I’d like to say that in terms of Deck Format under our new rules, it played out quite well at our first official ranked event to use them in Toronto last weekend. Even though I was on the losing end, I especially appreciated the replay rule; it’s hard to feel cheated if you lose after choosing to replay a round you think you should win several times. Knowing the opponent’s deck means you’re constantly thinking about that information during each round and how that will affect your and your opponent’s choices in subsequent rounds. I really feel like even after the first round when one player earns an advantage, both players still have an equal opportunity to win if they’ve constructed their deck well and can execute not only their launch technique with each combo, but their strategic plan upon viewing their opponent’s deck. At the same time, it’s been mentioned somewhere before, but another big part of Deck Format is taking advantage of mistakes. I’ve played a lot of Deck Format battles over the past few months and I can say that the number of “imperfect” matches is quite high, if not the norm. Something you’re not expecting happens more often than you might think. And that changes the complexion of a Deck Format battle entirely.
(Dec. 21, 2016 6:35 AM)Wombat Wrote: [ -> ]In addition to what Cake said, I actually think it would be for the best if we did away with the "no repeated parts" rule in all MFB formats (if not entirely). The reasoning behind this is that the uses for certain parts in MFB (mostly Limited) is a lot more broad than it is in Burst - in Limited you can have Earth 90RSF and Earth 230D, or in Standard Dragooon B:D and Dragooon BD145RF, both of which are very different combos that happen to use the same part. There's a lot of other examples as well. And along with technically banning Synchroms, this rule also makes shuffling around Metal Faces annoying - almost all Limited combos require a Metal Face of some sort, forcing you to choose between which combo needs the MF-H the most. After trying to create a few Limited Decks myself I've found that it actually hampers a player's ability to construct a cohesive deck and restricts the diversity of the combos within the Deck (as well as the diversity of the Decks themselves).
As for Burst, each part generally only works in a handful of combos that have similar functions (the only exception I can think of atm is Valkyrie with things like VAY and VTX), so it's not as important that the rule be removed there. I understand why this rule was put in place - to prevent people from spamming "safe" combos - but any half-decent Deck is going to have at least one reliable answer to the respective centralizing "safe" combo of the format. In all honesty a Deck with repeated parts is somewhat easier to defeat due to the combos with repeat parts usually sharing the same weaknesses (at least in Burst, though this is occasionally the case in MFB too).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we agree to get rid of the rule somewhere in the discussion thread as well? I know I mentioned removing it, and then no one really paid attention to it for a while until Brad brought it back up (with more or less the same argument that I used in the paragraph right above this one), and everyone agreed (or at least a few people did, and no one disagreed)?
I did update the rulebooks the other day to clarify that repeated parts in Synchrom are OK. However, your point about the uses for different parts in MFB being more broad than it is in Burst is true. That being said, I do think the limitations is part of what makes it so exciting for all formats. It forces players to be creative, which I think is something that is fair to ask of players who are skilled enough to make it to the finals of a tournament. During the finals of the Toronto event last week, I actually wanted to use both Deathscyther Revolve and Wyvern Revolve in my deck, but remembered I couldn’t and had to think more critically about the situation (and I ultimately failed because I didn’t prepare for this well enough). Your point about a deck with repeated parts being easier to defeat might be true on some levels, but in Burst at least I feel like many players would pick something like WHR over WAC in their deck because WHR would be “good enough” defensively for their purposes while still allowing for the opportunity to OS other things if necessary. I worry that allowing for repeated parts would ultimately discourage creativity, even if philosophically players might be putting themselves at a disadvantage by repeating parts.
Regarding the rule of no repeated parts, I also posted this in the Experimental Format thread a couple months ago (to which you actually agreed with me “100%”):
Kei Wrote:I like this rule on a philosophical level more than anything; even if the difference only is between using 2 Heavy Disks or 1 Heavy and 1 Gravity, I still see it as a positive because there is differences between each Disk even if they are not obvious that may manifest themselves in the BeyBattle and a players choice of where to use a particular part knowing that they can only using it once.
