World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc.
The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Printable Version

+- World Beyblade Organization by Fighting Spirits Inc. (https://worldbeyblade.org)
+-- Forum: Beyblade Discussion (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Beyblade-Discussion)
+--- Forum: Beyblade General (https://worldbeyblade.org/Forum-Beyblade-General)
+--- Thread: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? (/Thread-The-ongoing-debate-Defensive-tracks-is-C145-still-top-tier)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  4:38 AM)Mc Frown Wrote: I think overall GB145 is a much safer choice then C145, as it preforms far better in a multitude of situations.
vs. almost any attacker, stamina type, or another defense type, GB145 shows it's superiority.

Cpt. Squirell's results:
Spoiler (Click to View)
Look, results vs. a combo with a 90 track with NO TESTING BIAS.
If C145 only really shines against Quetz 90RF, that isn't enough reason to ever pick C145 over GB145, unless your opponent walks up to you and says: "Hi. I'm using Quetzalcoatl 90RF".

Kei you have your destabilizer (MF L Drago 90WF), and realize that it preforms much better against C145 than GB145, and that's low (Half of the time the claws do nothing to help avert an impact). GB145 obviously has higher stamina then C145, as it has the ability to precess, heck, I've had attack types outspin defense beys with C145 because they give them a big hit and knock them onto the claws. GB145 also is heavier and obviously preforms better against high attackers (no one disagrees with this).


So, in conclusion, there is almost 0 reason to EVER choose C145.
I could be wrong here, but this is my stance.

EDIT:
Spoiler (Click to View)
EDIT:
(Aug. 21, 2010  3:27 AM)Kai-V Wrote: The problem with this community is a lot of talking, but little testing. Test results are the best arguements to prove a point. And ideally they would be confirmed or infirmed by two or more other people.

Which is exactly what I said, and what Ozzy refuted (among the posts you deleted in the other thread).
Don't be so fickle Ozzy, hah.

Considering it's me vs. everyone I figured it would be fair to let this onto the new page.


tl;dr: GB145 is always a safer option and generally a much better option when it comes to customizing your beyblade.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Quetzel - Aug. 21, 2010

Let me simplify what I was trying to say.

Can someone test these combos against each other?
Quetz CH120RF vs MF Earth Bull C145WB
MF Quetz CH120RF vs MF Earth Bull C145WB

I would just like to see if putting a Metal Face on Quetz would be better against defense types then just a regular face bolt.

I would also like to see if higher attackers are better on MF Earth Bull C145WB then lower attackers.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - souless1234 - Aug. 21, 2010

Dude, Diamond just said that CH120 won't come into contact with C145.
heres something close to what you requested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIZPmbrwGP8

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 21, 2010

Personally I always like MF's on my attack types, although your posts had nothing to do with the thread.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Ozzy - Aug. 21, 2010

You really are simple minded. If anything that post is more directed to you than anyone seeing as how I have been saying Kai-V's statement all along, along with the fact that you should have the parts and test before you go by someone else's data. As you can see not many agree with you because even looking at the polls you have been proven wrong and by test results. GB145 is good against low attackers, sure, but C145 specializes in that field so to say it sucks and try to convince people it does when you don't even own the other parts besides C145 to test these things you are being very dense. If you want to go by your reasoning and take test results as proof if you don't have the other parts then this thread is an example why you don't make sense and why bandwagonning isn't necessary and often makes you look bad. Following me to another thread that obviously proves you wrong and then trying to follow someone elses logic after you see you're wrong makes you look immature and as if you have nothing better to do. You are wrong. Accept it. Corey's results and others' support show this. Don't plague this thread with your nonsense when you don't even own the parts to test yourself.
(Aug. 21, 2010  4:38 AM)Mc Frown Wrote: I think overall GB145 is a much safer choice then C145, as it preforms far better in a multitude of situations.
vs. almost any attacker, stamina type, or another defense type, GB145 shows it's superiority.

Cpt. Squirell's results:
Spoiler (Click to View)
Look, results vs. a combo with a 90 track with NO TESTING BIAS.
If C145 only really shines against Quetz 90RF, that isn't enough reason to ever pick C145 over GB145, unless your opponent walks up to you and says: "Hi. I'm using Quetzalcoatl 90RF".

