The loser gains the advantage because they are given the ability to respond to the opponent's choice; if the loser needs to reveal their choice before the opponent is locked in, the opponent is now the last one in the chain of responses, and has the picking advantage. Basically, Winner picks --> Loser chooses how they want to counter --> Winner may attempt to counter the counter.
(Nov. 11, 2016 9:29 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]The decision on whether to switch should be pretty clear; the winner should only use the same combo if they think they can beat anything in their opponent's deck with it. If they are switching, the choice between the remaining two is less clear, but one may be more appealing for a variety of reasons (maybe due to launch strength, Attack skill, holes in the opponent's type coverage, etc). Personally, I think that the uncertainty on the winner's part is within acceptable levels and that balancing picking power between the loser and winner makes it worth it overall, but I understand what you're getting at. Maybe eliminating the loser's advantage and making a completely balanced picking system would be the way to go?
v3 Experimental Format Rules Wrote:1. Points Awarded
Knockout: 2 Points
Burst Finish: 1 Point
Outspin: 1 Point
...
4. Switching Combos
If the loser declines a replay, both players may switch bey before the next round. The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. If they will switch, both players then select their next bey in secret. If the winner chooses not to switch, the loser may then select their next bey. If you say you will switch, you have to switch.
(Nov. 11, 2016 4:55 AM)MJ99TCGGaming Wrote: [ -> ]@[Kei] I think this still is a better explanation for the switching combos ruleQuote:The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. The loser must declare whether they will switch in response. The bladers that have decided to switch then select their next bey in secret. If you say you will switch or not switch, you have to stick to that decision.
Just made it make sense as there's no logic for players not deciding to switch to be secretive also made it so no deception takers can be exploited (e.g player saying they wont switch but switches which is technically legal in the previous ruleset.)
Naru Blader Wrote:Im definitely a fan of the one point burst, and i can say it saved me a lot!
(Nov. 13, 2016 9:58 AM)MJ99TCGGaming Wrote: [ -> ](Nov. 11, 2016 4:55 AM)MJ99TCGGaming Wrote: [ -> ]@[Kei] I think this still is a better explanation for the switching combos ruleQuote:The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. The loser must declare whether they will switch in response. The bladers that have decided to switch then select their next bey in secret. If you say you will switch or not switch, you have to stick to that decision.
Just made it make sense as there's no logic for players not deciding to switch to be secretive also made it so no deception takers can be exploited (e.g player saying they wont switch but switches which is technically legal in the previous ruleset.)
Quote:4. Switching Combos
If the loser declines a replay, both players may switch bey before the next round. The winner of the previous round must declare first if they will switch. If they will switch, both players then select their next bey in secret. If the winner chooses not to switch, the loser may then select their next bey. If you say you will switch, you have to switch.
Quote:4. Final Stage: Not related to Deck Format, but 1234beyblade and JesseObre were a little bit upset at the end of the Round Robin today because they were both 8-1 while Naru Blader and I as the third and fourth finalists were 5-4 at the end of the first stage. The idea that 1234beyblade or JesseObre could be 4th Place after such a performance seemed weird to them.
(Nov. 14, 2016 3:50 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]However I was also surprised to read you say Scott that the loser doesn't have to declare if they're switching — even though I wrote that they did? Otherwise the loser can simply stay with their existing combo. If the loser has to declare whether they're switching or not before the switching phase begins, then the winning player can know which two combos they need coverage for (or, if the loser isn't switching, how to counter their previous combo). Playing it like you did, it definitely does become a bit of a guessing game.
But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
(Nov. 12, 2016 4:20 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ](Nov. 11, 2016 9:29 AM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]Er... The second scenario you describe is what my proposition was supposed to be (and I think Wombat's is the same). Although the rules for this iteration are interesting, they will play significantly differently. I was thinking to give the loser an advantage by giving them some information in the winner's next choice, but not the exact combo like in v2. I had planned the winner to declare whether they were switching, then both Bladers choose in secret - the loser does not declare whether they are switching. If the loser lets the winner know whether they are switching in response but before the final combo choice is made, the loser doesn't gain much of an advantage, and may actually be at a disadvantage in some cases. When the winner decides whether to switch, they will probably only repeat the same combo if they think they can beat any combo in the loser's deck with it. Alternatively, they limit their choices to the two others. The loser gains the advantage because they are given the ability to respond to the opponent's choice; if the loser needs to reveal their choice before the opponent is locked in, the opponent is now the last one in the chain of responses, and has the picking advantage. Basically, Winner picks --> Loser chooses how they want to counter --> Winner may attempt to counter the counter.