The main argument for abolishing this rule is that it would allow for a wider audience to participate in the format. If running more than one of each part is legal, players who don't haven three Beyblades could technically participate with just one Beyblade. Not that this would be recommended, though since they'd probably lose every battle ... But I'm sure most players would have a handful of Beyblades at least anyways. The question would just be whether they have three complete Beyblades with all different parts; if they didn't, removing this rule would make it easier for them to play with what they have.
I still stand strongly behind my opinion on this rule for Burst Format at the moment. The idea of being forced to think critically about where X part is best used is a great test of knowledge and weighing of pros and cons for top players in my opinion. In other formats I would consider lifting the rule (particularly for HMS/Plastics right now due to the money issue Kai-V mentioned), but would like to see some real events played with them first and gather feedback from players who participate in them. As Brad has said many times; if something we do sucks, we’ll change it.
(Dec. 21, 2016 5:29 PM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, deck format takes longer than just using one Beyblade; however, rematches to the finals will be greatly diminished and eliminated in most cases, and I think there is a lot that can be done to reduce downtime at tournaments and keep them moving swiftly, which I hope to post more about soon :D
Worth nothing that we did end up having a three-way tiebreak for the second finals spot in each group at the Toronto event last week haha. That said, the event was with 13 participants and one group had a rather wide margin between first place in the group and last place (6-0 vs. 0-6 and the tied participants were 4-2) ... so it might have been tough to avoid.
That being said, we will at least diminish them for sure with the TB column in Challonge coming into play now. Tiebreaks will also be very infrequent (if not basically impossible?) in Swiss Format events under the new rules due to the way the Bucholz system works too.
And everyone was very happy to not have their tiebreak battles count for BP!
(Dec. 22, 2016 12:39 AM)Ingulit Wrote: [ -> ]I was initially shocked by the point system since it is a substantial arbitrary buff to attack Beyblades, but upon reflection I realized it might actually be pretty cool since it provides more incentive toward playing riskier Beyblades.
Yeah, this is exactly it. With the amount of points necessary to win, incentivizing attack types this way ensures that they remain a competitively viable (and I would say even critical) part of a winning deck. Having two point KOs and Bursts also means that there is always a chance for a match to take a dramatic swing in one direction or another (losing after taking a 4-0 lead is uncommon, but not unheard of! Happened to me last week lol).
(Dec. 22, 2016 12:39 AM)Ingulit Wrote: [ -> ]If you don't take into account the bonus points for KOs, this back-and-forth will always result in the player who wins the first round winning the set.
Yeah, the thing with is is like I was mentioning earlier: even experienced players make mistakes, which changes how a match plays out significantly. It's often not as simple as winning the first round and then going back-and-forth until you ultimately win.
(Dec. 22, 2016 12:55 AM)Bey Brad Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks Ingulit! Worth noting that only Burst has point-based finishes, in response to its unique gameplay mechanics and the current state of the Burst metagame. We definitely agonized a lot over it, so I wouldn't call it arbitrary ;) (Don't worry, I get what you mean!)
You know, my intention was actually that the two-point KOs apply to all formats (although re-reading what I/we wrote now I can see how it's confusing). The main reason was because I felt like maintaining the ability of having a way to jump ahead of your opponent by scoring not one, but two points was important to the gameplay balance of Deck Format where sometimes winning the first point is important.
However, upon reflection I do admit that perhaps in certain formats (Limited in particular where Attack is potent) it may be questionable. I just wonder if you guys feel the same way I do at all about how having a two-point play available in Deck Format is important.
(Dec. 22, 2016 2:45 AM)Wombat Wrote: [ -> ]If the point-based finishes are only for Burst, I would suggest rewording the rules a bit to make that a bit clearer (I also thought the 2 point KOs applied to MFB as well). Maybe something like:
"Matches are to 5 points. In Burst Format, Out-spins are worth 1 point, and both knock-outs and bursts are worth 2 points. In MFB Formats, Out-spins and knock-outs are worth 1 point each. If your Beyblade exits the stadium without making contact with the opposing Beyblade your opponent receives 1 point."
And maybe add something as well to clarify that this scoring system is only to be used for Deck Rotation Format in the finals.
Thanks Wombat. We'll clarify this once we've discussed a bit about my above point regarding the application of two point KOs to other formats.