Kei you have your destabilizer (MF L Drago 90WF), and realize that it preforms much better against C145 than GB145, and that's low (Half of the time the claws do nothing to help avert an impact). GB145 obviously has higher stamina then C145, as it has the ability to precess, heck, I've had attack types outspin defense beys with C145 because they give them a big hit and knock them onto the claws. GB145 also is heavier and obviously preforms better against high attackers (no one disagrees with this).


So, in conclusion, there is almost 0 reason to EVER choose C145.
I could be wrong here, but this is my stance.

EDIT:
Spoiler (Click to View)
EDIT:
(Aug. 21, 2010  3:27 AM)Kai-V Wrote: The problem with this community is a lot of talking, but little testing. Test results are the best arguements to prove a point. And ideally they would be confirmed or infirmed by two or more other people.

Which is exactly what I said, and what Ozzy refuted (among the posts you deleted in the other thread).
Don't be so fickle Ozzy, hah.

My last post was addressing this by the way just in case anyone makes any assumptions.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Cpt. Squirrel - Aug. 21, 2010

Forgetting the Libra results, though not definitive and/or by a large margin, please keep in mind what Mc Frown posted:

MF Lightning LDrago 90RF - MF Earth Bull GB145WB:
14 - 5 (2 KOs in favour of Earth) + 1 draw

MF Lightning LDrago 90RF - MF Earth Bull C145WB (2nd testing):
15 - 5

For the record, I prefer GB145 over C145 and I don't think this forum is the most appropriate place to call him 'dense' and 'simple minded', which are obviously veiled insults.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Corey - Aug. 21, 2010

I agree, <3 said on the first page that we need to keep it civil, so let's leave the insults at the door.

It is very easy to get frustrated, but we have to keep a level head here, boys Smile

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Daegor42 - Aug. 21, 2010

Another thing is that there really aren't that many good low attackers. We have Quetz 90RF and Storm ______ 100RF. And before you say MF LDrago 90WF, Kei's tests have shown that it does better against C145 than GB145.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - LLawliet435 - Aug. 21, 2010

I do think it is still top tier, however, there ares till other top tier parts that outclass it. IN my opinion ED145 does, but thats just me. Please correct me if im wrong, but isnt there a C135? wouldnt that be more optimised towards low(ER) attackers?

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Daegor42 - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  8:55 PM)LLawliet435 Wrote: Please correct me if im wrong, but isnt there a C135? wouldnt that be more optimised towards low(ER) attackers?

No, there isn't.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Aqua - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  8:55 PM)LLawliet435 Wrote: I do think it is still top tier, however, there ares till other top tier parts that outclass it. IN my opinion ED145 does, but thats just me. Please correct me if im wrong, but isnt there a C135? wouldnt that be more optimised towards low(ER) attackers?

There is no C135. There's 135 though.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - LLawliet435 - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  8:59 PM)Aqua Wrote:
(Aug. 21, 2010  8:55 PM)LLawliet435 Wrote: I do think it is still top tier, however, there ares till other top tier parts that outclass it. IN my opinion ED145 does, but thats just me. Please correct me if im wrong, but isnt there a C135? wouldnt that be more optimised towards low(ER) attackers?

There is no C135. There's 135 though.

OK, I was just having a stupid spell then. XD Thanks for correcting me on that one dude.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Cpt. Squirrel - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  8:53 PM)Daegor42 Wrote: Another thing is that there really aren't that many good low attackers.

MF lightning LDrago 90RF < Storm ... 100RF

In general, I'd rather go for GB145.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Daegor42 - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  9:03 PM)Cpt. Squirrel Wrote: MF lightning LDrago 90RF

I was commenting on additional low attackers other than that one, since it was just posted. Maybe I should have quoted?

But GB145 did better against it than C145 did (though maybe we should redo those draws).

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Ozzy - Aug. 21, 2010

(Aug. 21, 2010  8:20 PM)Corey Wrote: I agree, <3 said on the first page that we need to keep it civil, so let's leave the insults at the door.

It is very easy to get frustrated, but we have to keep a level head here, boys Smile

Well then I apologize for corrupting this thread for something that needed to be said. Fact is, to go around saying something "sucks" when it is still top-tier and telling people that it sucks, even new members is far from acceptable. No one seems to do anything about it so why not speak out? Seems like that is looked down on here a lot. Another thing is, regarding C145, it is only inferior, if that's even accurate to say considering varied results, by a VERY small margin. Very often, the rate of effectiveness varies by one or two wins. That is not enough to say it sucks or something else is better when in some cases, C145's results were better.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Cpt. Squirrel - Aug. 21, 2010

Ozzy Wrote:Well then I apologize for corrupting this thread for something that needed to be said. Fact is, to go around saying something "sucks" when it is still top-tier and telling people that it sucks, even new members is far from acceptable. No one seems to do anything about it so why not speak out? Seems like that is looked down on here a lot. Another thing is, regarding C145, it is only inferior, if that's even accurate to say considering varied results, by a VERY small margin. Very often, the rate of effectiveness varies by one or two wins. That is not enough to say it sucks or something else is better when in some cases, C145's results were better.