You're definitely right. I think somewhere along the way I got confused when writing the updated rules because the second scenario I described is what I originally recognized the proposed rules to be.
@[Bey Brad], are you OK with it if I update the v3 rules to reflect this and the 1-Point Burst Finish?
(Nov. 14, 2016 3:50 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]It's also the case that you played a deck format for an entire tournament. I think that if we're going to do deck format tournaments we should look into doing them in swiss even for smaller sizes, and perhaps eliminating the final stage (since it's just repeats of matches that already happened in deck format).
Quote:This is how any tournament advancement in any tournament with more than one stage would go, in any game. This could also happen with the existing ruleset. @[1234beyblade] @[JesseObre] What were you expecting here?
Quote:Not related to Deck Format, but 1234beyblade and JesseObre were a little bit upset at the end of the Round Robin today because they were both 8-1 while Naru Blader and I as the third and fourth finalists were 5-4 at the end of the first stage.
(Nov. 13, 2016 9:05 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]What I disliked about the switching procedures was that it instilled more uncertainty into the entire battle, making it very difficult to plan any concrete strategy or bait your opponent as you advanced through each round. A sense of logical and easy to understand continuity was sort of lost because there is no ability in the v3 ruleset for the loser to lock their opponent into a selection and respond to that directly, which is a feature of Deck Format that I originally admired.
And even for the winner of any round, if they are given the opportunity to switch and take it, they are picking completely blind just like their opponent is. In the v2 ruleset, even though the loser could respond to their choice directly, the winner could pick something that they felt gave them the best chance in general or exposed a weakness in the opposing players skill level or deck construction, which puts a little bit of pressure on the loser still to determine why they've made a particular choice (especially if they sense the winner is trying to bait them into winning the round so they can get the last pick in the following round, which is where the intense mind games can begin throughout a battle).
The biggest challenge in the regular format at our events is the immense pressure placed upon picking the single best combo that you think will counter what your opponent could use from an infinite number of possible combinations. Deck Format reduces this to three combinations and originally also allowed you to respond directly to challenges presented to you after you've lost a round, which in my mind felt extremely fair, kept winners from becoming complacent, and allowed losers to feel like they have a fighting chance if they've constructed their deck properly. The v2 rules that allowed the winner some agency by allowing them to pick another combination in their deck for the loser to respond to rather than being locked into the one they just won with seemed like a good compromise to me.
In this new v3 ruleset, every time you lose you have an opportunity for a replay–which I think is fair and we could perhaps keep in a v4 of these rules if everyone else agrees, although it does add another layer of complexity into everything–but if you decline that, and your opponent chooses to switch (which happens most of the time) you're kind of put yet again into a guessing game which is discouraging after having just lost. Granted, it is only a guessing game between the two Beyblades remaining in their deck, but I found this uncertainty alone made it difficult to create a solid strategy in comparison to the previous rules where when thinking ahead a round or two, you don't necessarily know what Beyblade they will use after you've lost a round, but you can guess while also knowing that you can respond directly to whatever it ends up being, which allows you to make more strategically sound calculations and evaluations mentally.
So for me, the best ruleset at the moment was v2 because it offered the least amount of uncertainty throughout the battle and allowed for more strategic planning than any of the other rulesets we've tried where there is more double-blind picking or when the decks were hidden. Considering we are still going to maintain a high level of "uncertainty" in the first stage of our tournaments using the regular format, I like the idea of instilling a greater level of certainty and continuity to the battles conducted using Deck Format in the finals by displaying decks and allowing the loser of each round to respond directly to the winner's next combo.
(Nov. 14, 2016 3:50 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]However I was also surprised to read you say Scott that the loser doesn't have to declare if they're switching — even though I wrote that they did? Otherwise the loser can simply stay with their existing combo. If the loser has to declare whether they're switching or not before the switching phase begins, then the winning player can know which two combos they need coverage for (or, if the loser isn't switching, how to counter their previous combo). Playing it like you did, it definitely does become a bit of a guessing game.
But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
(Nov. 18, 2016 11:13 PM)Mitsu Wrote: [ -> ]I can definitely see why this was the case. There's a pretty big gap between an 8-1 and a 5-4 score. I know, for sure, that I would be upset knowing that I—the person who would have won about 90% of my matches—had a chance of losing a 1st or 2nd place spot to someone who just barely won 50% of theirs, which would mean a lot if BEYBLADE SWITCH was ranked. In this case, I think it would have been more appropriate to have JesseObre and 1234beyblade play for first and second, while Kei and Naru Blader would have done the same for third, by default. It would have been more questionable to undergo such ruling if Kei and Naru Blader both had a 6-3 score instead, and appropriate to use single elimination finals if they were 7-2. In my eyes, I think we should consider what would make more sense, more so than how ruling of any tournament, of any game would play out.
(Nov. 21, 2016 6:16 AM)Wombat Wrote: [ -> ]But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
(Nov. 21, 2016 6:16 AM)Wombat Wrote: [ -> ]I think all the mental calculations and strategic depth is still there, but it might just take a different form that isn't as immediately apparent as it would be in the previous iterations where there was always certainty in how players respond to different combos. While I was thinking through how to reply to this, I consulted with Cake, and he pointed out that we may just fundamentally disagree on what a Deck Rotation battle should be, as well as certainty vs branching possibilities: You bring up how the battles lack continuity several times, and I can definitely see where you're coming from - in a ruleset where it's a distinct possibility that the next two Beyblades in the dish could be completely different from the last two, I can understand how each individual round could feel disconnected from the rest, and how the battle feels less like a cohesive whole. However, the way I've been viewing these battles has been as a series of "encounters" with the same opponent where each one might involve different Beyblades, but is still heavily influenced by the previous encounter. The way I see it, the way to win the battle is to keep monopolizing your opponent with these encounters. This is also the reason I had such a problem with the v1 and v2 rulesets where the loser just gets to counterpick - I believe that the winner should be able to keep their lead by outsmarting their opponent, and in order to do that, they need some degree of uncertainty. Maybe the degree of uncertainty I want Deck Rotation to end up with is just higher than one you are comfortable with, but that doesn't necessarily make one right or wrong.
Kei Wrote:One of my favourite aspects of Deck Format after having played in full events using it is that you have a chance to make informed and meaningful responses; if you choose wrong after losing there's a good chance you either didn't pick the right combo and need to study how parts interact with each other, you didn't construct it with care (ie. checking the balance of the parts), or you didn't launch well. Whatever it is, it's hard to be as frustrated with losing because the choices you made weren't based on luck or at least the same level of luck as they are in double-blind picks. They're based more on skill and preparation. Double-blind works perfectly as the opener to a Deck Format BeyBattle because it's the only fair way to start; keeping some level of guessing based on what you know about the opponent is still challenging and rewarding in its own way as a smaller, but still important part of the BeyBattle in comparison to regular BeyBattles where your choice is much more critical because you only have one shot to get it right.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]However, in thinking about how to properly balance the level of certainty and uncertainty, one thing I think that could be done to inject the v2 version of the rules–which is what I'm leaning towards still–with a bit more uncertainty (but not as much as v3) is to remove the Deck Presentation stage of the BeyBattle. While I did enjoy this aspect in both v2 and v3 (especially for v3 it is absolutely necessary), I do think the original iteration of the rules where it was not present allowed for a healthy balance of certainty and uncertainty, allowing players to progressively gain knowledge about their opponent as the BeyBattle progressed.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]In the first stage of our events, players are challenged with the most difficult level of uncertainty before every battle. By the time the top players reach the finals, they've gone through an entire tournament of this. At this point, I think it is fair to allow for the Deck Format being played to inject some certainty into the match-ups.I agree with this completely.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]New ruleset idea:I mostly agree with this. I've already explained why I think decks absolutely should be revealed, but otherwise this what I would suggest for a modified v2 ruleset. Although I think that a game without directly revealing the winner's combo would be better, v2 was much better than v1 in terms of both fun and competitive value. Giving the winner some options makes a world of difference, and I think v2's rules could definitely lead to some great competitive gameplay; adding in a rematch clause like v3 had would be my suggested addition to v2. Although I don't quite understand your reasoning behind the addition to the rematch clause you're suggesting, blocking the loser from repeating the same combo if they don't want to rematch also provides the winner with a bit of breathing room, since they don't have to worry about the combo the loser picked in the last round.