I think that it's a case of this is a forum about a toy and people get so serious about it - that's really how I am. However, if I deem someone to be a wasteman, I'll say it, but I personally don't mind if Frown says it sucks or not, because that's his opinion and there are cases where C145 < GB145 so it's not as if he's basing it on a lie.

Also, I'm sure Mc Frown says it sucks in relation to better defence tracks and not tracks as a whole. Imo, Storm is lame compared to Pegasis/LLD.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 22, 2010

Yes.
Cpt. Squirell basically said it.

And yeah I hate storm too : <

EDIT: about Ozzy's last post.
If I'm dense for saying something isn't top tier that currently is, how would anyhting ever be removed from the top-tier parts/combos list? If we all lived under the delusion that once something achieved top-tier status it was golden, we'd sure have a lame metagame.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Ozzy - Aug. 22, 2010

(Aug. 22, 2010  12:16 AM)Mc Frown Wrote: Yes.
Cpt. Squirell basically said it.

And yeah I hate storm too : <

EDIT: about Ozzy's last post.
If I'm dense for saying something isn't top tier that currently is, how would anyhting ever be removed from the top-tier parts/combos list? If we all lived under the delusion that once something achieved top-tier status it was golden, we'd sure have a lame metagame.

As I said before, you were proven wrong. That's simply it. I wont continue with your immaturity. The metagame is already lame. Those combos have been up there for months now and have been outdone by upcoming ones. Your question doesn't even grammatically or logically make sense. LOL. I'm done. Fact is, as proven, C145 is still top-tier. Polls, results, and support is there to prove it. It may not be forever but it is at the moment so saying it "sucks" is ridiculous. Fact is, I dont even care about defense. I don't use it. Never had and never did. Only thing bothering me is the fact that you are going around saying something sucks when you dont even have personal experience with parts that are used in comparison with it. Nothing more needs to be said. With that, say what you like but you have been proven wrong.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 22, 2010

Quote:Fact is, I dont even care about defense. I don't use it. Never had and never did.
This invalidates every post you've ever made in regards to this subject.


I really hate to say this, but you're obviously illiterate if you think something is wrong with the way I post. When I provide facts and results, you provide nothing. Whereas my posts make sense, yours are an eyesore. Your posts contradict eachother. You say I've been proven wrong, but you give no evidence as to why.

As for contradictions/ridiculous posts:
Quote:The metagame is already lame. Those combos have been up there for months now and have been outdone by upcoming ones.
Quote:C145 is still top-tier.

This, however, takes the cake:
Quote:Your question doesn't even grammatically or logically make sense.


Spoiler (Click to View)


EDIT: I really don't know why you feel the need to oppose me in every way you can. I think that if you see me arguing for one side you pick the opposite just to spite me.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - xCiegex - Aug. 22, 2010

I think we can agree it is still top tier, however are there better choices than it?.. Probably, but the fact you're getting into an argument is a little childish.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 22, 2010

(Aug. 22, 2010  3:20 AM)xCiegex Wrote: however are there better choices than it?.. Probably,

(Aug. 22, 2010  3:20 AM)xCiegex Wrote: I think we can agree it is still top tier,

You agree there are better choices.
This means it is outclassed.
Outclassed parts do not deserve to be top tier.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - xCiegex - Aug. 22, 2010

I still think it is a top tier part though. If someone doesn't have access to gb145 i think they could use c145 and still be ok.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 22, 2010

okay =/= top tier
outclassed =/= top tier

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Corey - Aug. 22, 2010

It's top tier. Plenty of tests show it's equal, or the most effective track against low attackers.

RE: The ongoing debate: Defensive tracks -- is C145 still top tier? - Mc Frown - Aug. 22, 2010

Then post them :V
I posted test results where vs. a 90 height combo C145 showed no advantage over GB145.

"There is no reason to choose C145 over GB145 therefore C145 is not top tier."
This is my reasoning, and if I can defend it, my point stands.