- the v1 rule of hidden decks
- the v2 rule of winners being able to switch but must present their Beyblade to the loser
- the v1/2 rule of 2-point Burst Finish
- the v3 rule of the loser being able to invoke a rematch (if we decided to keep this, I think the loser would have to switch if they didn't request the rematch. Or else they could say "no rematch" just to see if the opponent is going to switch)
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]Also, it's important to note that in this specific scenario JesseObre and 1234beyblade were given favourable match-ups because they were the top seeds. One thing I do think we need to clarify in the rules however is if tournament records should trump seeding when determining who plays who in the finals. It didn't matter in this case since the top seeds were also the top players in the first stage, but when that isn't the case there may be an argument to be had for determining match-ups for the single elimination final stage based on records instead of initial seed.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ](Nov. 21, 2016 6:16 AM)Wombat Wrote: [ -> ]But having to cover two combos you know the composition of is, as some others have previously written in this thread, pretty reasonable and is more of an informed decision than guesswork. But it's true that you could potentially get unlucky with your switch here.
The issue I have in v3 with the idea that the loser has to declare whether they are switching is that it takes away much of the advantage they might have had in previous iterations of the rules. In v1, they could respond directly to the winner's combination and the winner was not allowed to switch. In v2, the winner was allowed to switch, but the loser could then respond to it. In v3, the loser is allowed a rematch which is beneficial sometimes, and they also have the benefit of forcing their opponent to guess between three combinations instead of just two by not having to reveal whether they are switching or not. But, they also have to guess between two combos now, bringing their situation from one of certainty in v1 and v2 to one of uncertainty in v3. If we were to force the loser to also reveal if they were switching in another version of the rules, the only benefit remaining for them as the loser is the ability to invoke a rematch. And sometimes that isn't even worth it. They do get to make their switching decision second as well, which can be significant as you illustrated, but it doesn't feel like enough to me personally based on what I enjoyed about the previous rulesets.
(Nov. 25, 2016 7:06 AM)Kei Wrote: [ -> ]If a new ruleset had the v1 rule of hidden decks, v2 rule of winners being able to switch but must present their Beyblade to the loser, the v1/2 rule of 2-point Burst Finish, and the v3 rule of the loser being able to invoke a rematch (if we decided to keep this, I think the loser would have to switch if they didn't request the rematch. Or else they could say "no rematch" just to see if the opponent is going to switch)
(Nov. 25, 2016 5:06 PM)Cake Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is that the uncertainty from not presenting Decks and the uncertainty of picking against two known possibilities are very, very different types of uncertainty. Removing the presentation stage is in no way equivalent to removing the requirement for the winner to directly reveal their combo.If you have no prior knowledge of what an opponent might use outside of the Competitive Combos list and the standard Attack - Defense - Stamina triangle, you're going to have a rough time planning any sort of strategy or thinking multiple rounds ahead of your opponent. In fact, I'm positive that the uncertainty between rounds in the v3 ruleset is much less than the uncertainty between the first few rounds of a ruleset with concealed Decks - trying pick the best option against two or three known combos is a lot easier than trying to pick the best option against one or two known combos and who knows what else, with the first selection in a concealed-Deck ruleset essentially being the "most difficult level of uncertainty" that we're trying to avoid.
The biggest problem I have with not revealing Decks at the start of the round is that it provides uncertainty at a point where uncertainty is already at the highest it will be for the entire round. The v3 rules provide some level of uncertainty on every match after the first to protect the winner more than v1 or v2 does, but during the first match both players know exactly what their opponent can put up against them. They don't know exactly which one their opponent will use (so knowing your opponent is still very important) but they at least have some idea of what they have to deal with. If the game rules won't provide any information to the players, they will simply resort to using information gathered outside the game (scouting and area knowledge).
(Nov. 27, 2016 11:59 AM)Ninja Blader Wrote: [ -> ]Is this mandatory for MFH formats?